Tauranga development needs $400m roads

An aerial of Te Tumu that is set to be developed into housing. Photo: SmartGrowth.

Tauranga's council could face a “substantive funding gap” for new roads aimed at unlocking much needed housing in the city's east.

The roads are key routes for Te Tumu, at the eastern end of Pāpāmoa, which is set to house 15,500 people when completed.

The greenfield development needs two transport corridors, at an estimated cost of $400m, which would extend The Boulevard and Te Okuroa Drive in Pāpāmoa.

If the funding can't be found, it could potentially add an additional $27,000 to the cost of each new house.

Speaking at a recent Tauranga City Council meeting, city planning and growth manager Andy Mead said the council started work on the business case for the roads four years ago.

In that time the way NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi funded arterial roads in greenfield sites had changed, he said.

Previously NZTA funded half the cost but their funding availability and policy had changed “substantively”, particularly in greenfield areas, said Mead.

“To the point where more or less they don't really sort of fund these roads anymore or if they do, they only fund a small portion … of a service.

“These transport corridors are very expensive in Te Tumu, circa $400 million. The current approach we have around funding from NZTA means that we have a substantive funding gap.”

A render of the council's preferred design for The Boulevard in Te Tumu. Image: Tauranga City Council.

Mead said they were seeking endorsement, not funding, for the Te Tumu roads at this stage because there was no confirmed timeframe for the development.

Housing was unlikely to be delivered in Te Tumu until 2040, once land development and civil works timeframes were considered.

The Boulevard's preferred option was to be the area’s public transport route with two dedicated bus lanes and two for traffic.

Te Okuroa Drive’s preferred option was a four lane road with a dual cycleway on one side and a shared path on the other.

Mead said they would be ‘limited access roads’ that didn’t have driveways off them, but would have intersections with local roads.

Commission chair Anne Tolley said the multi-modal transport options were important.

“Even if we just purchase the land and we don't get the funding because it's really hard and expensive to come back later on.”

Commission chair Anne Tolley said pursing multi-modal transport options was important. Photo: Alex Cairns/Bay of Plenty Times.

The commission wouldn’t want to see the roads narrowed and government policy would likely change, said Tolley.

Council strategy, growth and governance manager Christine Jones told Local Democracy Reporting if the council only received a 10 per cent subsidy of $40m, instead of half, the rest of the funding would need to be found elsewhere.

If this funding couldn’t be found externally it would need to be paid for by developers, said Jones.

This could result in the 6000 Te Tumu homes each costing an extra $27,000, she said.

NZTA Bay of Plenty and Waikato regional manager system design Jess Andrew said the National Land Transport Fund does not contribute to the cost of growth where a private developer is the primary beneficiary.

This has been made clear since December 2021, she said.

“This is because public investment should be targeted to delivering public benefit. The costs of growth are to be borne by local councils and the developers.”

Any works that added a “broader public benefit” would be eligible for funding, said Andrew.

The business case will go to NZTA for endorsement of the preferred options for the Te Tumu transport corridors.

LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.

10 comments

What?

Posted on 06-05-2024 18:12 | By Wundrin

If there was no development, there would be no need for roads. Surely those that choose to live there should be paying for their access, not the ratepayers of Matua, Greerton or the Mount...


Funding

Posted on 06-05-2024 19:21 | By Yadick

I'm sure Toll's could call on the grateful ratepayers to fund this shortfall. After all we fund everything else on our extraordinary savings and income.


Costs.

Posted on 06-05-2024 20:18 | By CliffK

All costs for any proposed developement, should be paid by those who want or use the developement. DO NOT EXPECT EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY FOR IT.


Insurance will be a problem

Posted on 07-05-2024 06:12 | By DaveTheCynic

Run that drone shot by some insurance companies before making any financial decisions.


@DaveTheCynic

Posted on 07-05-2024 07:51 | By Yadick

You actually raise a very good point. I'd love to see the development plans for that.


Free Ride

Posted on 07-05-2024 08:42 | By Alfa male

For years property developers have enjoyed a free ride with rate payers paying for the infrastructure cost of their developments. This is simply not sustainable. An extra $27,000 per home is not a large amount, but paid for by the rate payer means they are being subsidised by us at a rate of $27000 per house. Let those that want to make the profit, and those that want to come to live here pay their own way.


Enlightenment

Posted on 07-05-2024 10:10 | By scott

Coastal retreat is a strategic relocation of communities, infrastructure, and other activities from high-risk coastal areas to safer locations.....


Here it comes again…

Posted on 07-05-2024 13:23 | By Shadow1

and we all thought the local Iwi had stopped the subdivision.
Planning for Te Tumu has been going on for 20 years or so and it’s still not off the ground. It seems that it’s unlikely to happen before 2040. So why are we worrying about financing the roading now? Well, as the Commission have said, they have to secure the land (for the roads) before it is used for something else. This thought doesn’t make me want to support the project, too much can happen between now and 2040. So….. if the government wants to pay for the roads they should tell us. They have quite a lot on their plates at the moment so I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Finally, the Commission needs to mind its own business, which it won’t be in a couple of months.
Shadow1


I agree with Alpha male,

Posted on 07-05-2024 17:55 | By Shadow1

For years ratepayers have paid for downstream subdivisional infrastructure. Generally substantial amounts which they have funded by borrowing. The developers laugh all the way to the bank while ratepayers have to regain their money by charging a levy on each building permit. If the sections don’t sell, no money is collected. Well that has to stop. Developers need to gamble on the success of their projects. Council should only approve the subdivision if it meets subdivisional criteria. Their involvement should stop there.
Shadow1


Ironic

Posted on 09-05-2024 22:56 | By Inmediasres

Whilst I agree that new developments should pay their own way, I can't help but see the irony in all these sanctimonious comments.

None of you contributed to the road construction in your neighbourhoods either.....


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.