Sign In / Register
Vineways, the developer behind the proposed 1217-dwelling Delmore project in Upper Ōrewa, has withdrawn its fast-track application after the expert panel declined consent, although it had the option to appeal the decision.
The company said it intended to relodge an application for the project in future.
However it may face an uphill battle. The panel concluded the project had failed to demonstrate that it would deliver infrastructure and development with significant regional benefit, a cornerstone requirement of the Fast-track Approvals Act. It also found the proposal was “sometimes contrary to national, regional and district planning instruments”.
The greatest barrier to development was the lack of secure water and wastewater servicing. The site falls within a future urban zone (FUZ) not scheduled for urbanisation until 2050 or later. Key infrastructure upgrades, including the Wainui Road corridor, Grand Drive and Milldale connections, North Shore Rapid Transit extension, and Army Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade have not yet been delivered.
Watercare advised the site is not currently serviced by the public water supply network and the developer proposed connecting to the Grand Drive watermain. However Watercare said the existing bulk supply lacks capacity even for already-zoned growth areas.
The panel ruled Delmore would need a permanent private water supply solution, as Watercare could not guarantee future connections. Watercare also stated it “fundamentally does not support” permanent private water or wastewater facilities for FUZ land.
Wastewater capacity posed a similar challenge. The developer proposed several options. Its preferred option was using the Army Bay plant (once upgraded), with an alternative of an on-site treatment system with 80 percent of wastewater trucked offsite. Watercare strongly opposed tankering, calling it disruptive, high-risk and unsustainable. The panel agreed that unless a permanent and acceptable wastewater solution was secured, the issue remained unresolved.
The site is subject to a Significant Ecological Area overlay and contains extensive native vegetation, wetlands and 39 streams. Potential habitat for threatened species was identified, and the Department of Conservation was cautiously supportive provided conditions were attached.
However, Auckland Council raised concerns that ecological surveys were incomplete and that long-term effects of urbanisation on flora and fauna had not been fully addressed. Council also questioned the proposed use of a wastewater irrigation field within a covenanted area.
The developer promised revegetation and offset planting, as well as a Residents’ Society to manage new ecological areas, but the panel doubted such a body could manage risks over the long term.
The applicant’s flood hazard assessment suggested risks would remain within existing channels. However, both NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport raised concerns about runoff and culvert adequacy. The panel found there were unresolved questions about overland flow paths and flood risk to the public.
While many stormwater issues could be managed by conditions, the panel said further investigation was required before that risk could be ruled out.
Council and the panel also identified significant gaps in the assessment of transport impacts. These included effects on Grand Drive and the State Highway 1 interchange, as well as uncertainties about the delivery of future upgrades such as the Milldale–Grand Drive connection.
Under the Fast-track Approvals Act, projects must demonstrate regional or national benefit. Vineways argued Delmore would deliver $292.9 million in GDP and create 2200 full-time jobs, while contributing to Auckland’s housing supply.
Council disputed these claims, saying the benefits were overstated and did not reach the threshold of regional significance. The panel agreed, noting that urbanisation of Upper Ōrewa is anticipated only after 2050, once prerequisite infrastructure is in place.
Ultimately, the panel concluded the project did not meet the FTAA threshold of regional benefit. It declined the associated consents, stating that even with conditions, many effects could not be appropriately mitigated.
