More than 100 Paihia residents attended a meeting to discuss concerns about heritage overlays that could affect 179 properties. Among them were (from left) Tammy Wooster, Roger Ackers, Ian Palmer, Don Mandeno and Alex McKinnel.
More than 100 Paihia residents attended a meeting to discuss concerns about heritage overlays that could affect 179 properties. Among them were (from left) Tammy Wooster, Roger Ackers, Ian Palmer, Don Mandeno and Alex McKinnel.
Paihia residents say they feel blindsided by a proposed rule that could restrict future developments on their properties.
At least 179 Paihia properties could be subject to a “heritage area” (HA) overlay under the Far North District Council’s (FNDC) Proposed District Plan.
Residents are concerned that the HA rules willrestrict what owners are allowed to do and require them to obtain a resource consent for minor activities such as digging a drain line or constructing a shed that involves any “disturbance of subsoils below a depth of 500mm”.
Paihia residents said they were not clearly informed about major rule changes that could affect homes in the coastal town.
Residents held a meeting on Saturday, with more than 100 in attendance, to air their grievances and with the hope of getting answers from the council.
FNDC’s group manager for planning and policy, Roger Ackers, and its integrated planning manager, Tammy Wooster, attended and offered responses to some of the concerns.
Ian Palmer owns a 17ha lifestyle property near Mangonui, and his is one of the properties the council proposed to be entirely covered by the heritage area overlay.
He has been fighting it on and off for the past four years.
He said while the FNDC did send a letter out in 2021 about the plans, his main concern was the new rule about depth limit, which was brought in after submissions for community comments closed.
“If you know anything about building, you’d appreciate that you can’t build almost anything without disturbing the earth below 500mm; e.g. for a post hole to hold up a deck.”
“Even ignoring landowner rights, the proposed 500mm earthworks rule makes no sense from a heritage protection perspective.”
At least 179 properties in Paihia will be subject to a heritage area overlay under the Far North District Council’s Proposed District Plan.
After the meeting, the community sent a resolution to the FNDC. Palmer said if they did not receive a satisfactory response, they might consider taking the matter to the Environment Court.
Resident Don Mandeno said he is struggling to see any good reason for the proposal and how it would benefit Paihia properties.
He said the existing 11-property heritage area is appropriate and works just fine, serving the community and tourists alike in conjunction with the Treaty grounds.
“Twenty years ago, the council planned that Russell would be old-world cute while Paihia was to be a brasher, larger-scale accommodation and hospitality centre. So if it ain’t broke why try and fix it?”
Mandeno said he believed it was a discreetly veiled land grab.
“I have no need of Māori spiritual or cultural values over my land and cottage ... Māori have successfully resisted having restrictions placed on their own culturally sensitive land, such as around Te Ti Marae. So why should restrictions be placed on my land, justified by Māori heritage?”
He added that local hapū are not the ones who had pushed for this, but rather a council-commissioned heritage expert.
Ackers said: “The proposal is not about telling people what they can and can’t build on their properties, it’s about recognising and protecting the character, culture and heritage of Paihia.”
Wooster said that because it was not feasible to do a review of the entire district in terms of heritage values, the council decided to focus on the existing heritage precincts, “and review them to see if they were still fit for purpose as we moved into a new district plan”.
She said the heritage company they contracted recommended that they needed to change the heritage areas.
“The majority of these heritage areas only protected the built environment in relation to early European settlement, and we were advised that there was a big gap in our heritage framework and that we weren’t having any regard to cultural heritage … We were only protecting what happened after Europeans arrived.”
Residents will have to wait until next year to find out the resolution, as the matter is now before a hearing committee, which will make recommendations to the council before a final decision is made.