OIR: 2223/482
15 March 2023
Paul Grout
14 Regent Drive
Paraparaumu 5032
FYI Website:
[FYI request #21417 email]
Dear Paul,
Request for Information under the Local Government and Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (the Act) (the LGOIMA)
Thank you for your email of 6 March 2023 requesting the following information:
While perusing the new resource consent applications for 240 Kapiti Road I noticed
with interest a photograph captioned: "Photo 2: Pond towards centre of site (to be filled
in)." This photograph appears in both applications - at clause 3.1. (Visual Observations)
of Appendix C (Geotechnical Report) of resource consent application RM230006 on
page 46, and resource consent application RM230008 on page 79.
1. Is this not the pond that Sarah Banks, Senior Resource Consents Planner, KCDC
and Emma McLean, Senior Planner, Cuttriss Consultants Ltd denied any knowledge
of before the commissioner's resource consent hearing for the RM220070
application - when we, The Horse Paddock Action Group were trying to establish
why a continuously existing pond/wetland had been fil ed in without resource
consent?
When the query was investigated in August 2022, Council could not locate the pond that was
claimed to have been fil ed without a Resource Consent.
2. That the unconsented infilling of a wetland area brings into question the integrity of
the S42A report submitted to the Resource Consent Hearing, prepared by Sarah
Banks and reviewed by Eloise Carstens, Team Leader Resource Consents. We
believe that it also brings into question the validity of expert reports presented by
Cuttriss, the mana whenua assessment of the proposal and ENGEO regarding
groundwater management and Te Mana O Te Wai issues associated with any
proposed development." This matter was never addressed by KCDC.
The s42A report states that the District Plan does not contain an ecological site or protected
feature in respect of this site. This is correct as per the planning maps.
3. As these new resource consent applications are stil 'non-complying' and possibly
'out-of-zone', I request the council reject them forthwith, and then turn their
attention to overturning the consent given to the original application, RM220070. At
the moment we don't know what truths and what falsehoods have been presented
by KCDC or Cuttriss to the resource consent hearing - it is not good enough to
assume that the hearing commissioner had all the facts before him when making
his decision?
Council is obliged to consider all applications on their merits and submitted information is
objectively tested to determine if there are any effects on the surrounding properties to a
degree that is minor or more than minor as is required under the Resource Management Act
2009 (RMA).
4. The council and neighbourhood can then look at a new application, should the
applicant still wish to pursue one, on a 'level playing field' without favour, affection,
malice or il -will from any of the interested parties.
We do not favour any applicant or interested party. Council is a neutral party and wil
objectively test all resource consent applications submit ed as required by the RMA.
Yours sincerely,
James Jefferson
Group Manager Regulatory Services
Te Kaihautū Ratonga Whakaritenga
