Op-Ed: Let's stop building in dumb places

New Zealand needs more homes, fast. But solving the shortage shouldn't mean trading one problem for another. Every month, developments are being consented in areas known to be prone to flooding. These decisions aren’t fixing the housing crisis and just might be setting up the next one.

In Auckland, more than 4,000 homes have been consented in floodplains since the 2023 storms. One flood damaged home is set to be replaced with seven new townhouses on land deemed unsafe for vulnerable people and vehicles. The homes will be put on stilts to keep the floors dry, but that won’t stop the street being completely submerged after heavy rain, potentially trapping families inside.

It’s a pattern repeating across Aotearoa. Large developments are being considered in high-risk parts of Napier and Canterbury - places with painful memories of natural disasters.

So why aren’t we doing better?

Short-term thinking, long-term cost

After Cyclone Gabrielle, we saw the aftermath playing out in the news - homes gutted, orchards destroyed, livelihoods gone. And yet we continue to approve developments in hazard zones. We’re not learning from the past. We’re repeating it, with even more at stake.

When houses are built in harm’s way, nature will eventually have the final word. Homeowners have historically relied on the government or insurers to step in, but if we keep building homes that we know are going to flood, insurance premiums will rise, and in some areas, coverage risks disappearing altogether. Without insurance, buying and selling a home isn’t possible for most people, and councils and government have made it clear they can’t afford to continue rebuilding communities impacted by weather events over the long term. 

Suncorp New Zealand Executive General Manager Business, Sacha Cowlrick

Growth-tinted glasses

While some new housing developments tick the boxes for growth, intensification, and affordability, we need to expand the definition of success in these projects. It’s not just about how many homes we build - it’s also about whether they’ll be safe in ten, twenty, and fifty years’ time. A home built quickly and cheaply in a flood zone is not affordable. The long-term cost of repeated repairs, stress and disruption must be factored in.

Right now, councils are expected to consider natural hazard risks when reviewing consents. But it seems too often those risks are overridden by the pressure to deliver more housing. A stronger national framework would help. The proposed National Policy Statement on Natural Hazards is a step toward giving councils clarity, courage and consistency when it comes to protecting people from foreseeable harm.

For most people, a council consent is the only signal they get that a home is in a safe location. They don’t expect a brand-new property to flood let alone every few years. They shouldn’t have to.

Yes, smarter architecture will be part of the solution. But infrastructure matters too. You can raise a house, but if you don’t raise the road, the stormwater network or the evacuation route, the only way in and out goes underwater, the house may stay dry - but the people inside may not be safe.

We need to plan with a 50-year view, not a five-year one. That means being honest about risk and enabling people to make informed decisions. Because once a home is built in the wrong place, the risk is locked in and so is the cost, not just for the owner, but for all of us.

A turning point

It’s time to course-correct and build a system that genuinely protects people and places.

The climate has changed. The rules need to change with it. We can’t prevent every storm, but we can prevent those storms from becoming disasters of our own making. And we owe that to every family looking for a safe place to call home - not just today, but in the decades to come.