Rather than a boon, it was being built in an area without sufficient public infrastructure – where wastewater services wouldn’t arrive until after 2050 – meaning it would cost more in the long run, the local bodies claimed.
The fast-track panel sided with local concerns, releasing a draft decision rejecting the project.
Poor transport and wastewater services appeared to be issues that “cannot be resolved”, the panel said.
It agreed with concerns some project proposals, such as putting homeowners in charge of a $15m private wastewater treatment plant, carried significant “risks and challenges” that could lead to taxpayers footing the bill if something went wrong.
However, Delmore’s developer Vineway is not giving up.
Company director Andrew Fawcet told BusinessDesk his team suspended their application for 30 days after learning of the August 29 draft decision.
Fawcet said the company was now preparing a response and was confident all the matters raised in the draft decision could be addressed.
He said the proposed development would be a significant boost for the regional economy and help address Auckland’s housing crisis.
The project would increase total housing stock and generate additional infrastructure funding through fees and levies, he said.
“In our view we submitted a robust application.
”The draft decision is what it is, and we need to address the matters raised in it.”
The 1250-home Delmore development near Ōrewa was among the first three projects to get to the next stage of the Government’s fast-track consenting regime and go before an expert panel. Photo / Supplied
National urgency vs local voices
Delmore’s rocky fast-track journey highlights how the Government’s drive for swift housing and economic growth could pit it against the country’s councils and residents.
It voted the fast-track scheme into law last December so big infrastructure projects could gain speedy planning approval.
Delmore was one of the first three projects given permission to try its luck.
In March, NZ First minister Shane Jones praised the development during the International Investment Summit.
“Projects like this are critical to growing our country’s economy, meaning more jobs and higher wages – making all New Zealanders better off,” he said.
However, when Delmore hit hurdles, he and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop expressed frustration and suggested they would tweak the scheme to help future projects get through.
Jones said a fast-track scheme needed to be a one-stop shop that consulted less and spent more time getting things done.
Bishop told Newsroom he remained optimistic about the scheme, but said its slow progress meant he would be making changes.
The main issue at stake with the proposed development is where the houses are due to spring up.
Delmore had chosen to build outside the Auckland areas in which Watercare and council planned to deliver infrastructure services in the near term, the local bodies said.
That made the developer responsible for delivering permanent or longer-term water, roading and other infrastructure for future residents at the site, they argued.
The developer had instead sought to jump the queue and force local bodies to roll out expensive infrastructure to its door ahead of schedule and at great cost to taxpayers and other users, they said.
Watercare said it had no plans to deliver drinking water connections to the Delmore site before 2038.
Wastewater wouldn’t be connected before 2050.
Delivering connections for Delmore’s benefit would force Watercare to expedite $1.4 billion worth of projects, it said.
Auckland Transport said it would also have to find an extra $460m outside its budget before roads around the development would be safe and useful.
The Delmore development is planned for close to the 450-plus Strathmill project (pictured), which is being built by the same larger development group Myland Partners. Photo / Supplied
There’s room for us too: Developer
Delmore’s consultants pushed back on Watercare’s claims there was no spare water.
Project supporters included Local Government Minister Simon Watts, who wrote a letter saying Watercare’s July 1 separation from Auckland Council gave it greater ability to borrow and spend money on infrastructure.
He would be using that, together with his ministerial weight, to explore “what can be done to accelerate Watercare’s investment in the Hibiscus Coast network”.
Delmore’s consultants claimed they had run modelling using Watercare data showing the existing wastewater network could immediately supply an extra 3700 homes – more than enough for its 1250 planned homes.
The developers also put forward alternative proposals for managing wastewater should the public pipes not reach their site any time soon.
That included building a temporary $15m wastewater treatment plant owned by a residents’ association. The association would then be required to manage the plant according to professional standards, the developers said.
Delmore’s team said the plant could run until the public water connection arrived, at which point the facility could be decommissioned and turned into more houses.
Another alternative involved trucking sewage and wastewater offsite to Watercare’s treatment plants.
Fawcet argued the project was regionally important and worthy of approval.
He wanted to help fulfil the Government’s desire for fast new homes “to address Auckland’s chronic housing shortage and help stop young people moving elsewhere”.
Benefits overstated: Planning panel
Ultimately, Delmore’s arguments fell flat.
The planning panel sided with local authorities and neighbours opposing the project, saying unless the developer could drastically improve its proposal it was heading for rejection.
The panel said Delmore’s claimed economic benefits were overstated and did not justify expensive infrastructure projects being brought forward on its behalf.
Watercare and council have often stressed the importance of careful planning for housing and infrastructure.
Planning certainty gave investors greater faith, made projects more affordable and allowed roads, water treatment plants, schools, hospitals and shops to be built to the best standards.
Watercare said its major upcoming build programmes were already funded and planned.
Altering them for “out-of-sequence development” would move funding from parts of the city where people already lived, it said.
Auckland Transport agreed, saying ratepayers would need to pick up the shortfall if it prioritised roading near Delmore over its own projects.
Auckland Council said the project’s shortcomings meant ratepayers might have to cover operational and capital costs, “which council is not in a position to absorb”.
Watercare rejected the developer’s wastewater proposals and said Delmore’s modelling that the council-controlled organisation had enough capacity for the project was flawed.
It was not interested in taking future ownership of private plants.
That could potentially leave taxpayers paying for problems caused by poor design, while creating headaches linked to running a hotch-potch of small, unconnected facilities, it said.
Auckland Council said asking homeowners to run complicated facilities raised similar concerns.
Homeowners could face unexpected running and ownership costs, plus additional risks if a builder went into liquidation or a multimillion-dollar plant needed replacement, it said.
Whitford wastewater warning
The council pointed to South Auckland’s Whitford Manor Estate as an example of the risks associated with off-grid wastewater solutions going wrong.
Residents at the estate told the Herald they thought they were buying into a luxury country lifestyle but were instead left gagging at the “smell of raw human waste”.
That was because of sewage overflows and a lack of progress building a private wastewater treatment plant once sales dropped and the development company went into receivership.
“I would hate for more unsuspecting innocent people to end up in the same position as all of us,” one resident said in an email to Mayor Wayne Brown.
After weighing the evidence, the expert planning panel decided that Delmore’s “adverse impacts [and] effects … are so significant that they are out of proportion to the project’s regional benefits”.