LGOIMA Request Details

I refer to your official information request dated 30 September 2022.

Part of the information you have requested is below. 

However, we have decided to refuse your request for information which relates to:

• Council correspondence with the Property Group and with Maungatau Farm and its owner Richard Christensen

• advice Council has received from its lawyers 

These are being withheld under section 7 (2)(g) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, in order to maintain legal professional privilege.

1. The Property Group (TPG) are acting on behalf of Council when considering the road stopping proposal. Given the interest in the road stopping proposal and the longevity of the issues, including the earlier involvement of officers in matters relating to the unformed road, Council’s preference was for the proposal to be independently processed and reported on. Council’s infrastructure team is still considering various options to address concerns, but review of submissions and recommendations to the Hearings Committee will be undertaken by Ryan O’Leary, from TPG.  Use of TPG also assists with resourcing for the submission and hearings process. The use of independent consultants is common and is often used by local authorities for consenting (and other) processes. 

2. The Property Group is acting on behalf of Council in reviewing and considering the submissions. The submitter’s details were provided to TPG.

3. Ryan O’Leary, from TPG, has made himself available to speak to submitters, explain aspects of the proposal and address questions and concerns of submitters who have opposed the proposal.  Again, it is common for these types of discussions to occur with submitters on a proposal – road stopping or otherwise. It is considered good practice to engage with submitters on the issues raised through submissions and see if matters of concern can be narrowed or resolved. Submitters do not have to take up the opportunity to meet with Mr O’Leary.

4. There are contractual arrangements in place with TPG. These are similar arrangements to other circumstances where independent consultants are used by the Council. 

The details of this arrangement is being withheld under section 7 (2)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as it would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

5. These are issues presently being considered by Council officers, TPG and will ultimately be before Council’s Hearings Committee. The Hearings Committee needs to decide whether to uphold the objections, and if not, they will be referred to the Environment Court. These are not matters for Council officers to comment on at this stage of the process. 

6. As it presently stands, the proposed draft easement can be surrendered, but only by agreement between MDC and the landowner. Both parties would need to agree before it could be surrendered. Further, the easement specifies that there needs to be public notice and a period of consultation before any surrender of the easement. 

7. The value of the land being stopped and the interest in the land being obtained by the Council in perpetuity will be the subject of valuation.

8. The hearing has not been held yet, with a new Hearings Committee to be appointed following local body elections. Some time to consider the body of submissions and any responses, was also considered beneficial. A hearing will be scheduled for later this year/early next year, in 2023.

You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz  or freephone 0800 802 602.