‘On edge’: Tāhuna camp residents in limbo
Peter and Margaret Calvert have been living in their relocatable home at the Tāhuna Beach Holiday Park for 10 years. Photo: Kate Russell.
More than 100 long-term residents at the Tāhuna Beach Holiday Park (TBHP) could be facing eviction over a resource consenting issue that could sway the way of Nelson Airport’s runway extension plan at a formal hearing next week.
In June 2023, Nelson City Council accepted a private plan change request from Nelson Airport Ltd (NAL) which aims to alter existing designations and zoning in the Nelson Resource Management Plan.
The changes would provide the necessary planning approvals to support the airport’s future operations - including the ability to extend the main existing runway to the north within the next 10-15 years.
For the TBHP, that would mean almost the entire 22ha would be covered by the new Airport Effects Control Overlay, while a portion of the park would also be covered by the new Air Noise Boundary which would effectively prohibit activity in that area.
However, it has been discovered that TBHP park does not actually have resource consent to have its 115 long-term residents, despite trying to obtain it from council for the past four years, and a letter was sent to the residents on 19 April to inform them that they may be required to move if the plan change occurs.
Chief executive of TBHP, David Pattinson says they have been informed by their legal adviser that it will not be possible for the council to grant resource consent after the hearing if it goes in the airport’s favour.
“We know this is distressing news to many, including ourselves, and it is not definite but a possibility,” David said in the letter.
Until mid-2020, the park operated in accordance with the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan of 2004, formally adopted by the council in April 2004. This plan recognised the presence of long-term residents but limited their number to no more than 100 sites.
In 2019, the council determined that, because the Tāhunanui Reserve has never been vested as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, the management plan was of no effect.
Consequently, council staff identified that the ‘permanent’ village at the park was operating without a necessary resource consent.
After meetings in early 2021, David says they were “unhappy” with the council’s approach and took charge of the process.
In July 2021, the park submitted a resource consent application and a cultural impact assessment report. They were also asked to provide an impact report on residents of the noise of aircraft flying overhead, in which TBHP says no issues were identified.
In April 2023, David says the park was told that as long as they complied with the provisions in the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan, resource consent was not required. However, upon the park requesting a Certificate of Compliance from the council, he says they were told a resource consent was still needed.
“Since that time TBHP has been providing additional information requested by NCC to progress the resource consent.
“It does not appear likely that NCC will be issuing a resource consent any time soon,” David says.
“Should NAL succeed in gaining approval for its Notices of Requirement, our legal adviser’s opinion is that NCC will then be unable to issue TBHP with a resource consent.
“That would mean that the residential village as a whole would be non-compliant, and we would have no option but to cease occupation,” he says.
David says they will be doing “everything we can” to present a strong case at the hearing, which is being held from 13-17 May.
Long-term residents Peter and Margaret Calvert say they are all “on edge”.
The couple have called the TBHP home since September 2014 and live in a relocatable home on Beach View, which runs along the edge of the back beach estuary.
“This is our retirement home. We could uplift the house, but where do we go and how do we pay for the transportation and a section? The other option is we walk out of here and have nothing.”
David says some long-term residents have been living there for up to 25 years.
He says he is also “deeply concerned” about the noise effects on the park should the northern extension go ahead.
“We already receive complaints about the aircraft noise and conversation often has to cease when aircraft fly overhead,” he has said in his statement of evidence.
“My fear is that for an increasing number of guests, this may force them to consider other destination options.”
He believes that that a southern expansion option has been dismissed without adequate explanation, however, NAL has said that extending to the south would require reclaiming the seabed and would have a range of environmental effects.
The council’s chief executive, Nigel Philpott, says while he can’t expand on the outcome of the resource consent application until that process is complete, he is “confident” a solution can be found that works for all parties.
“I want to make it really clear that council has no intention of making anyone at the campground homeless,” he says.
“A resource consent has been applied for and our regulatory team is working on it as a priority.
“I empathise with the campground and its residents, they want some certainty around the status of their homes and that’s very understandable.”