According to the Kaipara District Council website Information:
Private Plan Change 78 (PPC78) was submitted on December 3, 2019 by Mangawhai Central Limited. PPC78 is attempting to reorganize 130 hectares of land included in the Estuary Estates structural plan of the Kaipara District Operational Plan 2013 (the District Plan). The PPC78 area includes 83 Molesworth Drive and lots 1 and 4 DP 314200 Old Waipu Road, Mangawhai.
This blog entry contains some information about this plan change, public concerns, and my submission. This image is from the latest issue of Mangawhai Focus …..
This story has a lot of history. Very recently, about ten years ago, Chapter 16, which provides for the development of Mangawhai Central, was added to the Kaipara district plan. Therefore, the proposed development had integrated its own zone controls into the district plan. These provisions would have enabled the development of a new district on approximately 130 hectares of land on Molesworth Drive between the cities of Mangawhai Heads and Mangawhai Village. The proposed development then included around 500 residential properties (up to around 1000 square meters), 17,000 square meters of commercial space including a supermarket and an old people’s village. Various resource permits would be required for earthworks and the like. Smoldering concerns within the community regarding the impact on the road network, sewage system, estuary environment and aquifer due to proposals for drilling water.
Fast forward to 2019, when the development company (Virandah Partners) submitted a private plan change, the aim of which was to double the development potential of the location – providing 1,000 residential locations and 34,000 square meters of commercial space. Extensive technical documentation is enclosed with the application. At first glance, careful urban design, green areas, hiking networks and street maps on site ensure a well-functioning new city with around 5,000 inhabitants, in which previously there were paddocks. (5,000 are more than the current population of Mangawhai Heads and Mangawhai Village combined.)
Existing communities and residents are concerned about the impact this new city will have on the environment, particularly on transport and wastewater infrastructure and fresh water.
The Mangawhai communities are mobilizing again given the growing pressure and planning processes that continue to shake the boat. You can get a feel for these concerns at the Campaign website led by Clive Boonham.
I wrote a post here …
Supporting the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association (MRRA) in submitting contributions
about a development-promoting plan change (plan change 9), which was announced by Kaipara
District Council. MRRA came up to me because of my experience with me
North Shore City Council on its sewage network and system
Research I had done abroad on alternative municipal sewage systems. At the
At that time, the Kaipara district council came under pressure from the region
Advice to clean the Mangawhai estuary and to be followed by developers interested in it
the Cooks Beach example and get intensive subdivision development in progress. KDC
pushed forward with a proposal $ 16 million Sewage system. Kaipara District
The council decided that they could not fund the project and instructed Beca to do so
the whole project on private tender. Quote from my submissions to
are particularly concerned that Mangawhai residents have been themselves
insufficient consultation on the effects and consequences of PC9. The
Consultation with the community about the infrastructure study, what should be
done, what options are to be followed, how a possible municipal sewage system should be
Funded as to how it should be built and owned, are all very poor – given
the big problems for the community ….
“We have even more problems with what is
proposed for sewage and how that was shared with the community. The
MRRA recognizes that waste water management is fundamental to the proposal
Zones in PC9. Many of the proposed changes cannot be made – or at least not
cannot happen in real life – without the proposed community waste
Water system. The huge increase in urban intensification that PC9 has envisaged
Mangawhai can only occur with a reticulated sanitary system. We believe there
is a gap in the Council’s communication about it. It is extremely controversial
build something as expensive as a municipal sewage system and include that
Private sector in the proposed manner. It’s a big political shift in
Provision of services. I am not aware that the community really has a lot of one
Idea of the possible impact of the proposal – in terms of costs,
Changes in accountability, what options they have – and whether they actually do
were asked if this is what they want for their community …
“Of course we are aware that PC9 does not
Explicitly mention all costs for the proposed municipal sewage system. PC9 is
explicitly required about financial contributions for rainwater and roads, however
is silent when it comes to sewage. Documents that we have seen indicate this
Capital cost of the type of system that Kaipara seems to prefer
The District Council and its advisors – Beca – total $ 16,000,000. There are 1200
affected plots in Mangawhai Township now, and PC9 plans 535 more –
a total of 1735. If we all paid the same for this sewage system, it would
each interest payer costs $ 9221. But PC9 is silent about this huge sum of money….
This plan change (twenty years ago) and the way Private Plan Change is 78
mistreated and mis-communicated by the Kaipara District Council. The cited
The $ 16 million figure for the EcoCare sewage system is of course unfortunate
shortly before the actual cost, which was close to $ 80 million. Unless we
Learn from this story, we are doomed to repeat it.
Community sewage system
and protracted public campaign, and a lot of fear and cost is spread everywhere
The Mangawhai Community, the Auditor General’s office, published its 400th
Side report of what had happened. Crucial for the present plan
The proposed changes are the OAG results. And here I quote from the report
“Careful after 20 months
This investigation has collected and analyzed evidence and has produced some clear results
to what happened. The positive results are:
• the decision that Mangawhai a
Network sewage system was well founded; and
• the previous sewage system
built works effectively and has adequate population growth capacities. (NB: The OAG report was prepared in 2013 –
if the forecasts for population growth contained a maximum of half the size
Mangawhai Central proposal.)
“The other results are sobering.
Overall, KDC has developed a sewage system that works, but it has come
at a substantial price. The fact that we cannot put an exact number on it
The cost is an indication of KDC’s poor management. KDC’s records did not contain any good ones
or systematic information about the total amount. Our best estimate, however
is that the total cost was about $ 63.3 million. The total cost is not just that
financially. This includes a failed council, council members who have been replaced
with commissioners, the departure of a chairman of the board is severely damaged
Relationship between the council and the community, an organization that needed
be rebuilt and much more….
“KDC’s decision-making processes were
also poor during the entire 16 years of the wastewater project. KDC left
too strong on his professional adviser and had a practice of receiving
Briefings and effective decisions in informal workshops. The
Governance and management agreements specifically for that
Project were also insufficient. In our view, these underlying problems have made it
It is more difficult for KDC to deal with the problems that have arisen from the project
“KDC decided it wanted to research
a Public Private Partnership (PPP) approach to “keep debt out of balance
Blatt ”and to put as much risk as possible on the private provider.
In my view, this decision has brought KDC out of its depth. Everything followed in order
Basic steps when it first went to the consultant market and the
Project to tender, but did not fully understand the complexity of what it is
Did. The early decision to adopt a PPP approach was too important
Reaching a certain accounting result and transferring risk and not enough
on value for money and affordability. The KDC’s decision about the PPP was
not in line with the best practice guidelines available at that time….
“I am also concerned that KDC is not
the disciplines and controls in the contract seem to have taken into account
Construction and handover process as particularly important. In my opinion that is
relatively relaxed approach chosen for some of these safeguards, such as
as an approval procedure for the commercial acceptance and delivery of the
Asset, KDC exposed to unnecessary risk … ..
“For these and other reasons, the cost is
of the project grew steadily. KDC assessed affordability based on considerations
the annual cost of the interest payers. It was decided to increase the number of estimated
Interest rate payers that would be covered by the system and would help finance it.
KDC expanded the scope of the project to cover more properties and accepted new ones
Growth forecasts that require more properties would be developed. We have
criticized these decisions on the grounds that they were not based on good things
Information and did not adequately consider the risk of slower growth.
KDC focuses on the annual cost to the interest rate payer as a measure of affordability
was unhappy: it meant that it did not fully appreciate the important
Increase in the cost of capital and the impact on the overall project
I have cited here selectively, but have not addressed any of the matters
out of context. It seems that much of this criticism is in danger of being put
again at the feet of the Kaipara District Council.
Although it is not solely a PPP, the current plan change agreement will
clearly of direct benefit to the developer (because of the increased
Development potential of the country) and to the Kaipara District Council (not
at least because of higher installments).
The way the cost and capacity of roads, sewage and the
Preservation of the natural environment is dealt with in the proposed amendment, which has forced existing residents and owners to defend themselves
Interests and the environment in the same way as they had to
twenty years ago.
Declaration on urban development capacity 2016
This NPS was issued in 2016. His goals apply to everyone
Decision-makers in planning decisions that affect a city
Surroundings. The goals relate to the results; Evidence & surveillance;
Responsiveness and coordination. In particular, goals are required coordinates
Planning evidence and decision making in “Urban environments where
Land use, development, development infrastructure and other infrastructure are
integrated with each other. “
The NPS determines the results for planning decisions
Obligations towards the responsible municipality:
The NPS preamble gives instructions on how
Infrastructure planning is a critical part of delivering development
There must be development capacity
provided in plans and also supported by the infrastructure. Urban development
depends on the infrastructure, and decisions about the infrastructure can influence
urban development. This national policy statement requires development capacity
be maintained with development infrastructure with different expectations
in the short, medium and long term of this infrastructure. It promotes
Integration and coordination of land use and infrastructure planning. That will
require a sustained effort from local authorities controlled by the council
Organizations and infrastructure providers (including central government)
align their intentions and resources.
It is my template that KDC has not effective for everyone
the relevant goals of the NPS UDC in the way it approached it
Community consultation on PPC78 because it broke up with the consultation
Facts and figures about infrastructure capacity, costs and who and how these
Matters are provided.
The development is coordinated with the infrastructure planning.
The technical documentation for the plan change is special
inadequate in how it deals with traffic issues and their impact
Molesworth Drive, and almost silent about how to deal with the community
own sewage system and how the sewage needs of the proposed
Development is fulfilled and paid for.
In my opinion, the infrastructure aspects of the plan change have to be
Private plan change 78 process
The development and institutional context for this plan are changing
inevitably affects perceptions and problems that arise both for the developer
the existing population as well as the planners and other experts who are responsible for the processing
First, when the proposed development is complete, a
Small town with a population between 4000 and 4500 (assuming 1000 houses with
4 people each and a retirement home complex), halfway between two existing ones
Small towns: Mangawhai Heads with approx.2,500 inhabitants (estimate from
Figures from 2018) and Mangawhai Village with about 1,000 inhabitants and
next to a moderate capacity arterial road (Molesworth Drive), drawing
Water from a common aquifer (at the suggested rate of about 100 cubic meters
Meters / day) and discharge of wastewater into the community and
privately operated EcoCare sewage system.
The institutional context is a small district council –
Kaipara District Council – whose recent history includes the Ecocare fiasco
(described above) and related debt. This private plan change, every public one
Consequences, management of public interest and any public infrastructure
and convenience effects as well as the implementation, evaluation and monitoring of the
Development plan and all conditions fall under this little advice to manage.
It is crucial for everyone involved = – not least
the existing resident population – that all of these processes are managed
and properly equipped.
So far, the public has every reason to be concerned. advice
Media (e.g. Peter Wethey in Mangawhai Focus) have given this orderly procedure
provides for the plan change to be notified, inputs to be received and hearings to be carried out
about the plan change taking place. This was the process with many growth-related ones
Plan changes across New Zealand that have generally focused on the environment
Impact, and not included as part of the plan change considering the cost
and budgets related to infrastructure support. Development levies are gone
One way to address this problem, but they are often not in line with the plan
Changes and often out of sync with infrastructure requirements.
While the main push of the NPS UDC was to ensure this
The local authorities provided land capacity for the growth of residential and commercial buildings.
The national focus also recognized the need to plan and plan for growth results
in an integrated, coordinated and spatial way. The NPS UDC contains instructions
which is available on the MfE website for all councils, including KDC,
especially where there is rapid growth. Quote from the NPS UDC:
Give security to the community and stakeholders
about where and when future urban development is expected to take place
react to changing circumstances
inform the decision making of local authorities and
show that it will be enough
Development capacity opportunities made possible by the district of the municipalities
Plans, long-term plans, and infrastructure strategies.
shared by all local authorities that share
Responsibility for the geographical focus area
in consultation with infrastructure providers,
other stakeholders and the community.
Strategy includes descriptions of:
Minimum goals for sufficient, feasible development
Capacity for living space
Evidence to back up the strategy
Place, time and order of development
Capacity using maps and tables
the infrastructure and implementation measures
required to support development capacity
How will the strategy react to changes in demand?
or the intentions of the landowners
how the consultation was conducted.
There is no evidence that this has happened in agreement
with this forecast in Mangawhai to date, despite the growing pressure that is
be experienced, and despite the fact that Mangawhai has been Central
hinted at for more than ten years.
No future development strategy for Mangawhai was ”
developed in consultation with infrastructure providers, other interest groups,
and the community ”. And of critical importance
For PPC78 this means that no Community consultation has taken place
worth its salt over:
Place, time and order of development
Capacity using maps and tables
the infrastructure and implementation measures
required to support development capacity
how the consultation was conducted
The planning required by the NPS UDC and future development planning lie behind it
the level of public concern expressed across the community,
and the volume of opposition requests.
In my opinion, PPC78 needs to be supported
Infrastructure and financing plans according to NPS UDC and
prepared with the participation of the community and stakeholders. These should too
provide triggers and staging of the development implementation, connected with the
phased provision of infrastructure and resources including drilling water to avoid this
the risks and adverse effects of uncontrolled growth.
I would like to be heard to support my submission.
Note: We are not the author of this content. For the Authentic and complete version,
Check its Original Source