Key changes we proposed:
Other changes proposed
We are also proposing to make:
1. changes to water DCs at Fairton arising from the decision to add Fairton Township to the Ashburton water supply.
2. changes to comply with the Local Government Act 2002.
Please read our full consultation document for more details and the reasons why we are proposing these changes.
Further information
| Activity | 2021 DC/HUE (incl GST) | |
| Ashburton water supply DC | $840 | $1,401 |
| Ashburton water supply DC (with Fairton after cutover) | $840 | $1,404 |
| Ashburton wastewater | $3,637 | $2,625 |
| Fairton water supply DC | $1,911 | $1,835 |
| Fairton water supply DC (with Ashburton after cutover) | $1,911 | $1,404 |
| Hinds water supply DC | $1,400 | $1,260 |
| Methven water supply DC | $2,182 | $5,105 |
| Methven wastewater supply DC | $303 | $1,215 |
| Methven-Springfield water supply DC | $0 | $4,930 |
| Mount Somers water supply DC | $0 | $21,510 |
| Rakaia water supply DC | $0 | $0 |
| Rakaia wastewater supply DC | $107 | $0 |
| Whole of Ashburton District community infrastructure DC | $4,892 | $6,179 |
Methven-Springfield Water
Council proposes a DC for Methven-Springfield as it is now supplied treated water from the membrane filtration plant at Methven. Council invested around $9M in the new plant and reservoirs at Methven. This included over $1M in growth-related CAPEX.
The DC for Methven-Springfield does not include CAPEX related to main upgrades in Methven as these benefit Methven properties only. As Methven-Springfield is a closed scheme for stockwater purposes, the DC will only be triggered by applications for new houses, which are relatively uncommon in this area.
Mount Somers Water
Council is investing over $3M (growth CAPEX $910K) to build a membrane filtration plant at Mount Somers. This is a substantial capital investment for a relatively small community. The DC enables people joining the scheme to pay their share of the growth they will consume.
The draft policy proposes a change to how Council calculates development contributions on lower impact residential developments, such as retirement developments.
The existing Policy treats every new retirement unit as if it was a typical residential house. We treat every house as if it had an average occupancy of 2.5 persons. Each house and each retirement unit pays 1 HUE for water, wastewater and community infrastructure. Information from various sources shows that lower impact residential developments, like retirement developments have lower occupancy than our policy assumes. A typical retirement village has an average occupancy of around 1.6 people compared with the assumed average of 2.5 people in our policy. This equates to 0.64 HUE.
This approach better reflects good practice amongst Councils and the purpose and principles applying to development contributions.
A similar argument can be made for tiny homes or apartments, where the level of occupancy or the nature of the development will influence demand on the infrastructure.
We are proposing that all assessment calculations for lower impact residential development and non-residential development will be based on average occupancy rather than the maximum occupancy. This is consistent with the averaging approach applied to residential development.
We also propose that Council officers will consider other relevant evidence such as historic consumption figures (average and peak) from metered developments of comparable types. Officers will also consider data supplied by developers including, but not limited to, occupancy rates and typical annual consumption.
