T E K O T A H I T A N G A O
TE AT AWA
T A R A N A K I
David More
T E K O T A H I T A N G A O
New Plymouth District Council
TE AT AWA
Private Bag 2025
T A R A N A K I
NEW PLYMOUTH 4342
Draft policy on naming and re-naming of roads, private roads and rights-of-way
By email: [email address]
13 July 2018
SUBMISSION TO THE NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL’S DRAFT POLICY ON
NAMING AND RE-NAMING OF ROADS, PRIVATE ROADS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Tēnā koe David,
1. On behalf of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust (Te Kotahitanga) and Ngā Hapū
o Te Atiawa Iwi (Ngā Hapū o Te Atiawa) we appreciate the opportunity to provide
comment on New Plymouth District Council’s (the Council) draft policy on naming
and re-naming of roads, private roads and rights-of-way (the Policy).
Introduction - Te Atiawa
2. Te Atiawa Iwi (Te Atiawa) exercise manawhenua (authority) over the ancestral
lands, waters, taonga species, wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga within the Te Atiawa
rohe (area of interest) which extends from Te Rau o Te Huia along the coast to
the Herekawe Stream, inland to Maunga Taranaki and offshore out to 12 nautical
miles. Te Atiawa has occupied this rohe for centuries.
3. Te Kotahitanga is the governance entity for the iwi of Te Atiawa (Taranaki) and
has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of Te Atiawa are safe-guarded.
This includes considering the extent to which proposed policy may impact on the
historical, cultural and spiritual interests of Te Atiawa within it’s rohe and those
areas under statutory acknowledgements and/or Te Atiawa Iwi Claims Settlement
Act 2016.
A: 35 Leach Street, New Plymouth / PO Box 1097 Taranaki Mail Centre | p: 06 7584685 |
e: [email address]
4. Te Atiawa has rights and interests including, but not limited to:
a) rights and interests arising under the Te Atiawa Iwi Claims Settlement Act
2016;
b) Draft Te Atiawa Iwi Environmental Management Plan (which wil be lodged
within the lifetime of this Policy);
c) rights and interests according to tikanga and customary law;
rights and interests arising from the common law (including the common
law relating to aboriginal title and customary law); and
rights and interests under the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.
5. Te Atiawa seek to ensure that these rights and interests are recognised in the
Council’s Policy and there is alignment with the outcomes of Te Atiawa’s key tribal
documents:
a) Te Atiawa Iwi Claims Settlement Act 2016; and
b) Draft Te Atiawa Iwi Environmental Management Plan (which will be lodged
within the lifetime of this Policy).
Submission on the Policy
6. Te Kotahitanga has reviewed the Policy and provides the fol owing comments.
7. Clause 5c of the Policy states that where public roads require naming or
renaming, iwi and hapū are an affected party. We support this and propose that
any name provided by an affected party is granted a higher status than one that
is proposed by an interested party.
8. Clause 8 of the Policy acknowledges the proposal of Māori road names. We
support this and propose that where Māori names are proposed in areas of
importance to Māori, these names are given priority.
9. Clause 9 of the Policy outlines the District-specific criteria. We would like to see
the inclusion of specific clauses that acknowledge the importance of Māori road
names in areas of significance to Māori, and we request that priority is given to
this.
10. Clause 9(c)(ix) of the Policy outlines the AS/NZS 4819:2011 (LINZ-related) criteria
and states that names be a maximum length of 15 letters. Iwi and hapū may
propose the ful ancestral name of their tūpuna. We would like assurance that
iwi/hapū would not be immediately discounted when proposing a name
exceeding 15 letters.
11. Clause 13(a) and (d) of the Policy state that where Māori names are proposed
by an individual, iwi or hapū, at least one wil be included in the final list of
four names. Where applicable, we would like to see at least 2 Māori names
be included in the final list.
A: 35 Leach Street, New Plymouth / PO Box 1097 Taranaki Mail Centre | p: 06 7584685 |
e: [email address]
Conclusion
12. In conclusion, Te Kotahitanga and Ngā Hapū o Te Atiawa appreciate the
opportunity to provide comment on this Policy and hope that our comments are
useful. Please contact Sera Gibson on sera@teatiawa if you have any questions.
Nāku, nā
Hemi Sundgren
Pouwhakahaere / Chief Executive
Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust
A: 35 Leach Street, New Plymouth / PO Box 1097 Taranaki Mail Centre | p: 06 7584685 |
e: [email address]
Proposed Road Naming Policy Submission Form
1. Your Details
Ful Name:
Jospeph Bolton
Physical Address:
9 Marua Palm Grove, Upper Hutt
Phone Number:
0275267599
Email:
[email address]
2. Your Feedback
1. The proposed policy is easier to understand than the current policy.
Agree
2. Proposed under Statement 4(c), the Council should facilitate a consensus, where affected parties cannot
reach agreement on a proposed road name.
Agree
3. The descriptions in Statement 5(a-c) regarding affected and interested parties are useful.
Agree
4. For Statement 6(a-e), the proposed consultation process for affected and interested parties, including out-
going information is clear and easy to understand.
Strongly agree
5. The process described in Statement 7(a-h) for proposing a road name is clear and easy to understand.
Strongly agree
6. The criteria in Statement 8(a-d) for proposing a Māori road name is useful and practical.
Agree
7. By presenting them as two groups, the assessment criteria in Statement 9(a-c) improve understanding of
where they come from.
Agree
8. Statement 9(b)(i ) mitigates the risk of a road being named after a living person, who is then convicted of a
criminal offense(s).
Agree
9. The provisions under Statement 10(a-h) regarding private roads and rights-of-way are clear and easy to
understand.
Agree
10. The new provision at Statement 11(a-e) about new subdivisions wil improve the timely completion of road
naming processes.
Agree
11. The new provision proposed for retirement vil ages at Statement 12(a-e) is clear and useful.
Agree
12. The details at Statement 13(a-d) regarding the process for arriving at a final list of proposed names is useful.
Agree
13. The minimum final report requirements at Statement 14(a-c) wil provide enough information for the Council to
make an informed decision.The minimum final report requirements at Statement 14(a-c) wil provide enough
information for the Council to make an informed decision.
Agree
14. Statement 15(a-c) and how a road sign may be eligible for the RSA Poppy provides useful information about
the process.
Strongly agree
If you have any comments you would like to make about the proposed policy, please use this space.
The Poppy Places Trust considers the new policy to be very good. We would like to see the clause reflect Poppy
Places involvement, therefore we suggest amendment as follows: "Eligible road names managed by the New
Zealand poppy Places Trust, will have the image of the RSA Poppy placed on the sign".
thank you
3. Thank You!
Thank-you for giving us your feedback on our proposed Road Naming Policy!
Proposed Road Naming Policy Submission Form
1. Your Details
Ful Name:
Ngahi Marks
Physical Address:
Level 7, 155 The Terrace, Wellington Central, Wellington, 6011
Phone Number:
044600418
Email:
[email address]
2. Your Feedback
1. The proposed policy is easier to understand than the current policy.
Neutral
2. Proposed under Statement 4(c), the Council should facilitate a consensus, where affected parties cannot
reach agreement on a proposed road name.
Strongly agree
3. The descriptions in Statement 5(a-c) regarding affected and interested parties are useful.
Agree
4. For Statement 6(a-e), the proposed consultation process for affected and interested parties, including out-
going information is clear and easy to understand.
Agree
5. The process described in Statement 7(a-h) for proposing a road name is clear and easy to understand.
Agree
6. The criteria in Statement 8(a-d) for proposing a Māori road name is useful and practical.
Agree
7. By presenting them as two groups, the assessment criteria in Statement 9(a-c) improve understanding of
where they come from.
Agree
8. Statement 9(b)(i ) mitigates the risk of a road being named after a living person, who is then convicted of a
criminal offense(s).
Neutral
9. The provisions under Statement 10(a-h) regarding private roads and rights-of-way are clear and easy to
understand.
Agree
10. The new provision at Statement 11(a-e) about new subdivisions wil improve the timely completion of road
naming processes.
Agree
11. The new provision proposed for retirement vil ages at Statement 12(a-e) is clear and useful.
Agree
12. The details at Statement 13(a-d) regarding the process for arriving at a final list of proposed names is useful.
13. The minimum final report requirements at Statement 14(a-c) wil provide enough information for the Council to
make an informed decision.The minimum final report requirements at Statement 14(a-c) wil provide enough
information for the Council to make an informed decision.
Agree
14. Statement 15(a-c) and how a road sign may be eligible for the RSA Poppy provides useful information about
the process.
Agree
If you have any comments you would like to make about the proposed policy, please use this space.
AS/NZS 4819:2011 (LINZ-related) criteria:
1. Please include that "the road type shall be selected from Appendix B - Road Types New Zealand".
2. All proposed road names are sent to LINZ, by the Council only, not the developer, to check before final approval is
granted (this is part of the current process).
3. Thank You!
Thank-you for giving us your feedback on our proposed Road Naming Policy!
David More
Katiohutohu
New Plymouth District Council
Via email:
[email address]
Rāmere, 08 Pipiri, 2018
Naming and Re-naming of Roads, Private Roads and Rights-of-Way Policy
Tēnā koe David,
1. On behalf of Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust (TKONT) thank you for providing us with the
opportunity to provide a submission on the New Plymouth District Council’s Naming and
Renaming of Roads, Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy.
2. Ngāruahine’s interests are first and foremost as tangata whenua with a recognised area
of interest from the Waingongoro to Taungatara rivers. Ngāruahine iwi has a special
cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional association with the whenua within our rohe.
The northern end of our rohe extends to the Waipuku Stream, within the New Plymouth
district boundary and covers the rohe of Kanihi-Umutahi and Okahu-Inuawai hapū.
3. TKONT, as the post-settlement governance entity for Ngāruahine has a responsibility to
ensure that the interests of Ngāruahine (iwi and hapū) are safe-guarded. This includes
considering the extent to which proposed policy may impact (potential or actual) on the
historical, cultural and spiritual interests of Ngāruahine within it rohe; and those areas
under statutory acknowledgement and/or Deed of Recognition (Ngāruahine Claims
Settlement Act 2016); and the potential or actual risks to the physical, psychological,
cultural and spiritual wellness of Ngāruahine (Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust Deed).
Te Korowai
o Ngāruahine Trust | 147 High Street, Hāwera, 4610 | Freepost, PO Box 474, Hāwera, Taranaki, New Zealand, 4640 | www.ngaruahine.iwi.nz
4. The Ngāruahine hapū that will be affected by the proposed policy is Ōkahu-Inuāwai and
Kanihi- Umutahi. Consultation has taken place with hapū in respect of this policy
response. The comments in the submission do not affect the mana mohutake of the
hapū, not prevent them from submitting comments in their own right.
5. TKONT has reviewed the proposed policy and provides a small number of observations.
6. We are pleased to see that Iwi and hapū are identified as an affected party (clause 6). We
propose that any names provided by an affected party is granted a higher status that one
that is proposed by an interested party. We also propose that iwi and hapū as mana
whenua of the given area affords them a particular right in the road naming process.
7. Clause 9(c)(ix) of the policy states that 15 words are a suitable guideline. The stipulation
may prejudice Māori who propose the full ancestral name of their tūpuna. TKONT would
like assurances that a name exceeding 15 words would not be immediately discounted
because of this.
8. TKONT is supportive of clause 8, which acknowledges the proposal of Māori names. But
at another level, we are saddened by the need for the Policy to reference the selection of
Māori names because it highlights the lack of integration of Māori language and culture
to broader New Zealand culture.
9. Te Reo is an official language of Aotearoa New Zealand, and its revitalisation is actively
supported and promoted by the Government. As part of this revitalisation, we suggest
that Councils also have a role to play in normalising Te Reo as part of our everyday
language. One way that the Council can support this kaupapa is the the active promotion
and encouragement of Māori road and place names. To this end we request that 50% of
the names proposed should have a Māori association.
Te Korowai
o Ngāruahine Trust | 147 High Street, Hāwera, 4610 | Freepost, PO Box 474, Hāwera, Taranaki, New Zealand, 4640 | www.ngaruahine.iwi.nz
10. In regards to the road naming criteria (clause 9), TKONT would like to see the inclusion of
policy statements that explicitly acknowledge the naming of roads in areas of significance
to Māori, and that priority is given to this. Areas of significance are set out in each of the
Iwi’s statutory acknowledgements; we therefore suggest that these associations should
give preference to iwi and hapū for the naming of the road. The inclusion of such
statements would serve as a strong commitment to re-dress many of the wrongs of the
past and recognise a re-assertion of our mana and tino rangatiritanga.
11. Regarding the District specific criteria (clause 9a) TKONT also proposes that the Policy
include decision making criteria the following criteria to support clause 9(a)(i) and that
road names:
a. Recognise Māori cultural significance and heritage;
b. Recognise significant historical events;
c. Recognise cultural significance (other) and heritage;
d. Honour local residents and tūpuna of the district; and / or
e. Reflect the landscape and important topographical features.
12. With these additions, clause 9(a)(ii) is no longer required.
13. TKONT is disappointed that clause 13(a) offers Māori one opportunity from a selection of
four names. As previously stated Te Reo is an official language of New Zealand and should
be afforded no less than equal status within this policy. We propose that clause 13(a)
removes the reference to iwi and hapū but clause 13(d) is amended to read something to
the effect of, “Up to 50% of the final list will include Māori road names, where provided.”
14. One matter that is not addressed by the Policy is how the Council proposes to attend to
those areas of statutory overlapping interest. For Ngāruahine, we overlap with Te Atiawa.
We suggest that Council need to be mindful of this when engaging iwi and hapū as
affected parties.
Te Korowai
o Ngāruahine Trust | 147 High Street, Hāwera, 4610 | Freepost, PO Box 474, Hāwera, Taranaki, New Zealand, 4640 | www.ngaruahine.iwi.nz
15. In conclusion, TKONT thanks the New Plymouth District Council for the opportunity to
comment on the proposed policy. We suggest that the Policy is a strong foundation, and
with further recognition and protection of the the history and cultural interests of Māori
along with the statutory interests of local iwi within the policy there is an opportunity to
embed bi-culturalism within the Council policy.
16. Thank you for accepting these comments; we trust that they are helpful. Please contact
me regarding our enquiries
at [email address].
Naku iti noa, nā
Louise Tester (PhD)
Kairangahau Matua (Social Initiatives and Policy Manager)
cc
Kanihi-Umutahi hapū
Okahu-Inuawai hapū
Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa
Te Korowai
o Ngāruahine Trust | 147 High Street, Hāwera, 4610 | Freepost, PO Box 474, Hāwera, Taranaki, New Zealand, 4640 | www.ngaruahine.iwi.nz
Document Outline
- Joseph Bolton 26.05.2018.pdf
- LINZ.PDF
