TDC Me

Your Say

Together we can achieve more

  • Home
  • Inclusive Council
  • Environment
  • Water
  • Housing
  • Business
  • Transport
  • Dam
  • Contact
  • About
    • Testimonials

More From The TDC Twilight Zone

10/05/2019

The last opportunity to pass a Special Housing Accord (SHA) development in Tasman (before the Government change the rules) was turned down recently. Unfortunately, this was the only SHA where the developer was making some attempt to provide affordable housing.

The developer, the owner of a building company, was having trouble attracting staff because of the high cost of housing. A problem many other businesses in Tasman are facing. This started him on a journey of coming up with a development strategy to address the problem. He had a list of covenants to ensure that the houses would be cheaper and get into the hands of the right people. Covenants like no land sold to housing development companies but only to owner occupiers, a maximum size house rather than a minimum, not for resale for at least 3 years.

The land was about three hectares on the main road of hope – surrounded by houses. Services are already supplied to the gate with capacity for the proposed development.

It sounds like a no-brainer. Unfortunately,  on this day the application was turned down for submission to the crown.

FOR

McNamara

Turley

King

Sangster

Brown

 

ABSENT Ogilvie, Hawkes

AGAINST

Kempthorne

Mailing

Tuffnell

Wensley

Greening

Canton

Bryant

Arguments against the proposal varied from “it was sprung on us, we didn’t have time to properly consider it” to “it is rural one land and we must protect it.” These sound like valid arguments except for the fact that earlier in our term we were presented with and passed about a dozen SHA applications in one meeting with literally thousands of pages of accompanying literature. We had no time to digest them. The recent applicant, however, had emailed councillors months prior canvassing the idea and asking for our thoughts on the development. Obviously, some councillors don’t read emails.

This development lies in land currently zoned rural, however, it is too small to be profitable for most agricultural applications. It is highly likely there would be an influx of complaints to council from their neighbours if they decided to farm it in a manner that might be profitable: too much noise, we are getting spray drift, or there is too much dust.

One Councillor suggested afterwards that they might put glass houses on their land to make it more profitable. A person could put glass houses on the Richmond mall carpark – prime horticulture land is not required for that.

Incidentally, the majority of those councillors who voted against this proposal were the ones that voted in favour of developing vast tracts of rural zoned land in lower Queen Street. Land that was prime horticulture land. Land that is located directly across the road from the region’s heavy industry. Land that we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars providing infrastructure to.

Where were the concerns of those Councillors that day?

In the Council meeting on Thursday 9.05.19, we began to see the impact of over-committing our budget on the Waimea Dam. The Engineering department are coming to us with a work program that is about 30% under delivered on. Projects that they are currently trying to complete have contractor quotes greatly in excess of the budgets allocated.

Previously, when faced with a budget deficit staff come to the Council table and ask for more money. But now they must come to us with projects that they wish to drop or delay to cross allocate the funding because the Council is projected to hit the $200 million debt cap ceiling.

It is bad enough that people who have been waiting for years to get infrastructure upgrades, or to get infrastructure supplied, are now finding that the wait is not over. However, it is particularly irksome when three weeks prior the Mayor was visiting various communities telling them that we do not have to consult on the Annual Plan this year because we are not deviating significantly from the Long-Term Plan. He also outlined the program of works that the area would be getting in the current financial year.

It is unlikely that events developed so quickly in the three weeks between our Annual Plan presentations and the Full Council meeting where we received the list of projects being canned that it was a surprise to staff.

But that did not stop staff providing a list of works to be done (that were not going to be done) for presentation to the ratepayers in our district meetings. Therefore, the feedback that we went out to seek was irrelevant because it was not based on the facts. Money well spent.

Twelve months ago the Mayor was doing the same Annual Plan tour suggesting that there would be two consultations on the dam, at the time knowing full well that we would only have time for one consultation.

 Why do we present to our community when we cannot present the current reality?

This kind of behaviour must stop.

It is no wonder our ratepayers do not trust a word that we say. These are the kind of examples that provoke me to campaign for a more accountable Council.

Filed Under: Projects, Your Say Tagged With: cheap housing, inconsistencies, misinformation

One Rule For Them One Rule For Us

22/06/2018

One way both ways sign

An interesting Engineering Committee meeting this week (21.06.18) highlighted the one rule for them one rule for us inconsistencies I see at Council.

Recently, I tried to establish that new homes would have to put in a rainwater storage tank. I wasn’t too concerned whether that was part of their water supply network, or just a stormwater retention system. If it is to be used as water supply then it has to be treated and pressurised and costs climb rapidly. It could just be used for non-consumption applications and that way wouldn’t need treating but would still require plumbing. Or the water could just be used for garden application and washing the car. Alternatively, it could just be used in a slow release application that would help take the burden off stormwater networks during storm events and create a more environmentally friendly system by spreading the release of stormwater into the environment.

The argument I faced at the time of trying to implement this motion was that “it would be unaffordable for first home buyers.”  I am sorry, but I think if the extra couple of thousand on a new build is going to make it impossible for a first home buyer to build then they may need to lower their sights.

On a one rule for Richmond and another rule for rural areas comparison, the proposed new Public Water Supply Bylaw stipulates [Part C 20 (4)] that rural restricted supply customers must have 7 days water storage on site (they also have to have two tanks dedicated to firefighting supply).  While I understand the logic of the 7-day supply (I would dispute the firefighting supply) I can not help but wonder how that is affordable for first home buyers looking to build in the rural area?  Let us use consistent logic with rural home builders as we do with Richmond home builders (or visa versa).

Another interesting point to note in the proposed bylaw that will be going out to consultation very soon is the requirements that are placed on homeowners in regard to their water supply lines [Part c 29 (3)]. Customers “must not allow water to run to waste including the unattended operation of hoses, allow the condition of plumbing within the premises to deteriorate to the point where leakage or waste occurs, or allow leaks to continue unchecked or repaired.”reading this sign is strictly prohibited

One rule for Tasman District Council and one rule for our customers?

I argued that surely, we should not impose on our ratepayers a rule that stipulates they cannot allow their water lines to deteriorate to a point where a leak may occur when we ourselves operate to a level of acceptable leakage?

The response was that it is not a rule that we would pursue unless there was obviously water spraying out of the ground and nothing was being done about it. However, that is not what the rule states. It states that you are not allowed to let your plumbing deteriorate to the point where a leak occurs. There is another point about not fixing leaks. So again, I say this is a case of one rule for them one rule for us!  And incidentally, I would be objecting during submissions if you do not like it.

It would also appear that at TDC we have different levels of compliance acceptability. Page 69 paragraph 7.15 of the agenda highlights a problem that we had with Fibre network installer. The permit for the installation of fibre in Ruby Bay stipulates that there must be at least 500mm separation from Council services. The contractor has not complied with those conditions and has, in fact, laid the Fibre cable alongside the wastewater pipes (like touching alongside). In fact, we discovered this because they damaged the pipe in at least a couple of places. We are currently fighting to have the costs associated with fixing the pipe compensated.

My question is how come the contractor laying the pipe is not treated like anyone else with a consent. If you have a consent to build your house and you put the foundations 500mm closer to the boundary than your consent allows we will make you move your house. However, one rule for you and one rule for these contractors apparently, as we are unable to make them comply with their permit or so I am told. Why is it even an issue? Because if we damage their fibre cable while maintaining our services it costs tens of thousands of dollars to repair. Add to that the extra costs that any contractor will build into their quote if they know they are working close to a fibre cable and this will end up costing Council (the ratepayer) thousands of dollars over the years to come.

An example that may not fit the one rule for you another rule for us category, but it does highlight the inconsistencies that I fight around the table, is the e-waste (electronic items) subsidy that is proposed for Tasman residents (page 29 of the agenda).  one way dead endWhile I think that we need to do a lot more in terms of resource recovery from waste I was surprised that Councillors support this initiative as when I tried to get us to allocate money toward the Nelson Hospice they told me that this was a Government responsibility so we should not be contributing. Surely, the initiative to get manufacturers of high contaminant landfill waste to recover their own materials is a Government responsibility? A little consistency would make logical arguments a lot easier to present in the chambers!

Filed Under: Your Say Tagged With: inconsistencies, rules, tdc, water bylaw

Introducing Dean

Dean McNamara Husband, father, and a fourth generation local from rural Tasman. No longer acting as your voice on the Tasman District Council (TDC). More about me.

Email Newsletter

Sign up to be informed of important news and upcoming events

Make your voice count

Testimonials

Fantastic Speech

It was great to have your involvement in the dawn blessing of the Mapua Sculpture at the beginning of March. Thank you for the fantastic speech which encapsulated the essence of what the Sculpture Project is all about.

Janet Taylor
Ruby Coast Initiative Trust

You Rock

[Thankyou] for standing up for democracy & the people you represent. In the words of a younger generation “You Rock”!

Beth McCarthy
Takaka

keep sticking it to them

What a great pity there aren’t more councilors like yourself, who stand for council on behalf of the voters, and who remain steadfast in their commitment to being voter representatives and not council mouthpieces

Gary Thorpe
Read more testimonials
  • Testimonial Submission Form

Councillor McNamara: As Reported In The News

  • Latest News
    • Yet Another Unbudgeted Spend
    • Dam Tax Bites Little Guys
    • Freedom Camping Waste
    • No Support For Dam Report
    • Developing Within Boxes
    • Grandstand Funding Folly
    • Population Projections
    • Recycling Lunacy
    • Another Dam Blow Out
    • Councillors Not Qualified Directors
    • Mapua Boat Ramp
    • Pokies Sinking Lid Policy
    • No More Mayoral Casting Vote
    • Votes By Ward
    • Returning as Councillor
  • News From Last Term
    • Signing Off
    • Waste (of) money
    • Port Tarakohe
    • Free Charging Not Free
    • Re Election Candidates
    • NZTA Priorities
    • Mapua Upgrade Begins
    • Another vote Uturn
    • Traffic Woes Government Nos
    • Consult Fairy Tales
    • Capital Stop-Works
    • Kempthorne Quits
    • 20 million not a significant change
    • Over paid Councillor
    • Dam Train Wreck
    • Death Vote For Dam
    • Dam Scarce Water
    • Barbershop Gossip
    • Dam budget blowout
    • Dam Secrets
    • Wakefield Water Supply
    • Kempthorne Casting Votes
    • Mapua Gateway Sculpture
    • Mayor Spends Up Again
    • Mayor has a talk
    • Alleged Propaganda
    • Dam Affodability Questioned
    • Dam Funding Questions
    • Dam Questions
    • Storm Water Priorities
    • Knitting up a storm
    • Old guard take on new committee roles at Tasman District Council

Archives

Share the joy

Why Vote McNamara?

I am MOTIVATED.
I have business EXPERIENCE.
I am fiscally FRUGAL (some say tight!).
I am a born and bred LOCAL - here to stay
I am CONTACTABLE - reach me through this website.
I know together WE CAN DO BETTER.

Tags

3 waters Campground casting vote cost of the dam council councillor role dam overruns Dean McNamara Debt decisions Dr Mike Joy Easter Trading Election fine print free lunch Funding inconsistencies lie Lies Mandates McKee Memorial Reserve performance Pigeon Valley Fire rate affordability Rate increase rates Richmond risks rules Shane Jones spending stormwater strategic misrepresentation Tasman Tasman council elections Tasman District Council tdc TDC propaganda vote Waimea Community Dam Waimea dam waimea irrigators water water bylaw WIL

Copyright © 2025 · TDCME.nz · Powered by Nz Marketing Systems · Log in

This website is authorized by Dean McNamara 22a Edward Street Wakefield