sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

David Hargreaves crunches the building consents numbers - particularly for Auckland - and wonders whether this is as good as it gets or whether activity can go to a higher level still

David Hargreaves crunches the building consents numbers - particularly for Auckland - and wonders whether this is as good as it gets or whether activity can go to a higher level still

By David Hargreaves

Well, with Auckland building consents figures having hit the magic 12,000 on an annualised basis, we are now at the stage of finding out whether this can be as good as it gets - or can the construction industry gear up and take us further?

That's a pertinent question because Auckland in particular needs at least for a while to be producing more than 12,000 a year, since this figure will only really match - and probably not quite - the demand stemming from Auckland's fast rising population.

A couple of years of even 20,000+ dwelling units a year wouldn't go amiss, I think, in terms of starting to play catch up - depending on what happens with Auckland's rate of population growth and whether there's any reversal of the recent strong immigration.

The May consents figures out last week were strong around the country but particularly so in Auckland.

I've done a bit of a crunch with some of the figures to try to show where we are at the moment relative to historically in terms of building activity, particularly in the largest city.

Stats NZ has been providing a regional breakdown of consents figures since 1991. 

In that time Auckland's maximum building activity has come in at just a bit over 12,000 a year.

That's where were are again now as the table below breaking down 12-month periods to May back to the last peak levels of activity in 2002 shows.

Building consents for dwelling units by region (Annual-May)
Year Auckland  All NZ
2002 9,296 22,309
2003 12,200 28,549
2004 12,459 32,193
2005 10,126 28,762
2006 7,357 25,698
2007 6,623 25,958
2008 6,096 24,455
2009 3,390 14,455
2010 3,525 15,894
2011 3,447 13,917
2012 4,202 15,132
2013 5,102 18,521
2014 6,779 22,853
2015 8,195 25,114
2016 9,434 28,387
2017 10,379 30,645
2018 12,274 32,628

So, both Auckland and New Zealand as a whole are now running at historically high levels. 

But of course in the past Auckland's population was not growing like it has in the past few years.

So a faster rate of building is definitely now warranted - particularly when you look back at the under-building that went on after the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.

I would be a little bit cautious about the May building consents figures.

As far as Auckland is concerned, the May figures - particularly in respect to stand alone houses - showed a very sharp jump.

We may need to see June's figures before deciding if perhaps there was some distortion through the timing of Easter in the latest figures. 

Undoubtedly though as the below graph from Stats NZ shows, the trend is up for Auckland and has been in the past few months after looking as though it was flatlining a little late last year and earlier this year.

In terms of year-to date figures, Auckland has consented 5,272 dwelling units in the five months to the end of May. That compares with figures of 3,865 up to May 2017 and 3,512 for the five months to May 2016.

The figures so far for 2018 do then suggest that we could be on track for a record number of new dwelling unit consents in Auckland this year - certainly since Stats NZ started breaking down the figures in 1991.

This is how the recent calendar year consents figures have looked for Auckland.

Auckland  dwelling units Building consents  (Annual-Dec)
Year Number
2002 12,182
2003 11,307
2004 12,115
2005 7,707
2006 7,210
2007 6,110
2008 4,308
2009 3,475
2010 3,603
2011 3,772
2012 4,582
2013 6,310
2014 7,632
2015 9,251
2016 10,026
2017 10,867

You can extrapolate from the above figures that in 2016 the last seven months of the year saw a bit over 6,000 consents for Auckland, while last year about 7,000 were consented in the last seven months.

So, even if the last seven months of 2018 only match the last seven months of 2017 then this calendar year is going to well and truly break the 12,000 and likely will be a record high since the breakdown of figures was commenced by Stats NZ in 1991.

What comes next then is the big test. 

How much higher, if at all, can those figures be pushed?

The KiwiBuild initiative should help, though clearly, getting traction for that has proved harder than this Government was foreseeing. And there remains the question of how much genuinely 'new' activity Kiwibuild might promote and how much will simply replace existing private sector building initiatives.

I think if you look closely at the figures, particularly from the trough of activity back in 2009, the clear thing that comes to mind is just how long - far too long, I would say - the rubber band has taken to wind up and get the industry producing big volumes of houses.

We are talking nearly 10 years from the pit of the GFC to now a point at which the activity is close to - but arguably not quite - keeping up with Auckland's rate of population growth. And keeping up with the population growth won't be enough. We need some serious catch up.

What lessons can we be learning from this - and from the very, very long time it has taken to significantly increase building activity?

These figures show you that the industry has not been responsive enough to demand in a timely fashion. It's been like an oil tanker turning around.

Sure, right now the emphasis has got to be on removing the existing shortage of housing, particularly in Auckland.

Avoiding in future

But parallel with this, I think we need to be thinking seriously about how such a situation can be avoided in future.

We need as a nation to find a way of both scaling up and scaling down housing construction in a timely fashion. 

Having a nearly 10-year timeframe in terms of a trough in activity to now a new peak is just way too long.

KiwiBuild can't be the beginning and the end in terms of the Government's role in ensuring enough housing.

Ideally it would be good to see targets set for ongoing numbers of houses to be built annually - and with the ability to adjust the targets according to population demands.

Retain state involvement

It can't just be left to the private sector. How the Government does ensure a minimum number of houses is built every year is certainly problematic. But we do need to find a way. 

Whether there is an ongoing, KiwiBuild facility/mechanism with production that can be scaled up or down according to requirements is maybe something that could be considered. The idea could be that if the pace of private sector development is for whatever reason flagging, the Government (AKA the taxpayer) can step in and step up housing production. Would it cost us too much? Well, there's a social price to pay for not having people properly housed. We might just have to find a way to afford it.

Maybe that all sounds like putting the cart before the horse given we haven't fixed the current housing shortage yet. But the point is, there's no reason why future solutions could not be looked at in tandem with fixing the present problem.

If we just stick a sticking plaster over the housing problem now then the problem will re-emerge again later.

As a nation we would be selling ourselves short if we allowed that to happen. 

This should be the last time

Let the current shortage and housing crisis be the last time we have such a problem, that's what I say.

For now the building activity figures need to be watched closely to see whether the industry can be geared up further. 

If the consents figures do start to lag again in coming months we will know that - KiwiBuild or no KiwiBuild - more action is needed.

Nobody is suggesting these issues are easy. But they do need to be tackled head on. That's something we've not done in the recent past and we are now paying the social price.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

10 Comments

It's not a housing crisis, it's a population crisis.

But we're never going to have that debate.......

Up
0

Correct , its not a housing crisis ...........it a symptom of market failure .

And all manner of innocent people are being blamed .......... Investors , landlords , foreign Chinese buyers , speculators , property developers , when these market players are simply responding to the market

Its really time for introspection on a number of issues :-

The RMA
Auckland Council charges (such as $20,000 for a water meter connection )
Auckland Council DC Levies
Auckland Council restricting the growth of the city outside current limits creating a land shortage
Auckland Council lack of commercial urgency
The Beehive on immigration
The Beehive on doing nothing to bring down costs of building
The Beehive on thinking they can house everyone in an "affordable ' home......... they cant
The Beehive on making promises they can never fulfill ( simply on a logistics basis )
The Beehive on making promises they cannot afford ( financially)
The Beehive on creating massive housing expectations , and not just low income earners ............ now even property developers are hoping for a free -ride.

Its shows the naivety of the new administration , who over-promised and are not just under-delivering , they are simply delivering nothing whatsoever

Up
0

I want to know where developers are getting the finance to build all these consented units given that the banks have largely turned off the tap. Particularly the Australian banks since the Sydney and Melbourne apartment financing issues arose over there.

Kiwibuild might help secure financing, but there are still issues. Phil Twyford recently fronted to property investors and developers at a conference where this was raised -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPOH7rbfyiU&feature=youtu.be

Up
0

We will never catch up on the shortfall as consenting levels cannot go any higher. Council just does not have the staff to process more. Ive had a consent in for two months and the council has not even started looking at it.

At this rate its going to be free with all the discounts for missing 20 days.

Good luck to the government getting Kiwibuild underway.

Up
0

At this rate its going to be free with all the discounts for missing 20 days.

Feel for you. The discount for going over time stops at 50% though, so once they are 50 days over the Council doesn't need to worry about it anymore :)

Up
0

Hence my Modest Proposal that Councils be charged the IRD UOMI on the project value the moment they drag the paperwork over the 20 days....and that be remitted straight back to the applicant to compensate for opportunity cost while everything sits in the Brown Cardies In-tray.

Up
0

Having a nearly 10-year timeframe in terms of a trough in activity to now a new peak is just way too long.

As a nation NZ apart from Auckland only had a 7 year trough in activity. As a nation we do not need to anything much. As a nation we are awesome.

Auckland had a 11 year trough, which screwed up the average. Auckland Council is terrible.

Up
0

This is a comment I saw the other day on social media that sums up our bloated building process. I'm pretty sure some actuary is both quicker and more thorough at finding the true risk factors than some council bureaucrat that gets paid per kg of paperwork.
If Twyford really wants to solve the problem you have to get rid of all the snouts: Councils, land bankers, Fletchers, BRANZ - none of these guys should go anywhere near KiwiBuild.

I'm an engineer that worked in Canada. In Canada, I could approve almost anything. I was tasked with keeping my own records and might be subject to an audit from my association once in a while (if there was a complaint against me, or randomly every ~7-10 years). Councils more or less stayed out of my work. If something went wrong, I was personally accountable, I couldnt legally hide behind a corporation.

Here in NZ, I have to present all of my work neatly documented to council for approval. Moreover, if there are quick changes to be made on site, I have to fully document them and propose them to council for approval. All of this has to go through the proper channels at council and be approved. Council doesnt grant approvals easily. And often, the council staff reviewing my work don't know anything about engineering. But, I have much less liability, as council more or less carries it all.

It's incredibly frustrating and disempowering. Even worse, projects take about twice as long here to carry out. hourly fees are roughly the same. Guess who pays for it all?

And in the end, council holds everything up here, to review it all, even though they don't know what they are reviewing. The person paying for the project has to fund all of this impotent bureaucracy, and when shit hits the fan, the taxpayer pays for all the screwups.

I think the entire system here needs an overhaul. Let the industry self regulate, but also force the liability onto the private sector. Force the businesses to carry functional insurance, force engineers to sign off on things personally, rather than behind a company that can be easily shut down. Let the professionals do their work, and make them stand behind it.

Up
0

Yes - but look at the numbers - look at the trend - look at the drivers.

There is going to be change

And this is going to make a difference.

Up
0

Some good thoughts there David but there is more to the story.
A brief study of the stats indicates something significant is happening up there that no one seems to be talking about. Why are the average values dropping. Just look at these figures.
I think it indicates that lots more small apartments are coming to market.

Auckland residential building activity.

Month number of consents Average AKL consent value Average NZ Val.
Jan-18 718 $420,612.00 $401,350.00
Feb-18 779 $442,875.00 $399,253.00
Mar-18 1082 $390,018.00 $367,054.00
Apr-18 1163 $349,097.00 $348,845.00
May-18 1530 $340,522.00 $350,748.00

Up
0