When are we going to talk about allowing rapacious Developers building on Aucklands floodplains?
When are we going to talk about how we’ve allowed Developers to build on Aucklands floodplains?
Let me quote former Auckland councillor and National’s Upper Harbour candidate, Cameron Brewer:
Last decade some Special Housing Areas were built in pretty marginal places, but it seems to have got worse since the 2016 Auckland Unitary Plan and the latest residential building boom,”
“We were all promised the Unitary Plan was more about going up than out, but in the past few years it has been mostly ‘greenfields’ development on the outskirts of Auckland, and some of it in totally unsuitable locations.
“We got rid of the Auckland Regional Council in 2010 because many thought they were too litigious and a drag on development. Much of their work and warnings, however, are now being borne out.
“In 2009 the regional council published some amazing fine-tooth mapping of the entire region identifying rapid flood hazard areas. Alarmingly in the intervening years, some well identified risk areas have been built on and in this latest event many sadly endured flash flooding.
“In the rush to get into the housing market, many Aucklanders have had little choice but to buy or rent properties in flood plains and rapid flood hazard areas. Developers have also headed to very problematic flood basins, with too many getting their way.”
We had detailed flood maps in 2009, why were they ignored?
The Unitary Plan was supposed to build up not out – sure Brown’s incompetence on the night was shocking and his fecklessness with every passing day since makes him look like the Mr Bean of Disaster Management, but the issues of it are bigger than him.
Metservice receives over $20million each year from the Ministry of Transport for public safety forecasting services, but they also have a side hustle called ‘MetOcean Solutions’, where they provide detailed marine weather forecasting for their corporate clients. Is there a difference between the open source forecasting they provide the public and the far more detailed one they provide corporate clients, and if so does that need investigating?
Look, I’ve been in the media game for over 30 years in this country and I have never witnessed a trainwreck interview like Wayne Brown’s one. His focus was on defending his own inaction and incompetence, not the welfare of the people of Auckland.
You can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people and Wayne looks like he barely cares about the people.
But let’s acknowledge decades of underfunding Auckland’s infrastructure alongside rapacious Developers being allowed to build on floodplains have all been exacerbated by a warming climate that is generating catastrophic extreme events that are ultimately going to redefine our future.
The real question in front of us is, how many warnings do you clowns need before we collectively act?
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
Love the lettuce omen! “I’ve had lettuces last longer than…”
The common Queenslander Style home was designed for exactly this type of climate. Height to protect the interior from flooding, and the benefits of underfloor airflow during the summer.
Reducing available land during a housing crisis would be pretty disastrous. A combination of smart architecture and tropical-type water infrastructure can solve these problems.
However, the economy needs to be turned around urgently first — considering the appalling state of the infrastructure and housing stock currently, it is unlikely anyone has enough money to undertake these projects at present.
This has been happening since the 1980’s – because developers can just take the council to environment court whose process has been designed to consent every application – 99% of all resource applications to environment court are consented – designed by the Natz and then helped by Labour and Greens.
This has allowed the developers to disregard any planning rules because they know once in environment court which is very expensive they will win. In the coromandel residents won against a marina in environment court, only to have the developer go back with an even bigger application which they got through. This encourages all the judges to just let everything go through the first time as they are being told to make sure all consents go through no matter how outside planning rules it is.
This is an example in Auckland but also was a big problem in Christchurch during the earthquake – (some of the red stickered liquefaction estates should never have been built on, when the council said no, the developers took it to the environment court and got it through – then all the houses were red stickered in the earthquake on land they knew was not safe).
‘Demolish my house’: Auckland couple wants out as flood-prone home hit again
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/demolish-my-house-auckland-couple-wants-out-as-flood-prone-home-hit-again/LVOHMVBBINAAFL4OHE5JELXMRE/
“According to Hurley, the housing was built in the 1980s by a construction company that was declined consent by Auckland Council, due to the location’s flood risk.
The company took Auckland Council to court and the council didn’t contest, so the company went ahead and built anyway.
Because of the nature of flood risk, the house is built on poles – so it’s already elevated to avoid any initial floodwaters that reach the house.
“The problem is council comes around and sees the poles and says ‘oh yeah, it’s structurally sound’, but the river overflows and we get a massive surge of water that’s like a rushing river,” said Hurley.
A flood alarm was installed on a nearby hill to alert the residents to the flood risk. It didn’t go off on Wednesday morning.”
Basically the developers just push all the problems on the future owners and ratepayers – they need to prosecute the directors of developments who are building poorly designed houses that fail and are not safe – while they profit.
Really? I think a number of properties in flood areas were built ages ago. How many of the Mt Roskill, Mt Albert, South Auckland Northshore etc were built in the last say 20 years? Or are we saying new developments on areas that should have been left clear have impacted older suburbs? There are a lot of opinions but where are the numbers?
By the way you can build up under the unitary plan.
So we’ve had stories of 3 year old state houses lifting off their piles and floating away?
Anyone that’s even glanced at the news over the past 10 years will have noticed articles about how climate change will contribute to more and heavier rainfall
How are the houses down on the Ardmore Swamp ?
Read our story on how greedy selfish individuals – real estate agents – developers and their lawyer sought sole trustee control over a vulnerable widows home after she had a stroke with the intention of developing her land into high rise apartments – and to date the criminals and abusers engaged in elder abuse have been protected.
Making a today profit exploiting the most vulnerable. Criminal complaints or fraud and false pretences tabled with police in 2017 and to date have never been investigated. Rather the police acted on lies and false accusations by the criminals engaging in DARVO when caught out – blame shifting and playing the victims and placed an innocent man in prison – solitary confinement and terrorised his family and children at gun point.
https://www.reputationguardian.nz/
” Waka Kotahi won’t be able to fix the roads quickly or effectively.”
Yes, dissolution of the Ministry of Works, 35 years of under-funding through undermining the Govt of its tax base has definitely compromised the Govt’s ability to respond- so a big thank you to failed neo-liberal economic dogma for that.
MOW inefficient we needed to get a Private Company like Fulton Hogan to do the job properly and more efficiently.
But they’re less efficient and don’t do the work properly. They do privatize any profit while socialising any losses though, so that’s a thing.
Well you fell over with that logic Ngu
We can talk about how we’ve allowed Developers to build on Aucklands floodplains, but first we have to address the planning rules that drove them to do that. Developers like to build on easy, flat sections with good ground conditions, not precipitous slopes and clay that becomes diarrhoea when mixed with water.
This is the entirely the result of the council mantra of in-fill housing and then intensification, in order to prevent urban sprawl. With hindsight, if we’d spread Auckland out instead and maintained bush on the slopes and the gullies, we would be in the mess we’re in now.
Auckland is surrounded by sea, pony clubs and lifestyle blocks. The rich folk with the Range Rovers don’t want suburban Auckland intruding into their lives so influence the Council to ration land. So here we are. It’s no surprise that the previous two mayors both had lifestyle blocks.
Andrew When I do read you you always seem to represent negative closed thinking. Could you stir the cup so we get the sugar taste? Referring to your comments on lifestyle blocks and pony clubs and the land those people live on, I feel happy that the urban sprawl is not eating up potential horticultural land. Really they are just custodians of it if they are not allowed to create subdivisions on it. Don’t spout out 20th century thunks, think again please.
May I say that since it became a National Government instigated Super City that Auckland has changed alot and not really in the best interest of its inhabitants in areas of Auckland that are prone to flooding.
Decades ago there used to be one house/dwelling on a property and alot of trees. Over the past 12 plus years since the “Super City” was created there are now alot of Concrete Jungles and as a result alot of flooding.
Where there was once a form of drainage and with trees there are now areas with massive amount of concreting and flooding as a result. I may well be proven wrong but I do wonder if any parts of Auckland that experienced flooding were parts that have had massive concreting development in what I will call the Upward Build???!!!
We all know concrete is not a soluble material but with Auckland building Upwards even in townhouses/units/apartments or whatever little or no attention has been given to below street level matters.
There are now areas of Auckland that are prone to flooding and especially more so since 2010 since the Super City came into existence.
I am certain this amount of flooding isn’t the first and neither will it be the last. It is ongoing because in a way the development of Auckland especially has resulted in no proper surface run off.
Another problem with the creation of the “Super City’ is whilst there were separate Councils in the past drainage was dealt with in a proper manner. Today there are ‘contractors’ involved in the drainage and perhaps when it came to AC the Cheapest Option was the Best Option but it didn’t do Aucklanders any good in the long run. That and perhaps a few “backhanders’ into someones’ bank account.
I am not inferring that bribery has been a part of NZ life in local or central government. Just it seems some people with the right contacts profited more so than others especially in the creation of the ‘Super City” that may as well be referred to as the City of Fails.
On Friday we had a very angry neighbour knock at our door demanding we come to their place which had experienced flooding. Our property is sloping and it also has trees. I will say firstly that trees appear to be the sadly lacking entity in Auckland since the Great Massive Build Up. Whilst foliage from trees around a neigbourhood can cause problems it wasn’t necessarily our trees to blame and I pointed this out to the neighour.
What I also pointed out is prior to them purchasing a downstairs unit down a concreted driveway with lots of concrete around them that did the real estate salesperson warn them at the time that the area is prone to flooding? They admitted that yes the salesperson had told them that. But they still blamed OUR trees.
“. . . how many warnings do you clowns need before we collectively act?”
What should the clowns do if they did decide to act?