Dear Wellington Regional Council,
RE 240 Kapiti Road , currently under application for development consent, the Developer has dug out and backfill a historical wetland within , 2 trucks working over approximately 5 day supplying fill , the measured area taken from google earth is approximately 16 x 4 meters of water surface in area, , since this took place the area in September was flooded 400mm above the natural containment height, this is the first time in 20 years I have witnessed this,
The area was a food source for kingfishers and other wetland birds which are no longer present. due to the adverse effects on the environment, I have photographic evidence, and many others who have made submissions at the consent herring as witness to these works being undertaken.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Grout

Dear Nicola Fenn,
Im would like to inform GWRC of the distraction of what I believe is a historical Wetland , this was undertaken by the proposed developer, I inform KCDC of this distraction their only reply was thanking for your information,
The site is located at 240 Kapiti Rd currently undergoing Resource consent application ,
RM220070 with KCDC
Consents are also inplace with GWRC,in relation with development of large land area,
My questions are
1 Is the actions undertake illegal ?
2 Can this be undertaken without consent ?
3 Was a consent applied for the wetlands removal ?
4 if this is the wrong place for investigative measures to take place where do I submit my concerns ?
5 how do I upload evidence ?

Yours sincerely,

Paul grout

Dear Nicola Fenn,
This is conflictive interest between KCDC and Cuttriss.The RM220070 report states .4 TOPOGRAPHY, "There are two low points, one located within the approximate centre of the site. Both low points had standing water at the time of site inspection"
Both KCDC and Cuttriss are now saying they never existed? cover up.
RM220070 also states "Ponding areas shall not involve the disturbance of more than 20m2 of land in any 10 year period"
This area has been dug out and filled by 2 excavators and 2 Trucks working continuously over 3 days trucking in fill from outside the site Company (Bryce O'Sullivan Contracting Ltd) the volume would be far greater than 20m2.
These actions were reported to KCDC 14 April ,

now that the herring results are complete and approval has been granted for consent, the RM220070 statement clearly breached in regards to the above, both KCDC and Cuttriss are denying any ponding,

With regards to GWRC use of land consent application yet to be made,Please forward consent number when produced , so the ponding areas can be brought to GWRC attention.
A letter the ombudsman will be made, stating the Breach of consent , cover up and denial by both KCDC and cuttriss,

Below is a letter submitted to KCDC

Kia ora James Jefferson
Several residents of properties adjoining 240 Kāpiti Road were surprised to observe in April 2022, works undertaken by Bryce O’Sullivan Contracting Ltd to remove a pond and associated wetland from that site.
We were surprised, given that the developer has indicated that once the site has been levelled and prepared for construction, there will be over 1,000 cubic metres of surplus fill to be removed and were curious as to why many large truckloads of fill were dumped at this site, levelled and regrassed.
On 18 November 2022, after being contacted by Paul Grout (a submitter to the Resource Consent Hearing), GWRC Environmental Protection Officer Nicola Fenn, queried Emma McLean, Senior Planner at Cuttriss Consultants Ltd regarding any assessment of wetlands at 240 Kāpiti Rd prior to works beginning on or about 14 April 2022 to fill a wetland area – and when could GWRC expect a consent application.
That same day, McLean replied that Cuttriss were not aware of the works, and that there were no assessments of wetlands prior to the consent application to KCDC.
The same day, Sarah Banks, Principal Resource Consents Planner for KCDC, emailed Nicola Fenn stating, “We found no evidence of the ponds referred to and dismissed it as permitted earthworks.”
The existence of the pond and other wetlands were declared in the original application submitted by Cuttriss to KCDC on or about 8 March 2022.
The KCDC planner could have clarified the existence of the wetland pond by:
• Querying the past owner of the property, Graeme and Helen Halstead;
• Referring to Google Maps;
• Contacting the contractor involved in filling it in, Bryce O'Sullivan Contracting Ltd.
The passage of time since the wetland was filled make it difficult to assess the scale of the works involved by visiting the site.
Given the reaction from members of your team and Cuttriss, we can only assume that these works were unconsented. It appears that the developer has completed these works to remove a potential impediment to the earthworks they plan for the site.
We submit that the unconsented infilling of a wetland area brings into question the integrity of the S42A report submitted to the Resource Consent Hearing, prepared by Sarah Banks and reviewed by Eloise Carstens, Team Leader Resource Consents. We believe that it also brings into question the validity of expert reports presented by Cuttriss, the mana whenua assessment of the proposal and ENGEO regarding groundwater management and Te Mana O Te Wai issues associated with any proposed development.
We understand that the Greater Wellington Regional Council will deliberate on this matter once KCDC has approved the consent. On that basis we will deal directly with GWRC on this matter.
We would appreciate your feedback on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Paul grout

Dear Nicola Fenn,
I see you made a site inspection 14 December, Thankyou, what was a pond before being pumpout , dugout and filled cant in no way be classified as residual, this was a natural water body that held water 90% of the year, Residual means , Remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone,The pond has never flooded beyond what was its natural containment , since its removal the area has flooded well into the paddock twice since April, when back filled, to a depth of 400mm as evident in the photographic evidence submitted, Do you have the ability to recover all Bryce O'Sullivan Contracting ltd documents relating to the work they engaged in ? They will not answer or reply to my messages.

Yours sincerely,

Paul grout

Dear Nicola Fenn,
Is there any progress on this ? are you engaging with the contractor Bryce O'Sullivan of what works took place, including cubic volume of fill delivered to site. have you requested reports of the soils and hydrology.
Rumour has it that the land has been put on the market for sale,

Yours sincerely,

Paul grout

Dear Nicola Fenn,
The attached images date back to 1940 and show the wetland ponding area , that all are have denied,
Had a use of land consent application been made ?
To prove what took place can you (GWRC ) request evidence of what the contractor under took , volume of fill , pumping out pond ,
KCDC are all for the developer , and just a waste of time, which is very clear in all the official information request’s received and all the communications that have taken place
Very clear under the RM that NO WATER BODY CAN BE REMOVED ALTERED WITH MORE THAN 20 cubic METRES OVER A 10 YEAR CYCLE
THIS CONSENT HAS BEEN BROKEN

Yours sincerely,

Paul grout

Dear Nicola Fenn,

While perusing the new resource consent applications for 240 Kapiti Road I noticed with interest a photograph captioned: "Photo 2: Pond towards centre of site (to be filled in)." This photograph appears in both applications - at clause 3.1. (Visual Observations) of Appendix C (Geotechnical Report) of resource consent application RM230006 on page 46, and resource consent application RM230008 on page 79.

Is this not the pond that Sarah Banks, Senior Resource Consents Planner, KCDC and Emma McLean, Senior Planner, Cuttriss Consultants Ltd denied any knowledge of before the commissioner's resource consent hearing for the RM220070 application - when we, The Horse Paddock Action Group were trying to establish why a continuously existing pond/wetland had been filled in without resource consent?

. that the unconsented infilling of a wetland area brings into question the integrity of the S42A report submitted to the Resource Consent Hearing, prepared by Sarah Banks and reviewed by Eloise Carstens, Team Leader Resource Consents. We believe that it also brings into question the validity of expert reports presented by Cuttriss, the mana whenua assessment of the proposal and ENGEO regarding groundwater management and Te Mana O Te Wai issues associated with any proposed development." This matter was never addressed by KCDC.

As these new resource consent applications are still 'non-complying' and possibly 'out-of-zone', I request the council reject them forthwith, and then turn their attention to overturning the consent given to the original application, RM220070. At the moment we don't know what truths and what falsehoods have been presented by KCDC or Cuttriss to the resource consent hearing - it is not good enough to assume that the hearing commissioner had all the facts before him when making his decision??

Yours sincerely,

Paul grout