Fight over Bureta Countdown

Tauranga City Council is being challenged on the way the wider community is being excluded from submitting on plans to build a Countdown supermarket at Bureta Park.

The council initially stated the process would be publicly notified but has now decided on a non-notified process restricting the submissions and hearings process to the 97 surrounding landowners.


Submissions on the proposed $20million supermarket on the current Bureta Park Motor Inn site on the corner of Vale Street and Bureta Road close at 5pm today.

City council planner Brad Bellamy says it is a limited notified process as that is what Countdown supermarket owner Progressive Enterprises applied for.

'They lodged the application on a limited notified basis, they believed that they could identify who the affected interested persons were,” says Brad.

'That there were no effects of a more than minor nature, which the act requires for it to be publicly notified, so that is the process that we are dictated to through the Resource Management Act. They were able to meet those tests and that was the decision that was reached.”

Tauranga real estate agent Stuart Gooch says the council can choose at any time to change its mind if an application should have been publicly notified and was not.

In addition, Stuart says the development is totally contrary to the city council's recently completed District Plan review where the council moved to seriously limit further commercial encroachments into residential land in the city.

'The council have said they want no more commercial development into Tauranga, they want no land to be commercialised,” says Stuart.

'We have already got one of the largest areas in proportion of commercial real estate in New Zealand. They have shut down any further commercial development of residential land until 2016. The ink isn't dry on it.”

The site of the Buretta Park Motor Inn, formerly the Otumoetai Licensing Trust is zoned residential and has long term connections with the wider community, not just the people who live next to it.


The planned Countdown supermarket in Bureta.

Stuart says because so many people have been involved, it makes the council move to make it a limited notification, and allowing only the immediate neighbours to make submissions, 'a cheap shot”.

'When you change from residential this is a major change that must have effects on the wider population and need to be considered,” says Stuart.

Stuart says it is not just the immediate neighbours affected by the proposed supermarket, it will impact on retailers at the Bureta Road shops and Cherrywood Shopping Centre, none of whom are able to make a submission.

A total of 25 submissions on the planned project had been received by Tauranga City Council by 5pm on Thursday from immediate neighbours, some of whom have indicated they wish to be heard.

A submissions hearing will be held, but the wider public will not be able to make submissions, though there is the ability for people to be represented by an eligible submitter.

Residents in Ngatai Road, Vale Street properties opposite the planned site and certain Bureta Road residents are eligible to submit.

The application and all paperwork associated with the application is online on the city council website.

32 comments

Let's think about this

Posted on 31-08-2012 13:19 | By Phailed

A real estate agent seems concerned about too much land being commercial. I suppose it wouldn't have anything to do with protecting existing commercial interests in the city??? And why should other retailers be able to object to more competition anyway? We don't live in the communist USSR do we? The current Bureta site sort of looks commercial to me, if that's what a liquor retailer and a collection of booze bars is? Maybe neighbours need to think if they're better off with either a supermarket, an existing booze outlet, or yet more houses on this site? I'd love to be able to walk to my local supermarket and it would increase the value of my house too.


Every body BUT those affected ...

Posted on 31-08-2012 13:25 | By Murray.Guy

Residential A, non-complying, and everybody BUT those directly affected and the wider community, will be consulted. Residents are barred! The decision on who should be afforded the opportunity to submit on non-complying consent applications is made by the staff - BUT, and it's a BIG BUT, they only do so at the discretion of Elected Members as it is a delegated responsibility. EM's could take back the delegated authority and do their job on behalf of our residents, listen to the arguments for and against in regard who can or can submit (including residents in that process. The final decision will still be made by those 'actually hearing the application', the Commissioner(s). And here's another issue, half of the elected members being paid (in addition to their ratepayer EM income) to be hearings commissioners. These elected members have to choose between representing the community (what they were elected for, get paid for) and being a paid commissioner.


Cr Guy, please explain

Posted on 31-08-2012 14:21 | By Phailed

You say everybody but those directly affected will be consulted. But the story says that 97 surrounding landowners (presumably residents) can make submissions. So which is correct? You are after all an elected councillor and well paid to know exactly what the story is. What I'd really love to know is whether the money for the site will come back to the community, as isn't it meant to have some sort of charitable thing?


More questions for Cr Guy

Posted on 31-08-2012 14:30 | By Phailed

Please explain what's the awful difference about say a supermarket on this site and a booze barn and liquor shop that's already there? Please how come there's a booze barn there anyway if the site is residential? Also how come residents didn't get a say about your council buying a Speedway business, when they're affected by the sounds and traffic from that Speedway. I mean I believe it's your hobby, but how about some consistency councillor?


Freedom and democracy

Posted on 31-08-2012 14:48 | By Michael-angelo

The Bureta park restaurant and conference centre was a wonderful community facility, we used it a lot. A very large supermarket is about aggressive tactics from big business to increase profits by eliminating competition. Phailed should be interested that my wife comes from communist USSR where project decisions like this were decided democratically by community committees. This is dictatorship by the rich, aided by their mates in Council. Surely the developer can come up with a better idea than this,which perhaps could include smaller grocery shopping, resturants, community facilites, something for children, and speciality shops?


OUTRAGEOUS

Posted on 31-08-2012 14:51 | By Demandthetruth

Elected members it is quite obvious you are to blame because you are either TOO WEAK or vested interests...$$ STOP the STAFF NOW - call back the DELEGATED RIGHT provided by EM's to staff. Matua, Otumoetai, Brookfield, Bellevue is well served by Supermarkets & Minimarkets. In fact all of Tauranga is JUST BY THE WAY - this land was originally part of a Community Trust


no wonder nobody wants to invest in Tauranga

Posted on 31-08-2012 15:00 | By The Tomahawk Kid

I say what the hell has it got to do with ANYONE! Does the land belong to the person who purchased it or NOT? When it was purchased it should have had a zoning - commercial, residential or whatever. So long as what he builds on there meets that zoning criteria it should be nobodys damn business. No wonder nobody wants to build or invest in Tauranga - too many busyboddies wanting a say in what you can and cant do with your OWN PROPERTY.


I'm Curious

Posted on 31-08-2012 15:54 | By bigted

The history of this land is interesting. It was intended originally to be a school, until it was drained and found to be too low-lying. The land was then gifted to the city to be a liscensing trust tavern(ie profits to the community). Over the years it was upgraded and added to. Who sold the land to whom, when, why and for how much? Is this "commercially sensitive information"?


the first issue of concern ...

Posted on 31-08-2012 16:00 | By Murray.Guy

The Land is zoned residential. The first issue of concern is the process used by Council to decide who has a right to express an opinion in regard this 'non-complying activity'. Take a deep breath The Tomahawk Kid and Phailed, put aside your clouded mindsets and read - The first debate is not about what was there, is there, is proposed to be put there. Arguments about the actual proposed activity is another debate, albeit one which the residential community are being denied to meaningfully participate in. I repeat, the application site is zoned Suburban Residential (Proposed City Plan)/ Residential A (Operative District Plan) and the proposed activity in NON-COMPLYING. Phailed, change the record, it's cracked and distorted!


Cr Guy, it would be nice for you to get your statements correct

Posted on 31-08-2012 18:31 | By Phailed

You said that that everybody but those directly affected will be consulted, but anyone reading the story can read that 97 neighbouring properties (i.e.directly affected) will have the right to submit. What does that say about your mindset or does accuracy not matter? You are a councillor. As you say the site is residential, how did a booze outlet and booze barn get there in the first place? Why, Cr Guy do you tell me to change the cracked record when I ask things that seem to irritate you about Baypark and Speedway? I think the public needs to be constantly reminded about the purchase of a private Speedway business by your council and a $5 million loan to Baypark. I for one am more upset by that than someone wanting to change a commercial pub into a commercial supermarket on private property.


Real Estate opinion

Posted on 31-08-2012 18:48 | By Sandyshirl

Can't believe you have asked Stuart Gooch. Their company doesn't even have hundreds of properties for sale so what does that tell you about them. You need an opinion from Real Estate companies who really know the area, eg: Colliers, Harcourts or Eves. Get an opinion from someone who can currently prove they know properties.


Tomahawk

Posted on 01-09-2012 05:52 | By Butch

as usual bang on the head, the purchaser has bought the land, with covenents, and can do what they bloody please with it!!!, its the T.C.Cs problem for putting it up for sale, foe me I would have liked to see the site developed into small plots and used as a small niche shopping centre, mind you what the hell do I know, as I say the same about the C.B.D


observer

Posted on 01-09-2012 08:56 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

bring it on - build the supermarket - much better than the tired old pub. 100% improvement !!


MUST BE PUBLIC PROCESS

Posted on 01-09-2012 18:06 | By YOGI

For all to participate, the zoning does nto comply, it is a large project and many are affected, so all the city inhabiants should be allowed to put their two cents worth in the ring!


Observation on hypocrisy

Posted on 02-09-2012 10:01 | By Phailed

Reading the Sunlive columns over the years it seem to me that people want to be able to do what they like on their own properties BUT want to be able to stop other people doing what they like on theirs. I call that the H word, hypocrisy.


Traffic Flows

Posted on 02-09-2012 10:33 | By GM

With respect to the Countdown proposal it is a pity that submissions are not welcomed from the wider community. For those living in Matua, Cherrywood and Otumoetai this is the major route home and the change in traffic flows will effect us. The next issue will be traffic lights in Vale Street and Ngatai Road to control the flow. I do feel sorry for the residents directly around the area. Their property values will drop as their area becomes more commercial and busier. gangewe


Questions need to be asked

Posted on 02-09-2012 19:28 | By RORTSCAM

Really it is all very simple Councillors felt the RMA application should be fully publicly notified while some TCC pointy head decided on limited notification because that is what Countdown wanted saying the development was "minor'. Well it isn't minor and there are some major environmental issues with traffic and noise and do not forget these activities are NON COMPLYING activities in the TAURANGA RESIDENTIAL ZONE !!So suck on that.


@ GM

Posted on 03-09-2012 08:37 | By Phailed

Well using your logic, it's a pity people living in Bureta couldn't have stopped your houses being built in Cherrywood, Matua and Otumoetai because much of the traffic to and from there passes Bureta. As for your claim of dropping property values near commercial, just try and buy a "devalued" property near say Pak N Save in the Avenues???


?

Posted on 03-09-2012 09:54 | By maccachic

People keep demanding the Govt provide jobs, here is a new commercial activity which will employ many people and everyone is trying to stop it. Sigh (only if its not in my back yard aye?)


GM n PHAILED

Posted on 03-09-2012 13:24 | By PLONKER

The due process of a consent is being rail roaded on a fast track but of course that has the affect of shutting out everyone except a few. It is TCC staff who have made that decision because that is "what the developer wanted" you could argue that TCC is therefore being supportive of the development such that TCC have in effect eliminated 99.9999% of possible objectors by doing so. nevermind many are affected and get no say. Add to that a nice friendly Councilor will most likely be appointed as commissioner to see that the process is completed properly, i.e. approved and all possible reasons not to are ignored. That is democrocy as we know it mate!


256 Car Parks Required - No Roading Improvements Proposed

Posted on 03-09-2012 15:12 | By banana choc chip muffins

http://www.tauranga.govt.nz/news/notified-resource-consents/notified-applications/tabid/2013/aid/23629/tctl/4383_ViewAnnouncement/Default.aspx In the above link the traffic report states that 256 parking spaces will be provided but that the proposed supermarket '...can be safely and efficiently accomodated within the local traffic environment with no more than minor effects on the adjacent road network.' Give me a break, the ped crossings need upgrading and the intersections need work - the report states that NOTHING is required to be upgraded as many people will walk or cycle there. 256 car parks and no improvement in the intersections surrounding the supermarket - I will look for an increase in my roading rates 12 months after it opens then!


Perhaps developer should give up and let the moaners win

Posted on 03-09-2012 18:29 | By Phailed

Maybe the development should just stick with what I think is a grotty old booze barn and a liquor store on part of the site already occupied. Then build some cheap housing squeezed as tightly as possible onto the rest. Chop down the trees they own with the help of some councillor chainsaw. That would comply with the "rules" and satisfy all the whiners. Well it probably wouldn't but hey it would be in accordance with the rules??? Careful what you wish for, you might actually get it.


Somewhere over the rainbow

Posted on 03-09-2012 20:12 | By Scambuster

Yes 'muffy' that probably equates to 4000 additional vehicle movements a day many during peak traffic times and that is claimed to be minor????? Do me a favour TD and get off the grass you must be one short of a 6 pack to float that.


An alternative ...

Posted on 05-09-2012 09:10 | By Murray.Guy

Maccachic rightly highlights, "People keep demanding the Govt provide jobs, here is a new commercial activity which will employ many people and everyone is trying to stop it. Sigh (only if its not in my back yard aye?)" The first issue is surely the right of those folk who live, who have invested in a residential area, to have meaningful opportunities to consider proposed activities in their area that are non-complying. Surely it is not unrerasonable that folk be able to rely on their City Council to do it's best to ensure the integrity of the various zones are maintained and enhanced, that processes used are, not only fair and reasonable, but seen to be so. Maccachic, a zoning that automatically provides for a supermarket exists a kilometre or two towards the city, and guess what, the City Council has the permit site for supermarket - the former Placemakers site at Marsh Street.


CRACK UP

Posted on 05-09-2012 10:20 | By YOGI

Well it would be amazing if a majority walked or used a push bike to get to the supermarket. Every other supermarket in TGA or even NZ that does not happen like that.


Preferential Treatment ?

Posted on 05-09-2012 18:29 | By KAMIKAZE

All the Tauranga public are asking is that normal rules and considerations are applied and followed. In this case they were not so the question is why not and who was responsible.


Cr Guy and his precious rules

Posted on 05-09-2012 19:20 | By Phailed

Are these the same types of city rules that are hamstringing another developer over the old Power Board building? And what kind of city rules allow a booze barn and large liquor shop on the site, but not a supermarket??? Perhaps Cr Guy's council should take a look at silly rules like that. By the way the story says the immediate neighbours can submit on or oppose the proposal. Maybe some will see it as being a lot more attractive than the current drinking establishment and support it?


Countdown Go For It

Posted on 05-09-2012 20:31 | By tabatha

The only thing that annoys me is that Rushton Ave, which is some distance in comparison to other house is allowed to object (Please remember object does not always mean against but supports) and houses equal distance to Rushton were not given the opportunity. Yes Otumoetai did have another supermarket, New World, where the Bridge Club is now and also one at Cherrywood, caused no problems, we need competition and this group could give it to the area, go for it. Nearby neighbour and it can cause nomore problems then the pub didor has.


WAKE UP MURRAY

Posted on 06-09-2012 13:02 | By YOGI

Most ehre are not objecting tot eh supermarket plan, but they are about the lack of public consultion, like that the process is limited to but a few to participate. That si the real issue. Lets say there is an election tomorrow and only Bill "General Custy" Faulkner supporters are the only ones allowed to vote, how would you feel? What would you do about it?


SMELLY ROSES FROM MURRAY

Posted on 07-09-2012 09:11 | By TERMITE

You say: "rely on their City Council to do it's best ...". Sadly we have seen the results of Council doing its 'best' and that brings on major rigamortus for many in minutes at just the thought of what exactly is "Councils best". Best answer there is to just put up the shutters as "Katrina" is coming, no good, not that pretty and it is gunna be a rough ride that no one will forget ...


GONE WEST AT PACE

Posted on 09-09-2012 13:41 | By TERMITE

Common sense, in fact it left the Council chambers decades ago. This whole this is a RORT on ratepayers and the public at large. The RMA is being rail roaded through the back door yet many a little thing must do the full monty hearings and public submissions. Why is that?


No Countdown

Posted on 19-09-2012 12:49 | By Heatherap

Putting a Countdown supermarket on that site is on a par with grounding the Rena near Motiti Island. It is pollution of a beautiful central city site. Don't do it council please!


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.