It all began- with a letter from KCDC in our letter box advising that the Mansell family had submitted a resource consent application under the District Plan. Mansell’s wanted to subdivide approximately 18 hectares (44 acres) of land zoned Rural Lifestyle. Initially they wanted to subdivide 22 mostly larger residential lots in the north of the area, and a grouping of 24 mostly smaller residential lots southern end. Some lot sizes less than the minimum and average lot size standards required in the Rural Zone and are NOT within the current laws. Which state under R51 Standards:

2, Additional standards for the rural lifestyle zone: a. subdivisions must create allotments with a minimum average area of 1ha across the subdivision and a minimum individual allotment area of 4000m.

· The Council delegated the decision-making on the resource consent to an Independent Hearing Panel (IPH). This Panel approved the consent application. It then went under appeal at the Environmental Court.

rm210147-kāpiti-coast-district-council-s42a-report-tieko-street-and-otaihanga-road-otaihanga.pdf (kapiticoast.govt.nz)

Richard Mansell states "We have consulted widely with iwi and our neighbours..."rm210147-richard-mansell-statement-of-evidence.pdf (kapiticoast.govt.nz)" Not once has the Mansell family consulted with us and many neighbours also confirm this. Speaking to neighbours they did not know that the Mansell family then jumped onto PC2 to rezone to General Residential with high intensification.

Unfortunately, Iwi has been misrepresented "Our iwi Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai were not fully consulted by the Applicant at both an operational or governance level". André Baker Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust.

Reply from KCDC from OIR: 2324/623 (Contact me if you want a copy I don't know how to upload into blog)

3. Why has there been no community engagement of Mansell wanting to do this?

There was a further submission process that was provided to potentially interested parties to have their say about this rezoning request. Under clause 8 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, the following parties can make further submissions:

a) any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; and

b) any person that has an interest in the proposed policy statement or plan greater than the interest that the general public has; and

c) the local authority itself.

To raise awareness of this opportunity, Council created a map showing all rezoning requests made by submitters, which appeared on the Council website during the further submission period open between 10 November and 24 November 2022. The existence of the map and opportunity to make further submissions was communicated in various media (including media release and Facebook).

With respect to the Mansell request, Council officers provided commentary on the adequacy of this opportunity in their Council officer planning evidence (page 236) prior to the hearing of submitters. They evaluated if affected individuals genuinely had a chance to engage, using the test, “Would the affected persons have real opportunity to participate in the process?”. This evaluation is part of a series of tests, established by legal precedents under the RMA, that the Council officers were obligated to consider in determining the scope of involvement.

In drawing that conclusion, Council officers took note of the fact that the Mansell’s request was initially raised during the consultation phase of the Draft Plan Change. Affected persons could have submitted in support or opposition to the recommendation in Appendix B [of the section 32 report which assessed all feedback on the draft of PC2], although they would have had to be aware of that particular recommendation. Following this, they also had an opportunity to participate at the further submissions stage.

4. Why has there been NO public notification re Mansell wanting to rezone?

Council did not include the Mansell’s request for rezoning in the Proposed Plan Change, therefore it was not a part of the version of PC2 that was notified in August last year. However, as noted in the answer to Question 3 above:

• An appendix to the section 32 report was available at the time of notification that did include an assessment of the Mansell’s feedback on the Draft Plan Change,

• The opportunity to make a further submission was publicly notified; and

• Council prepared a map of submitters-requested rezonings and undertook various media communications to raise awareness of this during the further submission period.

Kris Pervan Group Manager Strategy and Growth Replied to Official Information Request (OIR), again contact me if you want a copy of this.

Maps of land in question.

Source of maps (please view the old application) to have a better look and also please remember this was Mansell Families application to subdivide. All of this is now void as ex-minister of the environment has approved all of this land to be zoned General Residential with the ability to have 3, three story buildings with approx 370 - 372 dwellings on it, right in the middle of a Rural Lifestyle Zone.

Otaihanga is the semi-rural (or ‘peri-urban’), mostly sand dune-strewn area sandwiched between the urban centres of Paraparaumu and Waikanae. As per ex Mayor Jenny Rowan: 

Otaihanga’s residential offerings consist mostly of farms, farmlets, recent lifestyle blocks such as those in the Camelot rural residential subdivision, the small attractive Otaihanga Village (about 180 houses) by the picturesque Waikanae River, and a small strip of residential properties along Ratanui Road. The relatively undeveloped low-density character of the Otaihanga area is relevant to both its charm as a place of residence and its effectiveness as the key part of the Kāpiti Island to Tararua Mountains nature corridor concept

As with any community, within Otaihanga there is a healthy range of views of what the area should be like over time, what areas are valued and which things need to be protected or improved. Residents agree that the river, the estuary, the sand dunes, the beach and the Domain, combined with the rural and tranquil setting, create a unique environment within the District. There is a very strong desire in the community to retain the rural and unspoilt feel of Otaihanga and to keep a rural buffer separating Otaihanga Village and Paraparaumu. Residents are keen to be involved in decisions on future road connections, road design, residential and commercial development, and other matters that could impact on Otaihanga’s unique character.

Census states there are 804 people and 327 total private dwellings in Otaihanga.

Our current KCDC all voted except for Councillor Martin Halliday and Liz Koe (Who state they work together) that the whole area needs a Full Structure change. Not just one family develop their land under high intensification in the middle of a rural lifestyle zone.

KCDC Planners' response stating that a structure planned approach is needed of Mansell land and why.

https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/media/ydmhcz1o/pc2_councilreply_katiemaxwell.pdf

4.1 Mansell Subdivision, Otaihanga (S023 Mansell Family, S235 Morris)

(25) The submitter requested the rezoning of their site from Rural Lifestyle to General Residential Zone. As indicated in my original recommendation, the site is sufficiently large or complex enough to require a structure planned approach. There was some confusion over whether the site itself is big enough to warrant a structure planned approach. I would like to clarify this point (as was done at the hearing), that it is not the site alone which requires a structure plan but rather the wider area surrounding (and including) the site which I consider requires a structure plan. The Mansell’s site presents a key connection point into this area from the existing urban environment, and it is important the area be considered comprehensively prior to development occurring.

(26) While I appreciate the submitters’ willingness to work together to overcome the ’10 per cent’, and I acknowledge the additional information provided by them in their further evidence lodged after the hearing, we remain in fundamental disagreement about the need for a structure plan. As outlined in paragraph 10 above and onwards, I consider a comprehensive structure plan of the wider area is necessary prior to any rezoning. Ultimately the timeframes set under the ISPP are not conducive to the preparation of a comprehensive structure plan for the area, and I felt it inappropriate to engage in this process as part of the ISPP given the lack of information available on the issues that may need to be addressed in the surrounding area outside of the submitters’ site and the lack of ability for other parties potentially affected by the structure planning to input into the process. The other benefits associated with a structure plan (and reasons I consider it necessary) are stated in paragraphs 11 and 12. My opinion is consistent across all sites requested for rezoning by submitters, where I considered a structure plan was necessary.

(27) Given the site already has a subdivision consent approved under the Rural Lifestyle Zone (although currently under appeal), it is important to note that, while the owners have indicated their intention to re-design the development and reapply for land use and subdivision consent should their land be rezoned, they could develop to the density provided under the MDRS as a permitted activity across the 46 lots consented (without any additional consents). This means there may not be a consent process through which infrastructure or other issues related to increased levels of development would be addressed.

(28) I also appreciate Morris’ submission in their opposition of the rezoning of the site, particularly in relation to the loss of rural lifestyle land in the District. This is an important consideration, given the implications of the NPS-HPL which limits the creation of new rural lifestyle areas on land considered to be highly productive. The demand for this type of development will remain, Kapiti Coast District Plan – Plan Change 2 – Council Officer’s Reply Evidence and if areas of existing rural lifestyle land are lost, it can be anticipated that this will be pushed elsewhere in the District.

Minutes from meeting with Tim Costley MP 17/11/23

Apologies from were made by André Baker of Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust.

1. Leanne gave a history of the Mansell land where the initial application was for subdivision of 18 hectares (44 acres) zoned rural lifestyle with 22 large plots and 24 small plots – some being under 4000m which is under R51 standards. How this happened is still to be understood! An independent hearing panel (IHP) approved this, but it went under appeal to the Environment Court.

2. Plan Change 2 (PC2) was directed by Labour government. The council (KCDC) never proposed that Otaihanga area was to be considered under PC2. The area got in by Mansell family and other Otaihanga landowners putting in submissions. PC2 means high intensification of General Residential of 3, 3 story dwellings (some areas higher).

3. Otaihanga residents once made aware of the plans for Otaihanga under PC2 wrote to the Mayor and Councillors and it became a “hot topic”. The IHP recommended only Mansell land be approved. All other Otaihanga submissions were rejected by the IHP. André Baker informed Leanne on phone conversation that the developer (Mansell family) did not consult with Iwi and therefore information was incorrect and inaccurate that was given to IHP.

4. The KCDC planners recommended that a full Structure Plan for the wider area of Otaihanga was needed. The mayor and councillors took into account feedback from residents, Iwi, their planners and the fact that Otaihanga was never meant to be in PC2, they rejected the IHP’s recommendation re submission from the Mansell family.

5. Leanne clarified for Tim that the council and mayor re PC2 only rejected the Mansell land. All other recommendations from the IHP were approved this covers the whole of the Kapiti area. This also includes the other Otaihanga landowners that put in submissions under PC2 that the IHP did not recommend. Tim had before our meeting met with Darren Edwards KCDC CEO and Janet Holborow Mayor to get some understanding of the issue.

6. David Parker Minister for the Environment overruled the council’s decision and accepted the IHP’s recommendation to rezone the Mansell land to General Residential Zone. This happened while parliament was closed and before the election.

7. Tim played devils advocate to get clear understanding that Leanne and the Otaihanga residents who objected want a Full Structure plan. Leanne explained that DOC has not been involved. There has only been one scientist look at the Mansell land, which was paid for by the Mansell family, they are only talking about lizards. The native birds that visit eg Falcons, spoonbills and herons have no one advocating for them. We talked about the safe flight path Kapiti has been trying to be implemented from Kapiti Island to the Tararua’s for the wildlife. This will affect this.

8. We discussed National Party wants more affordable homes for people. We both agree on that and discussed how Leanne’s family members have left NZ recently to live in Australia as they feel they cannot afford to live in NZ. This is another qualified trade person that has left NZ. We discussed that Leanne has no problem with people making money but she was shocked by the blatancy of Mr Richard Mansell who is also Community Board Chair of Waikanae of KCDC, declaration for profit and complete disregard for the environment, human well-being, community, and Infrastructure is very clear. He is not out to represent the greater good for the Otaihanga Community or to build warm, dry affordable homes for people.

I said I would link the video for Tim to watch that was discussed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7AZd_QeLWs - Start watching from time stamp 23.07

9. Leanne agrees with the council planning staff, a full structure plan needs to be done of all of the Otaihanga area. If they deem Otaihanga is an area that needs to be General Residential then so be it. Proper planning, infrastructure, maybe even a train station and local shops and doctors be planned for the area. Currently Otaihanga doesn’t even have a bus service. But with the overruling of the KCDC recommendation we now are getting 370-372 more dwellings that can be 3 stories high in the middle of a rural lifestyle zone.

10. We discussed Teiko St and Tim is going to drive down it to see how narrow it is so he can understand the residents concerns that the Mansell development is going to affect them.

11. We discussed that councils need to have a certain amount of green land or lifestyle blocks and once gone it cannot be gotten back. Hence planning is needed of the area, again not just one landowner’s land in the area.

12. We discussed light pollution and Otaihanga has very low light pollution – Link to Mark Gee’s work https://theartofnight.com/ regarding this.

Tim heard and understood that Leanne and the community felt that the powers of our elected members and Iwi have been overridden by the previous government.

The next step recommended by Tim is for Leanne to meet with CEO and Mayor and get written documentation to back up that they are displeased with David Parker’s decision.

Once government is formed, the Otaihanga residents will once again gather and begin the campaign for their concerns to be heard.

Tim will consult with National’s Minster for the Environment once appointed to see if the previous minster’s decision can be relooked at, reconsidered, and eventually be repealed.