Five houses per section? The real story is more complicated

Te Atatū Peninsula’s wastewater network is under pressure but developments exceeding the “five-house limit” are still being approved.

There has been considerable discussion in our community about housing intensification and the ability of Te Atatū Peninsula’s infrastructure to cope with further development. One of the strongest arguments made against further intensification has been the state of the wastewater network, our aging network is under pressure and there are frequent sewage overflows occurring.

Watercare has now formally classified much of the Peninsula as an area of limited wastewater capacity, which will supposedly limit future development. But information obtained directly from Watercare under the Official Information Act by Te Atatū local, Ben Gracewood, reveals that the situation is considerably more complicated than the often-repeated statement that Watercare is restricting development to “five houses per site”. 

What Watercare actually says

On 14 November 2024, Watercare announced wastewater capacity restrictions for the northern and western parts of the Peninsula due to limited capacity in the wastewater system. Watercare's public explanation says developments producing wastewater equivalent to up to five additional standard homes can proceed, while larger developments may be declined. That sounds relatively straightforward. However, an Official Information Act request has provided some important clarification. In response to Ben's request, Watercare confirmed in July 2026 that its current approach is assessed per individual lot, and allows a net increase of up to five Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUEs) per lot. That distinction is significant. If a property has one existing dwelling, Watercare may approve redevelopment to six dwellings; the original dwelling plus five additional DUEs.

And some developments go beyond even that

Ben's request also asked Watercare to explain developments that appeared to exceed the five-DUE limit.

Here are some examples of lots that go beyond the five-DUE limit

• At Ward Crescent, a development of seven DUEs replacing one existing dwelling was initially declined, but subsequently approved because Watercare was honouring an earlier approval obtained under different network-capacity conditions.

• At Taikata Road, eight DUEs were approved despite replacing one existing dwelling. Watercare's explanation was that the proposed development was not expected to have a significant impact on the local wastewater network.

• At Gill Ave, seven DUEs replacing one existing dwelling were also approved. Again, Watercare said the anticipated impact on the local network was minimal.

• At Dawnhaven Drive, Watercare confirmed that an applicant had previously received approval for 13 DUEs across two lots, before the capacity maps were released in November 2024. The applicant subsequently sought approval for 15 DUEs, but Watercare declined the additional two. The earlier 13-DUE approval remained in place

  
  

This raises an obvious question for the community, If much of the Peninsula has limited wastewater capacity, how is Watercare deciding which developments can proceed and which cannot?

The answer appears to be that the five-DUE figure is not an absolute prohibition. It is a network-management approach, with individual developments assessed according to their circumstances, previous approvals and expected impact on the network, with some developments being approved when assessed as not expected to have a significant impact on the local wastewater network.

Development and infrastructure must work together

On one hand, Auckland has a government-mandated requirement to accommodate more housing, on the other hand, planning permission does not magically create wastewater capacity. The Peninsula can have planning rules that allow more housing while Watercare simultaneously says the wastewater network has limited capacity; this is the tension that we are now in. 

The answer is not that development should stop altogether, nor is it that every townhouse development is a problem. But there needs to be legitimate consideration given to the health of our waterways in conjunction with our need for housing. Overflows are measurably increasing and the health of the awa is deteriorating, all the while intensification continues. Can infrastructure support the growth that current planning rules allow? and can residents have confidence that the decisions being made have the long-term interests of our community and the environment in mind?