Image source: FMT
Proposed legislation aimed at expediting infrastructure projects has raised significant concerns among local authorities, insurers, and environmental experts over the potential risks posed to flood-prone land and communities. The Fast-Track Approvals Bill, designed to streamline consenting processes for developments deemed to have national or regional significance, has been met with widespread warnings that it could inadvertently place thousands of future homeowners in high-risk flood areas.
Bypassing Safeguards and Local Councils
One of the core criticisms of the bill is its capacity to bypass the traditional multi-layered consenting process. Traditionally, development projects undergo thorough hazard assessments and local council scrutiny to ensure they are safe and environmentally sustainable. However, under the proposed bill, projects such as Auckland’s large-scale Sunfield development in flood-prone Ardmore would go before an expert panel for approval, bypassing Auckland Council’s input.
Auckland Councillor Richard Hills expressed frustration at the limited role councils would play under the new legislation. “Some of that [Sunfield] land has a lot of flood risk and we have no way to have a say through the fast-track”, Hills told Nine to Noon last week, adding that while infrastructure growth is essential for Auckland, it should not come at the expense of resident safety. Hills and other council members point to their recent experiences managing 2023’s extreme weather events, which led to the buyout of 900 homes in Auckland after they were deemed unsafe due to flood damage. The council asserts that these experiences provide invaluable insight into managing flood risk that the bill fails to account for.
Insurance Sector Warns of Costly Risks
The Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) has also voiced significant concerns about the bill’s handling of natural hazard risks, particularly for areas increasingly vulnerable to climate change impacts. ICNZ chief executive Kris Faafoi highlighted the urgency of more resilient infrastructure planning, citing the $3.8 billion cost of claims from extreme weather events in 2023 as a wake-up call. “Where the risk becomes too high, insurance may not be affordable or available which has an impact on property values and the housing market and puts pressure on the government to invest in protection or compensate owners,” Faafoi stated. He warned that allowing construction on high-risk land could burden taxpayers and inflate property values, potentially driving future government expenditure on emergency response and compensation.
ICNZ’s submission to the Environment Select Committee recommends a stronger emphasis on natural hazard risk assessment, urging amendments to the bill to allow for project rejections if natural hazard risks are too high. Faafoi explained, “By prioritising and embedding resilience in decision-making processes, New Zealand can mitigate the adverse impacts of natural hazards and safeguard the well-being of its communities.”
Environmental Experts Sound Alarm on “Disaster-Prone” Projects
Environmental and engineering experts have also expressed fears that the bill’s “singular focus” on development speed may downplay the risks associated with building on floodplains. Massey University’s Professor Bruce Glavovic, an expert in natural hazard planning, described the bill as a “recipe for disaster,” noting that it could worsen the impact of “climate change-compounded extreme weather” on vulnerable communities. “You need a regulatory framework and the tools that local government not only can, but must say no to what I would describe as dumb greenfield development. In other words, do not put people in harm’s way,” Glavovic said.
The Rivers Group, comprising engineers, hydrologists, and scientists, echoed these sentiments, criticising the bill’s limited provisions for rejecting hazardous projects. Richard Measures, chair of the Rivers Group, pointed out that developers may exploit loopholes to push projects through in high-risk zones, risking future property damage and loss of life.
Government Ministers Hold Discretionary Power
The bill designates three ministers—responsible for transport, infrastructure, and regional development—as overseers with the authority to approve or deny projects recommended by the expert panel. Critics worry that this structure could foster a development-first mindset that overrides environmental and community safety considerations. While ministers can decline applications on various grounds, the ICNZ and local authorities argue that the bill lacks robust criteria to prevent approvals in areas exposed to significant flood risk.
Climate Considerations Underplayed
Critics have also questioned the bill’s limited provisions on climate resilience, which some argue pay only “lip service” to the realities of climate change. Tom Kay of Forest and Bird warned that certain adaptive solutions, like extensive flood walls, could exacerbate flood risks rather than mitigate them, particularly in coastal areas. He cited the example of a proposed flood-wall project in Westport, which he described as creating a “bathtub” effect.
Local councils across New Zealand, especially those in areas hard-hit by natural disasters like Cyclone Gabrielle, are urging lawmakers to reconsider how the bill integrates climate risks. Without stronger provisions, they argue, the bill risks facilitating developments that may be economically viable but socially and environmentally perilous.
Balancing Development and Safety
Proponents of the Fast-Track Approvals Bill argue it is a necessary step to address New Zealand’s urgent infrastructure needs. Yet the strong opposition from councils, insurers, and environmental groups reflects deep-seated fears that the bill may sacrifice safety in its quest to expedite housing and other critical projects. As hearings continue in Parliament, stakeholders call for revisions that would enhance council involvement, strengthen natural hazard criteria, and embed climate resilience into the fast-tracking process.