Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« 'Climate Change' - Agree, or Disagree? - that is the Question | Main | Council Workshops - 'A Blight On Democracy' »

Why Was The TCDC Resource Consent Granted?

Denis Tegg's splendid review  of the situation surrounding the Richmond Villas Resource Consent, published today was 'book-ended with some very serious comments that are worth repeating here:

"How Come TCDC has Granted a Resource Consent for the Apartments? 

If TCDC has concluded that the land is subject to coastal flooding how come it recently granted a resource consent for the new 72 unit three-story apartment complex on the site?  The answer – which I will cover in more detail in a subsequent article is that TCDC –

  • indulged in abysmal decision-making by disregarding the threat of coastal flooding,
  • ignored high-level planning instruments such as the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement,
  • misinterpreted the Resource Management Act and
  • did not insist on up-to-date coastal hazard assessments –

All of which went unchallenged because the resource consent was considered without public notification."

Why, you may well ask?

I believe that there may well have been political pressure applied to push both this and the Whitianga Waterwsays applications through before the new Ministry for the Environment guidelines were officially required to be applied. I believe that percieved economic benefits, rather than any nefarious, or corrupt   motive may have informed this action.

There is simply no other reason why such significant developments could have been dealt with in this manner. The dates when our Council was provided with the 'draft' guidelines (April 2017), and when the consents were granted (July 2017), prove conclusively this to be the case. To claim that the impending guidelines did not need to be applied until 'formal' notification (November 2017) and adoption by Council (February 2018)  is spurious, and disingenuous in the extreme. 

In view of the potential liability now incurred by our Council, regardless of its claim of immunity, it is this aspect of its operation that is worthy of investigation by the Auditor General. It simply cannot be allowed to continue to resist imposed climate change parameters in this manner, and at our risk.     



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>