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

Aotearoa / New Zealand

1826 readers
6 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
Dave@lemmy.nz
RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz
16
'Absolutely gobsmacked' - Property developers slam decision to temporarily stop new builds' wastewater connection in Auckland suburb (www.rnz.co.nz)
submitted 1 month ago by GGNZ@lemmy.nz to c/newzealand@lemmy.nz
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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] dr_jekell@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month 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.