They say Parnell doesn’t have the infrastructure to support apartments, and we should build on farmland instead. Really though?
It was 5.50am and David Seymour was rarked up. His interviewer, RNZ First Up’s Melissa Chan-Green, had just accused the government of “pushing” Auckland Council’s new housing plan, which allows thousands of apartments around train stations and town centres. “The government is not pushing that particular plan,” he retorted. “If we’re going to do an interview then I’d like to present my positions rather than have misinformation spread by the interviewer.”
The deputy prime minister didn’t want to be connected to something he sees as putting homes in the wrong places. Namely, his electorate. “Take a suburb like Parnell,” he said. “We’ve, in the last couple of years, had whole buildings fall into sinkholes because the 120-year-old sewer underneath imploded.” It’s true, a sinkhole the size of a tennis court opened up in Parnell after an ageing sewer pipe failed in 2023, though Seymour’s memory of a building falling into it seems to be hallucinatory. He nevertheless argued the phantom house down the crevasse showed the folly of legalising high rises in the suburb. “I’m not sure that is a serious or sensible proposition.”
Seymour’s overarching point was that Parnell, and some other inner-city areas, don’t have the infrastructure needed to support dense new housing. It’s been echoed by a chorus of contenders on the local election trail. At a “meet the candidates” event at The Surrey in Grey Lynn, nearly all the right-leaning candidates shared the same sentiment. “You need to make sure the infrastructure is in place before you intensify,” said Muy Chhour. “Before we intensify, we need the infrastructure in order to do that,” said Genevieve Sage. “I believe we should look at the capacity that we have in our area and intensify where the opportunity is. But infrastructure has to come first,” said Greg Moyle. “Infrastructure first, then housing,” insisted Leo Grachev.
Most of these complaints centre on pipes, but concerns have also been raised about the intensification’s effects on other infrastructure including roads, parking, schools and green spaces. It’s not just confined to the right. The ostensibly progressive mayoral contender Kerrin Leoni has posted to Facebook praising Seymour for stepping in to oppose the council’s housing ambitions. “This isn’t about buildings – it’s about whether our infrastructure can cope,” she said.
Some of these objectors’ examples are a little head-scratching. Leoni’s post was illustrated by a photo of some under-construction apartments in Point Chevalier with a red bar through their middle. But as Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa councillor Julie Fairey pointed out in the comments below, those apartments were built by Kāinga Ora for people with mobility and health issues. They’re right next to two frequent bus routes and a few metres from two supermarkets, a pharmacy, a physio, and a doctors’ clinic. Leoni later apologised for including the photo and took down her Facebook post.
The same goes for Parnell. After the sinkhole opened up in 2023, the council spent $63 million upgrading the sewer system in the area. Its planning committee chair Richard Hills says the suburb now has some of the best infrastructure in Auckland, with three train stations and regular bus services nearby, and around $500 million in Watercare infrastructure either planned or under way to take pressure off its pipes. “And it’s walking and cycling distance from universities and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet we are being told to replace that capacity with greenfield sprawl, which has no infrastructure. It’s literally just green fields, it’s in the name.”
Hills is right that Seymour has advocated for greenfields growth to make up for allowing less housing in places like Parnell. He’s expressed frustration at the council’s reluctance to zone for new subdivisions on the outskirts of town where he says “people want to live”. Housing minister Chris Bishop has also accused council of having a “weird aversion to new greenfield housing”.
But if your objection to density is the lack of appropriate infrastructure, are greenfields the solution? Peter Nunns, strategy manager for the Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga, says the answer can be site-specific. Some greenfield areas are relatively easy to service with roading, pipes and power. Some urban ones can be expensive. But generally, the choice is clear. “New Zealand and international evidence suggests that growth in existing urban areas tends to be cheaper to serve with infrastructure, on average, than growth in greenfield areas.”
The Infrastructure Commission’s research from this year indicates dense developments that don’t require large increases in infrastructure networks are more likely to provide an economic return for councils. Other studies carried out in Wellington and Victoria, Australia, also show urban infrastructure is more cost-effective.
On the other hand, providing infrastructure for greenfields developments is often ruinously expensive. Te Waihanga’s 2022 analysis found enabling development in Drury would come at a cost of almost $100,000 worth of infrastructure per person. Auckland Council has pushed back against a development in Delmore, north of Ōrewa, saying servicing its 1,200 homes with infrastructure would require a $2.4 billion investment. All that’s before mention the ongoing cost of maintaining new roads and pipes or the extra congestion caused by commuters from greenfield areas.
Perhaps that’s why Auckland mayor Wayne Brown was so blunt when the Sunday Star-Times asked him to comment on Seymour’s and his like-minded politicians’ preference for greenfield growth. “So they want to build out in Pukekohe so they can get re-elected in Epsom. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?” he said, adding the deputy prime minister shouldn’t “stick his nose in it”.
Perhaps he could have said it a little more diplomatically, but Brown has some reason to be incredulous. Politicians like Seymour, along with intensification sceptics at council like Waitematā’s Mike Lee and Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa’s Christine Fletcher, have consistently called for lower rates and better financial discipline from local government. They want councils to get better value for money and deliver the basics well. Intensification in places like Parnell, Mt Eden and Kingsland fulfils all those objectives. A politician espousing cost-effectiveness should be all for it. Unless, of course, there’s some reason for their opposition other than infrastructure.