We’re all aware there is an important general election on 14th October. What is sometimes overlooked is that the result may lock in, or reject, the increasing centralisation of decision-making that has happened over the past few years. This could impact our region for years to come.
During this electoral term, central government agencies have been given far more power than before – often at the expense of local decision-making. We can see examples of that centralisation in the health reforms, education reforms, planned Three Waters reforms, and Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms. In fact, the changes have come so thick and fast that many people will have failed to notice some of them.
The nature of those changes is another matter, but what we can say with certainty is that local and regional councils, health agencies, polytechnics, and local communities now have far less power than they did a few years ago.
Urban Development
Urban planning impacts almost everyone’s lives. Ideally, when done well, we don’t notice it much. It results in a pleasant place to live and a transport system that makes it easy to move around.
Until now, for better and worse, urban planning has been driven by local communities. Central government has set the framework, but has largely taken a background role.
Local residents have elected councillors to decide how to manage their city or district, including planning for future growth (a growth strategy), where the growth will go (a spatial plan), the types of things that can be built there (an infrastructure plan), and who will pay for the infrastructure (either developer contributions or debt to be repaid by ratepayers).
However, the landscape has changed significantly in recent times. The RMA reforms give far greater power to central government agencies and focus on regional planning, with less emphasis on local plans made by local communities. This was backed up by several other changes:
- ‘Growth’ councils (such as Tauranga) now have to plan for 30 years of growth, via a Future Development Strategy (FDS) – without any more funding towards the costs of that growth.
- The 2020 National Policy Statement on Urban Development promoted the catch-cry of “up and out”. This meant councils had to plan for growth via higher density development in existing city areas (up) and new greenfield developments (out).
- The government introduced new high density rules to enable more houses to be built (up and out) – a move supported by both Labour and National. We’ll explain how that impacts Tauranga shortly.
- Finally, a ‘key move’ was turning Housing NZ (the people who build and manage state houses) into Kāinga Ora. It was created in 2019 by the merger of Housing NZ with its subsidiary HLC and the KiwiBuild Unit from the Ministry of Housing.
The Kāinga Ora website states: “Kāinga Ora is the government’s Urban Development Authority. Our role is to enable build ready land for different types of housing and, through best practice urban planning and design, ensure the neighbourhoods those homes are in have the infrastructure and amenities to make them a great place to live.”
The result is that Kāinga Ora now has the power to be lead agency on developments across the country. Its website further explains:
“The Urban Development Act 2020 empowers Kāinga Ora to initiate, facilitate, and undertake urban development that contributes to sustainable, inclusive, and thriving communities.
This includes a comprehensive process for the planning, funding and delivery of complex urban development projects – called Specified Development Projects (SDP).”
That is the legislation that allowed Tauranga City Council to request Kāinga Ora turn the Western Corridor growth area (Tauriko-Keenan Rd-Lower Kaimai) into an SDP, to fast-track growth in that area.
Local Impacts on Tauranga
Of course, centralisation has been particularly keenly felt in Tauranga, where central government installed commissioners to govern the city from early 2021. At the same time that far-reaching changes were made to health, housing, urban planning and three waters, Tauranga residents have had no local councillors to advocate on their behalf.
Looking at their actions, it’s clear the government-appointed Commissioners have gone along with the reforms – and in some cases even encouraged more centralisation and less community-led planning.
For instance, unlike the majority of NZ councils, Tauranga’s Commissioners largely went along with the three waters reforms. The upcoming general election will determine the future of those reforms, so they may amount to nothing in the end, but the views of Tauranga’s residents were never treated seriously.
Then, unlike some other cities, TCC also just accepted the new urban density legislation and immediately included the new rules in its “Plan Change 33”. Those changes are clearly laid out here on the TCC website. Whereas in Auckland and Christchurch, this became an election issue for mayors and councillors, and those councils pushed back against the rules by adding extra qualifying matters,
The new Medium Density Residential Standards allow land owners to build three, 3-story dwellings on all standard residential sites, without a resource consent, in Tauranga and other major NZ cities. The TCC website further clarifies: “Resource consent would still be required for developments of four or more dwellings, but it would be easier to obtain and you wouldn’t need approval from neighbours if all our rules are met (as a restricted discretionary activity).”
The legislation also enables “higher density housing with more building height within and around the city centre, and other identified commercial centres across the city and close to public transport”. Tauranga’s council is proposing 4 to 6 story dwellings in some locations, and 8 stories in other higher-density zones, and 13 stories in the city centre.
Tauranga at the ‘Bleeding Edge’?
There are other significant initiatives that have taken place in Tauranga that, when taken together, show that Tauranga has become a test case for several new centralised initiatives. For instance:
- Tauranga is the only major NZ city where there has been no public consultation in recent years on the city’s growth plan and spatial plan. That is because (as we were told by a former SmartGrowth Chair) central government is now a strategic partner and that “limits public input”, because “central government is secret until decisions have been made”.
- Consultation on the SmartGrowth Strategy is finally happening in September 2023, but it remains to be seen if public feedback will result in any changes to the current growth plans – especially because the Connected Centres “programme that forms the basis of our updated SmartGrowth Strategy” has already been predetermined.
- Tauranga is also the only NZ city where there has been no public consultation on the city’s transport plan for at least six years. Remarkable, considering that is the same time that congestion has become a huge issue and transport has rocketed up to the number 1 issue for most Tauranga residents.
- The aforementioned Connected Centres programme was signed off between Covid lockdowns, without any public consultation, and it spawned a Transport System Plan that most people have never heard about,
- Tauranga City Council has just signed off on its Climate Action and Investment Plan. However, despite being the last city in NZ to produce a climate plan, it is the only one we know of that has no target – and does not even sign up to the net zero 2050 target embedded in NZ legislation.
- TCC is so far (subject to any changes from upcoming Plan Change 33 hearings) implementing the new higher density rules across the city without the many “qualifying matters” (which limit building heights and density in certain locations) that Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch are planning. That could mean a radical change from the largely single-story sprawl that Tauranga has known… or not. Because whatever the government’s rules, the market will rule.
- Kāinga Ora’s assessment of Tauranga’s Western Corridor as a Special Development Project was the equal first and biggest of the only two development areas in NZ chosen so far. That means this central government agency will have almost complete control over this massive development, with councils relegated to a “stakeholder” role.
- BOP Regional Council was blindsided by the fact that the SmartGrowth partners will no longer be “partners” on this development, should it proceed, but just be “stakeholders”.
- What’s more, the April 2023 SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting also fast-tracked a much bigger growth area than previously proposed (right up to Upper Belk Road and Omanawa Road, as well as Merrick and Joyce Roads) – which also surprised BOP Regional Council and many Combined Tangata Whenua Forum representatives.
- In a related matter, in January 2023, the Minister for the Environment granted Tauranga City Council a 5-year exemption (See page 6) from the wetland protection requirements in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and Resource Management Regulations. This exemption allows a “five-year window for urban development in Tauranga” and lets developers ‘off the hook’ by not having to follow the rules around wetland protection that apply elsewhere in NZ.
- TCC’s Long Term Plan consultation in November will seek feedback on implementing road pricing across Tauranga City. If it goes ahead, that could make Tauranga the first city in Australasia, and one of the smallest cities in the world, to introduce road pricing.
- In December 2022, Tauranga became the first place in NZ to use the innovative Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF). That means ratepayers have already borrowed extra “off the books” debt, with the details still shrouded in secrecy. That debt does not appear on Tauranga City Council’s balance sheet, but it still has to be repaid by ratepayers.
Why did they do that? To borrow $177 million more debt, on top of the $1.05 billion that Tauranga City Council already owes, with the likelihood that we’ll be borrowing hundreds of $millions more via the IFF to fund the civic centre and other projects.
Where Does That Leave Us?
We are not making value judgements about the pros and cons of all those things. Indeed, there are arguments that some of those initiatives may be needed, as it has become increasingly clearer by the year that the SmartGrowth model of urban sprawl has failed Tauranga.
Compared to the 20th century pre-SmartGrowth era, Tauranga now has worse environmental outcomes, worse social outcomes, far worse congestion, unaffordable house prices, the highest rentals in NZ, much higher carbon emissions, and economic outcomes that are no better for many people than back in the days of ‘$10 Tauranga’.
That’s not to say SmartGrowth caused all those problems, but it certainly didn’t deliver on its promise of “a unified vision, direction and voice for the future of the western Bay of Plenty” and “communities where we live, learn, work and play” in their local suburb.
Our concern is that some of those things are happening without the knowledge of most Tauranga residents. If they are all such great ideas, why not get the buy-in of local communities before moving forward? That applies especially to the city’s growth plan and its transport plan, which will shape the future of Tauranga for decades to come.
Which leaves us where? It leaves us at a crossroads.
Tauranga can continue sprawling more than ever, bringing rising living costs, increasing homelessness, even worse congestion, soaring debt, and even higher rates than now – already the highest residential rates of any city in NZ. And Tauranga City Council and SmartGrowth partners can continue to push most things through without public input, often in “confidential” meetings, and then offer token engagement opportunities that don’t really change anything.
Alternatively, we have an opportunity to develop a sustainable plan for a sustainable city – meaning financially, socially and environmentally sustainable. Where there is less congestion, better public transport, no homelessness, manageable debt and more affordable rates bills. And where councils work with local communities to develop the city we want – not the city that the elites and expensive, out-of-town consultants want for us.
You will have a rare opportunity to make a public submission when the SmartGrowth Strategy goes out for consultation later in September. Don’t waste that chance to share your thoughts – it may be another 6 years before you get a second chance!
We’ll have more details about this consultation in the next few weeks.
Good comments as usual, Glen. Good illustration of the Dumb Growth Strategy TCC and WBOPDC are on.
Thank goodness you’re across all of this Glen! Look forward to more details. So many alarming issues!!
Thanks Rachel. We try, but lots still slips us by!
Good if somewhat sobering summary. Why is all this a surprise, we seem to lack forums to share challenges and work out solutions. To the list of woes faced by local residents is the electricity pricing, current modelling by MBIE shows we pay the highest electricity energy prices in NZ, the reason is quite clear but as a community we do not share this knowledge let alone work to find the solution. Energy poverty harms the most vulnerable in our society, it is more than being cold.
Thanks David. Absolutely agree about energy poverty and NZ’s electricity system. We agree with most experts and people like Transpower Chair Keith Turner and retired Genesis CEO Marc England that we desperately need an energy plan. MBIE states they are developing a NZ Energy Strategy by the end of 2024 – let’s hope it’s a good plan that delivers equitable outcomes and addresses the needs of ‘everyday people’ and not just big corporates.
RESPONSE – SUSTAINABLE BOP NEWSLETTER
Kia ora Glen
The TCC Commissioners appreciate constructive comment, particularly if it offers innovative solutions to the city’s issues and challenges. In that regard, we have some comments on your latest musings.
Far from “going along with” Government reforms, the Council (led by the Commissioners) have advocated strongly for changes to the legislation involved. With regard to three waters reform, we went to considerable lengths to canvass the community’s views and have represented those views in all of the available forums as the various bills involved have passed through the legislative process.
Likewise, we did not “just accept the new urban density legislation”. As a result of the legislation, the Council had to abandon a plan change process that was well-underway and proposed Plan Change 33 was developed to give effect to the new density regulations passed by the Government, with the support of National Party MPs. In our submission to Parliament, we expressed serious concerns about the effects of some aspects of this legislation, but unfortunately that did not result in the changes we were seeking. PC33 gives effect to the legislation, as required by law, and has gone through extensive submissions and further submissions processes. Amongst the matters the independent Hearing panel will consider when it hears all of the submissions lodged will be a number of ‘qualifying matters’ (including landscape protection, cultural and ecological values and managing natural hazards) which may well limit permitted building heights in some areas.
With regard to there being “no public consultation on the city’s growth plan and spatial plan”, the Te Papa Spatial Plan, the Otumoetai Spatial Plan and currently the Mt Maunganui Spatial Plan have been widely consulted on; and the “former SmartGrowth Chair” you refer to points out that vast majority of matters considered by the SmartGrowth partners are in public session – open to anyone who wishes to attend. He also believes the comment ascribed to him has been mischaracterised and does not reflect his views.
Your claim that Tauranga is “the only NZ city where there has been no public consultation on the city’s transport plan” is incorrect. The Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan was consulted on through the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan process, which provided opportunities for any community member to provide feedback on the implementation of the plan’s key elements and priorities.
We understand that Tauranga is not “the last city in NZ to produce a climate plan”, but be that as it may, the Climate Action Investment Plan adopted in August has put in place some significant commitments. The plan was developed with input from relevant stakeholders, in response to the Government’s Emission Reduction Plan and the National Adaptation Plan, and sets emission reduction and resilience goals supported by a roadmap of actions to achieve the goal set-out in the Tauranga Taurikura – Environment Strategy for Tauranga to become a ‘low emissions and climate resilient city’. That Climate AIP specifically states that as a city, we will work towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in line with national net zero 2050 commitments, a position the Commissioners were particularly supportive of. And, as an organisation, TCC is also committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The Specified Development Plan relating to the western corridor is under assessment, with public consultation currently underway. No decision has been made as to whether it will become an SDP, and if it does, what arrangements will be put in place in terms of scope, governance and planning responsibilities. If the SDP does proceed, our expectation would be that SmartGrowth partners would provide governance oversight. It’s important to note that the decision on the SDP is independently assessed by Kainga Ora and must take into account all of the requirements of the National Policy Statement – Urban Development.
The larger growth area “fast-tracked” at the April SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting area is clearly signalled in UFTI as a potential future growth area. UFTI was approved by the SmartGrowth partnership, which includes BOPRC and iwi representatives, so this move should not have “surprised” anyone.
The reasons for using the Infrastructure Financing and Funding Act were set-out in detail in TCC’s 2021-31 LTP Amendment consultation document. This generated a considerable number of submissions, a significant majority of which supported this innovative new approach to infrastructure funding. The possibility of using IFF funding to cover the $151.5 million rate-funded portion of the Te Manawataki o Te Papa (civic precinct) development projects will be consulted on in the near future and we look forward to considering the community’s feedback.
And finally, yes Tauranga’s average residential rates are towards the top of the list for the 2021/22 financial year (just behind another growth Council, Queenstown Lakes and similar to Porirua City), but it’s worth noting that there was a 17% increase in rates that year as we began the costly task of catching-up on years of underinvestment in community facilities and infrastructure.
Kia ora Anne,
Thanks for your helpful response. I’ll try to address your points one-by-one.
Regarding the Commissioners’ advocacy on the three waters issue on behalf of Tauranga’s residents, we do not accept that you “went to considerable lengths to canvass the community’s views”, as there was a distinct lack of public meetings about this important issue. We know many people (including me) who, despite having considerable interest in this topic, struggled to even find TCC’s online survey, which to our knowledge was the only means of sharing community views.
However, we accept your comment that you “have represented those [community] views in all of the available forums as the various bills involved have passed through the legislative process”. It was just hard for us to notice that in the public arena.
We think it would have been far better (on this and other issues) to have open debates in the Council meetings and public meetings. On this issue, we believe that would most likely have led to TCC joining other BOP councils in the Communities 4 Local Democracy grouping. The fact that didn’t happen played into the view that government-appointed Commissioners were toeing the government line, so it should have been more important than ever for TCC to take such a community-led approach.
Regarding our comment that “TCC also just accepted the new urban density legislation and immediately included the new rules in its “Plan Change 33””, we stick by that view. We do agree with you that “PC33 gives effect to the legislation, as required by law, and has gone through extensive submissions and further submissions processes.”
However, what has been missing in our view, in contrast to an elected council, is strong public advocacy against some of the unpopular and unsustainable aspects of the legislation. As for 3 waters reforms, our concern is that centralised planning is not only removing local decision-making, but is also imposing poor urban design… along with some positive outcomes.
As we acknowledged in our article, those decisions were not made by the Commissioners. Our concern is that there have been very few opportunities to engage openly about these changes, as compared to the meetings that have happened in many other NZ cities. We think more public meetings and stronger public advocacy would be helpful – especially with a likely change of government.
You then wrote:
“With regard to there being “no public consultation on the city’s growth plan and spatial plan”, the Te Papa Spatial Plan, the Otumoetai Spatial Plan and currently the Mt Maunganui Spatial Plan have been widely consulted on.”
Apologies for our lack of clarity. We were referring to the SmartGrowth Spatial Plan and UFTI, which are the Tauranga-WBOP-wide plans that impact all Tauranga’s residents – not just those plans directly affecting much smaller numbers of people. More importantly, the Te Papa, Otumoetai and Mt Maunganui plans are all subservient to the bigger plan – hence our focus on the SmartGrowth Spatial Plan.
You then stated:
“and the “former SmartGrowth Chair” you refer to points out that vast majority of matters considered by the SmartGrowth partners are in public session – open to anyone who wishes to attend. He also believes the comment ascribed to him has been mischaracterised and does not reflect his views.”
He is free to believe what he wishes, but we absolutely stand by our comments.
Firstly, we are not questioning the ratio of time spent in public sessions and confidential sessions. Our concern is that some crucial decisions are made either in confidential sessions (some of which we are told do not seem to have commercial grounds requiring confidentiality) and perhaps even more commonly, some are partly/largely pre-determined in separate pre-public-meeting meetings.
Secondly, we stick by our statement that a former SmartGrowth Chair (Peter Winder) openly stated that central government is now a strategic partner and that “limits public input”, because “central government is secret until decisions have been made”. His comment was made in a meeting with SmartGrowth Forums to explain the reasons for the (then-proposed) changes to SmartGrowth Forums – and as you’d imagine, it was discussed by many of us afterwards.
Your next comment is:
“Your claim that Tauranga is “the only NZ city where there has been no public consultation on the city’s transport plan” is incorrect. The Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan was consulted on through the 2021-31 Long-Term Plan process, which provided opportunities for any community member to provide feedback on the implementation of the plan’s key elements and priorities.”
To the contrary, we believe it is factually correct. The city’s transport plan was the Tauranga Transport Programme, then the Tauranga Transport Plan, and now the Western BOP Transport System Plan (TSP). There has been no public consultation (as defined by the Local Government Act) on the contents of any version of those plans.
TCC’s 2021 Long Term Plan (LTP) did include the opportunity for some of us policy geeks to dig around and discover the transport capital expenditure programme, which then allowed the possibility of feedback on projects included in the LTP. However, that is vastly different to an informed public consultation on the Transport System Plan itself.
To be specific, the LTP Summary consultation document, which is the most commonly-read document relating to the consultation, stated only the following:
3. Transport $1.9b
Helping people move around our city more
easily while improving connections for local
businesses. Examples include:
• 15th Ave/Turret Rd
• accessible streets including walking and cycling
• Hewletts Road/Totara Street/Hull Road area
That is hardly a comprehensive summary of the transport plan, as it is not even mentioned!
Even in the full consultation document, the TSP is only referred to four times. The key mention is this:
“Overall, we’re proposing to… invest about $1.9b over 10 years on helping people move around our city more easily and improving connections for local businesses. For more information about the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP) search for ‘transport plan’ on our website at http://www.tauranga.govt.nz.”
Realistically, even if people clicked on that link and searched, most people will not then click the number of further links required to eventually find some details of the plan. (An early chapter of “The Hitchhikers Guide” comes to mind…) I know of several smart, informed people who literally could not find the plan itself.
One other mention in the LTP document is this:
“The Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP) 2020 provides an overview of some of the key changes we are proposing that will deliver:
• increased levels of public transport and active travel options
• increased safety
• improved accessibility
• support for business growth.”
That’s nice to know, but does not in any way explain the plan. Those words were used before the LTP and since the LTP, and they are ‘Mom and apple pie’ phrases that most people would find hard to oppose. (Anyone want decreased safety?)
The LTP effectively gave submitters one action point that partly related to transport, as one of six outcome areas. TCC asked people to choose between Option 1 (which included “Transport – helping people move around the city more easily and improve connections for local businesses.”) and Option 2 (including “some Transport System Plan projects would not happen in the next 10 years including: park and ride and bus infrastructure, accessible street construction at Mount to Papamoa and Mount to Bayfair transport investment.”).
Hence the extent of the LTP questions in regards to transport were to ask people if they wanted council to “help people move around the city” or for some projects to “not happen”. Contrast that to the extensive, comprehensive and detailed consultation on transport plans in other NZ metro cities.
Then last year, in the LTP Amendment consultation, you asked:
“Should we… Apply for IFF funding to contribute $200 million to the delivery of Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan projects, funded by an annual levy on all eligible properties (subject to competitive financing and Government approval)”?
That was an important question. However, again, it just skirts around the plan. The information does not talk about the contents of the plan – just how to fund it.
Empirically, our Trust has held many public meetings in the past two or so years. In some of those meetings, we have asked participants if they have heard of the Transport System Plan or “Tauranga’s Transport Plan”. Well under 10% had even heard of a plan – and that is a biased sample of people who are interested enough to turn up at a sustainability meeting!
All-in-all, if you and your fellow Commissioners genuinely believe you have consulted on the TSP, we suggest there’s a very good chance that the majority of Tauranga residents don’t even know about the plan, let alone its details. We suggest that if TCC had spent less money on Cameron Rd communications and more on TSP engagement, then local people would be better informed and in some cases keen to give you informed and nuanced feedback on the Transport System Plan. It is, after all, the number one issue in Tauranga.
Regarding the Climate Action Investment Plan, Tauranga is the last metro city in NZ to produce a climate plan” (Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, etc.), and various other comparable cities (e.g. Palmerston North, Dunedin) and comparable Districts (e.g. Rotorua) also had climate plans well before Tauranga. However you are correct, as Napier City doesn’t have a finalised climate plan or strategy, although it did include about 8 pages in its 2021 LTP summary document outlining its approach to climate change – which is the equivalent to the core of Tauranga’s Climate Plan.
You then state TCC’s Climate plan “has put in place some significant commitments” and “sets emission reduction and resilience goals … to become a ‘low emissions and climate resilient city’.”
On that we do not agree. We note that vague wording has already resulted in TCC staff arguing that while emissions will increase, a plan can be described as “low emissions” because the increase in emissions will be lower than a baseline scenario. That argument has been used by China (and India) when building dozens and dozens of new coal power stations, arguing they’re also rolling out renewable energy, so its emissions are lower than if they’d done only coal. Of course, a big difference is that China pledged to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, whereas NZ has pledged to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030, in line with IPCC targets for developed countries.
Our concern is that TCC has not agreed to align with NZ’s target or even seriously tried to set a 2030 target, and your statement that TCC “will work towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in line with national net zero 2050 commitments” is not a commitment – just wishful thinking. We hope to be proven wrong, but that would require TCC to commit to meeting NZ government Emissions Reduction Plan targets, which in turn will need urgent change to the current growth plan (which will increase carbon emissions, other than carbon reductions from the switch to EVs).
Regarding the Western Corridor Specified Development Plan, we are heartened by your comment that “No decision has been made as to whether it will become an SDP, and if it does, what arrangements will be put in place in terms of scope, governance and planning responsibilities.” You then state that “if the SDP does proceed, our expectation would be that SmartGrowth partners would provide governance oversight.”
We think the scope and planning responsibilities are just as important, and question whether those will be determined solely by Kainga Ora and TCC, or by all SmartGrowth partners, including Tangata Whenua – which seems to have been the case for Te Puna, also stated as a post-2050 growth area?
You then say “The larger growth area “fast-tracked” at the April SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting area is clearly signalled in UFTI as a potential future growth area. UFTI was approved by the SmartGrowth partnership, which includes BOPRC and iwi representatives, so this move should not have “surprised” anyone.”
We cannot understand your comment. Firstly, UFTI explicitly stated that most ‘greenfield’ growth areas would only be developed after 2050, including “Final stages of Te Tumu, new township and community in Rangiuru/Paengaroa area”, “Upper Belk, Merrick, Joyce, and final stages of Keenan Rd”, and “Te Puna/Plummers Point”.
Secondly, this was followed up in communications with Forum members, in response to concerns that some of those areas might be fast-tracked sooner, despite UFTI stating they were post 2050. In fact Commissioner Wasley, in his former role as SmartGrowth Chair, made it very clear that anyone making such suggestions was wrong and that the allegations were baseless, and he then refused to discuss UFTI in a Forum meeting for that very reason, stating “It won’t be changed” (… which was a mixed blessing in our view).
Yet here we are, only a couple of years later, and you are arguing that no-one should have been surprised when it was changed! Well, we were surprised, and everyone we know was surprised. That includes BOP Regional Councillors and Regional Council staff we’ve spoken to, some Combined Tangata Whenua Forum members we’ve asked, and many former SmartGrowth Forum members.
Anyway, thanks again for engaging Anne. We look forward to any further comments on this and other future posts by our Trust and other Tauranga community organisations.
Thanks,
Glen and Sustainable BOP Trustees