Further Complaint to the Ombudsman

From: Ohakune Ratepayers and Residents' Society Inc <service@ors.nz> Date: Tuesday, 8 April 2025 at 9:11 AM To: Info <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>, ORS Exec Team <exec@ors.nz> Subject: Ruapehu District Council - Teitei Drive and repeat lack of disclosure

Att: Ombudsman,

We write to express deep concern regarding multiple serious failings by the Ruapehu District Council (RDC), particularly relating to the construction of Teitei Drive and the ongoing misuse and development of public reserve land. These issues reflect a pattern of behavior that undermines public transparency, lawful process, and community trust.

Summary of Concerns

1. Construction of a Public Road on Reserve Land Without Legal Authority

RDC has confirmed in their response to Mr. Holland dated 12 December 2024 (Ref: 017027) that the formed public road Teitei Drive does in fact encroach onto public reserve (Ohakune Domain), and that no legal process has yet been undertaken to revoke the reserve status or legally vest this land as road. This road is not a driveway or track for reserve access — it is a sealed public road servicing a number of homes and was apparently designed to support ~160 homes.

The Council states it "accepts that there is a small encroachment" and only plans to legalize this after the fact, alongside unrelated survey work in 2025/26.
The Reserves Act 1977 clearly sets out that public consultation and formal revocation are required before such changes can occur. These have not happened.

This amounts to a serious breach of process and undermines the protections established under the Reserves Act for public land.

2. False Statements in Funding Applications to MBIE

Documents released under LGOIMA (Ref.000117) show RDC applied for funding under the Regional Mid-Sized Tourism Facilities Fund claiming:

The road would be constructed entirely on road reserve.
“There is no land access issue to be considered further.”
The design would meet TNZ B/02:2005 standards and was lawful.

None of these claims are true in light of the admitted encroachment. The deviation from the approved design (Concepts 1–3) to the encroaching Concept 4 was not disclosed, not approved, and not consulted on. OIA requests from MBIE reveal that no such deviation or alteration to the plan was made at any point.

3. Lack of Public Consultation and Misleading Process

Although RDC held consultation for toilets, carpark, and roads within the Carrot Park development, all public documents, plans, and discussions made it clear the road would remain on road reserve.

At no point was the community informed that Concept 4 (which included the illegal encroachment) had been selected.
We believe Concept 4 was chosen late in the process, likely to avoid the cost of relocating a power pole, and to meet time constraints tied to MBIE funding deadlines — at the cost of legality and transparency.
Council was aware of the encroachment from the start as concept 4 was always documented, but just failed to consult or even divulge their intention; it would appear rather, that they have negated to document their legal activities, or have hidden them in places they can conveniently not find. From the original design documents, concept 4 clearly shows on the drawings the road crossing into the park, yet no where in any of the reports, documents or emails does it discuss the matter.

4. A Pattern of Governance Failures: Teitei Development

This is not an isolated incident. RDC has a history of bypassing public process, most notably in the broader Teitei Development:

Council sought to gift reserve and council land assets in direct contradiction to earlier public consultation.
Only one public consultation was ever held (with 21 respondents, mostly not from ratepayers) — three years before any action — and the final development plan was substantially altered from what was originally presented to the public.
It was proven that RDC was preparing to breach its own District Plan, with roading standards, zoning, and access requirements being ignored or bypassed.
Councils consultation process has not been transparent, by asking loaded questions to greenlight predetermined outcomes; this was even highlighted in the consultation process at the time, only to be proven 4 years later. Council does not provide critical information in a transparent manner, when they have clearly known the details that would undermine or hinder their intentions.

These actions appear to show systemic disregard for planning obligations and public consultation, and a culture of acting first, legalizing later — if at all.

Request for Investigation

In light of the above, we respectfully request the Ombudsman initiate a full and independent investigation into:

The unlawful formation of Teitei Drive across reserve land without legal revocation of reserve status.
Potential misrepresentation of facts to MBIE in order to secure public funding.
Repeated failures of the Council to engage in proper public consultation and comply with its own governance frameworks.
How such critical matters — with legal, financial, and environmental implications — continue to be overlooked, delayed, or actively hidden from public oversight.

This situation cannot be rectified by post-facto paperwork or backdated processes. It sets a dangerous precedent that public land can be misused, and proper procedure ignored, without consequence.

References

RDC LGOIMA - https://fyi.org.nz/request/27868-teitei-drive#followup