Should local councils increase the supply of greenfields, or undeveloped, land for housing?

Yes, but only if the land doesn’t have cultural or environmental significance

Land fairly purchased only with minimal environmental and cultural impact

Look 2 other.options. tiny homes apartments. Develop.smarter

it is up to the owner of the land

Yes, if environmental regulations are satisfied

I don't freaking know

No... too many are/become holiday homes stand empty most of the year. The dream of the bach should be over. Families/first home buyers now miss out on owning a home so someone can have a holiday home they use twice a year.

Plan smarter, green spaces are not just for building upon

In some areas know some areas yes but we need more trees and plants

In some areas were you could have lots of houses But in most undeveloped places plant trees and plants

There should be a ban on overseas buyers land banking land so they're able to build in coming years. It defeats the purpose of having lifestyle blocks/ land that can be used for goods and services.

Case dependent

Balanced with building up too

Yes, but prioritise vertical (apartments) builds to minimise the land used. State housing, vertical build or otherwise, must either receive approval from the local community or be in located close to law enforcement.

Golf courses

Maybe, it depends on whose land it is. In cooperation with local iwi. Housing will continue to be an issue, if we don’t strengthen the whanau unit.

Only if they rightfully own that land and it had been unproductive for a certain amount of time

Yes, but there needs to be flood surveys first

Totally for it as long as it's done in a manner that dos not horrifically damage our environment

Limit immigration to slow down housing demands, only build for the pensioners

cut down the forests, boil the rivers, and flatten the mountains for housing and military bases, and factoriess ect ect ect

I believe half should be given for housing but the other must be made into national parks full of wildlife

It depends on how much nature they are destroying in the process of building houses and other IMPORT places

how about improving the already existing housing so its healthy and livable, and making it more affordable for people.

First they have to improve drainage and sewage systems in order to minimalize flooding and other issues than come with over-industrialisation.

Flags up horotiu and Hamilton is council free tickets lined and use the water rated and pass the roads signs direct and Wellington upon the city's alongs the Auckland region is impacting more delicate

Auckland and Queenstown area of legal privilege and issued by furad trial issues by legs seats legend former US president Donald Trump and former UK prime minister Boris Johnson is dramatic livings

Yes, but only if it is unproductive land, or land not owned by the council such as reserves, and parks

Yes unproductive land could be used, people should not be shoe homed into houses with tiny gardens as people need space.

Not without also increasing infrastructure capacity of roads and towns to cope with higher populations

Only if it is land that has been acquired legally, not stolen. As well as used to house community not for multiple property owners.

depends. All houses must have and environmental standard code, and should prioritise the poorer people.

I don't believe in dense housing with the minimum requirements being 300 sq m and having multiple housing in built up existing areas. And not removing the old villas, bungalows in certain areas. More single level homes to be built for the senior people who still want to live independently in community areas NOT retirement villages with multiple stories.Retain our parks for the children and people of NZ.

The housing crisis is an issue all on its own. It should be impossible to buy land or own property without a permanent residence or citizenship and we need to be building far more affordable apartments

Yes, on unproductive land and we should building up and not out. Also more storey houses and remove height to boundary ratio.

Yes, but not if that land has is unoccupied and has no cultural claim.

I do not have enough knowledge on this topic to make a cognitive statement/opinion about it.

Not at the expense of local park grounds that are used by community

Only on lands that you don't need to destroy wildlife or cut down trees

Yes but only if public transport to that area is provided

Only if the managed appropriately to have an over biodiversity net gain

For some places, yes. Others, no

We have already provided so much

Yes, but only for New Zealand passport holders

No, because it’ll will be the māori land or reserves they’ll take, claim or steal to start these developments

Yes including private as well as state housing

Depends, need to take into consideration of risk of flooding etc. No point in housing only for it to be destroyed in the next disaster.

Undeveloped land that serves no important ecological purpose could be used for housing

Yes but make the developments affordable for average salaries and young families.

Yes, but only by taking into consideration societal impacts, transport, access to health resources and impact on local rates that may lower investments made by individuals that disadvantage them.

so long as they dont palm off poor land to terrible planners.

Only on unproductive land that is not linked to any treaty of Waitangi claims, and should only be used for public housing, such as council housing or housing New Zealand

Yes, as long as you’re not pushing anyone out or off their land, it’s not stolen or a land grab, if it’s not put into govt coffers, if the people benefit from it, if it’s not used for food production. Prob a couple other reasons but can’t think of them.

It is of no concern to me

Yes but only for land that cannot be used for future farming of fruits and vegetables to support population growth. Grade A soil should not be built over but reserved and not zoned as residential.

government should not be involved in the housing sector at all. leave it between party A (land seller) and party B (land Buyer)

only small Cities and towns

Yes, But there should be heavier punitive measures on property investors. The current law doesn't go far enough

No, New Zealand should face the reality that an entire section is not the future. Look to existing methods used abroad of high-density high rises in Australia, Europe and North America. Keep our green spaces green and build high-density high-rises that can look out onto green fields.

Yes, but preferably unproductive land and with plenty of green spaces to accompany intensification.

Yes, but affordable non packed town house options

Yes, but make affordable, clean housing that doesn't get snatched up by the rental monopoly

Have shipping container homes built and give businesses that help build the container homes some incentives

Only if the land does not hold cultural or environmental significance or affect ecosystems. With global populations growing we should be focusing on building up rather than out

yes but leave the Maori land alone it will cause more problems

No, not until it commits to better strategic planning and fixing existing problems and the impact of environmental issues.

No, do something to change housing costs and work on making the houses that are empty healthy and liveable

Yes, but only if it is “unproductive land”, depending on the definition.

Yes, but it should be done in an environmentally conscious

send them to Palmerston North.

Only if it is not open for mass development, especially from overseas investors, but rather for individuals who want to build a home for themselves and are willing to live on the outskirts of towns

Add a empty property tax so people can actually buy all the empty houses

Higher density, more green and garden.

No, encourage decentralization. Thier are smaller communities with less demand on housing that would benefit to population increase

Encourage people to live in other cities or go up, not out

Councils should limit land-banking and have the right to reclaim undeveloped land.

No, build up, but with green space requirements to offset more condensed living

Yes, but only if it is unproductive land and only if it is used to build affordable apartments to maximise use of the land whilst also providing the greatest social benefit

Yes, but productive land should be prioritised and this should be for overall population growth but with investment and thought given to attracting people away from the biggest cities and back to smaller towns.

They should repurpose empty buildings

As long as it doesn’t cut down native forests

Only if building up is not appropriate and if land supplied is not being used productively.

Yes, but only to local people and not more property inventors. Or use the land for conservation efforts in the area

Yes, but developers need to contribute to infrastructure

I think it depends on certain communities and the housing crisis

Yes but make it a mix of owner occupied and state housing

Keep field for sport but if not needed yes

Yes but new builds are often big with large amount of lawn + unaffordable for renters which is counter productive

Depends on who's land they are developing on.

Yes - but only to expand rent to buy programmes

Only if the land is sold willingly/freely

No leave land to owners who are using it but spend more money on expanding areas like Auckland, and otago

Housing needs to be constructed where there is work, schools and other services available or we should also upgrade the infrastructure to support the growth. We should NOT be building up in areas where there are already too few jobs, schools and the transport infrastructure is overloaded and inadequate

Build on golf courses

Yes but stop overseas buyers

It should be encouraged by central government but not enforced

No, turn unproductive land into spaces for renewable energy areas such as solar or wind farming and build up where possible.

Building more housing with the requirment of green roofing to reduce the impact of non green land

Yes but only if it is on unproductive land and not protected land eg national parks