A masterclass in how to block progress

Otago Daily Times

13 hours ago

Dunedin is doing development all wrong, Lyndon Fairbairn writes.
I was born and raised in Dunedin. I am a passionate Dunedite.
I have travelled the world, lived overseas, and returned to raise my family here because I believe in this city. I'm a glass half full type of guy and Dunedin has a lot going for it; great people, a rich heritage, a strong sense of community and a great place to raise a family.
But it's also facing some serious challenges, and many of them are of our own making.
We're making headlines on housing for all the wrong reasons: cold, damp student flats that don't meet healthy home standards, doubling the development contribution rates that stifle progress, and a controversial soil removal policy that can cost developers up to $100,000 per site. Add to that a growing mountain of red tape, and it's no wonder people are questioning how committed our city really is to growth and progress.
I have been involved in both international and New Zealand-wide property development for more than 25 years. I've seen what happens when councils embrace change: cities grow, homes are built, and people thrive.
Unfortunately, Dunedin is falling behind. Once New Zealand's fourth-largest city, it's now often referred to as a regional centre and it shows.
Housing is a fundamental human need. Yet Dunedin has some of the poorest quality housing stock in the country. Many homes are well past their use-by date, and in our cold climate that means people are living in cold, damp homes and therefore spending more on power, maintenance, and medical bills.
We need new homes; warm, dry, and healthy homes. And we need more of them to meet the demands of a growing population.
Here's the reality: building in Dunedin costs more than it does in other cities and much of this increased cost is due to excessive red tape. It's around $100,000 more expensive per build than in Christchurch. And because supply is so constrained, rents have surged.
A two-bedroom townhouse in Christchurch currently rents for around $450 a week. In Dunedin, you'll pay $650 for a similar place. That's a huge gap. Imagine a tenant having an extra $200pw in their back pocket. Saving for a house deposit and or spending at cafes, restaurants and retail. What a boost.
Look at Christchurch. They were hit hard by the earthquakes, but they stood up, faced the challenge, and rebuilt on a fault line, no less. Their housing supply, infrastructure, and city planning are back on point. It's now one of the most attractive places to live in New Zealand.
Why? Because their council rolled up its sleeves and got to work. Meanwhile, here in Dunedin? It's been over 10 years since the South Dunedin floods, and we've barely touched the core infrastructure issues. Instead of investing, we've doubled down on fear, scaring off residents and developers alike.
Our city has some of the lowest average incomes in the country, but some of the highest rents. The result? Young people pack up and leave the minute they graduate.
We can't hold on to our own talent because we have cold, damp, expensive homes and make it too hard to live here. We're pricing people out and pushing our talented young people to cities with better opportunities and lower costs.
We need a council that understands this bigger picture. Building and development creates jobs, supports small business, and brings in outside investment.
Developers are being forced to remove soil at an enormous cost, up to $100,000 per site and the process requires both DCC and ORC consents. One developer has spent over $300,000 on soil removal on 4 or 5 homes. That's more red tape, more delays, and more projects stalled before they even begin.
One councillor sitting across from me proudly claimed they were ''leading the industry''. That was the moment I knew the conversation was over. Because this isn't leadership, it's sabotage. Forcing homeowners and developers to spend up to $100,000 to remove soil that national health authorities deem safe isn't protecting Dunedin, it's decimating it.
If the council truly believes this is a serious public health risk, then why aren't they treating it like one? Why haven't they issued a formal public health warning to all residents? And if they're so concerned about contamination, why isn't the council removing soil from its own properties, local sports fields, playgrounds, kerbs, and reserves?
Almost all urban soils will contain some traces of lead. That's what happens after decades of using leaded petrol and lead-base paint: it is not unique to Dunedin. If we're going to treat every slightly elevated reading as a hazard, then we're talking about a city-wide remediation effort that could easily top $1 billion.
And somehow, we're the only council in New Zealand who thinks this is the right way forward.
The truth is, this appears to be a selective enforcement of policy, one that unfairly targets development, not public health. Is it only dangerous when a developer tries to build a home? Has there been any studies that link lead soil health issues to occupants of new-build homes? Or renovated extensions to a home? I think that's the underlying big question: Do we actually have a health issue here? The Ministry of Health doesn't think so.
I've got a simple solution: pause the soil removal policy. Not tomorrow, not next year, but right now. Before another dollar is wasted or another project abandoned, let's take a breath and get some clarity.
We need independent scientific advice to confirm whether there's truly a public health issue here. If there is, let's treat it seriously and apply it consistently across New Zealand and all properties not just new developments.
Until we have that science and that clarity, this policy has no business holding our city back.
In addition, the recent doubling of development contributions by the DCC means many projects in Dunedin are no longer economically viable. Developers are already looking elsewhere and have been invited by more forward-thinking councils who understand the long-term benefits of building.
We have a government calling for the removal of red tape. Yet here in Dunedin, we're adding more hurdles. more compliance, more costs, more hoops to jump through and longer processing times. All in a city that desperately needs housing, jobs, and growth. It's frustrating, short-sighted, and frankly damaging. Without change, Dunedin risks falling further behind.
The bottom line? Dunedin is making itself unattractive to invest in. The numbers don't stack up. The rules don't make sense. And the leadership is missing in action. We're not competing, we're retreating.
There is still time to turn things around, but we need leadership that prioritises housing, cuts unnecessary barriers, and sees development not as a threat but as an opportunity for Dunedin's future.
• Lyndon Fairbairn is a Dunedin developer.