Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[1][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete
​

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[1][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete
​

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[1][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete
​

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[1][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete
​

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[1][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete
​

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[1][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete
​

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...

Kia ora Henry, 
 

We refer to your official information requests received on the 5 and 6 of
August 2024. As noted in our acknowledgement email we had combined the
requests together for the purpose of efficiency. The information you have
requested with regards to your various requests is noted below: 

Requests received on 5 August 2024: 

1.       The “NELSON TASMAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY” 2022 – 2052
published 19 SEPTEMBER 2022, documents that there was a proposed
consideration to develop at the end of Stagecoach Road, as per page 79 but
after consultation this has been removed T-167 from the final strategy as
documented on page 85 & 102. 

a.       Please provide documented evidence as to why this was removed
from the final FDS. 

The site assessed for the 2022 Future Development Strategy (FDS) is below
(T-167, Tāhimana, Stagecoach Road): 

 

The area assessed for site T-167 was 68 hectares for an urban density
development of around 600 houses. This is obviously different to the
resource consent application recently submitted.  

Site T-167 together with nearby draft sites T-136 Tasman View Road and
Braeburn Road block, T-166 Tasman Bay village and T-168 303 Aporo Road,
Tasman were referred to as “a new community” near Tasman village in FDS
statement of proposal for consultation (March 2022).  The statement of
proposal made clear that there were two parts being consulted on – the
main part of the proposal was consolidated growth focused largely along
State highway 6 and the secondary part of the proposal  - the potential
for a new community near Tasman village, comprising the sites above and
totalling approximately 3,200 homes. 
 
A copy of the  Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14 is
attached. 
- “Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14.pdf”

As stated in the consultation document, Te Ātiawa raised significant
concerns over three Tasman sites which would comprise the majority of any
new development there. The nature of the concerns is a long history of
spiritual/cultural issues associated with an area of battle and it being a
very sensitive area. The Councils have obligations to iwi to take into
account their cultural and spiritual views. Careful consideration was
given to the concerns raised. While the four sites above did not form part
of the core FDS proposal, the decision was made to include the sites in
the proposal during the consultation process to obtain views of the wider
community. This was while good faith dialogue continued with Te Ātiawa to
see if a solution could be found that benefitted all parties and took into
consideration the cultural sensitivities raised. 

Following a submission period of a month and a hearing that stretched over
several days, deliberations took place on the FDS. This resulted in the
secondary part of the proposal being dropped from the FDS, instead
focussing on the core part of the strategy - consolidated growth focused
largely along State highway 6. As for site T-167, the FDS technical report
notes that “some low density development is already enabled through
existing Rural 3 zone provisions.” The proposal assessed was not “aligned
with the preferred strategy and performed very poorly under MCA” (multi
criteria assessment). “Significant cultural impacts raised by Te Ātiawa”. 

b.       What are the significant cultural impacts raised by Te Atiawa? 
See response above under (a) 

2.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
enabling the local Stagecoach Road/ Awa Awa subdivision community and
local affected and interested persons to identify the degree of
significance of the proposed Tahimana Subdivision. 
 
As previously advised, the local community can self-identify as interested
persons, but it is only the Council who decides who is an affected person
in relation to a Resource Consent application under the RMA. Please refer
to our previous response dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024 for
further explanation. (Reference: 2216) 

3.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
promoting and enabling local democratic decision-making regarding the
proposed Tahimana Subdivision 
Again, the local community does not get to make decisions on Resource
Consent applications under the RMA. If the adverse effects on the
environment are found to be more than minor, and/or affected persons are
identified, then the public or those specific persons will get an
opportunity to make a submission. Please refer to our previous response
dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024, (Reference: 2216) which sets
out the decision-making process for resource consent applications.  
 
The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) sets the overall strategic
direction for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources
in our region – including the control of subdivision, use, and development
of land. 
Under the TRMP the land is Rural 3 Zone.  This zone was developed and
implemented through a rigorous plan-making process under Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This process involves comprehensive community consultation. The
Council administers the outcomes sought by that plan through the resource
consent process.   

The local decision-making was undertaken in the early 2000’s with the
promulgation and adoption of the Rural 3 Zone.  The planning system
promote or require the relitigation of those planning decisions for each
individual resource application, unless that application is outside the
boundaries of what is anticipated by that zone. 

Between about 2000 and 2003 the Council investigated a range of options to
address the demand for rural lifestyle living. Ultimately, Variation 32
was notified. Two years of work followed working through the submissions
and the decision-making process.  Decisions on the variation were made in
2005. 

The Rural 3 concept has three key objectives: 

 1. The provision of more rural living opportunities; 
 2. The retention of the best land of high productive value, and
opportunities for its use; and 
 3. The retention of rural character, rural amenities, and rural
landscapes, as well as the progressive development of natural
character and ecological outcomes to balance the rural values. 

4.       How have the local residents within the wider Tasman community
been made aware of this proposed subdivision? The proposal includes the
use of the Mapua/ Ruby bay water scheme which does already observe an
increase in water restrictions due to the demand. Local residents are not
aware of this application 
There is no requirement to make local residents aware of a resource
consent application for a proposed subdivision until the notification
decision has been made, and it has been determined that some form of
notification is necessary. Further, there is no express requirement for an
applicant to consult with the community in relation to their resource
consent application either. However, matters such as water supply
servicing are given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision.   
 

5.       Please provide the TDC communications between those who have
contacted you regarding this proposed subdivision stating if they are for,
against and neutral and whether local community or not. Please define
whether these communications are from the subdivider or their
sub-contractors: 

a.       email communications 

b.       document communications 

c.       meeting notes 
 
We have located a number of requests handled under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) received by yourself, or
where you have been copied into correspondence regarding the above noted
proposed subdivision. 

  RE_ LGOMA - 208 Stagecoach Rd Affected person by proposed Stagecoach Rd
Development - REDACTED - reference_ 2216_Redacted.pdf

  RE_ LGOIMA Request - Affected person feedback for proposed Tahimana
Stagecoach Road Subdivision - REDACTED - Reference 2210_Redacted.pdf 
 
Please note, redactions have been applied under 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA for
the protection of privacy. 

Requests received on 6 August 2024: 

 1. As part of the proposed Tahimana 141 dwelling subdivision Ref Number
RM240192 there are a number of factors to be considered with upgrading
the long no exit Stagecoach road. 

a.       Please show how the TDC is assessing the Stagecoach Road (no-exit
road) cost of up-grade. 

 

b.       What identity will be funding this upgrade? Public or private
(developer) etc 
 

c.       What considerations are being given to the negative environmental
impact of boundary/ fencing alterations, cost, proximity, when considering
health, safety and wellbeing of local residents 
 

d.       What is the minimum linear distance road upgrade boundaries can
be away from existing dwellings/ houses? Please provide the approved
documented policy that has undertaken various stakeholder consultation 
 

e.       What documented policy is used to ascertain the safest, most
practical and has the least impact on local residents with regards to
entry/ exits roads to proposed developments? 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. However, matters such as transport, roads, and
access given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision. 
 

7.       The proposed Tahimana Subdivision Ref Number RM240192 is set in
rural zone 3 which is a minimum 50 hectares. The proposed medium density,
141 dwelling subdivision has a range of section sizes, some as small as
550sqm. 
 

a.       What is the documented policy for deviation to give approval for
this?  
 

b.       What role within the TDC organisation has the final say to if
this application is approved or rejected? 

The resource consent process is used when a proposal to subdivide, use
and/or develop land in a manner that does not comply with the rules of the
applicable planning instrument (in this case the Tasman Resource
Management Plan).  

The Rural 3 Zone sets a baseline subdivision size of 50 hectares for when
land is being retained for rural use.  However, the Rural 3 Zone clearly
and overtly sets a structure for positive consideration of rural living
opportunities.  Subdivision and development into potentially
residential-scale lots is anticipated and provided for in the Rural 3
framework. 

Please note there are two key decisions to make for the resource consent
process. The first is the s95 notification decision, which has been set
out for you in previous responses. The second is the s104 substantive
decision (i.e. grant or refuse).  

As previously communicated, the consent authority is responsible for
making the notification decision for this application.  These decisions
are delegated to the Principal Planner – Resource Consents, or the
Resource Consents Manager.  The responsibility for the substantive
decision could depend on the notification decision.    

 

8.       A large percentage of Stagecoach road and surrounding residents
opposing this 141 dwelling medium density development down the no exit
Stagecoach Road in rural zone 3. 

 

a.       How are these residents health and wellbeing considered as it is
proposed that the the construction could last 10+ years? Please note that
a lot of these residents have retired and have settled in this quiet rural
setting, any substantial change to their environment will contribute
negatively. Items of concern are listed but not limited to the following: 

                                                                                      
i.10+ years construction 

                                                                                    
ii.Agricultural/ horticultural land composition and topography  

                                                                                  
iii.Development location on Stagecoach Road wit h no exit 

                                                                                  
iv.Area Classification Rural zone 3 (minimum 5 0 hectares)  

                                                                                    
v.Water supply and wastewater  

                                                                                  
vi.Fire Fighting and Emergency services impact 

                                                                                 
vii.Native birds population reduction 

                                                                               
viii.Roading upgrade, increase traffic flow, noise and emission pollution 

                                                                                   
ix.Community Infrastructure  

                                                                                    
x.Legislative Considerations 

 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. Any relevant matters will be given due
consideration by Council’s technical specialists, planners, and
decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource consent
application for subdivision. 

 
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.  

 
Yours sincerely  

Legal Services Officer 

 

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the named addressee, please delete the message
and notify us of the error. You must not copy, use, or disclose this
communication, or any attachments or information in it.
​

From: LGOIMA
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>;
Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[FOI #27922 email]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>
Subject: LGOIMA request - Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192 -
Henry Wendelborn - Reference: 2265

 

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[6][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...
6. mailto:[email address]

Kia ora Henry, 
 

We refer to your official information requests received on the 5 and 6 of
August 2024. As noted in our acknowledgement email we had combined the
requests together for the purpose of efficiency. The information you have
requested with regards to your various requests is noted below: 

Requests received on 5 August 2024: 

1.       The “NELSON TASMAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY” 2022 – 2052
published 19 SEPTEMBER 2022, documents that there was a proposed
consideration to develop at the end of Stagecoach Road, as per page 79 but
after consultation this has been removed T-167 from the final strategy as
documented on page 85 & 102. 

a.       Please provide documented evidence as to why this was removed
from the final FDS. 

The site assessed for the 2022 Future Development Strategy (FDS) is below
(T-167, Tāhimana, Stagecoach Road): 

 

The area assessed for site T-167 was 68 hectares for an urban density
development of around 600 houses. This is obviously different to the
resource consent application recently submitted.  

Site T-167 together with nearby draft sites T-136 Tasman View Road and
Braeburn Road block, T-166 Tasman Bay village and T-168 303 Aporo Road,
Tasman were referred to as “a new community” near Tasman village in FDS
statement of proposal for consultation (March 2022).  The statement of
proposal made clear that there were two parts being consulted on – the
main part of the proposal was consolidated growth focused largely along
State highway 6 and the secondary part of the proposal  - the potential
for a new community near Tasman village, comprising the sites above and
totalling approximately 3,200 homes. 
 
A copy of the  Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14 is
attached. 
- “Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14.pdf”

As stated in the consultation document, Te Ātiawa raised significant
concerns over three Tasman sites which would comprise the majority of any
new development there. The nature of the concerns is a long history of
spiritual/cultural issues associated with an area of battle and it being a
very sensitive area. The Councils have obligations to iwi to take into
account their cultural and spiritual views. Careful consideration was
given to the concerns raised. While the four sites above did not form part
of the core FDS proposal, the decision was made to include the sites in
the proposal during the consultation process to obtain views of the wider
community. This was while good faith dialogue continued with Te Ātiawa to
see if a solution could be found that benefitted all parties and took into
consideration the cultural sensitivities raised. 

Following a submission period of a month and a hearing that stretched over
several days, deliberations took place on the FDS. This resulted in the
secondary part of the proposal being dropped from the FDS, instead
focussing on the core part of the strategy - consolidated growth focused
largely along State highway 6. As for site T-167, the FDS technical report
notes that “some low density development is already enabled through
existing Rural 3 zone provisions.” The proposal assessed was not “aligned
with the preferred strategy and performed very poorly under MCA” (multi
criteria assessment). “Significant cultural impacts raised by Te Ātiawa”. 

b.       What are the significant cultural impacts raised by Te Atiawa? 
See response above under (a) 

2.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
enabling the local Stagecoach Road/ Awa Awa subdivision community and
local affected and interested persons to identify the degree of
significance of the proposed Tahimana Subdivision. 
 
As previously advised, the local community can self-identify as interested
persons, but it is only the Council who decides who is an affected person
in relation to a Resource Consent application under the RMA. Please refer
to our previous response dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024 for
further explanation. (Reference: 2216) 

3.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
promoting and enabling local democratic decision-making regarding the
proposed Tahimana Subdivision 
Again, the local community does not get to make decisions on Resource
Consent applications under the RMA. If the adverse effects on the
environment are found to be more than minor, and/or affected persons are
identified, then the public or those specific persons will get an
opportunity to make a submission. Please refer to our previous response
dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024, (Reference: 2216) which sets
out the decision-making process for resource consent applications.  
 
The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) sets the overall strategic
direction for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources
in our region – including the control of subdivision, use, and development
of land. 
Under the TRMP the land is Rural 3 Zone.  This zone was developed and
implemented through a rigorous plan-making process under Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This process involves comprehensive community consultation. The
Council administers the outcomes sought by that plan through the resource
consent process.   

The local decision-making was undertaken in the early 2000’s with the
promulgation and adoption of the Rural 3 Zone.  The planning system
promote or require the relitigation of those planning decisions for each
individual resource application, unless that application is outside the
boundaries of what is anticipated by that zone. 

Between about 2000 and 2003 the Council investigated a range of options to
address the demand for rural lifestyle living. Ultimately, Variation 32
was notified. Two years of work followed working through the submissions
and the decision-making process.  Decisions on the variation were made in
2005. 

The Rural 3 concept has three key objectives: 

 1. The provision of more rural living opportunities; 
 2. The retention of the best land of high productive value, and
opportunities for its use; and 
 3. The retention of rural character, rural amenities, and rural
landscapes, as well as the progressive development of natural
character and ecological outcomes to balance the rural values. 

4.       How have the local residents within the wider Tasman community
been made aware of this proposed subdivision? The proposal includes the
use of the Mapua/ Ruby bay water scheme which does already observe an
increase in water restrictions due to the demand. Local residents are not
aware of this application 
There is no requirement to make local residents aware of a resource
consent application for a proposed subdivision until the notification
decision has been made, and it has been determined that some form of
notification is necessary. Further, there is no express requirement for an
applicant to consult with the community in relation to their resource
consent application either. However, matters such as water supply
servicing are given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision.   
 

5.       Please provide the TDC communications between those who have
contacted you regarding this proposed subdivision stating if they are for,
against and neutral and whether local community or not. Please define
whether these communications are from the subdivider or their
sub-contractors: 

a.       email communications 

b.       document communications 

c.       meeting notes 
 
We have located a number of requests handled under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) received by yourself, or
where you have been copied into correspondence regarding the above noted
proposed subdivision. 

  RE_ LGOMA - 208 Stagecoach Rd Affected person by proposed Stagecoach Rd
Development - REDACTED - reference_ 2216_Redacted.pdf

  RE_ LGOIMA Request - Affected person feedback for proposed Tahimana
Stagecoach Road Subdivision - REDACTED - Reference 2210_Redacted.pdf 
 
Please note, redactions have been applied under 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA for
the protection of privacy. 

Requests received on 6 August 2024: 

 1. As part of the proposed Tahimana 141 dwelling subdivision Ref Number
RM240192 there are a number of factors to be considered with upgrading
the long no exit Stagecoach road. 

a.       Please show how the TDC is assessing the Stagecoach Road (no-exit
road) cost of up-grade. 

 

b.       What identity will be funding this upgrade? Public or private
(developer) etc 
 

c.       What considerations are being given to the negative environmental
impact of boundary/ fencing alterations, cost, proximity, when considering
health, safety and wellbeing of local residents 
 

d.       What is the minimum linear distance road upgrade boundaries can
be away from existing dwellings/ houses? Please provide the approved
documented policy that has undertaken various stakeholder consultation 
 

e.       What documented policy is used to ascertain the safest, most
practical and has the least impact on local residents with regards to
entry/ exits roads to proposed developments? 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. However, matters such as transport, roads, and
access given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision. 
 

7.       The proposed Tahimana Subdivision Ref Number RM240192 is set in
rural zone 3 which is a minimum 50 hectares. The proposed medium density,
141 dwelling subdivision has a range of section sizes, some as small as
550sqm. 
 

a.       What is the documented policy for deviation to give approval for
this?  
 

b.       What role within the TDC organisation has the final say to if
this application is approved or rejected? 

The resource consent process is used when a proposal to subdivide, use
and/or develop land in a manner that does not comply with the rules of the
applicable planning instrument (in this case the Tasman Resource
Management Plan).  

The Rural 3 Zone sets a baseline subdivision size of 50 hectares for when
land is being retained for rural use.  However, the Rural 3 Zone clearly
and overtly sets a structure for positive consideration of rural living
opportunities.  Subdivision and development into potentially
residential-scale lots is anticipated and provided for in the Rural 3
framework. 

Please note there are two key decisions to make for the resource consent
process. The first is the s95 notification decision, which has been set
out for you in previous responses. The second is the s104 substantive
decision (i.e. grant or refuse).  

As previously communicated, the consent authority is responsible for
making the notification decision for this application.  These decisions
are delegated to the Principal Planner – Resource Consents, or the
Resource Consents Manager.  The responsibility for the substantive
decision could depend on the notification decision.    

 

8.       A large percentage of Stagecoach road and surrounding residents
opposing this 141 dwelling medium density development down the no exit
Stagecoach Road in rural zone 3. 

 

a.       How are these residents health and wellbeing considered as it is
proposed that the the construction could last 10+ years? Please note that
a lot of these residents have retired and have settled in this quiet rural
setting, any substantial change to their environment will contribute
negatively. Items of concern are listed but not limited to the following: 

                                                                                      
i.10+ years construction 

                                                                                    
ii.Agricultural/ horticultural land composition and topography  

                                                                                  
iii.Development location on Stagecoach Road wit h no exit 

                                                                                  
iv.Area Classification Rural zone 3 (minimum 5 0 hectares)  

                                                                                    
v.Water supply and wastewater  

                                                                                  
vi.Fire Fighting and Emergency services impact 

                                                                                 
vii.Native birds population reduction 

                                                                               
viii.Roading upgrade, increase traffic flow, noise and emission pollution 

                                                                                   
ix.Community Infrastructure  

                                                                                    
x.Legislative Considerations 

 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. Any relevant matters will be given due
consideration by Council’s technical specialists, planners, and
decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource consent
application for subdivision. 

 
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.  

 
Yours sincerely  

Legal Services Officer 

 

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the named addressee, please delete the message
and notify us of the error. You must not copy, use, or disclose this
communication, or any attachments or information in it.
​

From: LGOIMA
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>;
Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[FOI #27922 email]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>
Subject: LGOIMA request - Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192 -
Henry Wendelborn - Reference: 2265

 

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[6][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...
6. mailto:[email address]

Kia ora Henry, 
 

We refer to your official information requests received on the 5 and 6 of
August 2024. As noted in our acknowledgement email we had combined the
requests together for the purpose of efficiency. The information you have
requested with regards to your various requests is noted below: 

Requests received on 5 August 2024: 

1.       The “NELSON TASMAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY” 2022 – 2052
published 19 SEPTEMBER 2022, documents that there was a proposed
consideration to develop at the end of Stagecoach Road, as per page 79 but
after consultation this has been removed T-167 from the final strategy as
documented on page 85 & 102. 

a.       Please provide documented evidence as to why this was removed
from the final FDS. 

The site assessed for the 2022 Future Development Strategy (FDS) is below
(T-167, Tāhimana, Stagecoach Road): 

 

The area assessed for site T-167 was 68 hectares for an urban density
development of around 600 houses. This is obviously different to the
resource consent application recently submitted.  

Site T-167 together with nearby draft sites T-136 Tasman View Road and
Braeburn Road block, T-166 Tasman Bay village and T-168 303 Aporo Road,
Tasman were referred to as “a new community” near Tasman village in FDS
statement of proposal for consultation (March 2022).  The statement of
proposal made clear that there were two parts being consulted on – the
main part of the proposal was consolidated growth focused largely along
State highway 6 and the secondary part of the proposal  - the potential
for a new community near Tasman village, comprising the sites above and
totalling approximately 3,200 homes. 
 
A copy of the  Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14 is
attached. 
- “Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14.pdf”

As stated in the consultation document, Te Ātiawa raised significant
concerns over three Tasman sites which would comprise the majority of any
new development there. The nature of the concerns is a long history of
spiritual/cultural issues associated with an area of battle and it being a
very sensitive area. The Councils have obligations to iwi to take into
account their cultural and spiritual views. Careful consideration was
given to the concerns raised. While the four sites above did not form part
of the core FDS proposal, the decision was made to include the sites in
the proposal during the consultation process to obtain views of the wider
community. This was while good faith dialogue continued with Te Ātiawa to
see if a solution could be found that benefitted all parties and took into
consideration the cultural sensitivities raised. 

Following a submission period of a month and a hearing that stretched over
several days, deliberations took place on the FDS. This resulted in the
secondary part of the proposal being dropped from the FDS, instead
focussing on the core part of the strategy - consolidated growth focused
largely along State highway 6. As for site T-167, the FDS technical report
notes that “some low density development is already enabled through
existing Rural 3 zone provisions.” The proposal assessed was not “aligned
with the preferred strategy and performed very poorly under MCA” (multi
criteria assessment). “Significant cultural impacts raised by Te Ātiawa”. 

b.       What are the significant cultural impacts raised by Te Atiawa? 
See response above under (a) 

2.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
enabling the local Stagecoach Road/ Awa Awa subdivision community and
local affected and interested persons to identify the degree of
significance of the proposed Tahimana Subdivision. 
 
As previously advised, the local community can self-identify as interested
persons, but it is only the Council who decides who is an affected person
in relation to a Resource Consent application under the RMA. Please refer
to our previous response dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024 for
further explanation. (Reference: 2216) 

3.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
promoting and enabling local democratic decision-making regarding the
proposed Tahimana Subdivision 
Again, the local community does not get to make decisions on Resource
Consent applications under the RMA. If the adverse effects on the
environment are found to be more than minor, and/or affected persons are
identified, then the public or those specific persons will get an
opportunity to make a submission. Please refer to our previous response
dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024, (Reference: 2216) which sets
out the decision-making process for resource consent applications.  
 
The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) sets the overall strategic
direction for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources
in our region – including the control of subdivision, use, and development
of land. 
Under the TRMP the land is Rural 3 Zone.  This zone was developed and
implemented through a rigorous plan-making process under Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This process involves comprehensive community consultation. The
Council administers the outcomes sought by that plan through the resource
consent process.   

The local decision-making was undertaken in the early 2000’s with the
promulgation and adoption of the Rural 3 Zone.  The planning system
promote or require the relitigation of those planning decisions for each
individual resource application, unless that application is outside the
boundaries of what is anticipated by that zone. 

Between about 2000 and 2003 the Council investigated a range of options to
address the demand for rural lifestyle living. Ultimately, Variation 32
was notified. Two years of work followed working through the submissions
and the decision-making process.  Decisions on the variation were made in
2005. 

The Rural 3 concept has three key objectives: 

 1. The provision of more rural living opportunities; 
 2. The retention of the best land of high productive value, and
opportunities for its use; and 
 3. The retention of rural character, rural amenities, and rural
landscapes, as well as the progressive development of natural
character and ecological outcomes to balance the rural values. 

4.       How have the local residents within the wider Tasman community
been made aware of this proposed subdivision? The proposal includes the
use of the Mapua/ Ruby bay water scheme which does already observe an
increase in water restrictions due to the demand. Local residents are not
aware of this application 
There is no requirement to make local residents aware of a resource
consent application for a proposed subdivision until the notification
decision has been made, and it has been determined that some form of
notification is necessary. Further, there is no express requirement for an
applicant to consult with the community in relation to their resource
consent application either. However, matters such as water supply
servicing are given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision.   
 

5.       Please provide the TDC communications between those who have
contacted you regarding this proposed subdivision stating if they are for,
against and neutral and whether local community or not. Please define
whether these communications are from the subdivider or their
sub-contractors: 

a.       email communications 

b.       document communications 

c.       meeting notes 
 
We have located a number of requests handled under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) received by yourself, or
where you have been copied into correspondence regarding the above noted
proposed subdivision. 

  RE_ LGOMA - 208 Stagecoach Rd Affected person by proposed Stagecoach Rd
Development - REDACTED - reference_ 2216_Redacted.pdf

  RE_ LGOIMA Request - Affected person feedback for proposed Tahimana
Stagecoach Road Subdivision - REDACTED - Reference 2210_Redacted.pdf 
 
Please note, redactions have been applied under 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA for
the protection of privacy. 

Requests received on 6 August 2024: 

 1. As part of the proposed Tahimana 141 dwelling subdivision Ref Number
RM240192 there are a number of factors to be considered with upgrading
the long no exit Stagecoach road. 

a.       Please show how the TDC is assessing the Stagecoach Road (no-exit
road) cost of up-grade. 

 

b.       What identity will be funding this upgrade? Public or private
(developer) etc 
 

c.       What considerations are being given to the negative environmental
impact of boundary/ fencing alterations, cost, proximity, when considering
health, safety and wellbeing of local residents 
 

d.       What is the minimum linear distance road upgrade boundaries can
be away from existing dwellings/ houses? Please provide the approved
documented policy that has undertaken various stakeholder consultation 
 

e.       What documented policy is used to ascertain the safest, most
practical and has the least impact on local residents with regards to
entry/ exits roads to proposed developments? 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. However, matters such as transport, roads, and
access given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision. 
 

7.       The proposed Tahimana Subdivision Ref Number RM240192 is set in
rural zone 3 which is a minimum 50 hectares. The proposed medium density,
141 dwelling subdivision has a range of section sizes, some as small as
550sqm. 
 

a.       What is the documented policy for deviation to give approval for
this?  
 

b.       What role within the TDC organisation has the final say to if
this application is approved or rejected? 

The resource consent process is used when a proposal to subdivide, use
and/or develop land in a manner that does not comply with the rules of the
applicable planning instrument (in this case the Tasman Resource
Management Plan).  

The Rural 3 Zone sets a baseline subdivision size of 50 hectares for when
land is being retained for rural use.  However, the Rural 3 Zone clearly
and overtly sets a structure for positive consideration of rural living
opportunities.  Subdivision and development into potentially
residential-scale lots is anticipated and provided for in the Rural 3
framework. 

Please note there are two key decisions to make for the resource consent
process. The first is the s95 notification decision, which has been set
out for you in previous responses. The second is the s104 substantive
decision (i.e. grant or refuse).  

As previously communicated, the consent authority is responsible for
making the notification decision for this application.  These decisions
are delegated to the Principal Planner – Resource Consents, or the
Resource Consents Manager.  The responsibility for the substantive
decision could depend on the notification decision.    

 

8.       A large percentage of Stagecoach road and surrounding residents
opposing this 141 dwelling medium density development down the no exit
Stagecoach Road in rural zone 3. 

 

a.       How are these residents health and wellbeing considered as it is
proposed that the the construction could last 10+ years? Please note that
a lot of these residents have retired and have settled in this quiet rural
setting, any substantial change to their environment will contribute
negatively. Items of concern are listed but not limited to the following: 

                                                                                      
i.10+ years construction 

                                                                                    
ii.Agricultural/ horticultural land composition and topography  

                                                                                  
iii.Development location on Stagecoach Road wit h no exit 

                                                                                  
iv.Area Classification Rural zone 3 (minimum 5 0 hectares)  

                                                                                    
v.Water supply and wastewater  

                                                                                  
vi.Fire Fighting and Emergency services impact 

                                                                                 
vii.Native birds population reduction 

                                                                               
viii.Roading upgrade, increase traffic flow, noise and emission pollution 

                                                                                   
ix.Community Infrastructure  

                                                                                    
x.Legislative Considerations 

 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. Any relevant matters will be given due
consideration by Council’s technical specialists, planners, and
decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource consent
application for subdivision. 

 
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.  

 
Yours sincerely  

Legal Services Officer 

 

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the named addressee, please delete the message
and notify us of the error. You must not copy, use, or disclose this
communication, or any attachments or information in it.
​

From: LGOIMA
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>;
Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[FOI #27922 email]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>
Subject: LGOIMA request - Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192 -
Henry Wendelborn - Reference: 2265

 

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[6][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...
6. mailto:[email address]

Kia ora Henry, 
 

We refer to your official information requests received on the 5 and 6 of
August 2024. As noted in our acknowledgement email we had combined the
requests together for the purpose of efficiency. The information you have
requested with regards to your various requests is noted below: 

Requests received on 5 August 2024: 

1.       The “NELSON TASMAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY” 2022 – 2052
published 19 SEPTEMBER 2022, documents that there was a proposed
consideration to develop at the end of Stagecoach Road, as per page 79 but
after consultation this has been removed T-167 from the final strategy as
documented on page 85 & 102. 

a.       Please provide documented evidence as to why this was removed
from the final FDS. 

The site assessed for the 2022 Future Development Strategy (FDS) is below
(T-167, Tāhimana, Stagecoach Road): 

 

The area assessed for site T-167 was 68 hectares for an urban density
development of around 600 houses. This is obviously different to the
resource consent application recently submitted.  

Site T-167 together with nearby draft sites T-136 Tasman View Road and
Braeburn Road block, T-166 Tasman Bay village and T-168 303 Aporo Road,
Tasman were referred to as “a new community” near Tasman village in FDS
statement of proposal for consultation (March 2022).  The statement of
proposal made clear that there were two parts being consulted on – the
main part of the proposal was consolidated growth focused largely along
State highway 6 and the secondary part of the proposal  - the potential
for a new community near Tasman village, comprising the sites above and
totalling approximately 3,200 homes. 
 
A copy of the  Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14 is
attached. 
- “Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14.pdf”

As stated in the consultation document, Te Ātiawa raised significant
concerns over three Tasman sites which would comprise the majority of any
new development there. The nature of the concerns is a long history of
spiritual/cultural issues associated with an area of battle and it being a
very sensitive area. The Councils have obligations to iwi to take into
account their cultural and spiritual views. Careful consideration was
given to the concerns raised. While the four sites above did not form part
of the core FDS proposal, the decision was made to include the sites in
the proposal during the consultation process to obtain views of the wider
community. This was while good faith dialogue continued with Te Ātiawa to
see if a solution could be found that benefitted all parties and took into
consideration the cultural sensitivities raised. 

Following a submission period of a month and a hearing that stretched over
several days, deliberations took place on the FDS. This resulted in the
secondary part of the proposal being dropped from the FDS, instead
focussing on the core part of the strategy - consolidated growth focused
largely along State highway 6. As for site T-167, the FDS technical report
notes that “some low density development is already enabled through
existing Rural 3 zone provisions.” The proposal assessed was not “aligned
with the preferred strategy and performed very poorly under MCA” (multi
criteria assessment). “Significant cultural impacts raised by Te Ātiawa”. 

b.       What are the significant cultural impacts raised by Te Atiawa? 
See response above under (a) 

2.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
enabling the local Stagecoach Road/ Awa Awa subdivision community and
local affected and interested persons to identify the degree of
significance of the proposed Tahimana Subdivision. 
 
As previously advised, the local community can self-identify as interested
persons, but it is only the Council who decides who is an affected person
in relation to a Resource Consent application under the RMA. Please refer
to our previous response dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024 for
further explanation. (Reference: 2216) 

3.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
promoting and enabling local democratic decision-making regarding the
proposed Tahimana Subdivision 
Again, the local community does not get to make decisions on Resource
Consent applications under the RMA. If the adverse effects on the
environment are found to be more than minor, and/or affected persons are
identified, then the public or those specific persons will get an
opportunity to make a submission. Please refer to our previous response
dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024, (Reference: 2216) which sets
out the decision-making process for resource consent applications.  
 
The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) sets the overall strategic
direction for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources
in our region – including the control of subdivision, use, and development
of land. 
Under the TRMP the land is Rural 3 Zone.  This zone was developed and
implemented through a rigorous plan-making process under Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This process involves comprehensive community consultation. The
Council administers the outcomes sought by that plan through the resource
consent process.   

The local decision-making was undertaken in the early 2000’s with the
promulgation and adoption of the Rural 3 Zone.  The planning system
promote or require the relitigation of those planning decisions for each
individual resource application, unless that application is outside the
boundaries of what is anticipated by that zone. 

Between about 2000 and 2003 the Council investigated a range of options to
address the demand for rural lifestyle living. Ultimately, Variation 32
was notified. Two years of work followed working through the submissions
and the decision-making process.  Decisions on the variation were made in
2005. 

The Rural 3 concept has three key objectives: 

 1. The provision of more rural living opportunities; 
 2. The retention of the best land of high productive value, and
opportunities for its use; and 
 3. The retention of rural character, rural amenities, and rural
landscapes, as well as the progressive development of natural
character and ecological outcomes to balance the rural values. 

4.       How have the local residents within the wider Tasman community
been made aware of this proposed subdivision? The proposal includes the
use of the Mapua/ Ruby bay water scheme which does already observe an
increase in water restrictions due to the demand. Local residents are not
aware of this application 
There is no requirement to make local residents aware of a resource
consent application for a proposed subdivision until the notification
decision has been made, and it has been determined that some form of
notification is necessary. Further, there is no express requirement for an
applicant to consult with the community in relation to their resource
consent application either. However, matters such as water supply
servicing are given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision.   
 

5.       Please provide the TDC communications between those who have
contacted you regarding this proposed subdivision stating if they are for,
against and neutral and whether local community or not. Please define
whether these communications are from the subdivider or their
sub-contractors: 

a.       email communications 

b.       document communications 

c.       meeting notes 
 
We have located a number of requests handled under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) received by yourself, or
where you have been copied into correspondence regarding the above noted
proposed subdivision. 

  RE_ LGOMA - 208 Stagecoach Rd Affected person by proposed Stagecoach Rd
Development - REDACTED - reference_ 2216_Redacted.pdf

  RE_ LGOIMA Request - Affected person feedback for proposed Tahimana
Stagecoach Road Subdivision - REDACTED - Reference 2210_Redacted.pdf 
 
Please note, redactions have been applied under 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA for
the protection of privacy. 

Requests received on 6 August 2024: 

 1. As part of the proposed Tahimana 141 dwelling subdivision Ref Number
RM240192 there are a number of factors to be considered with upgrading
the long no exit Stagecoach road. 

a.       Please show how the TDC is assessing the Stagecoach Road (no-exit
road) cost of up-grade. 

 

b.       What identity will be funding this upgrade? Public or private
(developer) etc 
 

c.       What considerations are being given to the negative environmental
impact of boundary/ fencing alterations, cost, proximity, when considering
health, safety and wellbeing of local residents 
 

d.       What is the minimum linear distance road upgrade boundaries can
be away from existing dwellings/ houses? Please provide the approved
documented policy that has undertaken various stakeholder consultation 
 

e.       What documented policy is used to ascertain the safest, most
practical and has the least impact on local residents with regards to
entry/ exits roads to proposed developments? 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. However, matters such as transport, roads, and
access given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision. 
 

7.       The proposed Tahimana Subdivision Ref Number RM240192 is set in
rural zone 3 which is a minimum 50 hectares. The proposed medium density,
141 dwelling subdivision has a range of section sizes, some as small as
550sqm. 
 

a.       What is the documented policy for deviation to give approval for
this?  
 

b.       What role within the TDC organisation has the final say to if
this application is approved or rejected? 

The resource consent process is used when a proposal to subdivide, use
and/or develop land in a manner that does not comply with the rules of the
applicable planning instrument (in this case the Tasman Resource
Management Plan).  

The Rural 3 Zone sets a baseline subdivision size of 50 hectares for when
land is being retained for rural use.  However, the Rural 3 Zone clearly
and overtly sets a structure for positive consideration of rural living
opportunities.  Subdivision and development into potentially
residential-scale lots is anticipated and provided for in the Rural 3
framework. 

Please note there are two key decisions to make for the resource consent
process. The first is the s95 notification decision, which has been set
out for you in previous responses. The second is the s104 substantive
decision (i.e. grant or refuse).  

As previously communicated, the consent authority is responsible for
making the notification decision for this application.  These decisions
are delegated to the Principal Planner – Resource Consents, or the
Resource Consents Manager.  The responsibility for the substantive
decision could depend on the notification decision.    

 

8.       A large percentage of Stagecoach road and surrounding residents
opposing this 141 dwelling medium density development down the no exit
Stagecoach Road in rural zone 3. 

 

a.       How are these residents health and wellbeing considered as it is
proposed that the the construction could last 10+ years? Please note that
a lot of these residents have retired and have settled in this quiet rural
setting, any substantial change to their environment will contribute
negatively. Items of concern are listed but not limited to the following: 

                                                                                      
i.10+ years construction 

                                                                                    
ii.Agricultural/ horticultural land composition and topography  

                                                                                  
iii.Development location on Stagecoach Road wit h no exit 

                                                                                  
iv.Area Classification Rural zone 3 (minimum 5 0 hectares)  

                                                                                    
v.Water supply and wastewater  

                                                                                  
vi.Fire Fighting and Emergency services impact 

                                                                                 
vii.Native birds population reduction 

                                                                               
viii.Roading upgrade, increase traffic flow, noise and emission pollution 

                                                                                   
ix.Community Infrastructure  

                                                                                    
x.Legislative Considerations 

 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. Any relevant matters will be given due
consideration by Council’s technical specialists, planners, and
decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource consent
application for subdivision. 

 
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.  

 
Yours sincerely  

Legal Services Officer 

 

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the named addressee, please delete the message
and notify us of the error. You must not copy, use, or disclose this
communication, or any attachments or information in it.
​

From: LGOIMA
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>;
Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[FOI #27922 email]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>
Subject: LGOIMA request - Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192 -
Henry Wendelborn - Reference: 2265

 

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[6][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...
6. mailto:[email address]

Kia ora Henry, 
 

We refer to your official information requests received on the 5 and 6 of
August 2024. As noted in our acknowledgement email we had combined the
requests together for the purpose of efficiency. The information you have
requested with regards to your various requests is noted below: 

Requests received on 5 August 2024: 

1.       The “NELSON TASMAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY” 2022 – 2052
published 19 SEPTEMBER 2022, documents that there was a proposed
consideration to develop at the end of Stagecoach Road, as per page 79 but
after consultation this has been removed T-167 from the final strategy as
documented on page 85 & 102. 

a.       Please provide documented evidence as to why this was removed
from the final FDS. 

The site assessed for the 2022 Future Development Strategy (FDS) is below
(T-167, Tāhimana, Stagecoach Road): 

 

The area assessed for site T-167 was 68 hectares for an urban density
development of around 600 houses. This is obviously different to the
resource consent application recently submitted.  

Site T-167 together with nearby draft sites T-136 Tasman View Road and
Braeburn Road block, T-166 Tasman Bay village and T-168 303 Aporo Road,
Tasman were referred to as “a new community” near Tasman village in FDS
statement of proposal for consultation (March 2022).  The statement of
proposal made clear that there were two parts being consulted on – the
main part of the proposal was consolidated growth focused largely along
State highway 6 and the secondary part of the proposal  - the potential
for a new community near Tasman village, comprising the sites above and
totalling approximately 3,200 homes. 
 
A copy of the  Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14 is
attached. 
- “Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14.pdf”

As stated in the consultation document, Te Ātiawa raised significant
concerns over three Tasman sites which would comprise the majority of any
new development there. The nature of the concerns is a long history of
spiritual/cultural issues associated with an area of battle and it being a
very sensitive area. The Councils have obligations to iwi to take into
account their cultural and spiritual views. Careful consideration was
given to the concerns raised. While the four sites above did not form part
of the core FDS proposal, the decision was made to include the sites in
the proposal during the consultation process to obtain views of the wider
community. This was while good faith dialogue continued with Te Ātiawa to
see if a solution could be found that benefitted all parties and took into
consideration the cultural sensitivities raised. 

Following a submission period of a month and a hearing that stretched over
several days, deliberations took place on the FDS. This resulted in the
secondary part of the proposal being dropped from the FDS, instead
focussing on the core part of the strategy - consolidated growth focused
largely along State highway 6. As for site T-167, the FDS technical report
notes that “some low density development is already enabled through
existing Rural 3 zone provisions.” The proposal assessed was not “aligned
with the preferred strategy and performed very poorly under MCA” (multi
criteria assessment). “Significant cultural impacts raised by Te Ātiawa”. 

b.       What are the significant cultural impacts raised by Te Atiawa? 
See response above under (a) 

2.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
enabling the local Stagecoach Road/ Awa Awa subdivision community and
local affected and interested persons to identify the degree of
significance of the proposed Tahimana Subdivision. 
 
As previously advised, the local community can self-identify as interested
persons, but it is only the Council who decides who is an affected person
in relation to a Resource Consent application under the RMA. Please refer
to our previous response dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024 for
further explanation. (Reference: 2216) 

3.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
promoting and enabling local democratic decision-making regarding the
proposed Tahimana Subdivision 
Again, the local community does not get to make decisions on Resource
Consent applications under the RMA. If the adverse effects on the
environment are found to be more than minor, and/or affected persons are
identified, then the public or those specific persons will get an
opportunity to make a submission. Please refer to our previous response
dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024, (Reference: 2216) which sets
out the decision-making process for resource consent applications.  
 
The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) sets the overall strategic
direction for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources
in our region – including the control of subdivision, use, and development
of land. 
Under the TRMP the land is Rural 3 Zone.  This zone was developed and
implemented through a rigorous plan-making process under Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This process involves comprehensive community consultation. The
Council administers the outcomes sought by that plan through the resource
consent process.   

The local decision-making was undertaken in the early 2000’s with the
promulgation and adoption of the Rural 3 Zone.  The planning system
promote or require the relitigation of those planning decisions for each
individual resource application, unless that application is outside the
boundaries of what is anticipated by that zone. 

Between about 2000 and 2003 the Council investigated a range of options to
address the demand for rural lifestyle living. Ultimately, Variation 32
was notified. Two years of work followed working through the submissions
and the decision-making process.  Decisions on the variation were made in
2005. 

The Rural 3 concept has three key objectives: 

 1. The provision of more rural living opportunities; 
 2. The retention of the best land of high productive value, and
opportunities for its use; and 
 3. The retention of rural character, rural amenities, and rural
landscapes, as well as the progressive development of natural
character and ecological outcomes to balance the rural values. 

4.       How have the local residents within the wider Tasman community
been made aware of this proposed subdivision? The proposal includes the
use of the Mapua/ Ruby bay water scheme which does already observe an
increase in water restrictions due to the demand. Local residents are not
aware of this application 
There is no requirement to make local residents aware of a resource
consent application for a proposed subdivision until the notification
decision has been made, and it has been determined that some form of
notification is necessary. Further, there is no express requirement for an
applicant to consult with the community in relation to their resource
consent application either. However, matters such as water supply
servicing are given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision.   
 

5.       Please provide the TDC communications between those who have
contacted you regarding this proposed subdivision stating if they are for,
against and neutral and whether local community or not. Please define
whether these communications are from the subdivider or their
sub-contractors: 

a.       email communications 

b.       document communications 

c.       meeting notes 
 
We have located a number of requests handled under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) received by yourself, or
where you have been copied into correspondence regarding the above noted
proposed subdivision. 

  RE_ LGOMA - 208 Stagecoach Rd Affected person by proposed Stagecoach Rd
Development - REDACTED - reference_ 2216_Redacted.pdf

  RE_ LGOIMA Request - Affected person feedback for proposed Tahimana
Stagecoach Road Subdivision - REDACTED - Reference 2210_Redacted.pdf 
 
Please note, redactions have been applied under 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA for
the protection of privacy. 

Requests received on 6 August 2024: 

 1. As part of the proposed Tahimana 141 dwelling subdivision Ref Number
RM240192 there are a number of factors to be considered with upgrading
the long no exit Stagecoach road. 

a.       Please show how the TDC is assessing the Stagecoach Road (no-exit
road) cost of up-grade. 

 

b.       What identity will be funding this upgrade? Public or private
(developer) etc 
 

c.       What considerations are being given to the negative environmental
impact of boundary/ fencing alterations, cost, proximity, when considering
health, safety and wellbeing of local residents 
 

d.       What is the minimum linear distance road upgrade boundaries can
be away from existing dwellings/ houses? Please provide the approved
documented policy that has undertaken various stakeholder consultation 
 

e.       What documented policy is used to ascertain the safest, most
practical and has the least impact on local residents with regards to
entry/ exits roads to proposed developments? 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. However, matters such as transport, roads, and
access given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision. 
 

7.       The proposed Tahimana Subdivision Ref Number RM240192 is set in
rural zone 3 which is a minimum 50 hectares. The proposed medium density,
141 dwelling subdivision has a range of section sizes, some as small as
550sqm. 
 

a.       What is the documented policy for deviation to give approval for
this?  
 

b.       What role within the TDC organisation has the final say to if
this application is approved or rejected? 

The resource consent process is used when a proposal to subdivide, use
and/or develop land in a manner that does not comply with the rules of the
applicable planning instrument (in this case the Tasman Resource
Management Plan).  

The Rural 3 Zone sets a baseline subdivision size of 50 hectares for when
land is being retained for rural use.  However, the Rural 3 Zone clearly
and overtly sets a structure for positive consideration of rural living
opportunities.  Subdivision and development into potentially
residential-scale lots is anticipated and provided for in the Rural 3
framework. 

Please note there are two key decisions to make for the resource consent
process. The first is the s95 notification decision, which has been set
out for you in previous responses. The second is the s104 substantive
decision (i.e. grant or refuse).  

As previously communicated, the consent authority is responsible for
making the notification decision for this application.  These decisions
are delegated to the Principal Planner – Resource Consents, or the
Resource Consents Manager.  The responsibility for the substantive
decision could depend on the notification decision.    

 

8.       A large percentage of Stagecoach road and surrounding residents
opposing this 141 dwelling medium density development down the no exit
Stagecoach Road in rural zone 3. 

 

a.       How are these residents health and wellbeing considered as it is
proposed that the the construction could last 10+ years? Please note that
a lot of these residents have retired and have settled in this quiet rural
setting, any substantial change to their environment will contribute
negatively. Items of concern are listed but not limited to the following: 

                                                                                      
i.10+ years construction 

                                                                                    
ii.Agricultural/ horticultural land composition and topography  

                                                                                  
iii.Development location on Stagecoach Road wit h no exit 

                                                                                  
iv.Area Classification Rural zone 3 (minimum 5 0 hectares)  

                                                                                    
v.Water supply and wastewater  

                                                                                  
vi.Fire Fighting and Emergency services impact 

                                                                                 
vii.Native birds population reduction 

                                                                               
viii.Roading upgrade, increase traffic flow, noise and emission pollution 

                                                                                   
ix.Community Infrastructure  

                                                                                    
x.Legislative Considerations 

 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. Any relevant matters will be given due
consideration by Council’s technical specialists, planners, and
decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource consent
application for subdivision. 

 
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.  

 
Yours sincerely  

Legal Services Officer 

 

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the named addressee, please delete the message
and notify us of the error. You must not copy, use, or disclose this
communication, or any attachments or information in it.
​

From: LGOIMA
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>;
Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[FOI #27922 email]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>
Subject: LGOIMA request - Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192 -
Henry Wendelborn - Reference: 2265

 

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[6][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...
6. mailto:[email address]

Kia ora Henry, 
 

We refer to your official information requests received on the 5 and 6 of
August 2024. As noted in our acknowledgement email we had combined the
requests together for the purpose of efficiency. The information you have
requested with regards to your various requests is noted below: 

Requests received on 5 August 2024: 

1.       The “NELSON TASMAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY” 2022 – 2052
published 19 SEPTEMBER 2022, documents that there was a proposed
consideration to develop at the end of Stagecoach Road, as per page 79 but
after consultation this has been removed T-167 from the final strategy as
documented on page 85 & 102. 

a.       Please provide documented evidence as to why this was removed
from the final FDS. 

The site assessed for the 2022 Future Development Strategy (FDS) is below
(T-167, Tāhimana, Stagecoach Road): 

 

The area assessed for site T-167 was 68 hectares for an urban density
development of around 600 houses. This is obviously different to the
resource consent application recently submitted.  

Site T-167 together with nearby draft sites T-136 Tasman View Road and
Braeburn Road block, T-166 Tasman Bay village and T-168 303 Aporo Road,
Tasman were referred to as “a new community” near Tasman village in FDS
statement of proposal for consultation (March 2022).  The statement of
proposal made clear that there were two parts being consulted on – the
main part of the proposal was consolidated growth focused largely along
State highway 6 and the secondary part of the proposal  - the potential
for a new community near Tasman village, comprising the sites above and
totalling approximately 3,200 homes. 
 
A copy of the  Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14 is
attached. 
- “Draft summary doc and FDS for consultation 2022-03-14.pdf”

As stated in the consultation document, Te Ātiawa raised significant
concerns over three Tasman sites which would comprise the majority of any
new development there. The nature of the concerns is a long history of
spiritual/cultural issues associated with an area of battle and it being a
very sensitive area. The Councils have obligations to iwi to take into
account their cultural and spiritual views. Careful consideration was
given to the concerns raised. While the four sites above did not form part
of the core FDS proposal, the decision was made to include the sites in
the proposal during the consultation process to obtain views of the wider
community. This was while good faith dialogue continued with Te Ātiawa to
see if a solution could be found that benefitted all parties and took into
consideration the cultural sensitivities raised. 

Following a submission period of a month and a hearing that stretched over
several days, deliberations took place on the FDS. This resulted in the
secondary part of the proposal being dropped from the FDS, instead
focussing on the core part of the strategy - consolidated growth focused
largely along State highway 6. As for site T-167, the FDS technical report
notes that “some low density development is already enabled through
existing Rural 3 zone provisions.” The proposal assessed was not “aligned
with the preferred strategy and performed very poorly under MCA” (multi
criteria assessment). “Significant cultural impacts raised by Te Ātiawa”. 

b.       What are the significant cultural impacts raised by Te Atiawa? 
See response above under (a) 

2.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
enabling the local Stagecoach Road/ Awa Awa subdivision community and
local affected and interested persons to identify the degree of
significance of the proposed Tahimana Subdivision. 
 
As previously advised, the local community can self-identify as interested
persons, but it is only the Council who decides who is an affected person
in relation to a Resource Consent application under the RMA. Please refer
to our previous response dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024 for
further explanation. (Reference: 2216) 

3.       Please show and provide documented evidence of how the TDC is
promoting and enabling local democratic decision-making regarding the
proposed Tahimana Subdivision 
Again, the local community does not get to make decisions on Resource
Consent applications under the RMA. If the adverse effects on the
environment are found to be more than minor, and/or affected persons are
identified, then the public or those specific persons will get an
opportunity to make a submission. Please refer to our previous response
dated 10 July and resent on 15 August 2024, (Reference: 2216) which sets
out the decision-making process for resource consent applications.  
 
The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) sets the overall strategic
direction for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources
in our region – including the control of subdivision, use, and development
of land. 
Under the TRMP the land is Rural 3 Zone.  This zone was developed and
implemented through a rigorous plan-making process under Schedule 1 of the
RMA. This process involves comprehensive community consultation. The
Council administers the outcomes sought by that plan through the resource
consent process.   

The local decision-making was undertaken in the early 2000’s with the
promulgation and adoption of the Rural 3 Zone.  The planning system
promote or require the relitigation of those planning decisions for each
individual resource application, unless that application is outside the
boundaries of what is anticipated by that zone. 

Between about 2000 and 2003 the Council investigated a range of options to
address the demand for rural lifestyle living. Ultimately, Variation 32
was notified. Two years of work followed working through the submissions
and the decision-making process.  Decisions on the variation were made in
2005. 

The Rural 3 concept has three key objectives: 

 1. The provision of more rural living opportunities; 
 2. The retention of the best land of high productive value, and
opportunities for its use; and 
 3. The retention of rural character, rural amenities, and rural
landscapes, as well as the progressive development of natural
character and ecological outcomes to balance the rural values. 

4.       How have the local residents within the wider Tasman community
been made aware of this proposed subdivision? The proposal includes the
use of the Mapua/ Ruby bay water scheme which does already observe an
increase in water restrictions due to the demand. Local residents are not
aware of this application 
There is no requirement to make local residents aware of a resource
consent application for a proposed subdivision until the notification
decision has been made, and it has been determined that some form of
notification is necessary. Further, there is no express requirement for an
applicant to consult with the community in relation to their resource
consent application either. However, matters such as water supply
servicing are given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision.   
 

5.       Please provide the TDC communications between those who have
contacted you regarding this proposed subdivision stating if they are for,
against and neutral and whether local community or not. Please define
whether these communications are from the subdivider or their
sub-contractors: 

a.       email communications 

b.       document communications 

c.       meeting notes 
 
We have located a number of requests handled under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) received by yourself, or
where you have been copied into correspondence regarding the above noted
proposed subdivision. 

  RE_ LGOMA - 208 Stagecoach Rd Affected person by proposed Stagecoach Rd
Development - REDACTED - reference_ 2216_Redacted.pdf

  RE_ LGOIMA Request - Affected person feedback for proposed Tahimana
Stagecoach Road Subdivision - REDACTED - Reference 2210_Redacted.pdf 
 
Please note, redactions have been applied under 7(2)(a) of the LGOIMA for
the protection of privacy. 

Requests received on 6 August 2024: 

 1. As part of the proposed Tahimana 141 dwelling subdivision Ref Number
RM240192 there are a number of factors to be considered with upgrading
the long no exit Stagecoach road. 

a.       Please show how the TDC is assessing the Stagecoach Road (no-exit
road) cost of up-grade. 

 

b.       What identity will be funding this upgrade? Public or private
(developer) etc 
 

c.       What considerations are being given to the negative environmental
impact of boundary/ fencing alterations, cost, proximity, when considering
health, safety and wellbeing of local residents 
 

d.       What is the minimum linear distance road upgrade boundaries can
be away from existing dwellings/ houses? Please provide the approved
documented policy that has undertaken various stakeholder consultation 
 

e.       What documented policy is used to ascertain the safest, most
practical and has the least impact on local residents with regards to
entry/ exits roads to proposed developments? 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. However, matters such as transport, roads, and
access given due consideration by Council’s technical specialists,
planners, and decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource
consent application for subdivision. 
 

7.       The proposed Tahimana Subdivision Ref Number RM240192 is set in
rural zone 3 which is a minimum 50 hectares. The proposed medium density,
141 dwelling subdivision has a range of section sizes, some as small as
550sqm. 
 

a.       What is the documented policy for deviation to give approval for
this?  
 

b.       What role within the TDC organisation has the final say to if
this application is approved or rejected? 

The resource consent process is used when a proposal to subdivide, use
and/or develop land in a manner that does not comply with the rules of the
applicable planning instrument (in this case the Tasman Resource
Management Plan).  

The Rural 3 Zone sets a baseline subdivision size of 50 hectares for when
land is being retained for rural use.  However, the Rural 3 Zone clearly
and overtly sets a structure for positive consideration of rural living
opportunities.  Subdivision and development into potentially
residential-scale lots is anticipated and provided for in the Rural 3
framework. 

Please note there are two key decisions to make for the resource consent
process. The first is the s95 notification decision, which has been set
out for you in previous responses. The second is the s104 substantive
decision (i.e. grant or refuse).  

As previously communicated, the consent authority is responsible for
making the notification decision for this application.  These decisions
are delegated to the Principal Planner – Resource Consents, or the
Resource Consents Manager.  The responsibility for the substantive
decision could depend on the notification decision.    

 

8.       A large percentage of Stagecoach road and surrounding residents
opposing this 141 dwelling medium density development down the no exit
Stagecoach Road in rural zone 3. 

 

a.       How are these residents health and wellbeing considered as it is
proposed that the the construction could last 10+ years? Please note that
a lot of these residents have retired and have settled in this quiet rural
setting, any substantial change to their environment will contribute
negatively. Items of concern are listed but not limited to the following: 

                                                                                      
i.10+ years construction 

                                                                                    
ii.Agricultural/ horticultural land composition and topography  

                                                                                  
iii.Development location on Stagecoach Road wit h no exit 

                                                                                  
iv.Area Classification Rural zone 3 (minimum 5 0 hectares)  

                                                                                    
v.Water supply and wastewater  

                                                                                  
vi.Fire Fighting and Emergency services impact 

                                                                                 
vii.Native birds population reduction 

                                                                               
viii.Roading upgrade, increase traffic flow, noise and emission pollution 

                                                                                   
ix.Community Infrastructure  

                                                                                    
x.Legislative Considerations 

 

As noted above, the application and its associated effects are still being
assessed by Council staff. Any relevant matters will be given due
consideration by Council’s technical specialists, planners, and
decision-makers as part of the processing of a resource consent
application for subdivision. 

 
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of
this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
[1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.  

 
Yours sincerely  

Legal Services Officer 

 

 ​​​​
LGOIMA
LGOIMA Requests
Call  +64 3 543 8400   |   [2][Tasman District Council request email]
Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NZ
[3][IMG] [4][IMG] [5][IMG]
This e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the named addressee, please delete the message
and notify us of the error. You must not copy, use, or disclose this
communication, or any attachments or information in it.
​

From: LGOIMA
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>;
Henry Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[FOI #27922 email]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>; Henry
Wendelborn <[email address]>
Subject: LGOIMA request - Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192 -
Henry Wendelborn - Reference: 2265

 

Kia ora Henry,

We acknowledge receipt of your official information requests (x6) received
on the 5 August and 6 August (copy attached) for information relating to
Stagecoach Road Tahimana Subdivision RM240192. For the purpose of
efficiency, we have combined the requests together.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in
any event no later than 2 September 2024 being 20 working days after the
day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request
by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe. For
requests that are likely to involve substantial collation and/or research,
there may be a charge for staff time, however if this is the case, we will
advise you before we process your request.

Your request is being handled by the Legal team. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact the team on
[6][email address]. If any additional factors come to light which
are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that
these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,
Legal Services Officer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[Tasman District Council request email]
3. https://www.facebook.com/tasmandistrictc...
4. https://www.instagram.com/tasmandistrict...
5. https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasmand...
6. mailto:[email address]