Skip to content

RDRR’S REVISED SUBMISSION RE MHUD’S APPLICATION FOR 13 RESOURCE CONSENTS FOR CONTRACTED EMERGENCY HOUSING WITH A TERM OF FIVE YEARS

REVISED SUBMISSION TO ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL AND THE PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED

RE MHUD’S APPLICATION FOR 13 RESOURCE CONSENTS FOR CONTRACTED EMERGENCY HOUSING WITH A TERM OF FIVE YEARS

by ROTORUA DISTRICT RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS

Wednesday 17 August 2022

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RDRR’S revised submission opposes all 13 resource consent applications for the following reasons:

  1. The notification and consultation process exhibited predetermination, bias and improper purposes, with irrelevant considerations being taken into account.
  2. The criteria regarding zoning were not clarified and should have been to ensure relevant feedback.
  3. The applicable criteria from the RMA were not clarified and should have been to elicit relevant feedback.
  4. A website that was the major point of contact for citizens was non-operational and may have deterred concerned citizens from gaining access to the information that they are entitled to under LGOIMA.
  5. There are no assurances or incentives for the three service providers to find more permanent housing options.
  6. The needs assessments of the homeless methodology needs to be clarified in professional terms.
  7. The so-called ‘wrap-around support services’ need to be clarified, and professionally standardized and justified to ensure effective delivery.
  8. The variances in ‘wrap-around support services’ indicate that the three support providers are working to different well-being models which need to be resolved before resource consent is given.
  9. It is not clear who will be managing the homeless system in Rotorua and providing public accountability.
  10. The unacceptable environmental effects of the proposed resource consents include
    1. Reducing the real estate values of homes in the vicinity of all 13 motels.
    2. Undermining the recovery of tourism and fundamentally altering the character of Rotorua without the informed consent of citizens, both considered improper purposes.
    3. A waste of public resources in a context of inflation and rates rises.
    4. The MHUD applications are part of a wider muddled strategy that is increasingly being contested because of the perverse outcomes it has created.
    5. No guarantee that Rotorua people will be first in line for homes built in Rotorua, which many regard as an improper purpose.
    6. The scale of proposed throughput of homeless people into social housing is not feasible, has not been formally endorsed as Council policy, which again reflects improper purposes.
  11. The RDRR endorses the concerns of Restore Rotorua Inc (RRI), specifically that
    1. Adverse effects of existing emergency housing in central Rotorua have been significant, and the potential cumulative social, economic and environmental effects of the Applications are significant and unacceptable.
    2. The significant adverse effects associated with the Applications cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated and therefore the Applications should not be granted.
    3. The significant adverse effects associated with the Applications are long term, particularly when considered in conjunction with the time for which the sites have already been operating and with the other emergency housing sites in Rotorua.
    4. The Applications, if granted in total or in part, raise safety issues in central Rotorua, which is already a significant concern for CBD users.
    5. The economic effects of the Applications, both in terms of lost tourism revenue with the use of hotels and motels for emergency housing, and the associated lost tourism revenue associated with safety concerns in the CBD.
    6. The Applications are inconsistent with the policy framework in the Rotorua District Plan.
    7. The Applications, which are for non-complying activities, will not comply with s 104D(1)(a) or (b) of the RMA.
    8. The Applications are inconsistent with the policy framework in the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
    9. The Applications are inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020.
    10. The Applications do not give effect to Part 2 of the RMA.
  12. RDRR requests that the Applications be declined, or at least limited to one year, and to be heard in support of its submission.
  13. RDRR support the Council delegating its functions, powers, and duties to hear and decide the application to hearings commissioners who are not members of the local authority.
  14. RDRR requests that pragmatic alternatives to the Applications be considered:
    1. Have MSD limit the inflow to proven locals, deduct the number of people leaving from population estimates and refuse the MHUD applications because the combined throughput cannot be plausibly housed.
    2. A fundamental flaw in Council’s housing policy is that it has persisted in using high growth assumptions, despite evidence mounting that low growth assumptions are warranted.
    3. Since support for the MHUD’s applications may have collapsed in Council and in central government, RDRR asks that Commissioners to regard the 13 Applications as null and void.

BACKGROUND

This submission to the Rotorua Lakes Council (Council) is on behalf of the 1,136 current members, associates and friends of the Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers (RDRR).

Twelve Applications by Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) were publicly notified 11 June 2022 in the Rotorua Daily Post. They are summarized in Appendix 1.

The thirteenth Application was accepted by the Chairman of the Independent Hearing Panel on 5 August 2022 with identical conditions (also see Appendix 1).

The complexity of the submission process and requirements was protested immediately by many parties as unreasonable. The process and requirements were then changed, poorly advertised, and caused even more confusion.

One result was the RDRR’s normal gathering of feedback was delayed, then disrupted, and initially only permitted one relatively brief round of consultation. Another result of the late receipt of the 13th Application is widespread skepticism, rendering another round of consultations of RDRR members pointless.

Please note that a link to the replies from MHUD to the Council’s request for more information, and the Beca Social Impact Assessment attached to each property, was not made available to the RDRR until 6 July, initially too late to be given a detailed evaluation.

There is, therefore, considerable concern in the RDRR that the decision-making process has evidenced predetermination, bias and improper purposes, and that irrelevant considerations have been taken into account.

MAKING THIS SUBMISSION

The RDRR is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

RDRR’s revised submission relates to all parts of the 13 Applications. Given the changed, confused and confusing requirements regarding making a submission, RDRR decided to email it, with a completed Form 13, simultaneously to

THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The public notice for contracted emergency housing indicated that the subject sites are a mix of zonings including the Commercial 4 – City Entranceway Zone and Residential 2 – Medium Density Residential Zone under the Operative Rotorua District Plan (District Plan). The criteria related to zoning were not clarified and should have been to ensure relevant feedback.

The same public notice indicates that all thirteen resource consent applications were applied for as a Non-Complying Activity in accordance with Sections 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991. The applicable criteria from the RMA were not clarified and should have been to elicit relevant feedback.

The public notification of each of the full resource consent applications was inadequate. For example, the Publicly Notified Resource Consent Application: RC17647 – 131 Lake Road, Rotorua dated 11 June 2022 stated, as did the other 11 applications, that

To view the full application, visit www.rotorualakescouncil.nz/contractedemergencyhousing . The application will be found under the Planning Guidance & Resource Consents section in ‘Publicly Notified Resource Consents’.

This website was not operational during the consultation period. While the full applications may have been available elsewhere, this non-operational website was the major point of contact for citizens potentially affected by the proposed consents and may have deterred them from gaining access to the information that they are entitled to under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

These flaws in the consultation process may have helped predetermine outcomes, mobilized bias and served improper purposes.

CONDITIONS SOUGHT BY MHUD’S CONSENT APPPLICATIONS

The public notice defines ‘contracted emergency housing’ as where MHUD contract specific motels to provide emergency accommodation for families/whānau with children, young people, and people with disabilities. The provision also can include kuia, kaumātua, and elderly individuals.

The provision is to be exclusive – MHUD proposes to contract the whole of each motel for emergency housing for five years. No other guests will be allowed stay at each motel while it is contracted by MHUD for those five years. There will be an unacceptably high degree of redundancy in these arrangements, at public expense.

MHUD has indicated that ‘wrap-around support services’ will be provided for those staying in contracted emergency housing. It is proposed that this support is provided by a service provider, either Visions of a Helping Hand, Emerge Aotearoa or WERA Aotearoa. Support will allegedly involve:

  • Assessing the immediate needs of each whānau/family.
  • Working alongside the whānau/family during their stay to manage any issues related to their stay.
  • Assisting them in finding more permanent housing options.
  • 24/7 on-site security and on-site social workers .

RDRR is concerned that the following issues and service conditions were not addressed in the public notice or in the additional materials, and now need to be, before resource consent is given:

  • The needs assessments of the homeless are apparently to be provided by Te Taumata o Ngāti Whakaue at Te Kopakū (The Hub) but need to be clarified in professional terms to ensure that they are efficient and effective. Additionally, since it being funded by public monies, The Hub needs to clarify its role, reporting lines, expertise, performance indicators, supervision and accountabilities.
  • The so-called ‘wrap-around support services’ need to be clarified; objectives, nature and professional standards to ensure adequacy, appropriateness and sustainability over time. The services should be professionally standardized and justified using an evidence-based approach or they could lack efficiency and effectiveness and waste public money.
  • The variances in ‘wrap-around support services’ evident in Appendix 1 indicate that the three providers are working to different models which need to be resolved in the interests of equity, efficiency, and effectiveness. For example, some providers will deliver 24/7 security whereas others will only provide 24/7 security on call.
  • There are no assurances or incentives for the three service providers to assist those staying in contracted emergency housing to find “more permanent housing options.” The estimates that the average stay will be 2-3 months, the longest stay will be 19 months and the shortest 3 days, appear contrived. The three service providers have very little control over the availability of rental properties or new builds.
  • It is not clear who will be managing the system to ensure maximum occupancy and through-put and to guarantee the quality of support and security, protecting the environment and providing public accountability. The rights of nearby residents must be protected with authorised, planned and active supervision of the service providers and to guarantee a route for feedback and public accountability over the years of consent.

LIKELY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

There is a widespread perception that consenting these 13 motels for five years to provide emergency housing will reduce real estate values of homes in their vicinity by about $100,000-$200,000. Several real estate professionals have confirmed that when Council announced the proposed revocation and sale of 10 reserves there was an immediate loss of house values at about this scale.  There is anger that the retirement nest egg of many residents and ratepayers will be affected by the proposed 13 resource consents in a context of rising rates and inflation.

The second impact deeply resented is the prospect of five-year resource consents for Rotorua’s new homeless industry irreparably undermining the recovery of tourism and fundamentally altering the character of Rotorua without the informed consent of citizens. This is widely regarded as an improper purpose, especially with a new Council to be elected on 8 October 2022 that could well take a very different view in the wisdom of a homeless industry.

A key factor is that the focus on the needs of the homeless fail to mention the needs of the people affected by this housing. There has been no consideration for the mental health and wellbeing of neighbours affected by the housing of the homeless within their suburbs.

Many have responded to this policy blind spot by leaving Rotorua in despair. Council has been alerted to this growing emigration but has not measured it despite repeated requests that it does so. RDRR members with tourism-related businesses share the view that Rotorua’s homeless industry in general, and the 13 resource consents applied for by MHUD in particular, will significantly retard the recovery of tourism industry. Hence, it would be seen as very helpful if the proposed five-year length of the resource consents were denied or, at most, limited to one year.

The third impact deeply resented is the extent to which, since the Labour government came into office five years ago, public resources have been wasted. Over $1 Billion has been diverted to motel owners in a few selected cities to accommodate the homeless; Rotorua being one. 4,000 households across New Zealand are now living in motels. MSD Minister Sepuloni has said that it’s not a long-term solution but also asserted that there is no other option and motel accommodation is used a last resort. There are 27,200 people are now waiting for a state house, a record.

 

There are other contributing causes to the housing crisis, such as previous government policies, and not classifying four Gibraltar board factories in Auckland during level four COVID lockdown as an essential service. The Healthy Homes Act and cancelling interest deductibility for landlords have contributed to rent increases, decreased rental supply as landlords sold up, which exacerbated the housing shortage, leading to more homelessness, and so on. The point is that the MHUD applications are part of a wider muddled central government strategy that is increasingly being contested because of the perverse outcomes it has created.

 

The nature and rate of local progress was revealed at the opening of three new two-bedroom homes replacing a former three-bedroom Kāinga Ora home on the property at May Road. The event was confused by a mayoral blunder that claimed that Rotorua needed 6,000 new homes “immediately” rather than the predictions by contracted experts that Rotorua needed an additional 6,000 public and private homes within the “next decade”.

 

Despite the confusion, Kāinga Ora Regional Director Darren Toy said the three homes were the first of 37 homes being built on existing Kāinga Ora sites in Rotorua. They make up about 260 public houses under construction or being planned in Rotorua, he said. It is current government policy that new public houses be given to “the most needy” in New Zealand, he confirmed, although local factors such as schools and work would be considered. This meant that there is no guarantee that Rotorua people will be first in line for homes built in Rotorua, which many regard as an improper purpose.

 

Another form of improper purpose is the scale of throughput proposed by the MHUD applications. As summarized in Appendix 1, and further clarified by a more recent report, if the applications by MHUD are successful, the 13 motels will cater for over 1,000 homeless people every 2-3 months. If three cohorts of about 1,000 pass through the 13 motels each year for five years, it will mean that about 15,000 will need homes over the period. This scale of throughput is not feasible, has not been formally endorsed as Council policy in a context of an imminent local election, and the MHUD applications could therefore reflect improper purposes.

 

However, with new builds ranging between 200-300 per annum since about 2007, and consents rising in recent times to about 400-550 per annum, this is about one tenth of the scale required over five years. A pragmatic solution would be to have MSD cut the inflow, deduct the number of people leaving from population estimates and refuse the MHUD applications because the combined throughput cannot possibly be housed, therefore constituting improper purposes.

 

The origin of Council’s now obsolete estimates and working assumptions are known. In March 2020, an Infometrics’ report to Council predicted an increase of population by 5,900 people by 2051, under low growth-rate assumptions. Under high-growth assumptions it predicted an increase of population of 28,900 people by 2051. Assuming the high growth rate, there would be a 37.9% increase over 31 years, which would equate to a 1.2% increase per annum in population. Low-growth assumptions would mean little more than flat-lining growth. Since then, Council has persisted in using the high growth assumptions, despite mounting evidence that low growth assumptions are warranted. An incoming Council could well adopt much more modest ‘growth’ assumptions.

 

For example, in a Checkpoint interview on 1 July 2022, resident Carolyne Hall said seven of her neighbours had sold up and moved due to the law-and-order problems emanating from the Fenton Street motels that house homeless. She asked if crime continues to increase with job losses from tourism and associated industries, how many more residents will leave the district? It is critical to note that the impact of COVID-19 pandemic was not considered in any of the Infometric projections.

 

Further, according to the March 2020 Infometrics report, the construction industry is expected to grow from 2,700 to 3,300 between 2019 and 2029 (annual average growth of 2.03%) to keep pace with population growth and eliminate the housing shortage in Rotorua. Since then, however, building costs and delays have increased, compounded by labour and material shortages, supply chain problems, inflation, and the COVID pandemic. These facotrs have not been factored into Council’s ‘growth’ assumptions.

 

Recent confidential discussions between RDRR and leaders in the business sector have confirmed that private sector investment is being actively withheld until there is greater certainty regarding risks. With increased crime associated with housing the homeless in motels, Rotorua’s reputation as a safe tourist and investment destination have been badly affected.

 

There is also a fear that, given the increase of social housing stock in Rotorua planned by Kāinga Ora, average real estate values could fall significantly. In addition to the increase in construction costs, the Rotorua Lakes Council are proposing to re-introduce development contributions. This will add to the cost of building over and above substantial financial contributions being demanded for infrastructure. Investors are also unsure if the private sector will be able to compete with the public sector, who seem to be receiving benefits at secret ‘mates’ rates’, to build social housing on reserves and to buy land at a reduced rate from Council.

 

Finally, support for the MHUD’s applications may have collapsed in the Council and in central government, if mayoral candidate Fletcher Tabuteau is to be believed when he claimed on 7 July that “the government will [soon] announce an end to the practice of providing emergency housing to “out of towners”.

 

He also claimed that the coming policy flip was a result of a petition he launched in June, which only attracted 53 signatures. Given that Tabuteau recently worked for the Council for most of a year in the Planning Department, and his campaign launch was actively supported by the outgoing mayor, it appears that the informal policy context supporting MHUD’s Applications has changed dramatically and fundamentally to the point where its purposes may be obsolete. It would be wise, RDRR contends, to await the outcomes of the 8 October 2022 local elections. 

 

SUMMARY

 

This submission by RDRR opposes all 13 resource consent applications, or at least, limits the time period to one year to await the outcomes of the local elections on 8 October 2022.

The notification and consultation process exhibited predetermination, bias and improper purposes.

The criteria regarding zoning were not clarified and should have been to ensure relevant feedback. The applicable criteria from the RMA were not clarified and should have been to elicit relevant feedback.

A non-operational website was the major point of contact for citizens and may have deterred concerned citizens from gaining access to the information that they are entitled to under LGOIMA.

There are no assurances or incentives for the three service providers to find “more permanent housing options.”

The needs assessments of the homeless and the so-called ‘wrap-around support services’ need to be clarified in professional terms, standardized and justified.

The variances in ‘wrap-around support services’ indicate that the three providers are working to different models which needs to be resolved.

It is not clear who will be managing the homeless system in Rotorua.

The unacceptable environmental effects of the resource consents may

  • Reduce the real estate values of homes in the vicinity of the 13 motels
  • Irreparably undermine the recovery of tourism and fundamentally alter the character of Rotorua without the informed consent of citizens, both improper purposes
  • The waste of public resources involved
  • The MHUD applications are part of a wider muddled strategy that is increasingly being contested because of the perverse outcomes it has created
  • No guarantee that Rotorua people will be first in line for homes built in Rotorua, which many regard as an improper purpose, and
  • The scale of throughput of homeless people is not feasible, has not been formally endorsed as Council policy, and the MHUD applications could therefore reflect improper purposes.

 

The RDRR endorses the concerns of Restore Rotorua Inc, specifically that

  • Adverse effects of existing emergency housing in central Rotorua have been significant, and the potential cumulative social, economic and environmental effects of the Applications are significant and unacceptable;
  • The significant adverse effects associated with the Applications cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated and therefore the Applications should not be granted;
  • The significant adverse effects associated with the Applications are long term, particularly when considered in conjunction with the time for which the sites have already been operating and with the other emergency housing sites in Rotorua;
  • The Applications, if granted in total or in part, raise safety issues in central Rotorua, which is already a significant concern for CBD users;
  • The economic effects of the Applications, both in terms of lost tourism revenue with the use of hotels and motels for emergency housing, and the associated lost tourism revenue associated with safety concerns in the CBD;
  • The Applications are inconsistent with the policy framework in the Rotorua District Plan;
  • The Applications, which are for non-complying activities, will not comply with s 104D(1)(a) or (b) of the RMA.
  • The Applications are inconsistent with the policy framework in the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement;
  • The Applications are inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020;
  • The Applications do not give effect to Part 2 of the RMA.

 

CONCLUDING NOTE

RDRR requests that the 13 Applications be declined, or at least, the period of consents be limited to one year to respect the outcomes of the 8 October 2022 local elections.

This feedback is provided in good faith by the members, associates, and friends of the RDRR. RDRR wishes to be heard in support of its submission. The designated spokesperson for RDRR is Dr Reynold Macpherson, 484 Pukehangi Road, 07 346 8553, 021 725 708, reynold@reynoldmacpherson.ac.nz

RDRR is aware that the Rotorua Lakes Council has delegated its functions, powers and duties to an Independent Hearing Panel to hear and decide this application. This is most welcome.

RDRR is campaigning for a pragmatic alternative to the Applications:

  • Have MSD limit the inflow to proven locals.
  • Deduct the number of people leaving from Rotorua’s population estimates.
  • Refuse the MHUD applications because the combined throughput of emergency accommodation can never be housed.
  • Revise the Council’s housing policy using low growth assumptions.
  • Investigate the possibility that support for the MHUD’s applications may have collapsed in Council and in central government, effectively rendering the proposals null and void, and their purposes improper.

Thank you.

Inquiries to Reynold Macpherson, 484 Pukehangi Road, 07 346 8553, 021 725 708, reynold@reynoldmacpherson.ac.nz

 

APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS BY MHUD FOR CONTRACTED EMERGENCY HOUSING CONSENTS

  Application Motel Name Address(es) Max Occupants* Units Term Typical Stay Longest Stay Shortest Stay Support Provider On-site Support On-site Security Zone
1 RC17673 Union Victoria 26/28 Victoria 76 20 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand Soc Wkrs M-F 8.30-5 24/7 24/7 oncall Comm 4 & Resi 2
2 RC17889 Rotovegas 249-251 Fenton & 14-16 Toko 108 26 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days WERA Aotearoa M-F 9-5 24/7 Comm 4 & Resi 2
3 RC17761 Pohutu 3 Meade 58 14 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand Soc Wkrs M-F 8.30-5 24/7 24/7 oncall Comm 4
4 RC 17650 Newcastle 18 Ward 64 16 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand Soc Wkrs M-F 8.30-5 24/7 24/7 oncall Comm 4
5 RC17890 Midway 293 Fenton 90 50 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Emerge Aotearoa M-F 8-5 Kaitiaki 4/7 24/7 Resi 2
6 RC17762 Malones 321 Fenton 66 20 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand Soc Wkrs M-F 8.30-5 24/7 24/7 oncall Comm 4
7 RC17647 Lake Rotorua 131 Lake 140 38 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand Soc Wkrs M-F 8.30-5 24/7 24/7 oncall Comm 4
8 Rc17891 Geneva 299 Fenton 52 14 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Emerge Aotearoa M-F 8-5 Kaitiaki 4/7 24/7 Comm 4
8 RC17887 Ascot 247 Fenton & 12 Toko 54 14 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days WERA Aotearoa M-F 9-5 24/7 Comm 4 & Resi 2
10 RC17893 Apollo 7 Tyron 117 39 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days WERA Aotearoa M-F 9-5 24/7 Comm 3
11 RC17892 Ann’s Volcanic 107 Malfroy 39 10 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Emerge Aotearoa M-F 8-5 Kaitiaki 4/7 24/7 Resi 2
12 RC17648 Alpin 16 Sala 142 40 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand 24/7 on call 24/7 Comm 4
13 RC18244 Emerald Spa 284-286 Fenton 93 29 5 yrs 2-3 mths 19 mths 3 days Visions of a Helping Hand 24/7 on call 24/7 Comm 4
  Totals     1099 330                

 

* Excludes motel staff and children under 18 months