Watercare is financially independent

As of today, 1 July 2025, Watercare is financially separated from Auckland Council. This enables Watercare to leverage their own assets (which have a much longer lifespan) to raise the $13.8 billion they need to address the challenges we're facing. It reduces the risk for council and enables Watercare to raise a lot more without massive increases in water or property rates.

While water and wastewater prices increase by 7.2%, this is much lower than the 25.8% alternative if the separation didn't occur. Pricing is now regulated by the Commerce Commission, which will monitor and report on performance regularly.

Over the next year, Watercare plans to invest approximately $1 billion in new and upgraded infrastructure. The programme also includes a six-fold increase in the replacement of existing water and wastewater pipes. These renewals are a key step toward improving service reliability, reducing leaks, and minimising wastewater overflows.

This is a great outcome for Auckland!

Read more here: https://www.watercare.co.nz/home/about-us/latest-news-and-media/we-start-new-era-as-financially-independent-water-company

Progress on Mill Road good news for locals

Recently the Howick Local Board received an update from NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi about the Mill Road Project. This has been selected by the Government as part of their Roads of National Significance (RONS).

The project will deliver a 21.5km four-lane corrior parallel to SH1, providing more efficient and resilient transport options between Flat Bush, Manukau, Manurewa, Papakura, and Drury.

The Howick Local Board has supported this project on the basis it would address the safety issues that many local residents face every day. With it's origins back in 2009, its good to see that this project starting to make progress. We're very focused on the northern end of the project which will be delivered in Stage 1, including a signalised intersection for Murphys and Redoubt Road.

They project has also confirmed that the intersections of Murphys/Thomas Roads, and Murphys Road/Murphys Park Drive are no longer in scope, leaving them to Auckland Transport to address. We're pleased to get this clarification and are actively working with AT to make progress as quickly as possible.

Stage 1 is working through design and consenting, with construction planned to commence in mid-2026 starting with Alfriston Roundabout and some of Redoubt Road. Estimated completion for Stage 1 is 2032.

More information about the project can be found here:
https://nzta.govt.nz/projects/south-auckland-projects/mill-road/

You can see the presentation we received in our open workshop here: https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2025/06/20250612_HLBWC_ATT_13166_WEB.htm

Plan Change 96 impacts Flat Bush

Under the Auckland Unity Plan (AUP), changes to zoning are managed through Plan Changes.

Auckland Council is currently proposing some changes through Plan Change 96 to “rezone land to correct zoning errors and anomalies”. This includes two areas near Barry Curtis Park – 66 Flat Bush School Road and 56 Brookview Drive. The request was made by Eke Panuku as Auckland Council had erroneously zoned the two sites for open space (under Plan Change 60).

Both are zoned as Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation Zone and proposed to be changed to Residential – Terraced Housing and Apartment Building Zone.

The Howick Local Board will get an opportunity to provide our feedback on the proposal, although this comes after the public submissions have closed. Because we're part of Auckland Council our feedback is handled slightly differently.

We would strongly encourage residents to submit their own feedback before it closes on Friday 23 February 2024.

You can find out more, including how to submit at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=251

Apologies for the late notification - the Howick Local Board wasn’t made aware of this proposal until after the public consultation had begun which isn’t ideal.

Submission on Auckland Council's preliminary response to housing intensification

Central Government (together with the Opposition) have created legislation that requires all larger cities in New Zealand to allow more intensification of housing. Auckland Council have prepared a preliminary response and asked for public feedback. The following is my submission.

What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 1200 metres from the edge of the city centre?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I encourage Council to extend the walkable catchment to 2400 metres (30 minutes) for the City Centre. I would also encourage the use of Business - Mixed Use Zone instead of a Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone to allow greater mixed use.

For many, walking is the default mode of transport with the 2018 census noting that at least 10% of people living in the central suburbs already walking to work. This is despite the existing safety and pollution issues that many pedestrians face, which suggests that it could rise much higher if it was encouraged, enabled and supported by fit for purpose infrastructure. We also need to consider the positive impact of micromobility which is further reducing distances and helping connect public transport and active modes.  Limiting the catchment to 15 mins will significantly reduce the potential housing that could be developed near the city centre

What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 800 metres from the edge of the metropolitan centres?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I encourage Council to increase the walkable catchments for the Metropolitan Centres in the isthmus (Newmarket, Sylvia Park) to 1600 metres (20 minutes) and 800 metres (10 minutes) for other Metropolitan Centres. Both Newmarket and Sylvia Park are vital commercial and retail centres that have good transport links, which can support greater growth.

What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 800 metres around rapid transit stops?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I encourage Council to increase the walkable catchments for Rapid Transit Stops to 1600 metres (20 minutes) for Rapid Transit Stops. This is a relatively short distance to access frequent, reliable public transport and would enable much greater growth in areas that can support it. Retrofitting rapid transit into other parts of the city will always be complex and expensive, so we must better utilise what we already have and are planning to deliver. I strongly encourage Council to ensure that the definition of Rapid Transit in implementing the NPS-UD includes high bus priority areas.

I encourage Council to make use of the Business - Mixed Use Zone instead of a Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, in the first 200 metres of the Walkable Catchment of Rapid Transit stops. This will enable even greater, mixed use growth in these critical areas, moving us closer to the 15-minute neighbourhood. 

What do you think of our proposal to apply the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone to residential areas up to around 400 metres from large town centres with high accessibility?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I support upzoning adjacent to town centres - enabling people to live near town centres will reduce our transport needs and improve the wellbeing of residents. The pandemic has reminded us how important it is to have easy access to the essentials without needing to travel across town. I encourage Council to consider extending the upzoning to a distance of 800m around all Town Centres defined by Council as ‘large + high accessibility’, as well as all other town centres on the isthmus.

What do you think of our proposal to apply the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone to residential areas up to around 200 metres from small town centres or large local centres with high accessibility?
My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I support upzoning adjacent to town and local centres. However, I encourage Council to extend the upzoning up to 400m around all Town Centres which have have high accessibility. While our city is growing, we still have an opportunity to build in 15-minute neighbourhoods through the use of mixed use zoning close to town centres.

What do you think of our proposal to include identified special character areas as a qualifying matter?

My response: Do not support – I do not think special character areas should be a qualifying matter

I fully support genuine moves to protect our history including listed Heritage buildings, but do not support the protection of entire suburbs simply because they are old.

While I appreciate that this is a complex issue with limited time and resources, the approach that Auckland Council has taken to identify these buildings is too broad, leading to perverse outcomes. While there are suburbs of Auckland that have a number of historic houses that deserve protection, claiming an entire suburb needs protection is disingenuous. While we must protect the important historical buildings, not everything that was built in these neighbourhoods needs automatic protection.

Special Character Areas relies heavily on the concept of collective value, failing to recognise the importance of place and building, and creating the impression that suburbs that are not protected are at risk. In reality we need a more nuanced approach, that recognises the need for our city to grow and develop, while respecting where we’ve come from. There are plenty of good examples in New Zealand and around the world, where historic buildings are redeveloped in a way that respects the past while enabling them to remain current.

Finally, the Special Character overlays are focused on the central suburbs - the areas with the greatest access to transport and existing amenities. We must make better use of our existing infrastructure, while we close the significant deficit seen across the city. 

What do you think of the proposed residential special character areas that we have identified?

My response: Do not support – I do not think special character areas should be a qualifying matter

As noted above, I fully support genuine moves to protect our history including listed Heritage buildings, but do not support the protection of entire suburbs simply because they are old.

Older homes were not built to modern standards of warmth and dryness, nor weather tightness. Replacing older homes and villas with modern apartments will radically improve quality of life for residents, offering warmer, drier and healthier living environments.

What do you think of the proposed business special character areas that we have identified?

My response: Do not support – I do not think special character areas should be a qualifying matter

As noted above, I fully support genuine moves to protect our history including listed Heritage buildings, but do not support the protection of entire suburbs simply because they are old.

Business zones need flexibility to adapt in order to provide for the needs of a growing local population. This includes providing for local shops and services, as well as apartment-style housing above.

What do you think of our proposal to include areas in Auckland with long-term significant infrastructure constraints as a qualifying matter?

My response: Other

I support the extremely limited use of infrastructure constraints where there is no other viable alternative. However, this cannot be used as an excuse and must be the option of last resort. I am deeply concerned that this is too open for abuse, given the poor state of the infrastructure in our city. There are few neighbourhoods that could claim they have no issues.

We know there are parts of Auckland where the infrastructure cannot cope with current demands, flooding streets and homes when there is heavy rain. Beaches become unswimmable as waste floods into our harbours. As our city continues to grow these issues continue to compound, increasing the risk of serious, long-term environmental damage. Watercare in particular has failed to identify, contain and resolve these issues, creating real concern that intensification will only lead to more issues. 

It should be noted that these aren't new concerns - in East Auckland, the Manukau City Council apparently had a moratorium on intensification due to the lack of infrastructure but decades later, little has been done to address the gaps. Council must take proactive action to address these infrastructure gaps while investing across the city to build capacity for growth. Retrofitting infrastructure is expensive, disruptive and unpopular - we must make better use of our existing infrastructure and ensure that all new developments include sufficient infrastructure to support the planned growth. Intensification in existing urban areas is a more efficient use of infrastructure, compared to greenfield development. Prioritisation of infrastructure funding between greenfield growth and brownfield intensification needs to be considered.

If this is included as a qualifying matter, Council must ensure that there is a strict and transparent process to ensure it is not abused. Areas that are identified as requiring limited development must have a robust plan developed to address the gaps, including timeframes and funding. Long-term and permanent use should be extremely rare and only where there is no other alternative.

Other qualifying matters

Do you have feedback on any other qualifying matters? (please be clear which proposal you are talking about)

I support the Stockade Hill viewshaft protection which was secured after a long, expensive battle by local residents. It should be noted that this was established under the previous zoning rules and it should be reviewed to ensure that the existing overlay will continue to protect the views of the Waitematā. 

I support the protection of viewshafts of cultural and spiritual significance to mana whenua in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Labour and National team up on housing - but will it be effective?

Yesterday saw a massive announcement on housing - a rare show of bipartisan support with Labour and National announcing an end to single house zones in the largest cities in New Zealand. Minister of Housing Megan Woods and Minister for the Environment David Parker held a joint press conference in the beehive theatrette with Leader of the Opposition Judith Collins and Opposition Housing Spokesperson Nicola Willis. Beehive

Approximate of new zone allowing 3 stories (Source)

Effectively it forces councils to allow up to 3 homes of up to 3 storeys on most sites in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch without the need for a resource consent. There are other changes to the minimum rules with increased building height to 11m and height in relation to the boundary now 6m + 60 degrees. I’ve seen estimates that this will affect 92% of Auckland’s residential area which is massive. 

After years of politicians blaming each other for the housing crisis, it was refreshing to see them actually do something about it. Cross party support is more than just good PR, it creates certainty. Our construction industry has been calling for greater clarity on long term demand which this should help provide.

Unfortunately this seems to be as inclusive as it’s going to get, with other political parties (including Labour’s political ally the Greens) not involved. And most critically the councils weren’t consulted, despite asking to be involved. It’s a stark reminder of the dysfunctional relationship between central and local government, the same misalignment that continues to play out in infuriating delays to projects like the Eastern Busway. Given this, it wasn’t surprising to see councils respond negatively to the announcement.

“If they want to make a big dent in Auckland [housing supply], then the problems are skills shortages, supply chain problems, material costs due to a duopoly of suppliers, and the funding of infrastructure to support big developments,”

- Chris Darby, Auckland Councillor and Chair of the Auckland Council Planning Committee via Stuff

Some argue that councils have failed and the government is being forced to step in. There is definitely some truth to this - councils have been extremely slow to respond to growing populations and progress has often been held hostage by a noisy, privileged few. However these criticisms (and a lot more) can also be made of government. And it’s also worth remembering that the structure, funding and very existence of councils is controlled by the government - while we all wish that Auckland Council would get those pesky CCO’s under control, there are limits that were put in place by an Act of Parliament. Critically, government needs councils to buy into this change, not fight it.

How could councils cause trouble? While the proposal will force councils to intensify in most residential areas, there is an exception for heritage protection. Minister Phil Twyford (former Minister for Housing and Urban Development) said on Twitter last night that “Character overlays precluded. Councils can protect individual buildings or clusters, as with NPS-UD, but that requires site analysis & justification.” (Twitter)

When I asked who would be making those decisions, I was told “Protection is Council's.” . It’s good to see that there will still be some local input and it will be interesting to see how heritage is interpreted and implemented. I’m a passionate supporter of respecting our history but it’s open to abuse as we've seen. Tywford agreed about the risks of misuse and noted “its something we're working on for the new planning system.” This will be a critical detail and may make or break this policy. In particular I’m interested to see how these changes will impact other rules such as the limited view protection that we have on Stockade Hill, secured after a long, bitter and expensive battle in the media and courts. On the other end of the spectrum is Wellington, who’s extremely broad interpretation of character has led to some feisty exchanges. 

Judith Collins had some pretty direct words on heritage protection:

"To those... I say this: Our communities lose their character when people can't afford to own their own home.

"Stronger communities are formed when families can own their home and it is in the interests of all Kiwis to live in a property-owning community, where people put down anchors in their community and have a stake in local affairs; where kids get to stay at the same school; where the politics of envy aren't fuelled by rapidly rising house prices; where our children can afford to buy a home and start a family and growing up in a property-owning democracy."

The announcement also included bringing the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) forward by a year, meaning councils need to notify plan changes by August 2022. It’ll be a busy year for councils as they adapt to these changes, untangling the current rules and applying the new ones. There is also some risk of throwing out what we've got, broken as it may be. The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) was made operative in 2019 and while it’s still undergoing changes, it’s largely done. It’s far from perfect (too much to cover here) but it has delivered more consents with nearly 20,000 being issued the last year, up from 3,600 in 2012.

The government estimates the changes will mean another 27,900-53,700 houses consented in Auckland over the next 5-8 years which isn’t a small number. But you can’t live in a consent - someone still has to fund, build and own these houses. There is some hope that the additional scale will bring efficiencies, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath for affordable housing. The significant increase we’ve seen under the AUP hasn’t had any measurable impact because supply is only one part of the equation. 

Critically we need more funding and commitment to infrastructure, especially transport and water. Announcements like this are important but ultimately the budget is where we see the real priorities. The $3.8 b Housing Acceleration Fund is a good start but a tiny drop in a massive ocean. We also need to deal with our inequitable tax system and the massive wealth transfer that continues to undermine our economy and the future of our country.

In summary:

• Great to see cross party policy.

• Not engaging councils was a mistake.

• Enables more intensification which should mean more housing.

• Still need significant systematic change to address the root causes + wider issues.

• Heritage protection will be the key battleground.

Our environment needs action at all levels

Today marks the first day of a new government mandated ban on single use plastic bags. It's been a while since the supermarkets phased them out and everyone has adapted, even if remembering the reusable bags is a challenge! However plastic bags only represent a very small amount (~0.01% ) of the 1.6 million tonnes rubbish that ends up in landfill every year and while I fully support the end of single use plastic bags, we’ve got a lot more to do.

There’s definitely an appetite to do more for the environment. Over the weekend we had a number of events focused on the environment with Howick holding its first Ecoday event on Saturday, followed by tree planting with Macleans College and then Bucklands Beach clean up on Sunday with the Howick Youth Council. All events were well attended showing the keen interest that East Aucklanders have for our environment which is great.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

It’s fantastic to see that locals are keen but we need urgent action by council or our efforts are at risk of being washed away.

We need to invest heavily into water infrastructure to reduce flooding and pollution. The pipes in the older parts of East Auckland such as Howick, Pakuranga and Cockle Bay are struggling to cope with current demand, with overflows not uncommon. As housing continues to intensify, we urgently need to ensure we can meet current and future demands. The work being done to understand the current network is good but needs to be done across the region and much faster.

Last month Auckland Council declared an climate emergency which was another great start but we urgently need action. This means reducing our emissions and for Auckland 40% of these come from transport. While the transition to electric vehicles will help, we cannot all fit on the road. Public transport and active modes such as cycling and walking are essential to reducing our impact on the environment. But they need to be realistic options - reliable, affordable and accessible. Projects like the Eastern Busway can help transform our area, but much more needs to happen to ensure it delivers for more.

I’m pleased to see that soft plastic recycling is back and the government is investing $40m into waste minimisation innovation but we need to do more to reduce the waste being generated in the first place. Strong product stewardship is key to this, ensuring that those producing the waste are required to ensure it’s sensible disposal. We all have personal responsibility but we also need industry to get up to speed.

I want to see a council that leads the way, supporting local community efforts across the city backed up by meaningful action by Council that will ensure that our environment is looked after for future generations.