top of page

Society Approved, Council Meeting next week

Society Update

Our society has been approved; what should have been a 3 day process, turned into nearly 3 weeks. Due to the Society Act changes, many things were new and unknown to front of house staff at MBIE; plus existing society's needed to re-submit applications for the new Act, so they were a bit swamped.


Please consider joining the society to show support against councils current proposal; and to protect our future with any plans concerning Ohakune in the future.

Council Agenda 25 October

The minutes from the last meeting, held 27th September are available for download here. It's clear that 6 of 9 councillors wanted to let it lie on the table and to better consult with the community.

Councillor Neeson: rather let the matter lie on the table

Councillor Gram: She agreed with Neeson that the decision needed to be deferred

Deputy Mayor: Called for a motion to let it lie which was Seconded by Neeson

Councillor Nottage: should be left to lie on the table

Councillor Ralph: best way at this time was to let the matter lay on the table

Councillor Iwikau: supported the motion to let the matter lie on the table

The mayor did not accept the motion, but did not give reason for not accepting it either during the 27th September meeting. In the minutes documented in the upcoming agenda, Mayor Weston states the following reason:

In accordance with Standing Orders only Members who have not spoken to the original motion may move or second an amendment, including a procedural motion; the motion to let it lie on the table was not correctly seconded, as Councillor Neeson had already spoken

We have looked at standing orders with our legal team and can see no restriction on seconder (i.e. cannot second if spoken to the resolution already on the table). It is required to be moved by a member who has not spoken and requires two for and two against to have spoken (which had happened) see 25.1 or in chairman’s opinion it is reasonable to accept closure motion. So the Mayor had no grounds to reject the motion; and from the 4 councillors / speakers following the Deputy Mayor's motion, they supported letting it lie on the table / deferring.

At the beginning of the meeting "The Mayor advised Members he would be supporting the proposal to continue with the development". After hearing 6 of 9 councillors wanting to defer the matter, the Mayor again advised, he would be supporting the resolution to continue with the development, and then called a vote, which lost 4 against 5.

Councillors told Consent process would capture concerns - wrong

The CEO & Clive advised councillors on the 27th September that matters concerning lot sizes, and the breaches of the District Plan Rules & Policies would be independently assessed and rectified if required.

While this is true, RDC and KO have used a loop hole, to apply for the subdivision, and then the building consent. This way they can resolve matters relating to subdivision only while not needing to divulge that they plan to breach a number of policies and rules, some of which are safety concerns. I discuss this more in this post

Councillors are unlikely aware, that once the Resource Consent is approved & building consents are submitted for non complying dwellings, that they cannot voice their opinions or objections at this point due to a gag order that enacts on the resource consent being approved.


Subject to clause 3.7, provided and to the extent that HNZ Build is developing the Super Lot in accordance with this Agreement:

(a) Support: The Council will support the Project, but will not be required to file a submission in support, and allow HNZ Build to undertake the Project without undue interference, objection, opposition or restraint from the Council;

(b) Not to Object: The Council will not make or support any objection to or

submission opposing any application for a Resource Consent, building consent or other authorisation for or facilitating the Project; and

(c) No Encouragement: The Council will not encourage or assist any other party to undertake any of the actions which the Council has agreed not to undertake under this clause 20 and will not procure any other party to do so.

Formal request to "Notify Consent" still not issued

As at 15 September, Grant Eccles of Tonkin + Taylor had not received a formal request to notify the 2 x resource consents that have been applied for. We received a copy of an email that stated that they wished for it to be notified, and the last communication we received, said that the s92 notice would be responded to along with the formal request to notify, during the week of 25th September.

That was nearly a month ago; we've requested under the RMA section 35, that these communications be provided to us, but council continue to treat the information under the OIA, rather than the RMA. We have made complaints in relation to this as they are in breach of the RMA act by not providing the info.

Recent Posts

See All

KO did NOT follow contract Obligations

We received an OIA response that confirms that Kainga Ora did not follow their funding agreement held with Ministry of Housing and Development (MHUD) who managed the $5.3m grant for Teitei Drive. The

RDC Refuse to Release Costs

We asked back in September 2023 (no response), we asked again in November (no response) and we asked again in March, we finally have word back from Ruapehu District Council, they refuse to provide the

LTP Submissions / RDC a Cult?

Council have released agenda for 29th May meeting to discuss the LTP submissions. It would appear that council officers are recommending to go against the majority on just about every item. LGCI+2% to


bottom of page