Auckland Council has backed down from the huge proposed development contributions it was set to enact.

The council will implement, for the most part, smaller development contributions (DCs) instead of its proposed increases of up to 400 per cent in some areas.

In a major turn-around the council has, for example, dropped its DC increase for Tamaki infrastructure from a proposed $119,000 per lot or household equivalent unit (HUE) to $71,000 with a stormwater connection or $51,000 without a stormwater connection. (See other DC changes in table below).

Drury has also substantially changed from a proposed $84,000 DC increase down to $64,000, which is even below the 2022 charge of $70,000.

It is being seen as triumph for the collective activism of non-profit Subdivision Advocacy New Zealand (SANZ), property accountant Matthew Gilligan and Sentinel Planning managing director Simon O’Connor, who methodically dismantled the council’s proposed increases that would have forced potential homebuyers to pay 2055 prices for infrastructure that many would never see.

They had threatened the council with a judicial review of its DCs after developers were told they were going to have to pay the estimated costs of future infrastructure development in 30 years’ time, instead of paying for it at today’s cost.

For example, rather than paying a DC on a project currently costed at $30 million, developers would have paid a DC based on the anticipated cost of the project in 2055 ($250m).

On top of this, the lobbyists pointed out the council’s proposed across the board 50-80 per cent hike in DCs breached the Local Government Act and was illegal, a view backed up by advice from Auckland barrister Andrew Barker KC.

SANZ spokeswoman Kirsty Merriman says observations of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests and a comprehensive economic review led to the DCs policy unravelling.

The breakthrough came when she, Gilligan and O’Connor met directly with council staff to discuss their findings.

“The facts were irrefutable – there appeared to be potential errors of law, miscalculations, extreme contingencies, and apparent failures to follow generally accepted accounting practices as required under s111 of the Local Government Act 2002.”

“Council staff listened and made changes that are appropriate,” Merriman says. “It was hard work, and they will have been under pressure, though challenges to remain.”

Gilligan says changing the policy of a body as big as Auckland Council was no small feat.

“We proved it was possible to successfully challenge the council over its proposed DCs, which would have unfairly burdened home buyers with exorbitant costs for future infrastructure.

“Common sense won, but what is alarming is that it didn’t appear to exist beforehand,” he says.

Merriman says council’s general response is still concerning, however.

“It seems intent on pitching ratepayers against developers, completely missing that we share proportional costs.

“When developers can't build due to excessive charges, ratepayers bear the burden. Yet when developers build, they create more ratepayers and new homes to share infrastructure costs fairly.

“Why strangle today's new homebuyers when previous generations paid minimal contributions whilst enjoying substantial property value increases?”

Some areas still face substantial costs and Merriman doubts developers will apply for any new resource consents Tamaki and the inner north-west. “I can’t see any developer being able to recover $50,000 or $70,000 for stormwater connections on a brownfields site. The government’s new levy system will be implemented in 2027, so it becomes a moot point, but what we have done is saved the rest of Auckland from excessively high DCs for the next two years.”

Merriman says what started as concerns over Auckland Council's proposed DCs became a masterclass in collaborative advocacy.