The Bureta area's propensity for flooding was discussed in a submission made to the hearing on Progressive Enterprise application to build a supermarket at Bureta Park this week.

A submission made by Edward and Nancy Betts challenged the planners' assertions that there are no natural hazards at the site, saying the area flooded four times in recent weeks.

'The site is on a swamp and the old seabed is at an approximate five metre depth,” they say in submissions.

'With the very high water table rain does not soak into the ground, but in times of heavier or prolonged rain, water flows through neighbouring properties.”

The submission states stormwater flows from Bureta Park crosses the low lying parts of neighbouring properties and the walkway, and then flows from the front to the rear of the Betts' section.

It flows through the narrow gap between the house and garage to a drain at the rear of their property.

The Betts are concerned that the raising of the land for the supermarket building 1.25 metres above the surrounding areas will add significantly to the run off.

'We believe any raising of the land will exacerbate the problem the older low lying houses like ours have,” say the Betts.

'We have also been informed that when the motor inn is removed, the area will be levelled and grassed prior to the next step in the development. This we believe could cause more flooding.”

They ask if the site is not in a hazard zone, why has the Tauranga City Council notified the Betts that the area is low lying and part of the flood hazard zone.

They want Progressive Enterprises to build a bund round the all the properties on the northern side of the site - as was going to be required of the Perry development.

'As the flooding has not been negated we believe this is still necessary.'

There are several underground streams and several springs that cross under the site, say the Betts.

'We wonder what will become of these as we have a bore and treatment plant set up on one of the three that cross under our section.

'We hope that any work undertaken will not block this water as we believe the RMA states that 'The activity shall not obstruct or divert the water flow in such a manner that it results in damming.”

Progressive Enterprises have not presented a geotechnical report on the site as requested by the city council, with solicitor Andrew Braggins telling the commissioners that report would more properly be part of the building consents process, to be undertaken after they have resource consent.

The flooding issue was also raised by Rob Paterson speaking on behalf of local residents Geoff and Alayne Keogh.

He asked why a stormwater report meant to be discussed at a recent committee meeting has been deferred until February. In that report the Bureta/Pillans Point area is referred to and reference made to flood hazard maps.

It should have been made available to the commissioners, says Rob.

In addition to the flooding issue the council is also criticised in other submissions for stating the Progressive Enterprises application would be publicly, and then failing to tell those affected when it was decided to make the application a limited notification in line with Progressive Enterprises request.

The council is also criticised has also been slammed for failing to object as the land lord of the Vale Street elder housing, the residents of which will be affected by the traffic, and the loss of the parking outside the pensioner flats. There is no vehicle access to the flats and Vale Street parking is used by medical callers, visitors and meals on wheels.

Vale Street residents Neal and Val Butt say building a supermarket on the Bureta Park site will ruin the neighbourhood and create safety issues for the pensioner flat residents.

They don't want the development to go ahead at all, but are also objecting to the plan to shift the liquor shop from Bureta Road to Vale Street, across the road from them and destroying their neighbourhood amenity, an amenity supposedly protected under the planning bylaws.

It will not be screened off for security reasons, a fact the Butts say reinforces their view that Progressive Enterprises expects an increase in crime in the area.

'We understand the only reason The Mill is proposed to be located on Vale Street is because The Mill has a lease which has several years to run and thy think they can hold progressive to ransom demanding that they have a high profile site on Vale Street,” say the Butts.

'If Progressive want to bulldoze through this development not waiting for the lease to expire, then they should swallow the bitter commercial pill and buy the mill out. This is a blot on our outlook that we should not have to look at.”