BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND ENV-2019-AKL-

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 A N D IN THE MATTER of an Appeal under s.120 of the Act BETWEEN PROPERTY SEVEN LIMITED Appellant/Applicant A N D WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT COUNCIL,

as Territorial Authority Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER s.120 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Instructing Solicitors Chapman Tripp

Barristers and Solicitors ANZ Centre 23 Albert Street,

Auckland 1010 Partner: Pip England

D: +64 9 357 9069 M: +64 27 434 8854

Counsel Acting

Kate Barry-Piceno Barrister,

Mauao Legal Chambers PO Box 5426

Mount Maunganui TAURANGA 3150 Tel: 021 605832

2

Notice of Appeal under s.120 of the Resource Management Act 1991

TO: The Registrar

Environment Court Auckland

1. Name and Address of Appellant:

Property Seven Limited.

The Appellant is the Applicant for a Resource Consent the subject of this appeal.

2. Name of Respondent/Decision was made by:

Western Bay of Plenty District Council (“the Council”), decision made by delegated

authority to two Independent Commissioners.

3. Trade Competition:

I am not a trade competitor for the purposes of s.308D of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. Date of Decision:

30 October 2019.

5. Date of which Decision was received by the Appellant:

31 October 2019.

6. The decision (or part of the decision) that I am appealing is:

This appeal concerns Council’s decision to decline an application to the Western Bay of

Plenty District Council for a subdivision consent to undertake a protection lot wetland and

ecovillage subdivision. The subdivision application was to establish and maintain in

perpetuity through a legally established Trust, a large area of wetland as an environmental

offset/ exchange for the creation of 137 rural residential lots. The proposal comprises lots

3

(2,000 m2 or more in area) that will be created based on one allotment per hectare of

wetland environment.

7. Description of the Site affected by the Decision:

The area of land affected by the decision is located at on rural zoned land at 239, 295, and

307 Pukehina Beach Road, and 2 Gardiner Place, Pukehina. The site currently operates as

a dairy farm. This land is zoned Rural in the operative Western Bay of Plenty District Plan

(the Plan). The subdivision application is classified as a non-complying activity in the Plan.

8. The reasons for the appeal are as follows:

Grounds of Appeal

The specific reasons for the appeal are set out in detail below. At a general level and in

relation to each aspect, the decision made by the Independent Commissioners on behalf

of the Council is appealed on the following grounds:

a. The decision does not promote sustainable management of resources, will not

achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and is

contrary to Part II and other provisions of the RMA;

b. The decision does not enable the social and economic well-being and needs of the

community in the Western Bay of Plenty area;

c. The decision does not promote the potential or best use of the physical land

resource and protection of surrounding Maketu and Waihi estuary and

waterways;

d. The decision does not have appropriate regard to cultural values and the support

of local Iwi to this proposal, due to its related wetland and ecological

enhancement;

e. The decision does not have regard to the efficient use and sustainable

development of the land from its current inappropriate dairy farm use, and

importance of the restoration of the waterways and current water quality issues

in this locality is not properly considered;

4

f. In relation to the matter of avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects, it

is considered that the proposal properly mitigates or avoids any potential adverse

effects and that the assessment of effects and reasons given in the decision in

relation to adverse effects, is incorrect;

g. The Council decision declining of consent was wrong as a matter of fact and law.

9. Without limiting the generality and reasons set out above the Council decision is appealed

for the following reasons:

a. The decision is supported to the extent that it found:

(i) Nothing in the Regional or District Plan planning instruments precluded

approval, despite the proposal being arguably ‘unique’1;

(ii) The proposal is ‘not contrary to’ the objectives and policies of the plan,

and therefore passes the second ‘gateway test’ of the RMA s.104(1)(b).2

b. The decision’s primary reasons for declining consent were based on a

determination that states:

(i) There was a lack of information on natural hazard risks based on the

expert evidence provided:

“The proposal, when all the natural hazards risks are considered, has too

many unresolved issues that cannot be mitigated sufficiently to give the

hearing panel confidence to issue approval. Each of the risks can appear to

be addressed or suggested by the Applicant as less than minor, however

when considered cumulatively, they simply do not avoid, remedy or mitigate

adequately.”3

This assessment of the evidence is in error, wrongly assessing the

evidence on natural hazard effects on the environment that was accepted

by the Regional Council and District Council prior to the hearing;

1 Decision, Part 7, page 11 2 Supra. 3 Decision, Part 8, page 13

5

(ii) Character and amenity - the decision found that the proposal will have

adverse character and amenity effects as an isolated community4. This

is not supported by expert landscape and urban design evidence on this

issue, with walkway connections proposed through to Pukehina Beach

and the proposal being immediately adjacent to Pukehina Beach

Settlement;

(iii) The decision found that the “proposed roading layout and approach to

pedestrian/cyclist movement raises fundamental safety concerns that the

panel believe cannot be satisfactorily addressed by consent conditions”.

There is a raised walkway system through the development and traffic

slowing measures proposed that do not support this finding which is

contrary to highly qualified senior expert traffic engineer evidence

provided by the Applicant at hearing, with reference in the decision to a

newspaper article that was not part of evidence presented by any party;

(iv) The decision found that “three waters associated with this proposal are

considered to each pose risks of varying magnitude. However, when

considered in totality, they become such that the panel is not satisfied that

these can be robustly mitigated in the long term”5. The decision relies on

the evidence of Mr. Long6 in regard to adverse effects from the

wastewater systems used, who was Regional Council officer who spoke

to Regional Council submission that was in support of proposal, subject

to suitable conditions that were agreed on by the Applicant and Regional

Council. The wastewater system used is defined as a permitted activity in

the Regional Plan and this was accepted by the Regional Council. This part

of the decision inaccurately assesses the risk based on the Regional Plan

rules and evidence given by Mr. Hammond and Long, to mischaracterise

the magnitude of risk or ability to mitigate those risks through suitable

conditions.

4 Decision Part 8 page 14. 5 Decision Part 8, page 18. 6 Decision, Part 8, pages 14 and 15.

6

c. The decision did not properly balance adverse effects against the positive effects

and the sustainable alternative use of this rural site, as required by s.104 or Part II

matters;

d. The proposal’s activity as an eco-village results in minor effects to the surrounding

area. The risks of adverse effects from the site to the adjacent Pukehina

settlement are either neutral or for the benefit of the wider community, due to

the wetland restoration positive ecological and visual impacts on the estuary and

waterways, and other mitigation and offered conditions of consent;

e. The risks of adverse effects to the proposed residents or their homes within the

development regarding natural hazards such as tsunami and flooding risks were

appropriately and extensively assessed as part of the application. The findings in

the decision regarding magnitude or probability of effects as defined in Section 3

of the Resource Management Act 1991, is in error.

10. Relief Sought:

The Appellants seek the following relief:

a. The appeal be allowed, and the application granted with conditions as proposed

by the Appellant at the Council hearing; or

b. Any other relief that the Court considers appropriate to resolve this appeal;

c. Costs.

11. Alternative dispute resolution: The Appellant agrees to participate in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution of

the proceeding.

12. Attachments The following documents are attached to this notice.

a. A copy of the relevant decision;

b. A list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice.

7

Signed by Barrister Counsel For Property Seven Limited Kate Barry-Piceno DATED this 19th day of November 2019 Address for Service of Appellant: Kate Barry-Piceno Barrister Mauao Legal Chambers 1/9 Prince Ave PO Box 5426 Mount Maunganui 3150 Tauranga ADVICE TO RECIPIENTS OF COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL Advice to recipients of copy of notice of appeal How to become party to proceedings You may be a party to the appeal if, — (a) within 15 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, you lodge a

notice of your wish to be a party to the proceedings (in form 33) with the Environment Court and serve copies of your notice on the relevant local authority and the Appellant; and

(b) within 20 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, you serve copies

of your notice on all other parties. Your right to be a party to the proceedings in the court may be limited by the trade competition provisions in s.274(1) and Part 11A of the Resource Management Act 1991. You may apply to the Environment Court under s.281 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for a waiver of the above timing requirements (see form 38). How to obtain copies of documents relating to appeal:

8

The copy of this notice served on you does not attach a copy of the relevant application (or submission) and/or the relevant decision (or part of the decision). These documents may be obtained, on request, from the Appellant. Advice If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court in Auckland.

ANNEXURE 1 Copy of the decision

1

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

IN THE MATTER OF: The Resource Management Act 1991

AND: The Western Bay of Plenty District Council

AND: An Application for Resource Consent

TO: Establish an Eco-Village

BY: Group Seven Limited

__________________________________________________________________________________

Council Reference RC 11154 S

__________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION

Council appointed a Panel of Independent Commissioners (in February 2019 in terms of s34A of

the Act) comprising Richard Bax and Alan Withy (chair), with delegated authority to hear and

determine the application.

The hearing was held in Council Chambers on 1 and 2 July 2019.

The Application was presented by Ms K Barry-Piceno as legal counsel for Group Seven Limited,

and she called a number of expert witnesses.

Various Submitters (representatives of public agencies and private persons) attended and most

made submissions or gave evidence as described below.

Ms Rochelle Friend was the appointed Reporting Officer (RO) in terms of s42A of the Act, and she

presented her report and evidence, supported by evidence from various council officers and

advisors.

2. THE PROPOSAL

The RO described the proposal in her executive summary as “… a subdivision application to

establish a large area of wetland in exchange for the creation of 137 protection lots. The vision is

to create an ‘eco-village' concept comprising sustainable eco-concepts including solar power, on-

site water collection, and on-site wastewater treatment. The "Rural-residential" sized allotments

2

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

(2,000m2 or more in area) will be created on the basis of one allotment per hectare of wetland

environment. The proposal is deemed to be a non-complying activity.” 1

She described the proposal in more detail in Paragraphs 1.3 through 1.5 of her Report. 2

Relying on s113(3) of the RMA and for efficiency, we refer and cross-reference here and elsewhere

in this decision, material in the Application AEE and the s42A Report.

It was common ground that the application was to be considered and determined as a non-

complying activity.

3.0 THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The RO described the site and locality as follows: 3

“The application site is a "rectangular" shaped block of land, made up of several

parcels of land zoned "Rural" comprising approximately 165ha in area … identified as

subject to flood hazard, Maketu/ Pukehina Tsunami hazard and widespread

liquefaction. … no recorded archaeological sites on the application site, or any other

relevant limitations or designations … comprises low-lying pastoral land located

towards the south-eastern end of Pukehina Beach near the coast between the coastal

dunes of Pukehina Beach and the Pukehina drainage canal, which forms part of the

Waihi Land Drainage Scheme. The site is bounded by Pukehina Beach Road to the east,

Pukehina canal to the south and residential properties to the north … is highly modified

with a network of drains that control the subsurface water table. The land is mostly

poorly drained and has many open drains that are pumped into the Pukehina canal. A

stop bank along the canal protects the land from flooding. The property is near sea

level and dependent on stop banks and pumping to manage water tables … is currently

occupied by a dairy farming activity, including a number of farm buildings and

dwellings located off Pukehina Beach Road and Gardiner Place. … Activities within the

immediate and wider environment include farming and residential activity, reflective

of the underlying zoning. The principal character of the immediate surrounding

environment is pastoral activities to the west, south and east of the application site

and residential activity to the north. The site … adjoins an area to the north known as

the "Pukehina Beach settlement" which is a strip of residential properties located on

an elevated sand dune land along a 5.2km length of coastline. The Pukehina residential

area includes approximately 627 residential dwellings (at the 2013 Census there were

261 occupied dwellings and 366 unoccupied dwellings)…. There is no relevant planning

history applicable to this site.”

1 Ms Friend (RO) Report in terms of RMA s42A, Page 1 2 Ibid, Paragraphs 1.3 – 1.5, Pages 3-6 3 Ibid, Paragraphs 2.1 - 2.5, Pages 7-8

3

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

4.0 NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

The RO described the consultation and notification process and indicated that “… 221

submissions were received within the statutory time period (20 working days) of which 191

submissions were in support, 7 neutral and 23 submissions were in opposition to the

application. One late and 12 incomplete submissions were received.” 4

She indicated that further information was requested following the close of the submission

period: “… including a revised geotechnical assessment and Natural Hazards Risk Assessment. 5

Her Report in Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 gave a detailed analysis of the Submissions and matters

raised. She described the key issues as: “… ecological protection lots and ecological benefits,

natural hazards, stormwater management, geotechnical suitability of the land, infrastructure

solutions including wastewater, traffic and road design, amenity, Rural character and amenity,

and setting a precedent.” 6

Her written and pre-circulated conclusion was: “… based on the information available, this

report makes the recommendation to decline consent to the application.” 7

5.0 ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING

5.1. Ms Barry-Piceno represented the Applicant and called the Managing Director of the

Applicant Company and various experts:

Mr Turner, Managing director of the Applicant Company (Group Seven Limited)

presented evidence and said “… I just want to do something good” 8

Mr Shaw of Wildland Consultants addressed the ecological benefits of the proposal

and provided economic analyses in support. He described the proposal to form a trust

to manage the wetlands, and said: “… restoration of more than 100 hectares of

wetland vegetation will provide huge benefits … “ 9

Mr Mikaere a cultural consultant, described mana whenua issues and supported the

proposal. He said: “I can see no reason why the consents sought should not be

granted.” 10 He indicated that he was a spokesperson for Ngati Whakahemo

4 Ibid, Executive Summary, Page 1 5 Ibid 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Turner, verbal statement 9 Shaw, s13 10 Mikaere, s7.1

4

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

recognised as the local iwi with mana whenua; and said he was: “… unashamedly a

supporter of …” (the proposals) “… as an expert witness on cultural issues and in my

personal capacity as a historian and environmentalist.” 11

Mr Hart gave landscape evidence and described how he saw the proposal fitting into

the environment. He said in supplementary evidence at the hearing that “… none of

the submitters’ comments alter my opinion that the wetland development and

proposed subdivision is a positive landscape change.” 12

Mr Walker of Perrin Agriculture Consultants, addressed the existing farming use of

the land and compared it with a reversion to wetlands. He concluded: “… the impact

of Property Seven’s proposal on water quality is significant at both an individual farm

level and catchment level … Given the magnitude of the potential benefits to water

quality, catchment level productivity gains with regard to meeting imminent

ecological and water quality regulation, combined with the proposed return of the

majority of the subject land to its natural wetland state, I am in support of the

proposal.” 13

Mr Garrick Manager of Eastern Region of Fish and Game New Zealand, supported the

proposal and said: “… Given the highly degraded water quality in the catchment, the

existing land uses and uniqueness of the site, and the significant positive effects of the

proposal … it is entirely consistent with the purposes of the RMA in terms of

sustainable management …” 14

Mr Hammond a Civil Engineer of Technology Works, described his review of the on-

site wastewater design aspects of the proposal, and concluded: “… compliance with

the consent conditions proposed … will ensure … appropriate ground and subsoil

conditions are provided within each proposed rural lifestyle lot … “ 15

Dr Kupec provided geotechnical analysis of the land and supported the proposed

development subject to more detailed investigations. He said: “… The design solutions

… will create a far more resilient development than elsewhere within the Pukehina

Township …” 16

Mr Raynor a Civil Engineer of Aurecon, described the infrastructure and engineering

proposals. He concluded by asserting that “… the proposal includes mitigation

measures and design elements that will mitigate effects for stormwater and potable

water to less than minor. … The stormwater management and groundwater

management will mitigate the risks to the development and have effects less than

11 Ibid, s6.13 12 Hart, s26 13 Walker, s6.1 14 Garrick, s71 15 Hammond, s5.1 16 Kupec, s7.4

5

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

minor on external land and owners. There will be some benefits to the surrounding

land from the proposed development.” 17

Ms Fosberry a Traffic Engineer with Aurecon, examined the traffic effects of the

proposal and concluded that: “… from a transportation perspective, I consider that

the application can be supported with no more than minor (and in many instances the

effects will be less than minor) on the surrounding network, with appropriate

conditions of consent.” 18

Mr Balchin of Aurecon, described the consultation he had undertaken in relation to

the proposal. He concluded by saying: “… I believe a significant amount of effort has

been undertaken … to consult … . The majority of the issues raised … have been

resolved or can be resolved through the detailed design process … and consent

conditions.” 19

Mr Collier a very senior planning consultant of Aurecon had pre-circulated evidence

which he spoke to at the hearing. Following receipt of Council Officers evidence he

provided supplementary evidence in which he said: 20

In response to matters raised in the hearing and through statements prepared

by Council’s engineering experts which have been replied to by the applicant’s

experts, I have given further consideration to the conclusions outlined in my

statement of evidence dated 12 June 2019 in relation to the effects of the

proposal. … I have refined the draft consent conditions … In my opinion these

refinements have taken into consideration and have addressed all of the

relevant matters raised in the statements prepared by the Council’s experts and

by submitters. … the effects of the application are considered to be no more than

minor and acceptable subject to conditions. … we have ensured mitigation

measures and environmental risks are appropriately addressed through a

comprehensive and extensive set of conditions of consent.

5.2. Various lay Submitters addressed the Hearing, most of whom were Pukehina residents.

Some gave conditional support to the proposals, but many were opposed on various grounds.

Paul Hickson, John Hamlyn (Pukehina Motor Camp) and Mark Irving supported the proposal

while James Woods & Andrew Eagles, Judy & Paul Treloar, Conrad Maxwell & Bronwyn Lee

Nagle, Jeremy Rossaak, Liz & Denis Woodward, Liz Foster & Jan Fitzgerald opposed it. Those

in opposition highlighted the effects of the proposal on the Pukehina community and its

relationship to District Plan provisions. Some argued for a full reversion to wetlands without

residential lots, while others sought a community sewerage scheme. The evidence supplied

by the expert witnesses called by various parties to the hearing, commented on and evaluated

17 Raynor, ss14.1 and 14.2 18 Fosberry, s11.1 19 Balchin, s12.1 20 Collier, ss44, 45 and 68

6

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

the matters raised by the lay witnesses. We evaluate the evidence both expert and lay in

subsequent sections.

5.3 The Waihi Drainage Society was represented by Derek Spratt (Secretary/Treasurer) and

Gary Rowe (Chairman). Mr Spratt (a long-term resident and farmer) said “… the concept of

developing a wetland is good but this one is in the wrong area.” 21 Past flooding was described

and photographs tabled. He said the Society was opposed to the application, but if it were

consented, he requested that his Society be consulted more fully as the project developed. A

legal opinion from Mary Hill of Cooneys 22was subsequently provided, which indicated the

Society held delegated authority from the WBoPDC to manage the drainage scheme, and was

entitled to address the hearing.

5.4. The Medical Officer of Health (BoPDHB) Dr Jim Miller spoke of other communities within

the WBoP District where wastewater was a problem, and argued for a community scheme to

serve the whole Pukehina community plus any new development. He highlighted potential

problems with on-site wastewater treatment and disposal.

5.5 The Regional Council was represented by Ms D Llewell. She tabled a written report from

Nassah Steed (Team Leader Environmental Policy) which said “… although I consider the

proposal is inconsistent with the RPS and district plan … I also acknowledge there are a range

of competing matters … BOPRC can now provide conditional support to the application subject

to the imposition of appropriate and robust conditions …” 23 She also called Mr T Long (Senior

Regulatory Project Officer) who described correspondence and meetings with the Applicant’s

Advisors, and tabled suggested conditions of consent. Ms Llewell confirmed that the BOPRC

was not opposed to the proposal but would like to see robust conditions imposed if consent

were granted.

5.6. The Ratepayers Association was not formally represented but several members gave

evidence. A resolution of the Association was tabled which said it supported: “… the

submissions made by Conrad Nagle to request further information …” 24 A petition signed by

numerous people was presented, and it indicated support for the statements of evidence to

be given by Conrad Nagle, whose primary request was for fuller consultation on an ongoing

basis with the local community and its elected representatives on the Association.

5.7 Ms Friend, the RO, presented her report in terms of s42A of the Act and called various

Council Officers and Advisors:

Mark Pennington (Consultant Drainage and Flooding Engineer) considered stormwater,

drainage, flooding and climate-change issues. He drew a distinction between resilience

and sustainability, and concluded that “… the subject site is not ideally suited to

21 Spratt, written statement 22 Hill, legal opinion 23 Nassah Steed (BoPRC Team Leader Environmental Policy) 24 PRRA Committee Special Meeting Tuesday 18 June 2019.

7

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

development of … a community in the face of natural hazard susceptibility. … An event

more severe than … designed for is a possibility …” 25

Guy McDougall (Consultant Geotechnical Engineer) addressed lateral spreading risk and

lack of certainty with conditions. He indicated concern with 26 “… what may occur to the

site geotechnically if costs were too high and caused the construction works to be only

partially completed.” … and said “…the geotechnical suitability could change due to new

information being obtained at a later date.” 27

Justine Wilton (Consultant Traffic Engineer) raised various traffic management and safety

concerns, and differed from some of Ms Fosberry’s evidence.

Ken Lawton (Senior WBoPDC Development Engineer) raised and summarised various

engineering concerns. He concluded that there was “… too much uncertainty surrounding

the proposal with the suggested conditions, to consent the project.” 28

Tony Clow (Senior Policy Analyst) examined the relevant planning instruments

(particularly the objectives and policies of the District Plan) and concluded that the

proposal “… was incompatible with them.” 29

Phillip Martelli (Resource Management Manager) supported Mr Clow’s analysis and

argued that “… any proposal such as this one must await the outcome of a Future

Development Strategy to be developed as a response to the National Policy Statement on

Urban Development Capacity, and the SmartGrowth Eastern Corridor Study.” 30

The RO, relying substantially on the various Council engineering witnesses, concluded: “…

many issues remain unresolved and … although I support the concept of the creation of a

valuable ecological asset, and applaud the applicant and their consultants for having the

courage to take on such a risky project, in my opinion the application report and various …

responses present too much uncertainty …” leaving too much to ”… the ‘detailed design

stage’… ” 31 which is not ” … an appropriate … mechanism to resolve what I believe are

fundamental issues that need to be resolved as part of resource consent approval.” 32 They

leave me: “… un-certain and very concerned.” 33

25 Pennington, statement of response evidence 26 McDougall, statement of response evidence 27 Ibid 28 Lawton, statement of response evidence 29 Clow, statement of response evidence 30 Martelli, statement of response evidence 31 RO, statement of response evidence 32 Ibid 33 Ibid

8

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

6.0 PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL MATTERS

The Panel adjourned the Hearing late on the second day, after hearing from all those present

who wished to be heard. Subsequently it issued a Minute saying that: 34

a) The Hearing remains “adjourned sine die” until further Minute from the Panel.

b) It will consider whether or not it is inclined to issue an interim decision of consent-in-

principle, subject to further development of conditions?

c) It will consider what further evidence might be requested?

[and] Counsel for the Applicant is … invited to consider delaying further negotiations

regarding conditions until further Minute from the Panel, and is referred to s104(6)&(7),

and s106, of the RMA, and requested to address in due course and in right-of-reply, the

relevance if any of those sections to our deliberations.

A further minute was issued on 12 July, directing that: 35

a) The Hearing remain “adjourned sine die” until further Minute from the Panel.

b) The Applicant consult with the s42A reporting officer (RO) regarding whether she

considers it possible to amend the application and/or the draft conditions so that

council officers’ concerns are alleviated.

c) The RO report to the parties within 20 working days whether she considers it possible

to amend the application and/or the draft conditions so that council officers’ concerns

are alleviated, or she maintains a recommendation to decline consent to the

application.

d) The Applicant provide its right-of-reply in writing within a further 10 working days.

Further Minutes dated 7 August and 10 September dealt with requests for further time.

A Right of Reply dated 30 September was received from the Applicant which asserted the “…

evidence overall favoured the proposal and the purposes of the Act would be served by

granting consent.” 36 It highlighted the “… positive benefits that may accrue from

implementation of the proposal…” 37 which were claimed to “… outweigh adverse effects.” 38

The Commissioners considered the correspondence that ensued from the Minutes and the

Hearing was formally closed on 9 October 2019.

34 Panel Minute No 2, dated 4 July 2019 35 Panel Minute No 3, dated 11 July 2019 36 Right of Reply on behalf of the Applicant 37 Ibid 38 Ibid

9

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

7.0 STATUTORY PLANNING DOCUMENT ASSESSMENT

The RO addressed the status of the District Plan as follows: 39

“The notification date of the Operative District Plan 2012 was 18 June 2012 and all

appeals other than those parts pertaining to Matakana Island have been resolved. The

provisions pertaining to Matakana Island still under appeal have no relevance to this

application. The Council has also notified several plan changes. Those provisions which

have not been appealed, or where any appeals have been resolved, or where no

submission has been received, have been treated as if they were operative in

accordance with Section 86F of the Resource Management Act 1991.”

She analysed the proposal against District Plan provisions 40 and concluded as follows: 41

The District Plan provides for rural subdivision under specific circumstances.

Fragmentation for uses not anticipated in the Rural zone, for yields or densities not

envisaged in the Rural zone… land is to be removed from Rural activity and converted

into wetlands and rural lifestyle lots (with 16% of the site area being rural -

residential/lifestyle lots). It is acknowledged that the proposal envisages a

comprehensive ecological enhancement, albeit contrary to the direction of the District

Plan. The District Plan anticipates that on-site protection lots are already established,

not that they are intended to be established let alone at the scale proposed under this

application. … Council's Resource Management team conclude that the proposed

subdivision is not in accordance with the relevant policies and objectives for the Rural

zone. They are concerned that the proposal will erode the character of the Rural zone.

Accordingly, in summary it is considered that while the proposal is not contrary to the

identified Objectives and Policies across the other relevant chapters of the District Plan

in considering the proposal against the specific Rural zone Objectives and Policies, it

does not accord with the key objectives of Section 18 on protecting, maintaining,

enhancing and realising the productive potential of Rural land or in regards to

protection lots.

She also analysed the proposal in respect of regional planning instruments 42 and said: 43

This application is considered contrary to the objectives and policies of the RPS, in

particular for Urban and Rural Growth Management and will be contrary to the RPS

with regards to versatile land and structure plan requirements outlined above.

Objective 31 of the RPS requires avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards by

managing risk for people's safety and the protection of property and lifeline utilities

and is supported by the following policies:

• Policy NH 1B: Taking a risk management approach

39 Ms Friend (RO) Report in terms of RMA s42A, Paragraph 4, Page 17 40 Ibid, Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.44, Pages 72 - 84 41 Ibid, Paragraph 7.42 – 7.44, Pages 83 - 84 42 Ibid, Paragraphs 8.1 – 8.3.3, Pages 84 - 87 43 Ibid, Paragraphs 8.2.7, 8.2.8 and 8.3.3, Pages 86-87

10

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

• Policy NH 9B: Avoiding increasing and encouraging reducing natural hazard

risk in the coastal environment [noting only a small fringe area is within the

coastal environment]

• Policy NH SB: Assessment of natural hazard risk at the time of subdivision,

or change or intensification of land use before Policies NH 3A and NH 4A have

been given effect to

• Policy NH 11B: Providing for climate change

The applicant and the BOPRC have worked closely together as there is little in the way

of precedent available for natural hazard risk assessment given the recent nature of

the Appendix L provisions (natural hazards risk assessment and methodology) …. It

was agreed with BOPRC that flooding, coastal erosion and inundation, earthquakes

and tsunami natural hazards would be assessed. The natural hazard risk assessment

was prepared and reviewed by BOPRC and confirmed acceptable. Overall, given the

extent of the construction works, on-site effluent treatment will either need to comply

with the relevant rules of the RNRP or OSET Plan, or apply for the appropriate consent.

Accordingly … the proposal is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies

within those plans.

We note the RO’s analysis of the proposal in relation to the relevant planning instruments. In

summary she said “… while the proposal is not contrary to the … District Plan … and regional

instruments … it does not accord with the key objectives of Section 18 (of the District Plan) on

protecting, maintaining, enhancing and realising the productive potential of Rural land or in

regards to protection lots.

We have carefully considered the analyses of the planning instruments (particularly those by

Ms Friend and Mr Collier) and find that:

a. Although Ms Friend said in one part of her evidence that there was no ‘relevant baseline’

to be considered “… due to the unique nature of the proposed subdivision… ” 44 in another

place she said “… the proposal fails the ‘gateway test’ …” being “… contrary to the

objectives and policies of the District Plan …” and “… the actual and potential adverse

environmental effects will be more than minor …“ 45 She was obviously ambivalent on the

subject.

b. Overall we find the thrust of the evidence from Mr Collier and Ms Friend compatible, and

consider the proposal to be in some respects ‘inconsistent with’ the relevant district

planning provisions but ‘not contrary’ to them.

c. We have carefully considered the analysis of the regional planning provisions by Ms Friend

and Mr Collier; and Mr Steed, noting that we had no opportunity to question his evidence

for the Regional Council. However Ms Llewell did call evidence from Mr Long Senior

Regulatory Project Officer, who has had more than 20 years’ experience in the design,

44 RO, s6.2.2, Page 21 45 Ibid, s11.1, pp96 and 97

11

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

consenting and inspection of on-site wastewater systems, and contributed to the

development of the On-Site Effluent Treatment (OSET) Regional Plan. His evidence

supported conditional acceptance of the proposal.

d. Overall we find the evidence regarding regional planning instruments does not preclude

approval, in spite of the proposal being arguably ‘unique’.

e. The RMA requires us to have regard to national planning instruments and having done

that we conclude there to be nothing that would immediately and fatally affect the

proposals.

f. Considering all the relevant planning instruments we conclude they do not prevent

approval to the proposals. We are of the view that the proposal is ‘not contrary to’ them,

and therefore passes the second ‘gateway test’ of the RMA s104(1)(b).

g. However we note that we “… may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity

only if … satisfied that either— (a) the adverse effects of the activity … will be minor; or (b)

the … activity … will not be contrary to the objectives and policies …” 46 RMA s104D(1). In

spite of passing the ‘gateway test’, we have a discretion whether to approve or not after

considering the environmental effects of the proposal, which we do in the next section

8.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

8.1 The RO addressed this topic by identifying various matters to be considered: 47

• Permitted baseline

• Ecological and lot leverage

• Non-complying subdivision in the Rural zone

• Natural Hazards (subdivision/earthworks floodable area)

• Rural Character and Amenity (Rural yard & Design guide)

• Traffic and Road Design (under-width road)

• Infrastructure (on-site wastewater, stormwater)

• Recreation and Public Access (Reserve to vest)

• Positive effects (reduction in runoff, water quality improve)

• Other (Precedent and Plan Change versus Resource Consent)”

8.2 We will use the same headings as they correctly identify the principal effects issues to be

considered, and discuss each with some adaptations together with our findings.

a) Permitted baseline:

46 47 Ibid, Paragraph 6.1.1, Page 21

12

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

The RO said that there was no ‘baseline’ to be considered “… due to the unique nature of the

proposed subdivision.” But elsewhere in her evidence considered the permitted baseline as

Mr Collier did.

Finding: We have found the proposal meets the ‘gateway test’ on the planning

instrument limb and consider the baseline test is of little assistance in assessing

environmental effects because as the RO said: “… due to the unique nature of the

proposed subdivision… ” 48

b) Ecological considerations:

The wetland re-creation is an admirable project and on its own would likely be fully supported

subject to sound ongoing management being in place. Likewise the reduction in dairy and its

environmental impact on the Waihi estuary is positive, albeit minor in the total estuary

catchment.

Finding: The ecological benefits of the proposed wetland and reduction in dairy

farming are significant but insufficient to mitigate the effects risks resulting from the

residential development and these risks remain.

c) Subdivision:

The subdivision is substantially residential in terms of effects, and the balance land is allocated

to wetland, access and recreation purposes. It is the residential component that gives us

concern.

Finding: If the proposal were for wetland restoration without residential lots, we

would have little hesitation in granting consent. However we consider the number of

proposed residential lots and consequential activities and cumulative effects

compromise the proposal in ways we cannot overall support.

d) Natural Hazards

The Western Bay District Council District Plan under ‘Constraints’ (mapi.westernbay.govt.nz)

shows this site as ‘floodable area’, while the ‘Other Natural Hazards’ layer shows liquefaction

and tsunami hazards. The proposal addresses this by raising the residential lots to above the

1 in 100 year flood level. This however fails to address the impact of the flooding of the roads

within the development and on Pukehina Road. The flooding of Pukehina Road was evident

in photos provided to the hearing and occurred in much more frequent events than the one

in 100 year. These events would isolate the residents, and also put at risk key infrastructure

such as water supply, on-site wastewater systems and power supply.

In his 14 June 2019 evidence, Jan Kupec of behalf of the applicant said, ‘In summary, based on

the results of my investigations and preliminary analyses, I infer that the site is susceptible to

tsunami inundation, flooding and seismically triggered liquefaction’. And later ‘I consider that

the site in its current state cannot be developed into a long term viable residential development

48 RO, s6.2.2, Page 21

13

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

without significant landform alteration’. And further ‘I believe that the Pukehina Eco Village

development can create a long term stable landform that is resilient to inundation from flood

waters and tsunami. As for seismically induced land damage and ‘functional loss’ after a rare

and large earthquake, I believe that industry standard tools and methods can be used to design

out these effects’. And ‘The effects of liquefaction induced ground damage to future

residential foundations will be mitigated by establishing a significant non-liquefiable crust

above the current ground level, formed by placement of engineered fill to approximately 4 m

above the current ground level.’

These statements alongside the evidence of Guy McDougall of Tonkin and Taylor on behalf of

WBoPDC, on 2 July, raise serious concerns for the hearing panel as to the economic viability

of the proposal. Mr McDougall states ‘I have concern with how extensive the ground

improvement may become for the overall development in mitigating lateral spreading impact

from both the perimeter drains and the ponds. The ground improvement will come with

significant cost and leads to concerns on the viability of what is proposed. ’

Concerns were raised regarding the conflict between ensuring a suitable building platform

safe from liquefaction via significant compaction of local soils won from the wetland

excavations, with soakage suitable for on-site wastewater disposal.

There are issues identified with sea level rise, which it is suggested can be overcome by the

height of the building platforms but this cannot address salt water intrusion into the proposed

wetlands.

In their 21 February 2018 report, Perrin Ag Consultants Ltd note that their advisor Dr Peter

Singleton of Natural Knowledge Limited ‘reports that salt water intrusion is already occurring.

The open drains and pumping are minimising the impact of saltwater intrusion at present.

However without continued pumping saltwater intrusion will likely have an impact on the

productive capacity of the soil’ clearly this is already an issue and another risk.

The ongoing management of the wetland was raised by a number of submitters as a concern.

The documents provided to the hearing indicated an intent to create a trust, but at this time

it has not been. This is key to the success of the proposal but provides a further potential risk.

Finding: The proposal, when all the natural hazards risks are considered, has too

many unresolved issues that cannot be mitigated sufficiently to give the hearing panel

confidence to issue approval. Each of the risks can appear to be addressed or

suggested by the applicant as less than minor, however when considered

cumulatively, they simply do not avoid, remedy or mitigate adequately.

e) Character and Amenity:

The development proposal as submitted lacks a sense of community with long dead end roads

that make it very difficult for movement, other than by car. The development is quite

disconnected from the existing Pukehina Beach development except for one walkway near

Gardiner Place. For example the two ends of the cul-de-sacs are approximately 2km away

from the store on Pukehina Parade. As such it is not ‘a natural inland extension of urban

Pukehina’ as suggested by the applicant.

14

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

Finding: The development as proposed is not part of the Pukehina community nor is it a community of its own. It then becomes an isolated development near to a beach.

f) Traffic and Roading:

As outlined in 8.2 d) above the development could quite regularly expect to be isolated by impassable roads due to flooding. This is an unacceptable situation to create, although acknowledging this occurs now in some areas of Pukehina, it should not be exacerbated. The mixing of pedestrians and vehicles in the roads as proposed without significant calming

measures is completely against all good road safety practice. New Zealand is experiencing a

significant increase in pedestrian and cyclist serious injury and death and so this development

should not risk contributing even more to that increase 49. Separate areas for pedestrians

(both able and disabled) plus cyclists would need to be provided. This would be challenging if

not impossible based on the road cross sections provided to the hearing.

The road layout as discussed in 8.2 c) above, provides a poor community outcome with strung

out development and no connectivity. The development has no heart, or centre and is

fragmented.

Finding: The proposed roading layout and approach to pedestrian/cyclist movement

raises fundamental safety concerns that the panel believe cannot be satisfactorily

addressed by consent conditions.

g) Other Infrastructure including water supply, wastewater and stormwater

The application proposed the use of private on-site water supply as part of the eco village

theme. However plans provided to the panel and comments to the hearing propose a council

public water supply including fire hydrants. This is to mitigate the risk of fire in buildings, but

it is unclear whether houses will be provided with services off this main. It seems likely that

they will. The water main then becomes a critical service that is potentially at risk in a flood

or liquefaction event.

Mr Terry Long of BoPRC said: 50

BOPRC was provided with a copy of the Grant Hammond Technology Works report on

22 May 2019. … Mr Hammond’s report does not address the option of a reticulated

community wastewater treatment system nor the issues raised in Policies 13, 14 and

15 and Method 1 of the OSET Regional Plan. It simply repeats statements previously

made by Aurecon on this matter on behalf of the applicant. … it may be possible to use

site won materials (i.e. sourced from other portions of the property) to construct each

of the elevated house sites. The viability of this approach will depend on the type of

49 The number of pedestrians killed on New Zealand roads has increased by a whopping 75 per cent this year

(2017), as the total road toll also soars. NZ Herald, 23 August 2017

50 Long, BoPRC, ss8.1 through 8.5

15

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

material used and the methods used to place it. It may have a category 3 soil and that

the sites may be able to accommodate a 3 or 4 bedroom home and garage. … It is clear

Mr Hammond holds some concerns that the development may not occur in the way

intended. There is tension between a requirement to create safe and stable building

sites and a land application area of suitable porosity. If the land application area is

compacted to the same extent as would be required for the building platform then it

is probable that the soil will not be a category 3 soil. In the same way, if the soils are

compacted less to meet the category 3 soil requirements then there is a risk that the

soils will not meet the requirement to be “good ground” under the Building Code. Mr

Hammond has therefore suggested a number of consent conditions which should

ensure that the development proceeds as intended and that if the assumptions that

have been used are not valid, that this can be detected early in the development

process. … The ability to achieve category 3 soil for the parts of each site proposed to

be used for wastewater treatment and land application is of critical importance in

order to achieve the permitted standards relied upon in the OSET Regional Plan. I am

of the opinion there is a level of uncertainty category 3 soils can be obtained or

constructed on site. Regardless of where these soils are sourced from, there is still the

challenge of transferring these to site, forming and compacting each of the elevated

platforms. It is possible the soil characteristics will change through this process. If the

deposited and compacted soils are category 4 (or 5) then larger land application areas

will be required. The sites are already confined and a change to category 4 (or 5) will

mean that there is insufficient space for a land application area. It is therefore

important that there is a process of thoroughly investigating each finished platform to

confirm that there is a category 3 soil for the entire dedicated wastewater treatment

and land application areas for each site. This will rely on enforceable consent

conditions and that investigation being undertaken and signed off by someone with

appropriate expertise and experience as part of the section 224(c) sign certification

process.”

He concluded as follows; 51

“10.1. I have carefully considered the proposed use of on-site wastewater treatment

and land application systems for each of the 137 residential lots. I am of the opinion

that the use of on-site systems is less preferable to a decentralised reticulated

community wastewater treatment system for a large scale residential subdivision of

this nature. Particularly in an area subject to flood hazard and sea level rise. It is

accepted that there is no reticulated system in the vicinity at the present time. The

applicant has not considered a decentralised system but prefers separate wastewater

treatment and disposal systems for each site. The applicant has provided information

to support this approach.

10.2. There are risks associated with creating raised platforms for the treatment and

land application of waste including whether the appropriate soil can be sourced on

site or off site and if sourced whether its characteristics can be retained through the

51 Long, BoPRC, ss10.1 and 10.2

16

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

process of constructing each raised treatment and land application area. It is therefore

critical that if resource consent were to be granted, that robust and enforceable

consent conditions are imposed to ensure Category 3 (or better) type soil can be

achieved for each site’s land application and treatment area and that a suitably

qualified and experienced person is able to determine those standards have been met.

I have suggested conditions of consent that aim to address these concerns in the event

consideration is given to granting consent.”

There are significant concerns raised by Mr Hammond and Mr Long with the use of won

material from the site because of the conflicted requirements to make a safe building platform

and a site suitable for wastewater disposal via soakage. If insufficient category 3 soil can’t be

won, and category 4 or 5 soils are used, larger disposal sites will be required. This will change

the development proposed significantly. The use of won material is emphasised in the

application as key to its success of being an eco-village (not having long haulage of material

out and in to the site), and is potentially essential for its economic viability. The panel shares

those serious concerns.

The applicant provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the panel that stormwater resulting from

the activity could be addressed satisfactorily.

The running of the necessary pumps for the development and reliance on the existing canal

however, are of concern to the panel. The current scheme is acknowledged by submitters as

designed for farming activities. This level of service is much lower than that expected and

required for an urban/rural lifestyle development.

The canal banks were raised as a structural concern, along with the need to match new pumps

with changed flows as a result of the proposed wetlands and housing. The pumps rely on

power and there is significant risk that this might be lost in a flood event – most likely at the

time they are most needed. It is also uncertainty who will maintain and operate the new and

modified pumps.

The applicant advises that the house lots and a catchment separation bund will be above the

canal stop bank levels, 52 but it is unclear what the impact of a sudden failure of the canal

banks will be.

Mr Lawton of WBDC on 2 July said “… in addition, because the water level in the canal is higher

than the development site I believe there is also a risk of this water ‘piping’ into the pond

excavation site under pressure. What do we know about the design and construction of the

Canal? Can it handle this sort of disturbance?”

These concerns are amongst a number raised by the district council engineers, and raised flags

for the panel.

Finding: The three waters associated with this proposal are considered to each pose

risks of varying magnitude. However when considered in totality, they become such

that the panel is not satisfied that these can be robustly mitigated in the long term.

52 Appendix C ‘Natural Hazard Risk Assessment’ page 1332

17

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

This is a very complex site with high water tables, competing needs to maintain

freshwater levels in the wetlands, while on the other hand keeping the building

platforms and roads dry. This would require highly skilled and expensive management

that the panel believes has not been considered sufficiently for the long term. The

on-site wastewater disposal systems are going to have to be well maintained and

managed. The applicant has suggested that consent notices can address this, but this

is very unlikely to be the case as it in turn relies on council actively enforcing them.

As such, it creates an accumulation of too many risks.

h) Recreation, Reserves and Public Access:

The proposal is for a small active recreation space, but it is unclear in the application what

facilities will be provided, if any, and what its real purpose is, other than an offering of

limited value.

On the other hand the proposal provides for significant amenity value with the creation

of the wetlands. However these are not intended for full public access and are potentially

going to be used for bird sport shooting once developed.

Finding: The proposed wetlands restoration would provide amenity value to the area,

which is a positive and welcome element of the proposal. The benefits then need to

be considered against the impact the development of the 137 residential lots have,

and how these two elements are weighted.

i) Positive effects:

The wetlands are accepted and supported as a positive proposal. It was suggested by one

submission that they would be a permitted activity. A reduction in dairy farming albeit minor

for the catchment size is potentially another positive action by reducing the environmental

impacts.

Finding: There are some positive components to the proposal, and the applicant is to

be applauded for these. However the negatives outweigh the positives

j) Other issues: The RO did not advance any detailed precedent arguments and no further issues were considered as needing to be addressed.

Finding: there were no further issues that were not otherwise addressed

8.3 Summary of findings relating to effects issues: The wetland component of the proposal is a permitted activity and does not require resource consent,

other than possibly the earthworks quantities.

18

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

The development of 137 residential lots in an area identified by council in its various maps, including

the District Plan as a flood hazard, liquefaction hazard and tsunami hazard raise serious concerns.

The applicant has endeavoured to show how these can be mitigated, however the RO and advisors

are not convinced. The mitigation measures are not detailed, and this is not unexpected at the RC

application stage.

However when viewed alongside the lack of community heart; issues with roading by co-mingling

pedestrians with traffic in an unsuitable speed environment; liquefaction potential risk to the existing

properties in Pukehina beach created by new swales; isolation of residents by road closure due to

flooding; the on-site wastewater concerns with conflict between soakage versus suitably compacted

building platforms; the issues become significant, and cannot cumulatively be considered ‘less than

minor’.

The views of Mr Long of BOPRC in regards to on-site wastewater raise serious concerns for the panel,

and in total these accumulated risks lead to the proposal being considered too risky. On balance the

application has too many accumulated risks and must be declined. The engineering concerns and risks

outweigh the benefits of the wetlands and reduction in dairy farming environmental impacts.

9.0 OTHER MATTERS The RO identified and analysed the following matters:

Natural hazards: commenting that: “… Council will rely on the Regional Council's

judgement as the initiator of Change 2 Natural Hazards of the Regional Policy

Statement. … The NHRA and its findings are accepted. … the proposed development …

is not formally required to give effect to the provisions of the RPS. Section 104 of the

RMA requires that for a resource consent, the development should ‘have regard’ to

the provision of the RPS only.” 53

National Environmental Standards for Contaminated Sites: saying that: “… Provided

a DSI is conducted prior to any construction works, it is considered that the site is

suitable from a contamination perspective to support the proposed wetland and eco-

village development. Any potential adverse effects are therefore considered to be "less

than minor". 54

Precedent: She concluded that “… precedent will not be created through the granting

of this application.” 55

Plan Change/Structure Plan versus Resource Consent. She observed that: “… The

applicant has chosen to submit an application for resource consent to subdivide the

53 RO, s9 54 Ibid 55 Ibid

19

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

property rather than request a Plan Change. Given the proposal is not a prohibited

activity there is nothing precluding this approach.” 56

Section 106 of the Act: She said: 57 Council may refuse to grant a subdivision consent

… if the land is at significant risk from natural hazards. … A Natural Hazards Risk

Assessment has been provided [and] reviewed by the Regional Council. They have

confirmed this assessment has been done to a satisfactory level and have

demonstrated that mitigation measures will result in the natural hazard risk being low

for all identified natural hazards. … it can be concluded that under Section 106 the site

is appropriate for the proposed subdivision, subject to the conditions outlined in the

Natural Hazards Assessment being adhered to.

We have reviewed her analysis and considered other potential matters. We conclude that all relevant matters have been considered in finalising our determination.

9.0 PART 2 OF THE ACT

The RO analysed the Part 2 (ss5-8) considerations and concluded that there was no reason to

refuse consent:

Section 5: “… the actual and potential effects generated by the proposed development

can be mitigated to an acceptable level, particularly in relation to natural hazards and

rural character and amenity. …. The proposed wetland will have environmental

benefits, and potential community benefits by providing further recreational

opportunities to the local and wider community. …” 58

Section 6: “… The matters of Section 6 have been addressed and recognised in the

application.” 59

Section 7: “The proposal is … generally consistent with Section 7 of the Act.” 60

Section 8: “… Regard has been had to the Treaty of Waitangi and it is determined that

for this application there are no matters of relevance. Consultation by the applicant

has been undertaken with relevant Iwi and a Cultural Assessment has been provided.

The use and development of the site will not be contrary to section 8 of the Act.” 61

Part 2 Overall: “… the application is consistent with Part II.” 62

56 Ibid 57 Ibid, Paragraph 10.9, Page 94 58 Ibid, Paragraphs 10.6 and 10.7, Page 92 59 Ibid, Paragraph 10.8.2, Page 92 60 Ibid, Paragraph 10.8.9, Page 93 61 Ibid, Paragraph 10.8.10, Pages 93-94 62 Ibid, Paragraph 10.8.12, Page 94

20

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

The Commissioners have considered Part 2 of the Act and accept that the relevant matters

have been adequately analysed and reviewed. Our conclusion however is still that consent

to the proposal should not be granted, fundamentally because of environmental risks that

should not be left to design phase assessment and addressing.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

In this concluding section we consider ss104, 104D, 106 and Part 2 of the Act which guide

our considerations.

S104 of the Act says (and we highlight the word “must”):

When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received,

the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to–

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring

positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on

the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably

necessary to determine the application.

Our findings in summary with regard to s104 are:

i. In terms of s104(a) and (ab) above, the effects of the proposal on the environment,

are considered to be potentially and cumulatively significant both in terms of adverse

and positive effects.

ii. In terms of s104(b) above, the proposal is not considered overall to be ‘contrary to’

the relevant planning instruments.

iii. Therefore the proposal meets the second of the “gateway tests”, but not the first, and

we note only one is required.

iv. We have considered all relevant other matters as required by s104(b), and taken them

into consideration.

S104D of the Act says (and we note and highlight the word “may”):

… a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity

only if it is satisfied that either— (a) the adverse effects of the activity on the

21

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

environment … will be minor; or (b) the application is for an activity that will not be

contrary to the objectives and policies of … both the relevant plan and the relevant

proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.

s106 of the Act provides circumstances where a Consent authority may refuse subdivision

consent. We may refuse to grant a subdivision consent if we consider: there is a significant risk

from natural hazards; or sufficient provision has not been made for legal and physical access to

each allotment to be created by the subdivision. For these purposes an assessment of the risk

from natural hazards requires a combined assessment of: 63

(a) the likelihood of natural hazards occurring (whether individually or in

combination); and

(b) the material damage to land in respect of which the consent is sought, other land,

or structures that would result from natural hazards; and

(c) any likely subsequent use of the land in respect of which the consent is sought that

would accelerate, worsen, or result in material damage of the kind referred to in

paragraph (b).

Our findings in relation to s104D, 106 and Part2 are:

i. In terms of s104D we may consent the proposal only if satisfied that the adverse

effects of the activity on the environment will be minor. We consider the potential

and cumulative environmental effects are on balance such that we should not grant

consent.

ii. Regarding s106 we have weighed the evidence of Messrs Long and Steed (BoPRC) plus

the experts for the Applicant and those called by Council. They all acknowledge risks

but differ in whether those risks can be properly left to be addressed at detailed

design stage and in the meantime covered by conditions.

iii. We find the evidence has established sufficient causes for concern that have not been

adequately addressed by conditions, that consent should not be granted.

iv. We have further considered the proposal in relation to Part 2 of the Act, and that has

not changed our determination.

v. We record that we have studied the Right of Reply from Counsel for the Applicant,

and that such study has not changed our views.

CONSENT

Pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, 104D and 106 of the Resource Management Act and under

delegated authority pursuant to Section 34A, consent to the Application is declined for the

reasons given above and summarised below.

63 RMA s106(1) and s106(1A)

22

Pukehina Eco-Village Decision 2019

REASONS

A) The proposal has considerable merit and we reluctantly decline consent.

B) It is not significantly ‘contrary to’ the planning instruments, and therefore passes

one of the gateway tests, and only one is required for further consideration.

C) However, the proposal has sufficient ‘effects risks’ when considered potentially and

cumulatively to persuade us to decline consent.

Richard Bax, Independent Commissioner Alan Withy, Independent Commissioner and Chair

Dated: 30th of October 2019

ANNEXURE 2

Name and address of persons to be served with a copy of the notice

Sub

#

Name Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 Email Address

1 Paul Holmes In Luxemburg - email only paultholmes@hotmail.com

2 Kevin Barugh 20 Costello Crescent RD 9 Te Puke 3189 kevbarugh@outlook.com

3 Paul Hickson PO Box 197 Te Puke 3153 paul@paulhickson.com

4 Heather Roberts 732 Old Coach Road RD 6 Te Puke 3186 jaydesnana@gmail.com

5 Nicola Jones 23 Ben Keyes Street Te Puke 3116 72nikkij@gmail.com

6 Isabella Cole 1395 No 3 Road RD 3 Te Puke 3183 isabella.cole@student.tepukeint.scho

ol.nz 7 Sam Flowerday 436 No 3 Road RD 3 Te Puke 3183 flowerday.sam@gmail.com

8 Connor Mole 30 Sunline Place Ngongotaha Rotorua 3010 Cpm710@outlook.com

9 Sharon Chote 73 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 chote@xtra.co.nz

10 Joelene Ranby 710 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 Joelene@resolutionretreats.co.nz

11 Ana Takuira-Mita 30 Old Coach Road RD 9 Te Puke 3189 tatai@fairhaven.school.nz

12 Jason Wilkinson 6 Saddlers Way Papamoa 3118 jason@gonegreen.co.nz

13 Mark Boyle 11 Beach Access RD 6 Te Puke 3186 Mark@paengaroa.school.nz

14 Shaun Wilson 9 Enterprise Drive Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 mike@countrywidecontractors.co.nz

15 Nicole Ririnui 50 Bahamas Key Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 nixnui4u@gmail.com

16 Gregor Joh Stevenson 63 Roberton Road Avondale Auckland 1026 greg@primesoft.co.nz

17 Raine Tarawa 23 Philomel Crescent Welcome Bay Tauranga 3112 RRT@hotmail.co.nz

18 Pope Electrical Unit 4-16 Ashley Place Papamoa 3118 dee@popes.co.nz

19 Adrianna Hess 117 Mackworth Street Woolston Christchurch 8062 adrianna.m.hess@gmail.com

20 Kingsley Turner 50 Orakei Road Remuera Auckland 1050 kingsley@pfnz.co.nz

21 Charlotte Kofoed 16N Fisher-Point Drive Auckland Central Auckland 1010 charlotte.kofoed@nzsir.com

22 Allan Phillip Myers 4/22A Cornwall Park Avenue Epsom Auckland 1051 contractauctioneer@gmail.com

23 Aaron Tunstall PO Box 1093 Shortland Street Auckland 1140 aaron@impression.co.nz

24 Rochelle Carter 442 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 rochelle.carter001@gmail.com

25 Jaime Sherris 442a Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 blondychops@gmail.com

26 Neil Carter 442 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 neil@warehousecars.net.nz

27 Dominic Worthington C4/19 Fleet Street Eden Terrace Auckland 1021 dominic.worthington@raywhite.com

28 David Lu 512/1 Hobson Street Auckland Central Auckland 1010 lu85.david@gmail.com

29 Tony Stollery PO Box 4577 Mt Maunganui South Mt Maunganui 3149 tony@digitaldisplays.co.nz

30 Linda Williams 132B Birkenhead Avenue Birkenhead Auckland 0626 linda@imed.co.nz

31 Julie Ann Dovaston 17 Sunset Drive RD 9 Te Puke 3189 thedovastons@hotmail.com

32 Molly Rowlandson 360B Maunganui Road Mt Maunganui 3116 mjrowlandson@gmail.com

33 Anthony William Lucas 109B Riverview Road Whangamata 3620 tony.lucas@xtra.co.nz

34 Ian Rollerson 19 Nanric Lane RD 6 Te Puke 3186 Idrollerson@hotmail.com

35 Nicholas Cutting 8 Costello Crescent RD 9 Te Puke 3189 nicholascutting@icloud.com

36 Fernando Rodrigues 36 Sunvale Place Gate Pa Tauranga 3112 fernando.sekin@gmail.com

37 Lloyd Morris 47a Donaldson Drive RD 3 Albany 0793 Lloyd@jkgl.co.nz

38 Jung Chun 18 Mariposa Avenue Lynfield Auckland 1042 jung.chun.mail@gmail.com

39 David Chalmers 132B Birkenhead Avenue Birkenhead Auckland 0626 david@imed.co.nz

40 Martine Pierhagen 112 Meander Drive Welcome Bay Tauranga 3112 info@sweetorange.co.nz

41 Jou Chun 1/74 Cameron Street Onehunga Auckland 1061 Jou.chun@gmail.com

42 Kate Pomare 31 Inglewood Place Bethlehem Tauranga 3110 Doug@easebuilding.co.nz

43 Thomas Sahs 8 Ireland Street Freemans Bay Auckland 1011 tomsahs@gmail.com

44 Debra Ann Matika 23 Nautilus Drive, Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 debbiematika@gmail.com

45 Ann Treadgold 12 Landscape Road Te Puke 3119 ann@wordshine.co.nz

46 Sue Feeley 508 Arrowtown-Lakes Hayes Road RD 1 Queenstown 9371 SeFeeley@gmail.com

47 Janet Derbyshire 61 Sandhurst Drive Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 janetd@kinect.co.nz

48 David Lowe 186 Pukehina Parade RD 9 3189 David.lowe08@hotmail.co.nz

49 Matthew Park 1115 Papamoa Beach Road Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 matthew.park@tepuke.school.nz

50 Anna Louise Dobson 91 Manu Crescent Upper Vogeltown New Plymouth 4310 annalouisedobson@gmail.com

51 Diane Sharma-Winter 28 Wilson Street RD 4 Whakatane 3194 d.sharma.winter@gmail.com

52 Caleb Dawson 26 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 mistaspeaka@yahoo.co.nz

53 Jason Devcich 584 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 Motoman128@hotmail.co.nz

54 Jess Jenkins 72 Barnard Road Fairy Springs Rotorua 3015 Jess.jenkins67@gmail.com

55 Melanie Dwane 282 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 jonn@tektonbuilders.co.nz

56 Gregory Kayne Smith 20 Devon Road Frankton Hamilton 3204 cjcsux@gmail.com

57 Tania Dovaston 24 Barrett Road RD 8 Tauranga 3180 tania_balfour@hotmail.com

58 Sonja Williams 7 Southill Way Pyes Pa Tauranga 3112 kiwiwillis@hotmail.con

59 Antonia Whitlock 4 Ohinerau Street Remuera Auckland 1050 antonia.jeremy@xtra.co.nz

60 Angel Lagerwaard 158 Cameron Road Te Puke 3119 danangel.lagerwaard@gmail.com

61 Julie Cole 5 Puriri Avenue Te Puke 3119 juliecole624@gmail.com

62 Malcolm William Hesseltine 2 Snave Place East Tamaki Auckland 2013 malcolmhesseltine@gmail.com

63 Heather Ann Ballantyne 33 Beaumaris Boulevard Bethlehem Tauranga 3110 hballantyne0@gmail.com

64 Damon Jackson 3 George Avenue Herald Island Auckland 0618 damonjackson@me.com

65 Alan John George Sutherland 48 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 ajg.sutherland@gmail.com

66 Lewis Cormack PO Box 364 Kerikeri 0245 sustainablesolutions@xtra.co.nz

67 Adam Thompson 19 St Albans Avenue Mt Eden Auckland 1024 alana.saunders@raywhite.com

68 Kate Murray-Cawte 56a Pongakawa Station Road RD 6 Te Puke 3186 fourleaffarmsnz@gmail.com

69 Yanmin Zhou 31 Monteith Crescent Remuera Auckland 1050 minmin2876886@hotmail.com

70 Renata Fox 220A Ballintoy Park Drive RD 5 Tauranga 3175 Renata.M.K.Fox@Gmail.Com

71 Thomas Farmer 32 Onslow Ave Epsom Auckland 1023 Thomas.john.farmer@gmail.com

72 Beverly Nairn 580 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 bev.nairn@gmail.com

73 Kerrin Mangos 488A Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 kerrinmangos@gmail.com

74 Jarrod Hardwich 237 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 Hardwickbuilders@xtra.co.nz

75 Michelle Reynolds 22 Seabreeze Place Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 Lovefrommichelle@gmail.com

76 Kim Buchan 6/11 Ashley Place Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 kim@xnet.co.nz

77 Stephen and Louise Howse 178 Whitehall Road RD 4 Cambridge 3496 steve@howse.nz

78 Janelle Havenga 22 Korowai Street Mt Maunganui 3116 janelle.t@hotmail.co.nz

79 Jacob Horton 327 Hereford Park Road RD 6 Te Puke 3186 j.s.horton@orcon.net.nz

80 Nicola Cooke 54a Beatty Avenue Te Puke 3119 nicola.cooke@eves.co.nz

81 AG & VC Buchanan Ltd PO Box 4530 Mt Maunganui South Maunganui 3149 office@glendenefarms.com

82 Fish & Game New Zealand (Eastern

Region)

John Meikle

Private Bag 3010 Rotorua Mail Centre Rotorua 3010 jmeikle@fishandgame.org.nz

83 Pukehina Motor Camp

John Hamlin

337 Pukehina Beach Road RD 9 Te Puke 3189 John@PUKEHINAMOTORCAMP.CO.N

Z

84 Maria Bernadine Willis 40B Orange Lane Bethlehem Tauranga 3110 n/a

85 Conrad Maxwell and Bronwyn Lee

Nagle

114 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 belybuton@xtra.co.nz

86 Rickhil Prakash 9 Tinaku Road Flat Bush Auckland 2019 prakash.rickhil@gmail.com

87 Nelson Takle Level 2, Van Den Brink House 652 Great South Road Manukau 2104 Nelson.takle@raywhite.com

88 Shane Hodgeson 3/672 Remuera Road Remuera Auckland 1050 Shaneihodgson@gmail.com

89 Paul Hefer 26 Kingsland Avenue Kingsland Auckland 1021 paul@setpointtech.co.nz

90 Tili David Maiava 271a Mount Albert Road Sandringham Auckland 1041 dtmaiava@icloud.com

91 Krystal Le 2/213 St Andrews Road Epsom Auckland 1023 krystallambert4296@gmail.com

92 George Erdos 6 Woodley Avenue Remuera Auckland 1050 George.erdos@aklrealty.co.nz

93 Jasnish Gujra 70b Sayegh Street St Heliers Auckland 1071 Jasnish.g@gmail.com

94 Phillip John England 219 Jervois Road Herne Bay Auckland 1011 pip.england@chapmantripp.com

95 Chetan Kanjarbhat 40/124 Stancombe Road Flatbush Auckland 2016 Kanjarbhat.chetan@gmail.com

96 Joshua Grimshaw 23 Rata Road Whenuapai Auckland 0618 joshgrimshaw@gmail.com

97 Kalev Crossland 23 McBreen Avenue Northcote Auckland 0627 Kalevcrossland@gmail.com

98 Paramjit Dhatt 7/2 Bishop Browne Place Flat Bush Auckland 2013 Pj@dhattgroup.co.nz

99 Dennis Huang 2 Mcginty Street Takanini Auckland 2112 Hyjdennis@gmail.com

100 Paul Francis 564a Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 paul@alliedmining.co.nz

101 Delanie Horrobin 4S/80 Richmond Road Grey Lynn Auckland 1021 delanie.horrobin@raywhite.com

102 Warren Gabb 24 Greenacres Drive Kawakawa 0210 warrenjen2007@gmail.com

103 Aaron Cook 3a/97 Shortland Street Auckland Central Auckland 1010 Supersuccesscoaching@gmail.com

104 Aaron Jokhan 328 Great South Road Papatoetoe Auckland 1025 Aaron.jokhan@remax.co.nz

105 Colin Kelly 103 Dowse Drive Maungaraki Lower Hutt 5010 Colin.kellywellington@gmail.com

106 Thomas Rawson 277 West Tamaki Road Wai O Tahi Bay Auckland 1072 tom.rawson@raywhite.com

107 Andrew Murray 6b/17 Albert Street Auckland Central Auckland 1010 andrew@apartmentspecialists.co.nz

108 James Mairs 2/32 Tarawera Terrace St Heliers Auckland 1071 James.citysales@gmail.com

109 Kerry Augustine 30 Ponsonby Road Grey Lynn Auckland 1011 kerry.augustine@nzhomeloans.co.nz

110 Dheeraj Sareen 51 Grande Vue Road Manurewa Auckland 2102 Sunny.sareen@raywhite.com

111 Bay of Plenty Regional Council PO Box 364 Whakatāne 3158 Pam.Crabbe@boprc.govt.nz

112 Josh Looney 77 Huse Lane RD 8 Te Puke 3188 josh.looney@student.tphs.school.nz

113 Joshua Wells 58 Farrier Street Papamoa 3118 joshua.wells@student.tphs.school.nz

114 Bob Howden 24 Leitrum Street Cromwell 9310 bob.howden@sentinelhomes.co.nz

115 Emma Howie 453 No 1 Road RD 2 Te Puke 3182 emma.howie@student.tphs.school.nz

116 Tyrece Taylor 193 Bouncher Avenue Te Puke 3119 tyrece.taylor@student.tphs.school.nz

117 Emma Simpson 16 Rocky Cutting Road RD 5 Tauranga 3175 emma.simpson@student.tphs.school.nz

118 Kaleb Allen 141 Wilson Road South RD 9 Te Puke 3189 kaleb.allen@student.tphs.school.nz

119 Richard White 28b Spinnaker Drive Te Atatu Peninsula Auckland 0610 Chalkyjnr@xtra.co.nz

120 Chieh Wen Chao 96 Paratai Drive Orakei Auckland 1071 J.chao@barfoot.co.nz

121 Le Do Thanh Tam 2/213 St Andrews Road Epsom Auckland 1023 Drewwhite4296@gmail.com

122 Rachael Tahuri By email - no postal address provided rachtahuri@gmail.com

123 Olivia Day 175 Cameron Road Te Puke 3119 hubblybubbly100@mail.com

124 Steven Goodey 10 Plunket Avenue Petone Lower Hutt 5012 steven@stevengoodey.com

125 Tristan Mcnabb 12/10 Customs Street East Auckland Central Auckland 1010 tristan@nplholdings.co.nz

126 Dheeraj Sareen 51 Grande Vue Road Manurewa Auckland 2102 Sunny.sareen@raywhite.com

127 Connie Reihana 4 Heenans Way Rosehill Papakura 2113 Chiwaa11@gmail.com

128 Troy Melton 140 Maungarangi Road RD 9 Te Puke 3189 quackman5000@gmail.com

129 Stephen Hose 22 Kokihi Close Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 steve.hose@tepuke.school.nz

130 Christine Nairn 211 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 chrissienairn@hotmail.com

131 Raj Dharmendra 361C Main North Road Brown Owl Upper Hutt 5018 rajdharma99@gmail.com

132 Mohit Prasad 93 Taylor Street Blockhouse Bay Auckland 0600 architechdesignsnz@gmail.com

133 Laarissa Tsapko 79A Banks Road Mt Wellington Auckland 1060 larissa@aklrealty.co.nz

134 Anne and Jim Chalmers 369 Withells Road Avonhead Christchurch 8042 Pauperpensioner@gmail.com

135 Peter James and Heather Jewele

Wheeler

336 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 thewheelers336@gmail.com

136 Eleanor Dorn 70b Sayegh Street St Heliers Auckland 1071 eleanor@eleanordornmakeup.com

137 Connor Smith 21b Godden Crescent Mission Bay Auckland 1071 connor@franklins.co.nz

138 Elliot Lord 61 Kiwi Road Pt Chevalier Auckland 1022 elliot@supercitymortgages.co.nz

139 Vinay Mehta 2 Zambezi Lane Mt Roskill Auckland 1041 prashantpoly@gmail.com

140 Amelia Dalzell 14 Eastfield Avenue Flatbush Auckland 2019 amelia.dalzell@gmail.com

141 Department of Conservation (Jeff

Milham)

PO Box 9003 Greerton Tauranga 3142 jbernard@doc.govt.nz

142 Zoe Fawcett 3/18 Don Croot Street Morningside Auckland 1021 zoe@kokako.co.nz

143 Andrew Eagles 40 Esperance Road Glendowie Auckland 1071 andrew.eagles@nzgbc.org.nz

144 Ross Maegaard 198 Arthur Street Onehunga Auckland 1061 ross@cachetplumbing.co.nz

145 Michael and Andrea Piper 699 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 teampiper@xtra.co.nz

146 Alex Reiche (The Building Excellence

Group)

PO Box 105339 Auckland 1143 alex@bxg.co.nz

147 Rachel Ryan 12 Puriri Avenue Te Puke 3119 rolryan@hotmail.com

148 Jarrad Douglas 49 Orchard Street Avondale Auckland 1026 jarrad.douglas@gmail.com

149 Sunisha Gujral 683 Redoubt Road Flatbush Auckland 2019 sunishagujral@yahoo.com.au

150 Alice Ophelia McOnie 35Q Garnet Road Westmere Auckland 1022 alice.mconie@gmail.com

151 Douglas Warren 1/22 Gladstone Road Parnell Auckland 1052 doug.warren@xe.com

152 Kenneth Mead 120 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 Meadsken1@gmail.com

153 Peter Lee 22 Landscape Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 peter.lee.ns12@gmail.com

154 Tracee Reynolds 1 Lindsay Street Havelock North 4130 tracee@naturopath.co.nz

155 Pia Johns 33 Water Lane Waitao 3175 johns_pia@yahoo.co.nz

156 Jimmy Williams 7 Southill Way Pyes Pa Tauranga 3112 lagomdevelopments@gmail.com

157 Eleanor Jane Kelly 13 Kaikokopu Road RD 9 Te Puke 3189 Elefeathers@gmail.com

158 Jessica Scappucci 3 Atlantic Close Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 Jesterbells19@gmail.com

159 Katy Laidlaw 194a Kairua Road RD 5 Tauranga 3175 Katylaidlaw1@gmail.com

160 Sherilene Rimene 134 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 sherryrimene@gmail.com

161 Carly Deller 33 Bellmont Avenue Chartwell Hamilton 3210 Carlydeller@gmail.com

162 Monique Wellington 66 Village Park Drive Welcomes Bay Tauranga 3112 batsman@xtra.co.nz

163 Dennis and Liz Woodward 205 No 2 Road RD 2 Te Puke 3182 denwoody@xtra.co.nz

164 Carmel Draper 69E Wilson Road RD 1 Warkworth 0981 Carmeldraper1@gmail.com

165 Stephen Stratford 59B Jaemont Avenue Te Atatu South Auckland 0610 stephen.stratford@gmail.com

166 Judy and Paul Treloar (Treloar Trusts

Partnership)

103E Rowe Road RD 3 Tauranga 3173 judy@treloar.co.nz

167 Zhen Li 16 Flavia Place Lynfield Auckland 1042 Jayli300@msn.com

168 Kianoush Kloor 83 Taniwha Street Wai O Taiki Bay Auckland 1072

169 Regan Dovaston 17 Sunset Drive RD 9 Te Puke 3189 regandovaston@gmail.com

170 Sian Northfield 84 Sixteenth Avenue Tauranga South Tauranga 3112 sian.northfield@tepuke.school.nz

171 Charles Li 1/9 De Val Drive Titirangi Auckland 0604 corneliusli@gmail.com

172 Peter Scott 17 Manapouri Place Pakuranga Heights Auckland 2010 pscott107@gmail.com

173 Mark Andrew Irving PO Box 13057 Tauranga Central Tauranga 3141 mark@priorityone.co.nz

174 Patricia Freid 9B Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 pattibryan@hotmail.com

Elizabeth Foster 155 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 lizzie57@xtra.co.nz

Jan Fitzgerald 705 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 janfitzgerald@xtra.co.nz

176 Jay Kim 11 Kellaway Drive East Tamaki Auckland 2013 spiedy@hanmail.net

177 Emma Martin 30 Awatira Drive Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 emmamartin@hotmail.co.nz

178 Bevan Matthews PO Box 387 Whakatane 3158 bevanmathews@gmail.com

179 Yiwen Chen 122 Union Road Howick Auckland 2014 evan-yiwenchen@hotmail.com

180 Igor Sutich 30 Sprott Road Kohimarama Auckland 1071 igor@nziproperty.co.nz

181 Lisa Wise 57B Aquarius Drive Kawaha Point Rotorua 3010 lisa@tarawera.co.nz

182 Amanda Morrison 52 John Street Ponsonby Auckland 1011 amanda_morrie@hotmail.com

183 Campbell Hastie 1025 Kaipara Coast Highway Kaukapakapa 0873 campbell@go2guys.co.nz

184 Garth Cumming 70 Westridge Drive Tauriko Tauranga 3110 gmc.properties@xtra.co.nz

185 Garima Singh 78 Helena Street Massey Auckland 0614 garima81singh@gmail.com

186 Daniel Maclaren 29a Orakei Road Remuera Auckland 1050 danielttfn@gmail.com

187 Roxanne Dadswell 83 Ayers Street Rangiora 7400 roxanned@xtra.co.nz

188 Julie Cross 4 Gardiner Place RD 9 Te Puke 3189 juliecrossnz@gmail.com

189 Monty Dsor 66 Great South Road Papatoetoe Auckland 2025 monty.dsor@raywhite.com

190 Melanie Burt 110 Onehunga Mall Onehunga Auckland 1061 melanie.burt@xtra.co.nz

191 Cory Murray 3 Norfolk Road Stanmore Bay Whangaparaoa 0932 corymurray44@gmail.com

192 Garth Russell 445 Onemana Drive RD 1 Whangamata 3691 garthbrussell@yahoo.com.au

193 David Dalton 52 Upper Queen Street Eden Terrace Auckland 1010 dave@aai.nz

194 Wayne Green 25 Larne Avenue Pakuranga Heights Auckland 2010 Wayne@albalocksmiths.co.nz

195 Susan Clare Green 25 Larne Avenue Pakuranga Heights Auckland 2010

196 Toni Methven 509 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 methventoni@gmail.com

197 Ben Woodham 53 Maungawhare Place Otumoetai Tauranga 3110 mahdoowneb@gmail.com

198 Andre Conradie 32 Maraetai School Road Maraetai Auckland 2018 andre@rpc.co.nz

199 John Tomas 300 Triangle Road Henderson Auckland 0614 jp.tomas112@gmail.com

200 Adam Stevenson 64 Cottle Road RD 2 Henderson 0782 stevensoneventsconz@gmail.com

201 Greg Purcell PO Box 11289 Palm Beach Papamoa 3151 greg.purcell@raywhite.com

202 Ryan Bennett 1/191 Racecourse Road RD 1 Cambridge 3493 ryan_bennett827@hotmail.com

203 Ben Woodward 2 Karewa Parade Papamoa Beach Papamoa 3118 ben.woodward@student.tphs.school.nz

204 Te Runanga o Ngati Whakahemo 1345 Oropi Road RD 3 Tauranga 3173 mita@hotmail.co.nz

205 Waihi Drainage District Incorporated

Society

C/- D Spratt

265 Cutwater Road

RD 9 Te Puke 3189 spratty@netsmart.net.nz

206 Gary Topless 184 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 n/a

207 David Sargent 161 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 dave.t.sargent@gmail.com

208 Beverley Goldsworthy 106 Pukehina Parade RD 9 Te Puke 3189 bevgoldsworthy@gmail.com

209 Sandeep Singh 78 Helena Street Massey Auckland 0614 singh.sandeep164@gmail.com

210 Bay of Plenty District Health Board PO Box 2120 Tauranga 3144 Robyn.Woods@bopdhb.govt.nz

211 Pukehina Beach Rate Payers

Association

C/- Michael Piper

699 Pukehina Parade

RD 9 Te Puke 3189 mikeangiepiper@gmail.com

212 Clive and Denise Donald 156 Pukehina Beach Road RD 9 Te Puke 3189 cdquack@gmail.com

213 New Zealand Transport Agency PO Box 13055 Tauranga Central Tauranga 3141 Rodney.Albertyn@nzta.govt.nz

214 James Brent Watson Sinclair (Brent) 11c Woodcock Road RD 3 Hamilton 3283 kandbsinclair@outlook.com

215 Joseph Yang 734B East Coast Road Pinehill Auckland 0632 josephyms@gmail.com

216 Amber Lee Ingle 35 Alverstoke Road Parkvale Tauranga 3112 amber.lee.ingle@gmail.com

217 Marcos Azaro 2 Douglas Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 marcos@seomarketing.co.nz

218 Paul Ferris 148 Okere Road RD 4 Rotorua 3074 ferriser@gmail.com

219 Komila Chand 13 Aldersgate Road Hillsborough Auckland 1042 Komila.chand@bluegates.co.nz

220 Jeremy Rossaak 46 La Colina Place Bethlehem Tauranga 3110 J_rossaak@yahoo.co.nz

221 Aaron Dempsey 6 O'Neill Street Ponsonby Auckland 1011 aarondempsey@gmail.com

222 Lisa Austin 47b Orkney Road Mt Maunganui Mt Maunganui 3116 lisa.austin@tepuke.school.nz

175

223 Greg Cain 54 Mitchell Street Tauranga gregcai@fcc.co.nz

224 Edwin (FULL NAME NOT PROVIDED) 34a Waipuna rd Mt Wellington Auckland yyh_99_99@hotmail.com

225 Maruata Teki Doncaster Drive Papamoa Papamoa Maru.teki3@gmail.com

226 Nicholas Stanfield 5 Estelle Place Auckland nsta616@aucklanduni.ac.nz

227 Nick (FULL NAME NOT PROVIDED) 70 Symond Street, Auckland CBD Auckland nkhl_linh@yahoo.com

228 Mya Taft 148 Tainui Road Auckland myataft@gmail.com

229

Victor (FULL NAME NOT

PROVIDED)

No Address Providedvictor@alphapm.co.nz

230 Nicole Pethua 17 Lismore Lane Te Puke nicole.thompson@tepuke.school.nz

231 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga PO Box 13339 Tauranga 3141 plannerln@heritage.org.nz