Out of scope
-----Original Message-----
From: David Durie [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 9 August 2023 3:53 PM
To: Donna Jennings [mail to:[email address]]
Subject: RE: s9(2)(a)
Official Information Act request
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Will very likely go to Kāinga Ora, so suggest starting to work on it now. Im still awaiting the
formal confirmation though.
Will aim to come back in the next couple of days.
David
From: Donna Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2023 1:54 PM
To: David Durie
Subject: FW: s9(2)(a)
Official Information Act request
HI David
This one looks like it has been sent to Megan Woods MP address – should this one be
transferred to Kāinga Ora?
Donna
From: s9(2)(a)
Sent: Tuesday, 8 August 2023 9:27 AM
To: [email address]
Cc: Renee Regal [email address]>; Graeme Broderick
[email address]>; [email address]
Subject: Official Information Act request
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Please provide the following information:
1. Kainga Ora's conflict of interest policy as it pertains to staff, and third-party contractors.
2. Details of any conflicts of interest - perceived or actual - declared by staff or third-party
Out of scope
-----Original Message-----
From: Housing Admin [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 31 July 2023 1:54 PM
To: GRU Jobs [mail to:[email address]]
CC: EXT - David Durie [mail to:[email address]]
Subject: MW-PH-1190: Kainga Ora Ohakune more focused on empire-building than
getting needy people into homes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Hi Kāinga Ora
Can you draft a ministerial response to this one please – due back into the office 28 August
please.
Thanks team
Caitlin!
From: s9(2)(a)
Sent: Friday, 28 July 2023 7:19 PM
To: Megan Woods (MIN)
Subject: Kainga Ora Ohakune more focused on empire-building than getting needy people into
homes
Importance: High
Hi Megan,
I am writing to you as a representative of over 120 property owners neighboring the proposed
TeiTei Drive development.
Home owners, businesses and the Carrot Park its proposed to neighbour are all shocked that KO
is not looking at spreading the load of public housing using existing stock available publicly.
You can read about some of this at the article
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300930814/large-intensive-kinga-ora-housing-proposal-for-
ohakune
We had a meeting with KO representatives who voiced that “KO has a standard requirement and
set standard” for purchasing existing homes.
Renee said “I haven’t looked at them in depth, but I’ve skimmed them” and we queried why KO
wasn’t buying existing sections that were build ready at $150k+
I really question why KO is building intensified state houses in one area where the population of
Ohakune is around 1000 people.
Job opportunities only exist during the winter season when there is up to 11,000 visitors staying
in the town.
Renee stated there was 72 people waiting for houses in Ohakune, which we pointed out is
incorrect, there are 72 individuals or families in the whole Ruapehu district.
We are very concerned that people will be displaced from other areas into Ohakune where there
are no jobs, no GP, not very many things for kids to do (which leads to crime).
I have a recording of this hour long call and that lack of knowledge the staff have of this town
and the people waiting on the MSD waitlist.
What seems clear is that Kainga Ora is more focused on empire-building “to meet government
targets” than getting needy people into homes that already exist!
It would be great to talk to you about this project and the huge negative impact this will have on
Ohakune and its tourism.
Regards
s9(2)(a)
the neighbouring property owners & businesses.
Out of scope
-----Original Message-----
From: Housing Admin [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 1 August 2023 9:29 AM
To: GRU Jobs [mail to:[email address]]
CC: EXT - David Durie [mail to:[email address]]
Subject: MW-PH-1196: Teitei Drive - Kainga Ora development - Ohakune
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Mōrena Kāinga Ora team
Can we please get a draft ministerial response to this one too – can we ensure that this
response, and the ministerial letter for s9(2)(a) commissioned yesterday (MW-PH-1190) are
reflective of each other.
Can we also get this Ministerial response for the 28 August so we can put these out together?
But, let me know if you need the additional days.
Thank you!
Caitlin
From: s9(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 31 July 2023 4:19 PM
To: Megan Woods (MIN)
Cc: Rt Hon Chris Hipkins
Subject: Teitei Drive - Kainga Ora development - Ohakune
Dear minister,
I am a semi-permanent resident of Ohakune.
A few weeks ago I received a letter from Kainga Ora stating that they and Ruapehu District
Council (RDC) were to lodge a resource consent for a 130-plus dwelling subdivision in Ohakune
(they lodged a week after the letter was dated). At the time, this was the only communication
we had received from KO... No consultation, no assessment to see whether neighbours would be
affected parties, a done deal.
It has become clear that Kainga Ora, your charge, and RDC have done a backroom deal and
deliberately kept it not just from those neighbours directly affected, but the entire wider
community.
While I accept that everyone deserves the basic right of a roof over their head, what about the
basic tenet of open democracy - transparency. Indeed, recent media highlights that Kainga Ora
clearly has a record of secrecy and keeping its plans from the community.
Given KO falls within your ministerial responsibilities, I ask whether you think this is an
acceptable way for a government agency to behave? And if not, what do you plan to do about an
evident toxic and undemocratic culture of secrecy within KO.
Aside from the way your agency has treated local residents, KO has failed to define a problem . I
asked what figures they are basing their assessment of the need for housing in Ohakune, and
KO's Community Engagement manager Renee Regal responded that a total of "72 individuals and
families" across the whole Ruapehu District required housing.
Even if those 72 individuals and families were all located in Ohakune (which they are not), they
could be housed with existing stock in Ohakune, nearby Rangitaua and Raetihi.
Further, there are already six large subdivisions - build-ready - in Ohakune alone. Discussions
with KO reveal they aren't prepared to consider existing options, even though there are
housing and build options immediately available, instead of people having to wait until late 2025
(KO's build completion timeframe).
Kaingaora Ora seems more interested in hitting government build targets than actually meeting
the need of people requiring housing.
I haven't even touched on the failings in their resource consent, or the fact both RDC and Kainga
Ora have overlooked significant environmental considerations which will be offensive to the
tikanga of local iwi, Ngati Rangi.
I ask that you instruct Kainga Ora to give pause to this project until proper due diligence and
public consultation has taken place.
Sincerely,
s9(2)(a)
Out of scope
-----Original Message-----
From: Housing Admin [mail to:[email address]]
Sent: 31 July 2023 2:51 PM
To: GRU Jobs [mail to:[email address]]
CC: EXT - David Durie [mail to:[email address]]
Subject: MW-PH-1184: Kainga Ora Ohakune more focused on empire-building than
getting needy people into homes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click or open attachments unless you recognise the
sender and know the content is safe. If unsure use the Report Phishing button.
Hey Kāinga Ora
Follow up email from the correspondent – please see below and letter attached from a s9(2)(a)
Sent with high importance due to the content in the email. Please let me know if it is possible to
get a ministerial response within a shorter time period, but I acknowledge that the standard
process is 20 days.
Thank you
Caitlin
From: s9(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 31 July 2023 2:13 PM
To: Housing Admin
Cc: s9(2)(a)
; s9(2)(a)
Subject: Re: MW-PH-1184: Kainga Ora Ohakune more focused on empire-building than getting
needy people into homes
Importance: High
Thank you for your acknowledgment and receipt of my concern.
Please find additional professional advice that has come to attention; possible breaches of the
acts.
I request you place this project and resource consent on hold while this is investigated and
community consultation is held, rather than us being told what is taking place.
The ombudsmen has been requested to investigate the matter more thoroughly under
reference: 597937
Regards
s9(2)(a)
From: Housing Admin [email address]>
Date: Monday, 31 July 2023 at 1:59 PM
To: s9(2)(a)
Subject: MW-PH-1184: Kainga Ora Ohakune more focused on empire-building than getting
needy people into homes
Dear s9(2)(a)
On behalf of Hon Dr Megan Woods, thank you for your email of 28 July 2023 regarding your
concerns on the TeiTei development in Ohakune.
Please note that your correspondence is with the Minister for her consideration. You can expect
to hear from her in due course.
Kind Regards,
Office of Hon Dr Megan Woods
Minister of Housing | Minister for Infrastructure | Minister of Energy and
Resources | Minister for Building and Construction | Associate Minister of
Finance | Member for Wigram
Email: [email address] Website:
www.Beehive.govt.nz
Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand
From: s9(2)(a)
Sent: Friday, 28 July 2023 7:19 PM
To: Megan Woods (MIN) [email address]>
Subject: Kainga Ora Ohakune more focused on empire-building than getting needy people into
homes
Importance: High
Hi Megan,
I am writing to you as a representative of over 120 property owners neighboring the proposed
TeiTei Drive development.
Home owners, businesses and the Carrot Park its proposed to neighbour are all shocked that KO
is not looking at spreading the load of public housing using existing stock available publicly.
You can read about some of this at the article
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300930814/large-intensive-kinga-ora-housing-proposal-for-
ohakune
We had a meeting with KO representatives who voiced that “KO has a standard requirement and
set standard” for purchasing existing homes.
Renee said “I haven’t looked at them in depth, but I’ve skimmed them” and we queried why KO
wasn’t buying existing sections that were build ready at $150k+
I really question why KO is building intensified state houses in one area where the population of
Ohakune is around 1000 people.
Job opportunities only exist during the winter season when there is up to 11,000 visitors staying
in the town.
Renee stated there was 72 people waiting for houses in Ohakune, which we pointed out is
incorrect, there are 72 individuals or families in the whole Ruapehu district.
We are very concerned that people will be displaced from other areas into Ohakune where there
are no jobs, no GP, not very many things for kids to do (which leads to crime).
I have a recording of this hour long call and that lack of knowledge the staff have of this town
and the people waiting on the MSD waitlist.
What seems clear is that Kainga Ora is more focused on empire-building “to meet government
targets” than getting needy people into homes that already exist!
It would be great to talk to you about this project and the huge negative impact this will have on
Ohakune and its tourism.
Regards
s9(2)(a)
& the neighbouring property owners & businesses.
.
s9(2)(a)
The Chief Executive
Ruapehu District Council
Private Bag
TAUMARUNUI
Attention: Warrick Zander
30 July 2023
1. Further to the previous emails to you last week I now set out why I consider
that the RC Application for the Tei Tei Road subdivision is deficient as to its
assessment of effects and also deficient as to the coverage in the
specialist reports – several of which are cursory at best.
2. The Council reviewer of the application is under an obligation to ensure
that full information is available (both to the reviewer and the public) and
given the clear breaches of the district plan - hence a Non-complying
Activity (as identified by the applicant’s planner) - there is an obligation to
advertise, especially as RDC - being a party to the RC Application and
recipient of Government moneys to provide infrastructure to give effect the
proposed development - cannot be party to the decision-making process.
3. I do not accept the proposition put forward by the applicants planners that
the matter can proceed non-notified, such decision must be made by an
independent consultant or Commissioner, preferably one who is to process
the Application for a decision and is satisfied that he/she/they have all
relevant information. Otherwise the whole process could be exposed to
judicial review.
4. Given the date that the application was made the time limits for initial
review have expired unless Council or its reviewer have extended time or
issued S.92 notices. Please advise as to these time limits.
5. I note also that the Regional Council applications have apparently not been
filed and it is my view they should be before any further steps are taken.
6. If not already done, I consider a s92 Request must be made immediately
requiring further information regarding, but not limited to:
a) The effects on downstream catchments and infrastructure for
stormwater and sewer from the maximum number of dwellings that the
whole site could (ie. all stages) accommodate.
b) The effects on the current water infrastructure including detention
ponds, water courses, public drains and other areas of the 3 waters
regime.
c) The effects on the upstream public drains feeding this development
area – e.g. has Horizons being advised and if so have they had
input? - this includes from the Stormwater drain Line 8 to the current
RDC outfall at the detention pond on the Winstones/Snowmass
boundary (being Waterway A in the Application), there being no design
for such new open drain to demonstrate that there will not be any
adverse effects to the upstream catchment eg. Rocky Mountain
Chalets, as a result of backflow as a consequence of this development,
d) The effects on housing, providing a suitable house site and installation
of services as a consequence of the actual subterrain conditions
which, whilst appearing to have been addressed by the Geotechnical
Reports, have consequences (as to construction noise, costs -internal
and external of the property) far greater than stated in the AEE
Assessments.
e) Why the current pedestrian accessway s9(2)(a)
, a major
success) cannot remain. I see, for a number of reasons, an
unnecessary and maybe dangerous conflict with the current users of
the status quo (largely families with small children and cyclists etc) with
the proposed rerouting through the new residential streets.
f) Proof of demand for this type (size of section) subdivision and duplex
accommodation - noting this is a requirement placed upon Council by
the Local Government Act and or its partner by its own legislation and
the GPS-HUD issued in 2021 by the two ministers involved
g) To obtain the consent of the owners (Winstones?) to rerouting the
public drain - referred as Waterway A - through this property.
h) It would appear as if the Transport/Traffic report is based on complying
sized lots Isthmus Site Plan, not that lodged with the Application. This
must be addressed. Has NZTA/Waka Kotahi been advised and have
they given consent to the effects of the additional traffic from the whole
development at the intersection or do they require some upgrading?
i) There needs to be clarity as to what works the developer is financially
responsible for and what on-going costs the ratepayers will bear, in
particular the rerouting of the Public Drain through Winstones, the
Sanitary sewer rising main etc. and what is the agreement as to what
and where the "shovel-ready" Government contribution is to be spent.
7. Notwithstanding the "deficient" RC Application the application must be
Publicly Notified pursuant to s95A, if for no other reason, that the above
matters now brought before you, will have adverse effects greater than
minor unless addressed fully in a transparent manner.
8. I record there are also issues with Kainga Ora involvement under their
legislation and the GPS-HUD – the proposal has not been properly
assessed as required.
9. It is noted that the Council is an applicant and recipient of the Government
"shovel-ready" monies has a requirement to consult with the community
under the Local Government Act.
10. I record that the RDC Code of Conduct requires the Mayor and
Councilors to comply with the LGA to act in the Public Interest, make
decisions in an open and transparent manner and not withhold information
from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons to do so.
11. It is considered that to now hold "Community outreach sessions" this
coming week “as the beginning of public consultation” when RDC has
already entered into some form of formal agreement - refer the Applicants
in the resource consent application - to "transfer' a council asset to a third
party without prior public consultation is contrary to the provisions of the
Act and in breach of the aforesaid Code. The Council leaves itself open to
review of its actions.
12. As the property is a "ratepayer's" asset they (the ratepayers and residents)
are entitled to know what are the terms of the agreement between the
parties as to development costs, future ownership and purchase price etc.
such that they can determine whether such agreement is in the best
interests of their community and identify any shortcomings as now being
experienced with other "shovel-ready" projects
For example: Tauranga City Council’s Cameron Road upgrading Stage 1 -
where the initial budget cost approved by the EMs for the works was $40m,
the Government provided $45m, the now cost (not yet completed) is
$97.5m. The shovel ready project that RDC proposed was several years
ago now and clearly could suffer the same blow-out.
13. In the meantime I note you have not responded as to a possible site
meeting. I can only reiterate your responsibility as an officer of the Council
to act on the information made available by myself.
14. Time to address the above, due to time constraints in legislation, is now of
the essence. I consider it negligent for RDC to not act to immediately
suspend the processing of the RC Application to address the concerns and
issues I have expressed in my telecom to you, here and the below emails.
s9(2)(a)
