27/03/2026
Why some growth costs Tasman twice as much - and what that means for your rates
I’ve been doing some digging into the numbers behind our Annual Plan, and one thing has become clear: not all growth costs the same - and those choices are shaping rates and debt in ways that aren’t always visible.
Many Tasman residents are rightly concerned about rising rates and debt in this year’s draft Annual Plan. It’s natural to assume that the solution is to slash council operational costs. But the reality is that even significant operational savings often pale in comparison with the costs associated with different forms of growth.
Tasman’s rates and debt trajectory started to bend upwards around 2016, then accelerated further after 2020. This roughly coincides with major projects such as the Waimea Dam funding, Motueka wastewater and stormwater upgrades, and the development of Richmond West - a new greenfield area of roughly 1,200 dwellings - and the infrastructure required to support it.
Because projects are spread across different budgets and years, it has been difficult to obtain a single consolidated figure for the total cost of infrastructure for Richmond West during recent Annual Plan discussions. Nevertheless, using publicly available information and reasonable assumptions, the overall scale is clear.
Estimates suggest that total infrastructure investment associated with Richmond West may be well over $100 million - potentially approaching $200 million - once both council and developer-funded works are considered, including roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, and community facilities. Private developers would have funded a significant proportion of these costs upfront, primarily for roads, kerbs, and pipes within the subdivision, while Council funds much of the wider infrastructure network. However, Council ultimately assumes responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and renewal of all these assets, creating long-term costs for ratepayers.
Councils typically need to spend around 1–2% of the value of their infrastructure assets each year on maintenance and renewal. Using standard depreciation and maintenance assumptions, the annual long-term cost to the district for renewing and maintaining Richmond West will likely run in the millions of dollars every year for decades.
By comparison, Nelson’s Bridge to Better infrastructure upgrade project is enabling almost the same number of dwellings for roughly $78 million, funded partly through central government. Private developers would contribute relatively little because much of the underlying network already exists. Ongoing maintenance and renewal costs for these dwellings will be far lower than Richmond West, and when accounting for adjustments for pre-existing infrastructure, the total future costs per dwelling in this urban renewal project could potentially be as low as around half per dwelling compared with Richmond West. This aligns with findings from work underpinning the Auckland Plan, as well as international research, which consistently shows that greenfield infrastructure is usually more expensive, and in some cases can cost around twice as much per dwelling as upgrading existing urban areas.
In addition, Richmond West along with greenfield developments in Mapua, Moutere and other parts of the region contributed to the need for significant improvements to State Highway 6: many will argue that central government’s planned investment of up to $1.4 billion for just 4 km of highway isn’t a local government cost. That is true - but it’s important to recognise that this spending will ultimately be borne by taxpayers and may have been reduced or deferred under a different growth pattern. In other words, local growth decisions are influencing infrastructure investment at both the council and national level.
Our region needs to be very deliberate in how we sequence and fund new infrastructure. When large-scale greenfield developments are pursued aggressively, they shift the long-term financial burden onto the council - and ultimately onto ratepayers. By comparison, the operational savings identified in this year’s Annual Plan discussions were measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars, while growth-related infrastructure is measured in tens or hundreds of millions.
The upcoming Long Term Plan is an opportunity to take these lessons into account and correct our approach to growth. Council has already agreed to reduce growth projections - a key assumption driving the Long Term Plan - from high to medium. This shift allows a higher proportion of growth to be accommodated through more efficient urban intensification, and it gives us the option to scale back or pause expensive greenfield infrastructure investment. In practical terms, that could mean delaying tens of millions of dollars in new roads, water, and stormwater projects - money that would otherwise be locked into long-term debt or higher rates.
There are also lessons about transparency and governance. For much of the Annual Plan process, council members have often been presented only with aggregated figures for three waters and capital projects, while much of the debate focused on a small number of relatively minor community facility projects. That makes it impossible to prioritise between renewal, maintenance, and growth.
For example, only by reviewing the Richmond West infrastructure estimates and benchmarking these against Nelson’s urban renewal project has it become clear how much some growth projects contribute to future rates and debt obligations compared to others. While the rates revenue from a similar number of dwellings is broadly the same between Richmond West and intensification in Nelson, the costs are significantly different. Over time, even small differences in infrastructure costs per dwelling translate into millions of dollars in additional renewal costs every year.
I hope that in the future better data and evidence - particularly as we develop the Long Term Plan - will allow elected members and the community to make more informed decisions about which projects should proceed, and at what pace. In the end, managing rates and debt responsibly is about more than short-term savings. It’s about understanding the long-term commitments we are making through growth, and making strategic choices that balance fiscal sustainability with the housing, transport, and community needs of our district.
By shifting focus from new greenfield projects to well-designed urban intensification and more deliberate prioritisation, Tasman can deliver much needed housing diversity while managing rates and debt more sustainably. The upcoming Long Term Plan offers a rare opportunity to do that. Residents should expect the Council to be transparent about the trade-offs, and to give clear evidence of the costs associated with different forms of growth.
That is the only way to ensure that we don’t just “kick the can down the road,” but make choices that avoid locking future ratepayers into higher costs, and keep Tasman resilient and financially sustainable in the long run.
These are exactly the kinds of trade-offs we need to be discussing openly as we head into the Long Term Plan. If you have a view on rates, debt, and growth - make sure you submit.
Happy to hear people’s thoughts.
