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

More than 16,000 new homes built in Auckland in 12 months to September. Auckland Council corrects its Code Compliance Certificate figures for July and August

More than 16,000 new homes built in Auckland in 12 months to September. Auckland Council corrects its Code Compliance Certificate figures for July and August

Construction of new homes is booming in in Auckland with the number of new dwellings completed in the third quarter of the year up by nearly 50% compared to the same period of last year.

Auckland Council issued 5195 Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) for new dwellings in the three months to the end of September, up 47% compared to the 3534 CCCs issued in the same period of last year.

The latest figures will be a relief to many who watch the Auckland housing market after Auckland Council incorrectly reported its CCC figures for July and August, showing a sharp downturn in the number of dwellings being completed.

The Council's original figures showed there were 697 CCCs issued for new dwellings in July this year and 656 in August, compared to 1118 and 1244 respectively in July and August last year.

Auckland Council now says those figures were wrong.

"The mistake was caused by an accounting error," Auckland Council said in a statement to

"Sincere apologies to those who have used incorrect data.

"Process changes to ensure an error like this can't happen again are already underway."

The Council's revised figures show that 1884 CCCs were issued for new dwellings in July and 1574 in August, which with the 1737 issued in September gives a combined total of 5195 for the third quarter.

In the 12 months to the end of September 16,014 new dwellings were completed in Auckland.

That total would have been even higher were it not for the effects of the pandemic lockdown in the second quarter of this year, which caused delays for many projects.

The graph below shows the monthly dwelling completions in Auckland over the last two years.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

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.


Quantity of new-builds is one issue...... Quality is another.

Just how well built are all these new-builds?



Forgot to switch accounts?
Quality can't be much worse than the current stock of mouldy, leaky, million dollar shitholes.

More than a quarter of New Zealanders reported issues of dampness and mould in their homes this past winter.

The bottom line is that there's now more offer than probably there will be demand in a few months, if we include all investment households which are currently closed and could be open for rent or for sale at the stroke of a new law, we could forget about housing shortage for the next 20 years.

TTP - why the new nickname?

Software issue. Can't figure it out.

Be assured it's your same, favourite TTP at your service.

P.S. If technical staff could kindly put my name back to "ToThePoint", that would be much appreciated by me (and prevent certain others here from getting upset/razzled.)

Give some of these new build communities 5-10 years, they're going to look seriously slum like.

forgot your password to the MadMax account too?

This is nothing new. The vast majority of new builds in Auckland have ALWAYS been to the minimum standard allowable by Council, and Council just keeps lowering the bar. It's a speculator's paradise!

Better quality than the ones about to be built by the hordes of Chinese construction companies about to descend on the country thanks to signing that new trade deal.

How many were apartments?
Where in Auckland?
Out past Pokeno?

How many were greenfield new builds
How many were brownfield rebuilds

And also, how many have been sold and to whom? Owner occupiers? Investors?

How many bedrooms? How many $ per bedroom? How many on rapid transit routes?

3, but they are the size of a small closet. 250k/bedroom minimum. Rapid transit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Hope this answers your questions.

Forlorn, I know, but hopefully NO greenfields builds on horticulture land. What is being built now leave zero chance for people to establish food gardens for themselves so MORE horticulture land will be needed for food, not less.
I cannot think many things more stupid than concreting over your food basket

Yes, it’s funny isn’t it. These infill housing developments so loved by the fake greens are almost all devoid of trees; given the houses occupy almost all of the section.

It's not so bad in NZ, but some of those suburbs in Sydney can get to over 45C in the summer due to having so much concrete and so few trees.


The more they build the worse it will get. As the volume of hard surface increases, so does the temperature…

In-fill housing 1
Google history of in-fill housing
Auckland Needs Better Protection From Infill Housing
A Better Auckland Needs Better Protection From Reckless Infill Housing
Headlines 2019 - they're complaining now - a bit late

First became aware of infill housing in the 1980's. It was cheap junk of low quality. Since that time, infill housing proliferated. Houses on 800 to 1000 sqm could be subdivided and the resulting new section was either sold as bare land or built and then sold off. The existing house needed to be in a suitable position on the section or moved. What we saw was 1950-1960's era houses being joined by smaller houses on the same section. The owner and or builder did not build high quality full size 4 bedroom mansions. They were small, tending to low quality and they were flogged off. It was simply realisation of a windfall by the original owner. What eventuated was a proliferation of houses where one was old and one was new. And so they exist today. They have been a feature for 40 years now. Infill housing is now the demolition of an old house and replaced by 3 or 4 units.

In-fill housing 2
The proliferation of 2 dwelling in-fill development has produced a salt-n-pepper pot environment. One dwelling is older, one dweling is newer. Usually different designs, different construction materials, and the newer dwelling is of base quality and rarely sympathetic to the older dwelling

The problem with conserving horticultural land is it is way to late. That ship sailed 30 years ago and what is left is not economic to farm, and all the lifestyle blocks and city neighbors complain but cows mooing and funny smells. There is a reason the big growers have moved south.
We have a farm surrounded by lifestyle blocks, with 800 houses being built 2km along the road. Being zoed rural, we can't subdivide, and it only keeps going due to off farm income.

Q1. who cares?
Q2. who cares?
Q3. Pokeno isn't in Auckland so probably not included in these figures from, let me check my notes, Auckland Council
Q4. who cares?
Q5. who cares?

Did we want more housing or not?

I just love how much of a fantasy world people on this site seem to live in. The answer to property prices that are 'overvalued' (despite there being plenty of willing buyers at said overvalued prices) is not to pursue cheaper types of housing but to, what exactly? Wait for the market to realise St Heliers and Ponsonby aren't actually that nice after all and offer you a section there for a discount?

Keep dreaming.

"Cheaper types of housing" and "housing that represents a massive drop in value for $ committed over a 30 year mortgage term or requires lifestyle-compromising commutes from other districts" are different concepts, which some people on this site seem to struggle with. I grew up in the Eastern suburbs. It was never blue collar but it wasn't "Powerball first division won't even buy you an infill house" stuff until relatively recently.

Not sure why you think flippant comments about Powerball are helpful but fill your boots I suppose.

I was doing my best to match your flippancy with your comment about St Heliers but I see I have fallen short.

Yawn. You said the quiet bit out loud with your "lifestyle compromising commute" remark. Can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle. Also can't fit everyone who wants to live in "lifestyle enhancing" post codes at affordable prices without increasing density. Not sure why this is so confusing for people.

The great Auckland housing crisis in 7 words: "well I don't want to live THERE"

Who Cares?
The poor suckers being sucked into believing its worthwhile sticking around and starting a family and making a life in AKL. 16000 new dwelling is deceptive if 12000 are 40 sqm 1 bedroom shoebox apartments. OK make Pokeno the Bombay Hills. Same difference

"Process changes to ensure an error like this can't happen again are already underway." "We hired a couple of people on 100k + a year that have the highly valuable skill of counting. Also knowing that if all other evidence available makes your numbers seem wrong. They probably are."
Seriously we have added 1661 more dwellings than the same 3 month period last year and 0 more population.
How is the Auckland rental market doing? Do property investors know they need tenants?


With 16% annual capital gains, there's no need for tenants.
As we all know, only the most altruistic and charitable property owners become landlords.


I know one thing for sure regarding Auckland ......I have never seen so many crappy houses on larger sites, sold for top $$$ , only for the house to be bowled and multiple apartments/small townhouses to go up.

Also neighbors of these properties sold, have had a "knock at the door" with great offers to by their property - more land for more builds.

My big question is who is going to buy them - owner occupiers or investors - and who will they rent them to ???

And yes, I have already noted some will look like slums in a few years.....

We had a look at some of the in-fills in Auckland. The ones that are 4/5 houses on 1 lot in NSC are of poor quality.
The room layouts make little sense and the quality of materials used are very, very poor. The materials have been purchased in bulk and I can tell just looking on Trademe what to expect of a listing when I see the layouts and interior materials.
Add on top of that no courtyards and absolutely no privacy and it really confuses me who is willing to pay >$1m for these. Be it investor or owner-occupiers. (I can only think sight unseen)

I believe those ones have been done by Chinese developers. In fairness some of the townhouses completed by (Chinese) Malaysians have been of much higher spec and more practical and I would consider them worthy if you are willing to walk up and down 3 flights of stairs.

Hobsonville Point will be interesting to see how it ages in the next few years as I know there has been some suspect rushed build quality in some of the places there.

I can absolutely verify the shoddy quality of finishing and of fixtures. Porcelain and composites that erode with water in double quick time, chrome that scratches with a touch of a nylon pad, cupboard door hinges that fall apart in no time, skirting boards with joins that chip if you look at them sharply, paint that must have been so watered down it was barely paint at all, doors and cupboards that mark and will not come up white again. Carpets that matt and stretch in next to no time, the list goes on and on.

I have a friend about to move into a Kiwibuild in Hobsonville Pt "won" in a ballot. Paid $650k for what was marketed as a 3-bed but is actually a 2-bed + pokey study at best. No garage and barely enough space for a garden shed on the site.

God I wish this intensification in the inner suburbs -- which is entirely necessary -- was being done with a modicum of taste and quality.
At the moment it's a sea of mushroom-grey townhouses made of various novelty panelling materials. Unattractive and unlikely to age well.

And you go inside, white everywhere and ghastly cheap brown carpets

Yep, sunglasses required when the sun shines on the wall.

Do they get sunlight?

Noted. Quite a few out-dated villas or crappy houses occupying 1000 sqm sections within a 10 km radius of Auckland CBD being sold to developers for up to $3 million - more in several cases. Developer then goes next door and tells the owner they (the developer) is going to build 12 x 2 storied terraced houses right next door - do you want to sell - they make an offer the owner can't refuse - our offer is $2 million - take it or leave it - its a one time offer which lapses in 14 days time - then the developer goes to the owner on the other side. - who wants 12 two storied terraced house blocking out the sun and overlooking the toilet bathroom and bedrooms. 12 terraced houses becomes 24 then 36. Too easy

12 x 2 storied terraced houses on 1/4 arce, is that even possible?

Where the section is side on to the road and corner sections apparently

“I have 300 developers looking for sites"
Mainly west of the city – Pt Chev, Avondale, Mt Albert, Onehunga
He says that the buyer plans to build 15 townhouses on the combined site, adding that developers are building high-quality homes because they know “they can get a good end price”

The sites in the article are 2x768 sqm for 15 high-quality town-houses not terraced houses

In Christchurch in my suburb, there are 18 townhouses going on 2 x 800 sqm sections.

This used to happen in Japan during the boom time of property prices in the 1980's. If the neighbour refused to sell the 2nd knock on the door was from the yakuza..... employed by the developer to help 'smooth' the process.

This used to happen in Japan during the boom time of property prices in the 1980's. If the neighbour refused to sell the 2nd knock on the door was from the yakuza..... employed by the developer to help 'smooth' the process.

Woodford Road, Henderson. Exactly as you state. It's all riding on one thing, and one thing only........ location. The quality of the build be damned!

God Auckland City Council backend seems a mess. Messed up.

And doesn't seem like correcting anytime soon.

IT double Speak:
Example A:
"Process changes to ensure an error like this can't happen again are already underway."

# drowning in a sea of spreadsheets.

The fix is to add another spreadsheet to keep track of the other spreadsheets

Property as the protected asset class will still shoot up in price, despite supply exceeding demand. It's just that the supply will be hidden as it's pointless to have tenants to worry about when you can just leave houses empty and they still go up in value.

So we are likely to have lots more empty houses and lots more people on housing wait lists. Yay! Just what we need as the RBNZ and government continue to throw distortions into the mix and not let markets decide...

And more refugees on the way...

Just watch these "developers" company's "wind up" in a year or 2, leaving the new owners with maintenance /quality of build issues etc with no come back, as the company is "long gone".

What about Auckland Council who issued the original Code of Compliance you all enquire ??? ....don't worry about them, they are too busy playing Wall St bankers and losing $1.4 billlion of your money, as the interest rate went the "wrong way".

I can see another "leaky homes" debacle coming up, that will be ignored (of course) because no one is prepared to take any responsibility ....and all these "cheaply built" little boxes will look like sh*t and just not be a great place to live.

Lots of big, bold, and totally unfounded predictions from you in this thread, so I'm a little intrigued to see you criticising the council for making an incorrect prediction about interest rates.

Turns out we can't predict the future after all.

I would have commented about that particular waste of money:
"I think, and have always thought that it has not been prudent of the Ak council to have borrowed so much and to have spent so much on some really useless, non revenue generating projects. And to have not stuck to its knitting ie asset maintenance and another glaring example is not bothering to find new water sources to keep up with population growth."

yes am_fek you live through and experience the "leaky building" debacle ?

Did you not catch the article in the NZ Herald about the $1.4 billion loss ?

I can't or never will be able to predict the future, but when I see the "same sh*t but different day" repeating itself ......well, leave the rest up to you.

"Same sh*t but different day" implies repetition. There has not been another leaky building crisis. Do you have any actual reasoning for why another building crisis is coming other than terrace housing is visually unappealing?

I brought up the Council interest swap mistake because you used them as an example of predictions gone awry. I remember Roger Kerr posting dozens of articles on this site about how interest rates simply had to rise, all full of commenters jumping on the bandwagon. And here we are. Big talk with unfounded reasoning gets you a billion dollar mistake in the case of the Council. Good thing big talk on here costs nothing eh.

We will never, ever solve housing issues in Auckland unless we come to terms with terrace housing and apartments.

Pretty astounding that Auckland Council could think there were 697 CCCs issued in July when in fact there were 1884 issued. That's a massive margin of error. Did nobody think to sanity check the numbers?