Winton Land has been one of the property development sector’s most prominent companies, with its founder Chris Meehan celebrated as a “visionary” businessman with close connections to politicians. Now the company is in turmoil, facing workplace allegations, falling share prices and a succession of departures from its board and senior management. Yesterday Meehan finally announced his resignation as a director, effective 14 September. Yet he and his wife retain majority control of the company.
What does Winton’s rise and subsequent turmoil tell us about business and political power in New Zealand?
The story of Winton is one of how a property developer can pursue exceptional planning treatment through political advocacy, donations, professional lobbying and litigation. Such mechanisms have helped Winton rise to the top of the sector. Yet all its political connections and capital haven’t been able to make up for the failings of bad business operations and governance.
At the centre of Winton’s ambitions is Sunfield, its controversial development near Ardmore in Auckland. Next week, Auckland Council is due in the High Court to challenge its fast-track approval. The council says the development is in an unsuitable, flood-prone area.
Winton’s political connections
Meehan has been a major political donor, and his support reaches across the governing coalition. Electoral Commission returns record about $52,895 from Speargrass Holdings to National in 2022, another $103,260 from Chris and Michaela Meehan in 2023, $50,000 from Chris Meehan to Act that year, and $7,500 to New Zealand First in 2025. That is more than $213,000, with subsequent in-kind support also reported.
Newsroom’s Jonathan Milne has documented exclusive fundraising dinners for Shane Jones at the Meehans’ home near Queenstown. Party returns record the value of a contribution. They can’t tell us what was discussed over dinner, or how those conversations shaped a relationship with a minister.
Winton has also employed Lillis Clark, the lobbying company founded by former Steven Joyce staffers Anna Lillis and Kenny Clark. Labour transport minister Michael Wood’s ministerial diary records a November 2021 meeting with Meehan, other Winton representatives and Clark. Winton’s access to ministers, accompanied by a professional lobbyist, predates the current coalition.
Former National finance minister Steven Joyce joined Winton’s board in June 2023. For a developer seeking government support, that was a valuable appointment.
As Brent Melville reported in NBR in July, Winton’s third-largest shareholder was Christchurch developer Philip Carter, holding 7.07% through JWAJ Ltd. Readers of my column on The Press power list will recognise Carter from third place on it. The people who own our cities are a small group, and they turn up in each other’s stories.
Speaking to Newsroom in 2025, Meehan said he expected fast-track to speed up consents for his projects, but denied this was an outcome of his political donations. As he told Milne: “I donate to loads of things, including various political parties and lots of charities. And I don’t regret donating to any of those charities or any of those political parties.”
The donations do not prove that a decision was bought. But they are part of the account of how Winton pursued its interests, alongside its lobbying and ministerial access. Most people affected by its projects cannot assemble an equivalent operation.
Bishop and the limits of recusal
Chris Bishop has been an enthusiastic advocate for Winton’s Sunfield development. In April 2022, while in opposition, he attacked the government for failing to progress the development. Speargrass Holdings’ recorded donations to National followed the next month.
When the coalition selected projects for the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, Bishop’s previous advocacy became a conflict-management issue. Responsibility for considering Sunfield was transferred to Simeon Brown, and the Government selected Sunfield for inclusion in the fast-track legislation. An expert panel granted consent in March 2026.
But recusal addresses only part of the political problem. The framework for granting exceptional treatment was created by a government whose three parties have all accepted support from Meehan or associated donors. Moving a file from one minister’s desk to another does not resolve the wider question of how those relationships shape government priorities.
Sunfield and the bill for growth
The Fast Track expert panel’s decision on 10 March approved 3,854 homes, including retirement village units, on roughly 225 hectares. The development includes a town centre and provision for a school.
Maria Slade’s BusinessDesk reporting sets out the difficulties. Much of the rurally zoned site is flood-prone, with no existing water or stormwater connections. It has no existing public transport services and sits in the Ardmore Airport flight path. Councillor Richard Hills told her it was “70% to 80% in the floodplain”.
Auckland Council argues that the panel made legal errors in its consideration of flooding, water and wastewater infrastructure, and highly productive land. The court has yet to rule on those arguments.
Planning restrictions can protect existing homeowners at the expense of renters and first buyers. But Sunfield still has to be assessed against the cost of servicing it and the other places Auckland could accommodate growth. The council doesn’t believe this adds up. A consent does not, by itself, answer who pays for the infrastructure or what other investment must wait.
Matthew Hooton made a sharp version of this argument in The Post yesterday, under the headline “Politicians pick losers, because losers pick politicians”. He argues that Sunfield and the Delmore development illustrate the danger of politicians embracing developers’ complaints about consenting without first asking whether their projects have stalled for good economic or environmental reasons. “Politicians ought to become extra suspicious if there is talk of party donations from the very same people,” he writes.
The danger Hooton identifies is that a project’s difficulties can give its promoter a powerful reason to lobby, without giving the government a powerful reason to intervene. Ministers eager to demonstrate action can mistake a promoter’s persistence and confidence for evidence of a project’s public value.
The paywall now starts partway through all Democracy Project newsletters. Please take out a paid sub if you want to support this service and access the full content, including the following sections: “Workplace power and the boardroom”, “Returning the political donations”, and “The cost of saying no”.