this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
16 points (100.0% liked)

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1774 readers
23 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

 

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
16
'Absolutely gobsmacked' - Property developers slam decision to temporarily stop new builds' wastewater connection in Auckland suburb (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A Watercare decision to restrict new connections to the wastewater network on the Hibiscus Coast is being labelled as disastrous by property developers in the area, who say the organisation has failed to do its job.

Late last year, Watercare revealed that any developments in the area which weren't resource consented by 15 November would not be able to connect to the wastewater network until an upgrade to the Army Bay Wastewater treatment plant was complete, currently scheduled for 2031.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

It might be because it's late but I don't think I'm following. Watercare gave 24 hours notice that developments without resource consent would not be allowed to connect until 2031. But also they have capacity for 4,000 more houses, "Our current tracking of previous years - there's typically 800 connections made a year, so that's five years of connections available.".

So they have 5 years worth of connection capacity but they aren't allowing any new developments to connect? I'm really lost on what Watercare is trying to convey.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

From the sounds of it there is about 4000 more connections worth of capacity before the current system is at 100% capacity.

This sounds like a lot but ideally you do not want to run a system at 100% capacity for long periods as it leaves no spare capacity for surge events (where there is a sudden short term increase in usage), weather events and such like.

It also creates problems with loss of capacity due to equipment breakdown &/or maintenance, when that happens and they can't fix it quickly enough then the raw waste will have to be temporarily stored (causing the equipment to be running at over 100% capacity running a much higher risk of further equipment breakdowns to deal with the normal usage plus the stored waste) or more likely minimally treated then released into the ocean.

So restricting the use of the remaining capacity while it causes problems for people who want to develop properties it saves rate payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in unexpected waste water costs and reduces the chances of the council having to release waste into the environment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I still think Watercare did a bad job of conveying this. They are trying to say there is plenty of capacity, we didn't plan poorly, but also we won't let anyone else on the network.

It's also super shit that they gave 24 hours notice and seem to think this was reasonable. I doubt any developments in planning could have suddenly got resource consent within that time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

The did explain this in the "Watercare responds" section, in a "we have to word this so it won't cause problems in court" fashion.

The problem is their message was lost in the forest of "oh woah betide this property developer not being able to build" that was most of the article.

The article is 85% about the property developer and what they wanted, very biased and poor reporting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Me too actually, it's all very confusing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Interesting. I think there's a huge fight brewing out there somewhere between a developer who wants to infill develop the old golf course versus local residents. Wonder what impact this will have on that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's good to know Wellington isn't the only region whose infrastructure is a total shitshow.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

G'day mate. The cheap newer outer suburbs of Melbourne have weak infrastructure. Sewerage, roads, shops and public transport are often lacking. Probably doctors and schools too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

30+ years of "no rates raises" council campaigns, which causes kicking the can down the road on infrastructure maintenance and upgrades....

We have had massive rates raises in the last round, to help pay for the water upgrades that we are seeing going in....but ffs the bump was huge.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Yep. The Hutt Valley hasn't been too bad, but I really feel for people in Wellington City.