The Dunedin City Council’s "overly risk-averse" approach to lead paint in soils added $200,000 to the cost of a six-unit new build in the city, a group representing developers says.
In a publicly released letter, the group is now calling on the government to intervene.
The 10-page letter, signed by Terramark, TL Survey Services and Patersons and addressed to Housing Minister Chris Bishop, lays out a litany of complaints about the city council.
"DCC are concerned that historic use of lead-based paints on residential properties categorises them as ‘potentially contaminated’," the letter says.
"We consider the DCC’s application of the [national environment standards] for inorganic lead in soils is inappropriate, overly risk-averse and adds unjustified complexity, delays and costs to new housing projects."
The letter also included a cost breakdown from two Terramark clients who had recently developed near affected land.
It said the total cost of dealing with the lead in soil was $206,472 for a development of six two-bedroom units, while the cost to develop two sites for a new build comprising 18 units was $302,000 for lead remediation.
"Development actually reduces the potential contamination pathways. Doing nothing ensures the risk to human health remains higher — entirely the opposite of what the national environment standard is trying to achieve."
The letter said the group had examples of homeowners terminating plans for minor house extensions once they discovered the potential cost and delays due to the DCC’s interpretation of the national environmental standards.
Terramark resource management planner Darryl Sycamore told the Otago Daily Times the three firms were compelled to write the letter out of "sheer frustration".
"The council is over-interpreting the rules. It’s impacting development, and it’s pushing people who are developers to move to other regions."
The firms’ concerns were echoed by consultant environmental scientist Andrew Nichols, of Dunedin, who told the Otago Daily Times the city council should change its approach.
He said the actual documented risks were from inhaling lead in petrol and from children chewing toys with lead paint — neither of which were issues today, let alone related to lead in soils.
"This strict interpretation of HAIL [Hazardous Activities and Industries List] obligations as it applies to residential activities is great for me and others as contaminated-land professionals," Mr Nichols said.
"But is an absurdity; a solution created for a problem that doesn’t exist in residential development. It must change," he said.
The firms’ letter calls on Mr Bishop, who is also minister for the Resource Management Act, to intervene to establish a nationally consistent approach to the implementation of the national environmental standards.
"In particular, we respectfully request the minister advise the DCC that their current implementation is flawed and to cease that practice without delay."
Mr Bishop told the Otago Daily Times he had received the letter.
"Councils interpret and regulate the standards based on their local context. While I am primarily responsible for the RMA, councils are responsible for its day-to-day implementation. I encourage developers to work directly with the council."
Mr Bishop said new legislation would be introduced to Parliament later this year to replace the RMA.
Dunedin City Council acting general manager customer and regulatory Paul Henderson said councils received updated guidance from the Ministry for the Environment, as well as the findings of an independent review by Stantec.
"It says homes and other structures built prior to 1945 could be potential or unverified HAIL sites, due to the use of lead-based paint.
"This is because lead can, over time, find its way into soil surrounding such buildings, creating a potential risk to human health.
"Only a small number of pre-1945 painted wooden or roughcast houses are demolished each year in Dunedin, and we continue to assess the impact in our city as being minor."
While he acknowledged "a small number of developments" were likely to face additional costs as a result, he said they would not be of the order suggested, and "we didn’t expect the new approach will have a significant impact on homeowners or development in Dunedin".
