\u201cIn response to out-of-sequence growth, mainly housing projects, councils will be able to amend their development contributions.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a complicated area of policy, at the moment the charges are locked in at the time a consent is granted and sometimes it can end up out of whack with what it should be.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said in most cases, it will mean developers paying more to councils.<\/p>\n
It will be law by Thursday, he expected.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere a development creates additional infrastructure costs, an appropriate share should be met by the development rather than being shifted on to existing ratepayers,\u201d Bishop said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was a pragmatic response to something that needed fixing.\u201d<\/p>\n
He\u2019s met with a lot of the mayors who have been concerned and made it clear to him they are worried about the looming costs.<\/p>\n
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has joined a chorus of mayors calling for residential developments to be paused.<\/p>\n
LGNZ vice-president Dan Gordon welcomed Bishop\u2019s move to make changes to development contributions.<\/p>\n
\u201cToday\u2019s announcement shows the Government is listening,\u201d Gordon said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe welcome the Government\u2019s decision to include projects with a substantive application already lodged. This strengthening of development contributions was one of the recommendations in LGNZ\u2019s four-point plan to ensure growth pays for growth and communities aren\u2019t left carrying costs they didn\u2019t create.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a positive step and an acknowledgment that improvements were needed to the way infrastructure costs are recovered under Fast-track. However, they\u2019ll come too late for already approved projects, which means that councils still lose out on significant revenue.\u201d<\/p>\n
Auckland councillor Richard Hills, an outspoken critic of some of the developments, said he too was pleased the Government was listening.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s too late and fixes one glaring error,\u201d Hills told the Herald in a text.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat error has already locked in a $450-650m cost to all Auckland ratepayers and taxpayers which is the estimated amount we can\u2019t now retrospectively recover through Development Contributions for Sunfield and Delmore.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe change doesn\u2019t allow us to recover the costs of maintaining and running services to these unplanned communities, we estimate those costs to be in the billions, not millions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Auckland Council last week voted to look at ways to<\/a> either require developers to pay more for fast-track projects or send a message to residents that the council will not provide any services to them.<\/p>\n Hills said today\u2019s move would not change the council\u2019s position.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are considering all options to charge costs back to these developments and we are serious about finding ways to not provide these places with things like noise control, buses, animal control and other services.<\/p>\n \u201cFast-track for residential developments is not how you plan a city, but it is how you shovel massive social, environmental and economic costs on to all Aucklanders and the next generation,\u201d Hills said.<\/p>\n He\u2019s urging all parties running for government to campaign on removing residential from fast-track and stop taking the local out of local government.<\/p>\n LGNZ said there was more work to do.<\/p>\n \u201cWe still think there\u2019s merit in pausing future referrals, requiring consideration of cumulative effects, and reviewing Fast-track for housing to ensure it works well with the new planning system,\u201d Gordon said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019d now like to see the remaining recommendations in our four-point plan progressed. We\u2019d welcome working with minister Bishop and minister Watts to make Fast-track work on the ground. <\/p>\n That four-point plan includes the temporary pause on ministerial referrals to the scheme, requiring the fast-track panel to consider the cumulative effects of multiple projects in one area and commission a longer-term review of the system to ensure it fits in with the new planning system developed by replacing the Resource Management Act.<\/p>\n