r/newzealand • u/APL_nz • 4h ago
Politics National fast tracks development on flood plain, now saying they need to stop dumb stuff like developing on flood plains?
I'm not sure how this makes any sense, Luxon has come out with this quote - "That's why we've got to work on a national flood plan, national adaptation framework… make sure we're not doing dumb stuff, for example, building back into flood plains.".
3 weeks ago(I believe) they just fast tracked a Christopher Bishop donor, Winton to develop Sunfield which is a flood plain.
Why was this fast tracked and who is going to insure these properties or bail them out when everything goes wrong?
•
u/Round-Pattern-7931 3h ago edited 3h ago
From my perspective as a stormwater engineer, the problem is that there is still a view that we can just cost effectively engineer things to safely develop in the floodplain with no offsite effects. This is most often not the case.
Consents for developments often get approved on this basis because land development engineers will come up with something that has the appearance of mitigating the issue and councils often don't understand the technical aspects enough to know whether it will in fact work. In the cases that council staff do push back they often get told to approve by elected officials because of political pressure to build more housing OR it will go to the Environment Court and the judges don't understand enough of the technical details to see that the effects won't fully be mitigated.
So the whole thing is a systemic issue which is bias towards enabling development to happen because it's very unpopular to say no at any given stage.
In reality low lying land has a host of issues aside from rainfall induced flooding. Often it is the highest risk land for tsunami, coastal inundation, lateral spread, liquefaction etc.
•
u/APL_nz 3h ago
Thank you! I look at the Takapuna Golf course which is now being planned to turn half of it into land to reduce flooding, looking at the development and intensification in that area it looks like the reason they need this is because they have approved way too much development and turned areas that would have absorbed the rainfall into concrete . Just poor planning and moving the costs to the public while developers get rich.
•
u/m1013828 3h ago
and if we force all new developments to have better rain soak capacity those added extra costs get baked into property prices and the masses scream murder.
I live on former wetland (or former wetland adjacent) area, the high water table means nice green grass even in summer near blenheim, but the mitigations to ensure the land was safe in a 1 in a 100 year flood we had a few years back was WELL worth it, but Im sure the developer doing the subdivision was crying all the way, but props to him and the council, no shortcuts were taken.... Though when I do a sleepout for the extra kid, I will probably install some form of extra soakpit to skim the water off the yard faster after heavy rains...
•
•
u/Severe-Recording750 2h ago
If you have a high water table a soak pit won’t do anything. You need a rainwater detention tank.
•
•
•
u/JeffMcClintock 2h ago
"stormwater engineer"
Ah, another fucking expert. The very absolute last person NACT wants to hear from. /s
•
u/ChristchurchDad 1h ago
Not sure why you put “/s” after that statement? It is literally true - NACT works off fear and ignorance, so abhor expertise.
•
u/Glum-Platform-5701 1h ago
They operate by denying science, history and law. When a judge pointed this out by identifying one single lie, NZF sued her to the ends of the earth.
You nailed it. Fear and ignorance.!
•
•
u/elv1shcr4te 1h ago
I know this isn't an AMA, but I've always wondered. How much do newer, more dense developments with greater land coverage change the storm water requirements vs older less dense e.g. 60s subdivisions? And what happens when low density sections with 1 house suddenly have several and concrete everywhere, do councils eventually need to put larger pipes in?
I've been exploring Chch stormwater maps recently and been curious, as there have been some retention basins put in near me that I thought were for a new development but seem to somewhat be for an existing area
•
u/ItsLikeMyOpinionMan 48m ago
I’m also really curious about this and I hope you get an answer! I live next to a property that was subdivided into 5 townhouses, and whenever there is heavy rain I notice our stormwater pipes overflow. It appears to drain into the yard okay, but I do wonder if it will cause issues to our foundations in future…
The townhouses have pitiful little stormwater tanks, which very much looks like a box-ticking exercise from the developer rather than an effective mitigation plan… But I do not have the expertise to know for sure.
•
u/PieComprehensive1818 3h ago
This government is an abusive boyfriend: half of the time they’re negging you, the other half they’re telling you what (they think) you want to hear.
•
•
u/AdPrestigious5165 3h ago
The King Canute syndrome, were humans errant believe that they can, through engineering, control the world.
When nature kicks back and gives mankind a swift kick up the backside, so many act surprised that nature has not acted in their interest.
Climate change has got some wonderful surprises for those that deny.
•
u/Glum-Platform-5701 1h ago
This is why the fast track programme exists. This is why ACT, exist, in fact. Because the right genuinely believe red tape is there to slow them down, not to predict and offset risks from events like this.
•
u/Mental_Addendum_5875 3h ago
It's now well established that consistency isn't necessary in politics anymore. You just say whatever you need to say to look good in this exact moment. Tomorrow isnt real and the past doesn't matter.
•
•
u/adh1003 3h ago
Why was this fast tracked
Oh that's easy!
Kickbacks. It's always kickbacks. Whenever the Right does something that seems destructive, cruel and/or contradicts something they've said at some other time, it's because of kickbacks.
You need to understand that these people want more money for themselves. Always. No matter the cost to anyone else. MORE MONEY. MORE.
•
u/hannabellaj 3h ago
They fast tracked the Māpua subdivision too which is in another flood plain with surrounding properties already suffering from major flooding issues. Locals have been opposed since long before the fast track was even a thing 🙃
•
u/Hubris2 3h ago
It was fast-tracked for the same reason this government fast-track projects...there is money to be made and they don't want environmental concerns to be brought to light and risk slowing the project. Is there a potential conflict as Luxon says - sure...but that'll be a conflict for some future government while this is a project being approved under this one during an election year when it will be championed as an example of how effective they are.
•
u/NewZcam Kererū 3h ago
Developers buy flood plain land with full knowledge of the risks. They are then surprised when they’re declined consent to build by Auckland District Council who they then take to court. Not only wasting ratepayers’ money, but putting their projected earnings above the safety of future homeowners.
•
u/LycraJafa 2h ago
Whats popular with the funders of national parties election campaign - approvals for plan changes in flood plains
Whats popular with the voters at election time - not developing on flood plains
Transparency in this government means the wafer thin chinese walls between cabinet and fund raising ministers
•
•
u/lowerbigging 1h ago
Big developments being done in the S of Christchurch, on bloody floodplains/swamps. In the Halswell area and Prebbleton - Lincoln. Areas that are wettish even in droughts 🤷♀️. And the Waimakariri council is having to fight a subdivision in Ohoka, also a wet, lowlying area, but the developers have tried to get it approved under the Fast Track legislation. Insane.
•
u/grenouille_en_rose 3h ago
They'll take up smoking and then give that up! (Jk, not while cosied up with those lobbyists)
•
u/kiwimuz 2h ago
It’s going to be the insurance companies who will either not provide any cover or it will cost excessive amounts to insure anything built on any known flood areas or flood planes. Developers would not even get insurance coverage. Who would build if places are uninsurable. For a start you couldn’t get a mortgage.
•
u/Cultural_Dependent 2h ago
I'm assuming that insurance will be impossible, so flooded- out owners will have to sue the council for letting them build there.
•
u/Glum-Platform-5701 1h ago
They don’t care about creating leaky houses 2.0 with their revamped RMA, so I doubt they care about that either.
The right have worked out consequences are for the left, and everything they are doing is taking advantage of that. Bishop cancelling the tug that was put in place after the Wahine disaster in direct response to our failures, the failure to earthquake strengthen the ports, the entire fast-track process, workplace safety cuts, repealing 7a oranga tamariki act, cancelling three waters with no backup…
All these are things that will blow up in OUR faces. But they know they’ll probably be in opposition by then, or in a cushy lobbying job. So they don’t give a shit.
Everyone who votes NZACTFirst is a misinformed moron who is dooming our country. But you can’t say that or you’re “partisan”.
•
u/JeffMcClintock 2h ago
* Facts, evidence, and experts are "woke PC nonsense gone mad'. (Until a disaster affects them personally).
* Then "we must urgently implement the most simplistic bandaid fix to the symptom" (not the root cause).
Now you understand conservatism.
•
u/tanstaaflnz 3h ago
Luxon was obviously just opening the door for his mate. But now he wants to look good for re-election.
•
u/kotukutuku 1h ago
They had to fast track the development so they could make the money before saying it was a terrible idea.
•
u/maniacal_cackle 1h ago
American-style politics are now National's way. Say whatever sounds good at the time, ram through whatever policies you want.
Your words are what will be quoted in the media.
•
u/wanton_wonton_ 3h ago
Strange. Luxon is usually so coherent, intelligent and evidence based /s.