To: Wellington City Council
Regarding: Request for Evidence of Accountability of Use Funding provided to WNHT (see File Ref: IRC-8538)

Dear Wellington City Council,

Thank you for your response to our previous correspondence, identified as File Ref: IRC-8538, regarding the funding provided to the Wellington Natural Heritage Trust (WNHT) and its intended purposes.

As noted in our original request, we specifically asked for evidence of accountability to confirm whether the funds disbursed were used as intended. This evidence was not provided in your reply. We are therefore reiterating this request, now in relation to specific line items listed in your response:

a) 2015 Funding – $6,300
Purpose listed: “Facilitating Public Access to Long Gully Bush Reserve & small mammal monitoring.”

However, according to the WNHT’s own website (https://www.wnht.org.nz/), “There is currently no public access to Long Gully Bush Reserve.” In fact, to our knowledge, there never has been. This is reinforced in the strategic action plan where they state that they don't want it for a number of reasons.

This discrepancy raises serious concerns. How was funding approved for a purpose that is evidently not being fulfilled? Without a clear explanation, it calls into question the credibility of other line items and undermines trust in the due diligence process.

b) Aerial Boneseed Control – 21 May 2024, $11,500
According to your records, this funding was allocated for aerial boneseed control. However, no residents in the surrounding area are aware of any aerial operation (by plane, helicopter, or drone) occurring at that time.

We request any documented evidence that this activity took place—such as photographs, flight logs, or third-party monitoring reports, or maybe start with a contract with an aerial company to include precisely this property. In the absence of such verification, how is this expenditure substantiated?

c) Governance and Oversight
Your reply noted “site visits with Council Officers & WNHT.” Could you please clarify:

Were these Council Officers are independent staff, or are any of them also trustees or members of WNHT (e.g., Tim Park, a founding member of the trust)?

What governance structures are in place to ensure separation between those who approve or monitor funding and those who may have a vested interest in the Trust?

Essentially, the appearance that a privately owned property is receiving close to $40,000 of public funding annually, in an undisclosed internal operational way (until LGOIMA'd) to boot—potentially for activities that are either unverifiable or unsubstantiated—is deeply concerning.

If there is any impropriety, or even a sense of non-transparency, I expect WCC to do the right thing, distance themselves from the private organisation, and any further payment to them, are only by open, transparent, processes, not opaque, internal, processes, and all *verified* to be above board.

Transparency and accountability are essential, especially when public funds are involved. We hope Council can provide a clear, evidence-based response to these initial questions.

Yours faithfully,
A Concerned Wellington City (Brooklyn) Ratepayer