JOINT BRIEFING
Auckland city centre capacity and engagement options
for Plan Change 120
Date:
10 February 2026
Priority:
Urgent
Security classification: Classification
Tracking number: 26-BRF-00271
HUD2026-009126
Action sought
Response by
Hon Chris Bishop
Agree to the recommendations
11 February 2026
Minister for RMA Reform
Minister of Housing
Action for Minister’s Office staff
Appendices and attachments
Contact for telephone discussion (if required)
Name
Position
Telephone
1st contact
General Manager, Urban and
Jessica Ranger
Infrastructure, Ministry for the
9(2)(a)
✓
Environment
General Manager, Housing
Markets and Urban
Hilary Joy
Performance, Ministry of
9(2)(a)
Housing and Urban
Development
Manager, Urban Policy, Ministry
Stephanie Gard'ner
9(2)(a)
for the Environment
Manager, Land Use and Land
Fiona McCarthy
Markets, Ministry of Housing
9(2)(a)
and Urban Development
The following departments/agencies have been consulted
Minister’s office to complete:
☐ Approved
☐ Declined
☐ Noted
☐ Needs change
☐ Seen
[Classification
☐ Overtaken by Events
☐ See Minister’s Notes
☐ Withdrawn
Minister’s Comments
[Classification
JOINT BRIEFING
Auckland city centre capacity and engagement
options for Plan Change 120
Date:
10 February 2026
Priority:
Urgent
Security classification: Classification
Tracking number: 26-BRF-00271
HUD2026-009126
Purpose
1.
This briefing responds to your request for advice on how to:
a.
provide clearer direction for a variation to Plan Change 120 (PC120) to enable
more housing and business capacity in Auckland's city centre
b.
OUT OF SCOPE
Key points
2.
Officials have developed options for the city centre variation and to ensure Aucklanders
can input into PC120 quickly for inclusion in your Cabinet paper. OUT OF SCOPE
3.
OUT OF SCOPE
A more directive option for the outcome of the City Centre variation
4.
We recommend the legislation clearly states the purpose of the city centre variation is
to enable additional housing and business capacity in the city centre. The legislation or
your direction should also provide greater specificity about how this outcome is to be
achieved. This will help to provide clarity to Auckland Council on what to address
through the variation and ensure the scale of the work is manageable, enabling
Auckland Council to complete it in a timely manner.
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
3
[Classification
5.
We recommend you seek delegated decisions to determine whether legislation or your
direction is the best vehicle for providing this greater specificity, and the detail of what
to include (for example, requiring Auckland Council to revisit specific development
controls that may unduly constrain development). This will allow officials to further test
options with Auckland Council to ensure that the legislation is effective in achieving the
purpose, proportionate to the scale of additional capacity that could be enabled in the
city centre, and minimises impacts on the timeframe and process for PC120.
OUT OF SCOPE
1.
Agree to amend your Cabinet Paper to seek
Agree / Disagree
agreement to:
a. require Auckland Council to prepare a variation,
the purpose of which is to enable additional
housing and business capacity in the city
centre; and
b. provide for more specificity about what the
variation must achieve through requirements in
either the legislation or your Direction; and
c. delegated authority to determine the detail of
these requirements.
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
4
[Classification
2. OUT OF SCOPE
3.
Hon Chris Bishop
Jessica Ranger
Minister for RMA Reform
General Manager, Urban and Infrastructure
Ministry for the Environment
___ / ___/ 2026
10 / 02 / 2026
Hilary Joy
General Manager, Housing Markets and Urban
Performance
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
10 / 02 / 2026
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
5
[Classification
Background
9.
On 2 February 2026, we provided you with advice and a draft Cabinet paper on
changes to the capacity requirement for PC120 [26 BRF-00207; HUD2026-009084].
10. In response, you requested further advice on how to:
a.
provide clearer direction for a variation to PC120 to enable more housing and
business capacity in Auckland's city centre
b.
OUT OF SCOPE
11. OUT OF SCOPE
Setting clear expectations for Auckland’s city centre
We recommend you set clear and specific requirements for a city centre variation
12. You requested advice on how to set clear expectations for Auckland Council to enable
more housing and business capacity in the city centre, without directing specific
changes to plan provisions.
13. Submissions and evidence in relation to the city centre provisions were recently tested
through Plan Change 78, and the outcome was determined to be compliant with the
National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) direction. To achieve a
different outcome, the legislation will need to be more specific about what the variation
must deliver beyond NPS-UD requirements.
14. We recommend your Cabinet paper seeks agreement to:
a.
specify in legislation that Auckland Council must prepare a variation and state its
purpose is to enable additional housing and business capacity in the city centre
b.
provide greater specificity about how this is to be achieved. This could look like a
requirement (either in primary legislation or your Statement of Expectations) that
Auckland Council must have particular regard to:
i.
whether specific provisions (such as heights, tower dimension controls and
setbacks) unduly limit development, and the benefits of removing or
amending any provisions that unduly limit development; or
ii.
making location specific changes (eg, focusing on CRL stations or specific
precincts)
c.
delegate authority to you to determine the detail of these requirements, enabling
officials to work with Auckland Council to design an approach that best meets
your objectives and minimises delays to the PC120 timeframe.
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
6
[Classification
15. We will be better placed to advise on how to provide greater specificity once we have
further engaged with Auckland Council.
16. However, additional specificity is important because it would:
a.
increase the likelihood that Auckland Council makes discrete, material changes
to city centre provisions (for example, removing or amending particular controls);
and
b.
limit the scope of work required for the Council by clarifying that not all city centre
provisions need to be reviewed, thereby reducing uncertainty, disruption for
affected parties, and impacts on timeframes.
17. The legislative capacity requirement alone may not provide a strong incentive to enable
additional capacity in the city centre, if Auckland Council can meet it by enabling
greater heights and densities around City Rail Link (CRL) stations and fulfilling NPS-
UD requirements. This further supports the need to continue engaging and partnering
with Auckland Council, and for a specific requirement.
We considered other options
18. We considered, but do not recommend, three other options as set out below.
Option
Rationale
A stand-alone city centre
This would have required up-to-date city-centre
capacity requirement
capacity modelling, access to the Council’s modelling
tools, and would have reduced the Council’s flexibility to
meet the PC120 capacity requirement.
A general legislative
This would be resource intensive for the Council, with
requirement to review and an uncertain impact.
amend provisions that
frustrate development
Elevating NPS-UD
This is unlikely to add value given that city centre
requirements into primary
provisions have recently become operative and were
legislation
found to implement the NPS-UD and Part 2 of the RMA.
OUT OF SCOPE
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
7
[Classification
OUT OF SCOPE
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
8
[Classification
OUT OF SCOPE
26. 9(2)(h)
OUT OF SCOPE
9(2)(h)
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
9
[Classification
9(2)(h)
OUT OF SCOPE
26-BRF-00271 HUD2026-009126
10
[Classification
