Levies tipped to spread Auckland's urban sprawl

Property developers warn of more urban sprawl if the Auckland Regional Council is allowed to introduce infrastructure levies for transport and other needs, on top of what local bodies already receive.

They claim young families may have to look further from the regional centre for affordable housing if another layer of development contributions pushes prices up further.

But the regional council says there is a limit to how much existing property owners, including those on fixed incomes such as superannuitants, should have to pay for new infrastructure made necessary by development pressures.

The Government has agreed to consider its plea for regional development contributions as part of a local authority funding project, after council officials suggested these could yield $6 million to $67 million a year.

They said in a presentation to Local Government Minister Mark Burton that this would be a "small but significant" contribution to the region's funding problems, which include a $710 million shortfall over 10 years for public transport alone.

But Property Council policy manager Daniel Newman says the annual yield was likely to be at the top end of the range, meaning buyers of new homes may be forced to pay too much for "the neglect of past civic leaders".

Mr Newman said the regional council proposed to hide the cost of development contributions by charging home-buyers through local bodies such as Manukau City.

Manukau plans to raise its development levy to about $6400 for each new residential unit. North Shore City faces a legal challenge for charges ranging from about $9500 to more than $20,000.

A group of developers have sought a judicial review and declaratory judgment from the High Court against these charges, saying that they are being invested in infrastructure such as the Northern Busway which will benefit existing and new residents.

Regional council transport policy chairman Joel Cayford said it was anomalous that local bodies could charge development contributions, but his organisation responsible for public transport and other infrastructure needs, could not.

If long-time residents on fixed incomes had to keep paying more because of new developments, they may be the ones forced to move out.