09/08/2026
Could opposition to housing projects under the Fast-track Act be the issue that brings about a change of government? It’s a tight election, and it won’t take much.
More than 2 million people have visited our page since Wolfbrook purchased Pegasus Golf Course. The level of support we have received has been overwhelming, but we are just one of many communities across New Zealand facing unwanted housing developments in inappropriate places.
The number of media articles and news items about unwanted housing developments has been huge and is only growing.
So far, only one party has made a formal statement on the issue: The Opportunity Party. We challenge the other political parties to make their positions clear. What changes would they make to the Fast-track Act to protect communities from developments that bypass the normal planning process?
Our view is that there is no reason to remove fast-track as an option for housing. If the intention is to speed up the delivery of much-needed housing, then fast-track could continue to be available for developments within areas that have already been identified and designated for growth through the proper district planning process. What we object to is using the legislation to override those planning decisions and allow development to occur in places that councils and communities have identified as unsuitable for that level of growth.
Communities are becoming increasingly angry at the government’s inaction while developers use the Fast-track Act as an opportunity to bypass district planning, purchase cheaper land and propose large housing developments in locations where they were never intended to go. The developers may make the commercial decision to build there, but it is the surrounding communities that will ultimately have to deal with the consequences.
How do we know this is becoming a much bigger issue? Because these communities are talking to each other. We are sharing information, comparing experiences and looking at what we can do to support one another. What might once have looked like isolated local disputes are increasingly being recognised as part of a much broader problem with the way the Fast-track Act is being used.
This land grab is not what the Fast-track Act was sold to us as.
Take the Pegasus and Ohoka housing development proposals. The housing being proposed is simply not needed. Our council has already planned for housing provision for the next 30 years and has identified land that is suitable for that growth. If the required housing capacity already exists in areas that have been planned for development, what public benefit is there in using the Fast-track Act to move that development somewhere else?
If the Pegasus and Ohoka developments are approved, they will not provide housing that the district has somehow failed to plan for. They will move where people live from areas that have been identified as suitable for growth into areas that will not cope with that level of development. The consequences will be carried by the people already living there, by ratepayers who will ultimately fund infrastructure upgrades, and by the wider environment.
And for what? If the housing is already catered for elsewhere, the public benefit becomes very difficult to see. The communities do not benefit, the wider economy does not benefit, and the environment does not benefit. Even the subcontractors doing the work won't benefit, because the number of houses being built doesn't increase - only where they are located changes. The only obvious beneficiary is the developer.
This is why political parties need to take this issue seriously. It is no longer just about one golf course, one development or one group of residents objecting to change. Communities are talking to each other. We are seeing that the Fast-track Act is being used by developers to bypass the planning decisions that communities and councils have spent years making, and the government is seeing this and doing nothing.
The election is close enough that this could matter. We are asking every political party to tell voters what they would actually change.
Would you stop fast-track for housing where that housing is not consistent with district plans and when the councils have already identified a sufficient level of growth areas?
This could be the issue that changes an election, and every political party has a chance right now to show us where you stand.
