This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Ruapehu District Council’s failures. They’ve developed a reputation for treating public consultation as a mere checkbox exercise, often withholding full information from the community. Instead, they selectively release facts, ensuring they can proceed with their plans as they see fit, without consequence.
In 2017, the Ruapehu District Council (RDC) secured $622,500 in Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) to upgrade Teitei Drive, along with the car parks and toilet facilities at Carrot Park.
Fast forward to July 2024, and questions around the legality of Teitei Drive’s encroachment into Rockford Park/Carrot Park began to surface. Our inquiries led us to request key documents from RDC, including project concepts, consents, and approvals for the Teitei Drive intersection. Despite RDC’s role as the consenting authority, the expectation is that council projects adhere strictly to legal due diligence and established procedures—setting a professional standard for the public. However, given RDC’s handling of other projects, such as the Ohakune Social Housing initiative, it appears they often operate with minimal oversight or respect for the rules.
Delays and Discrepancies in RDC’s Response
Under the Official Information Act (OIA), RDC was obligated to respond by August 28. However, they advised of an extension. On September 13, the council informed us they needed even more time, promising to provide the information without further undue delay—though no specific date was provided. After 38 business days—double the legal OIA limit—we finally received a response on September 20.
In their reply, RDC stated that the “sealed road would be formed on existing road reserve” as did Applications for funding from MBIE, and again stated on the Invoice to MBIE for payment. However, documents revealed that GHD, RDC’s contracted engineering firm, had presented four conceptual designs. These designs indicated clear encroachments that were apparently overlooked in the project’s final stages.
A Breakdown of GHD’s Design Concepts
Concepts 1, 2, and 3: These designs showed Teitei Drive within the designated road reserve, adhering to boundaries at the SH49 intersection.
Our Comment: Google Maps and GIS data indicate that a power pole would need to be relocated, or the intersection redesigned to maintain compliance while curving into SH49.
Concept 4 (Preferred): This design deviated significantly, placing three-quarters of the SH49 intersection within Rockford Park.
Our Comment: Constructing a public road on reserve land requires extensive consultation, consents, and ministerial sign-off.
The final design on page 77 of the released documents shows even further deviation, with the entire intersection encroaching into Rockford Park/Carrot Park.
The Cost-Driven Decision
Among the four options, the chosen design—Concept 4—was the most cost-effective. While public records do not reflect any discussion about non-compliance or necessary consents, council seems to have favored the cheaper option, bypassing both legal and environmental considerations.
Follow-Up with MBIE
After receiving RDC’s response, we sought further clarification from MBIE:
Funding Application for Teitei Drive Upgrades
Response: Documentation attached.
Independent Engineer’s Certification
Response: Documentation allegedly does not exist.
Works Contract Documents
Response: Documentation allegedly does not exist.
Construction Compliance Certification
Response: No independent certification exists beyond the toilets’ compliance documentation.
NZTA Consent for SH49 Intersection
Response: Documentation allegedly does not exist.
MBIE Internal Correspondence on Project Compliance
Response: Documentation allegedly does not exist.
Reserve Consents for Carpark and Toilets in Carrot Park
Response: RDC’s January 2018 report confirms a building permit for toilets.
Reserves Act Compliance for Ohakune Domain
Response: Documentation allegedly does not exist.
Teitei Drive Road Design Standards Relaxation
Response: Documentation allegedly does not exist.
Consequence
Not only does this look bad for RDC, it leaves RDC open to litigation.
No properties on Teitei drive should have been built without a legal access-way.
No further consents should be provided on Teitei drive, until the matter is resolved.
Final Thoughts
The apparent oversight by RDC and GHD in ensuring Teitei Drive’s compliance with road reserve and reserve land requirements is deeply concerning. The favored design not only encroaches on protected land but also raises questions about the lack of public consultation, legal oversight, and accountability. As a community, we must question how such significant projects bypass essential checks and balances, especially when public funds are at stake.
The Teitei Drive project underscores the need for greater transparency and adherence to legal requirements in council-commissioned developments. As further documentation comes to light, we will continue to scrutinize the process and seek accountability from RDC and involved agencies.
Reference Documents
Kommentarer