OFFICIAL Wai 215, S6

Town and Country Planning and its Impact on Tauranga Maori Communities, c 1953 – 1990: A Summary and Analysis of the Existing Research

Leanne Boulton

September 2006

Report Commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal for Stage 2 of the Tauranga Moana Inquiry (Wai 215) Table of Contents

Introduction...... 4

Chapter 1: Maori Communities, Urban Growth and Local Government: Tauranga 1945 - 1990...... 9

1.1 Introduction ...... 9

1.2 Urban Growth in Tauranga: An Overview ...... 9

1.3 Location of Maori Land and Communities in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District ...... 12

1.6 Land Use Patterns and Maori Land in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District...... 19

1.7 Local Authorities and Urban Expansion in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District...... 23

1.8 Conclusion ...... 27

Chapter 2: Town and Country Planning Policy and Urban Expansion in the Tauranga Moana

Inquiry District ...... 28

2.1 Introduction ...... 28

2.2 Town and Country Planning Legislation: A General Overview...... 28

2.3 Planning Policy Regarding the Direction of Urban Growth in Tauranga ...... 39

2.4 Conclusion ...... 52

Chapter 3: Planning for Marae and Maori Communities in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District ...... 55

3.1 Introduction ...... 55

3.2 Marae and Maori Community Development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 ...... 55

3.3 Maori Community Development and Marae Community Zones in the Tauranga Inquiry District...... 60

3.4 Conclusion ...... 66

Chapter 4: Overview of the Impact of Town and Country Planning on Tauranga Maori Communities ...... 68

4.1 Introduction ...... 68

4.2 The Impact of Planning Policy and Process on Rural Maori Land ...... 68

4.3 The Impact of Planning Policy and Process on Maori Land Included in Urban Areas ...... 71

4.4 Conclusion ...... 79

Chapter 5: Town and Country Planning and Maori land at Whareroa...... 81

5.1 Introduction ...... 81

5.2 Whareroa and Government Plans for Urban Development ...... 81

5.3 Maori Plans to subdivide and sell the Whareroa Block ...... 83

5.4 Whareroa Owners’ Subdivision Plan overtaken by Government Development...... 85

2 5.5 Subdivision of the Remaining Maori Land at Whareroa ...... 92

5.6 The Impact of the Loss of Whareroa Land on Tauranga Maori...... 94

5.7 Conclusion ...... 98

Chapter 6: Town and Country Planning and Maori Land at Matapihi ...... 101

6.1 Introduction ...... 101

6.2 Planned Urban Expansion and the Pressure on Maori Land at Matapihi ...... 101

6.3 Maori Initiatives to develop their Land at Matapihi ...... 108

6.5 Conclusion ...... 119

Chapter 7: Town and Country Planning and Maori Land at Maungatapu ...... 123

7.1 Introduction ...... 123

7.2 National Planning for a Motorway through Maungatapu ...... 123

7.3 The Maungatapu Motorway and Demand for Residential Development...... 126

7.4 Local Body Boundary Changes and the Subdivision of Maori Land at Maungatapu...... 127

7.5 The Subdivision of Maungatapu Blocks and the Outcome for Maori Owners...... 131

7.6 Conclusion ...... 139

Chapter 8: Summary...... 142

Appendix 1: Direction Commissioning Research ...... 150

Bibliography and List of Further Reading ...... 152

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Location Map ...... 8 Figure 2: Towns and Villages, Tauranga, c. 1920...... 15 Figure 3: The Extent and Location of Maori Land in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District, c. 1950...... 16 Figure 4: Maori Land and Local Authority Boundaries, Tauranga, 1980 ...... 17 Figure 5: Changes to Administrative Boundaries of Urban Authorities, Tauranga, 1945 - 1980 ...... 25 Figure 6: Time Lapse View of Urban Boundary Changes, Tauranga, 1945 - 1980...... 26 Figure 7: Whareroa and the Port of Tauranga, 1950...... 80 Figure 8: Remaining Land for Sale, Whareroa...... 91 Figure 9: Whareroa and the Port of Tauranga, 1975...... 97 Figure 10: Matapihi Land Tenure, c. 1980 ...... 100 Figure 11: Waikari Marae Community Zone 1976, showing extension in 1977 ...... 114 Figure 12: Proposed Development Plan for Waikari Marae Community Zone, 1977 ...... 115 Figure 13: Tauranga District Outline Plan, Gabites & Beard, 1965...... 122

3 Introduction

Author

Leanne Boulton has a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature and First Class Honours and a Master of Arts with Distinction in History from the University of Canterbury. She has been a research officer at the Waitangi Tribunal since May 2002 and has completed a commissioned report on Native Townships for the Whanganui (Wai 903) inquiry and co-authored a report on Trusts and Incorporations for the Central North Island Stage 1 inquiry (Wai 1200). Her most recent report was a contextual scoping report on socio-economic issues for the National Park (Wai 1130) inquiry and a socio-economic and demographic profile of Maori in the Tauranga district, 2001 for stage two of the Tauranga Moana inquiry (Wai 215). She has also worked as a facilitator in the Whanganui and Urewera inquiries.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of a number of other members of the Waitangi Tribunal’s research staff in preparing this report. Tim Shoebridge undertook the initial scoping of the topic providing copies of the relevant casebook material and other secondary sources, and provided some initial thinking around the key issues. Jamie Mitchell located and copied district plans in Tauranga and provided a summary of their contents.

The Commission

This report has been commissioned for stage two of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Tauranga Moana inquiry (Wai 215) covering twentieth century issues. The report was commissioned to fill a gap identified in a review of the casebook in February 2006 with regard to Crown policy and legislation dealing with planning issues – and the local application of the same – during the urban expansion of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. The resulting commission asked that a report be prepared to examine ‘town and country planning in Tauranga Moana, 1953 – 1900, including the following matters: a) A summary and analysis of town and country planning themes in the existing research casebook for the Tauranga Moana district inquiry; and

4 b) Analysis of any causal connections between events described in the above research and the district or town planning schemes that were operative in Tauranga Moana at the time.’1

This report was designed to cover the period of rapid post-war urban expansion in Tauranga that coincided with the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 which made the preparation of district planning scheme compulsory for all local bodies (rural and urban). The period ends in 1990 just before the Resource Management Act 1991 was passed and town and country planning legislation repealed. The RMA and its impact on Maori in the Tauranga Moana district is the subject of a further report for this inquiry currently being prepared by Antione Coffin.

Scope and Methodology

This report draws together and provides and analysis of material relating to planning for urban expansion and its impact on Maori land and communities already available in the Tauranga Moana (Wai 215) casebook. The casebook contains a significant amount of material relevant to this issue. Unfortunately, much of the material is scattered. It is repeated in various research reports and is not focused on planning issues. This report attempts to gather this material together with regard to local body urban expansion policies affecting Tauranga Maori land and communities. As a summary and analysis of existing research this report obviously cannot be a definitive treatment of the issue. It should also be noted that this report is not intended to provide a detailed examination of town and country planning and local government legislation. This will provided by a separate report currently being undertaken by Professor Kenneth Palmer. His report should be read along side this report.

The current report consists of three parts. The report begins with a brief section outlining the context of urbanisation, Maori settlement and land use, and local bodies and their boundaries in the Tauranga Moana inquiry. The second section explores what is known about the planning policies and processes carried out by Tauranga local bodies.2 This section begins with an overview of town and country planning legislation and its provisions for protecting Maori interests and for Maori participation. This should be regarded as a brief overview to provide context for the remaining section. Readers should refer to Professor Kenneth Palmer’s report for a comprehensive discussion of the legislation. Section two has been limited to planning and development policy at a local level. An exploration of the national policy context was beyond the

1 Wai 215 #3.109 Direction Commissioning Research, 28 July 2006 2 Tauranga local bodies included the Tauranga Borough (later) City Council, the Mount Maunganui Borough Council and the Tauranga County Council. In this report (unless otherwise qualified) the name Tauranga refers to the area covered by these local bodies but excludes the area east of Papamoa that was administered by the County Council.

5 scope of this commission. The focus of this discussion of local planning policy is on the way local bodies planned and implemented strategies to direct and control urban growth, a key theme in post-war Tauranga.

The final part of this report draws together the key findings of the Tauranga research with regard to the impact of these policies and processes on Maori land and communities. This is followed by a summary of planning in several locations within the Tauranga city area. Three case studies were chosen: Maungatapu, Whareroa and Matapihi. These were selected, firstly, because they illustrate a range of factors and processes at work and a range of outcomes for Maori owners. Secondly, a significant body of research was available on each of these cases enabling a reasonably detailed discussion. It should be remembered that there are a number of other Maori communities in the Tauranga city area. Although those communities are not discussed here they were equally affected by urban expansion.

It should also be noted that in order to fully understand the impact of planning for urban expansion on Tauranga Maori it has been necessary to consider ‘planning’ in a wider context. As a result this report examines the planning policies and functions of local bodies under local government legislation as well as under town and country planning legislation. This report also touches on with the way in which the planning activities of the Ministry of Works and Tauranga Harbour Board contributed to planning for urban expansion. In addition, the report includes a limited discussion of the involvement of the Department of Maori Affairs, the Maori Land Court, Maori Land Board and the Maori Trustee in dealing with Maori land caught up in urban expansion.

Sources

As noted above, the main sources for this report are research reports previously filed on the Tauranga Moana (Wai 215) record of inquiry. A limited amount of other secondary material has been utilised. It appears that the most complete set of district planning scheme documents for the Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui areas are housed at the Tauranga City Library. These have been utilised in this report. Time did not permit a full search of the district plans of the former Tauranga County Council for the 1953 – 1990 period. The extensive work of the late Dame Evelyn Stokes on Tauranga and urbanisation concentrated on the Tauranga County. Marinus La Rooij’s comprehensive report on rating of Maori land covers aspects of the district schemes, they can be found at the Western Bay of Plenty District Council offices.

6 Further archival research was beyond the scope of this commission. Nor was it possible to explore a number of extensive document banks accompanying reports on the record of inquiry. However, footnotes have been made as detailed as possible to enable the reader to locate primary sources. The report bibliography also provides a list of Archives New Zealand files as well as research reports and document banks. In addition, both the Tauranga District Council and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council hold a significant body of material that can be consulted.

Structure of the Report

Chapter 1 of this report summarises existing Tauranga research to provide contextual information regarding the location and identity of Maori communities and the extent of Maori land over the 1953 to 1990 period. The chapter also discusses changing land use in the inquiry district over this period and how Maori land use fitted into these overall trends. Finally, this chapter discusses the local bodies and their administrative boundaries over this period.

Chapter 2 begins with a brief overview of the principal Town and Country Planning Acts passed in 1926, 1953 and 1977 and of local government legislation in this period. This material is drawn from existing research and is designed as contextual information for the remainder of the chapter. The second part of this chapter summarises what is known regarding the policies of Tauranga local bodies at a regional and district level with regard to the direction and extent of planned urban expansion in this period.

Chapter 3 is closely related to the previous chapter and draws together existing research regarding local body planning for the existence and continuation of Maori communities. Since the majority of Maori communities focused on rural marae during the 1950s and 60s, particular attention has been paid to policies relating to the use of rural land for housing. The second part of this chapter discusses what is known about one particular policy designed to assist Maori communities, the Tauranga County Council’s marae community zones policy.

Chapter 4 summarises the findings of the existing research with regard to the impact of the policies and mechanisms discussed in the previous chapters on Tauranga Maori land and communities. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 each deal with the impact of these policies on particular areas of Maori land: Whareroa, Matapihi and Maungatapu respectively. Chapter 8 provides a summary of the key points of the existing research with regard town and country planning policies and their impact on Tauranga Maori land and communities in the 1953 to 1990 period.

7

Chapter 1: Maori Communities, Urban Growth and Local Government: Tauranga 1945 - 1990

1.1 Introduction

In the Tauranga Moana inquiry district Maori communities and their land were affected by the rapid urban expansion and by local body planning policies designed to control and direct that it in the post-war period. This chapter summarises the existing casebook material to provide an overview of the rate and nature of this urban expansion and its impact on land use. It briefly identifies and locates Maori land and Maori communities at the start of this period. It also outlines which local bodies were responsible for planning urban growth and development and how their boundaries changed during the 1945 – 1990 period. This chapter is intended to provide a context for the discussions of planning policies and process and their impact that follow.

1.2 Urban Growth in Tauranga: An Overview

A number of authors have remarked upon the extraordinary pace and scale of Tauranga’s post- war urban expansion and on the impact that has had on Maori communities. The post 1945 period saw an increasing number of rural Maori around New Zealand migrating ‘from smaller centres to metropolitan centres to a new way of life.’ Both Nightingale and Stokes pointed out that the rate and scale of urban growth was such that ‘in Tauranga for many, the city came to them.’3 Stokes concluded that although ‘similar processes have been in operation elsewhere’ Tauranga was exceptional in that the pressures on land had been ‘so intense and involved such complete transformation of the lifestyle of Maori communities in a single generation.’4

The development of Tauranga’s roading and transportation from the 1910s onwards laid the foundation for urban growth. During the 1910s ‘the government started building the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line. This rail link was crucial because it connected Tauranga with other areas such as Auckland, Thames and the Eastern Bay of Plenty. It also became easier to reach Tauranga by road. Between 1926 and 1942, the number of formed roads in the district went from 643 to 1135.’5 A number of significant factors accelerated Tauranga’s urban growth after 1945. These include Tauranga’s emergence as ‘a major export port, a parabolic growth in the

3 Tony Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing: Tauranga 1945 – 1972’, 1996, Wai 215 #A41, p 6 4 Evelyn Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 2

9 timber industry’, from the logging of large central North Island pine plantations, and ‘the development of horticulture’.6 ‘By 1965 the port’s trade had grown from 56,000 tons in 1953 to 1 million tons … It was predicted that within 20 years Tauranga would be handling as much cargo as Wellington and Auckland.’ The Tauranga urban area provided ‘labour, transport and commercial services to the port.’7 ‘By 1971, development of port facilities at Mount Maunganui had snowballed’ with an expansion of the industrial area around the port.8 In the 1970s and 1980s: Tauranga maintained a steady population even at times when other cities or the country as a whole experienced declines in population. A particular feature of Tauranga’s growth would be the influx of retired and or almost-retired persons. In addition, Mount Maunganui was growing as a resort town.9 By 1999 according to Willan, ‘the port of Tauranga was New Zealand’s largest export port.’10

One of the key indicators of this rapid urban growth was an exponential growth in population. Walzl notes that ‘from 1945 to 1976 the population of the Tauranga district increased from 18,507 to 66,387 – more than triple.’ The greatest area of growth was the city of Tauranga where the ‘population increased more than eight-fold from a village of 4,700 to a city of more than 35,000.’ Mount Maunganui also experience rapid population increase, here the 1976 figure ‘was more than ten times that of the 1945 population of 989 persons.’11 Growth ‘was less spectacular (11,662 to 18,802)’ in the Tauranga County in this period.12 Population figures taken from the census from 1945 to 1981 are shown in the table 1 and graph 1 below.13

5 Rachel Willan, ‘From Country to Town: A Study of Public Works and Urban Encroachment in Matapihi, Whareroa and Mount Maunganui’, 1999, Wai 215 #F29, p 22 6 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing…’, 1996, p 6 and Evelyn Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North,1980, p 350 7 Tony Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine: Land Issues Overview, 1900 – 2000’, 2001, Wai 215 #N2, p 71 8 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 133 9 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 133 - 134 10 Willan,1999, p 23. It appears that Willan’s source for this statement was Jenny Chamberlin, ‘Terrific Tauranga’, North and South, April 1999, p 36 (see Hart, 2006, p 75 fnt) 11 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 64 - 65 12 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 64 13 Figures taken from Table 1.1 in Evelyn Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, Technical Report No. 14, prepared for the Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington,1983, p 18

10 Table 1: Total Population, Tauranga District 1945 – 1976

Area 1945 1956 1966 1976 1981 Tauranga County 11,662 18,853 14,584 18,802 21,111 Mount Maunganui Borough 989 3,432 6,815 10,103 11,413 Tauranga Borough/City 4,712 9,572 24,010 33,672 37,099 Te Puke Borough 1,144 1,925 3,024 3,810 4,556 Total 18,507 33,782 48,433 66,387 74,179 Tauranga Urban Area 9,628 20,245 33,822 48,153 52,924

Graph 1: Total Population, Tauranga District 1945 – 1976

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000 Total Population 10,000

5,000

0 1945 1956 1966 1976 1981 Tauranga County Mount Maunganui Borough Tauranga Borough/City Te Puke Borough

An article in the New Zealand Herald in October 1954 reported, ‘an astonishing commercial boom, bigger than anything it has known before, has brought Tauranga 7,500 new residents in the past five years, increasing the population by over 60 percent.’ Population growth, in turn, fuelled subdivision and road building. The County Engineer reported that in the year ending 31 March 1954 ‘a total of 97 subdivisional scheme plans had been dealt with, involving 957 new lots and 6.4 kilometres of new subdivisional roading.’ The following year this had significantly increased to 114 subdivisional scheme plans, 1,120 new lots and a further 3.2 kilometres of subdivisional roading.14 Stokes showed that growth in Tauranga in the early 1980s remained strong. She cited figures from the Tauranga City Council for the year ending 31 March 1982 showing a 60 percent increase in building permits in that period.15 With more and more housing,

14 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980, pp 328 - 330 15 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 101

11 the urban area expanded and ‘the boroughs of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui overflowed their administrative territories into the surrounding county.’ As a result ‘as early as 1951, the small villages surrounding Tauranga – Maori and European – were described as being ‘swallowed up’.16 In 1983 Stokes noted that ‘the expansion of the urban area has engulfed several marae – Judea, Hairini, Maungatapu and Whareroa.’17

1.3 Location of Maori Land and Communities in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District

1.3.1 Traditional Rohe and Marae

Kahotea provided a summary of the traditional identity and location of the two iwi, Ngaiterangi and Ngati Ranginui, in the area now covered by Tauranga City. He noted that land confiscation and Pakeha settlement in Tauranga had a significant impact on the land and resources of iwi whose ‘economy was based on fishing, shifting agriculture methods and food gathering’. These seasonal economic activities that meant that ‘for most of the year people were located away from a pa or main settlement.’ Kahotea suggested that Ngaiterangi were located in areas which could sustain their hapu in the immediate vicinity of the settlements, but Ngati Ranginui hapu depended on a larger resource range which incorporated forested hill country and harbour edge. The 50,000 acre Confiscated Block was land of the Ngati Ranginui and consequently they were severely affected by the reduction of their lands, especially the harbour area.18 Although, as Kahotea pointed out, hapu boundaries are fluid and dynamic with complex, often overlapping, use rights for land and resources, he was able to identify a number of hapu, their lands and marae.19 He indicated that the Bethlehem/Cambridge Road, Pyes Pa area is divided between Ngati Hangarau, Ngati Kahu and Ngai Tamarawaho.20 Kahotea showed the area around Poike as the traditional area of Ngati Ruahine, this is bordered by Ngaiteahi in the Hairini area at the base of the Maungatapu peninsula. He showed Ngati He as covering Maungatapu and Welcome Bay while Ngati Pukenga are shown as covering the Ngapeke area.21 He showed the area between Ngapeke and Te Maunga (including Papamoa) as the traditional area of Ngapotiki. At Te Maunga their area merges with that of Ngatitukairangi who cover the Omanu and

16 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 64. Stokes cites a 1951 New Zealand Herald article that reported that Gate pa had already be ‘swallowed up’ and was now within the borough boundary and that Greerton would soon follow (Sokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 328) 17 Stokes, Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 11 18 Des Kahotea, ‘Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy: Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, Wai 215 #A17, p 10 19 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, pp 14 - 18 20 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, figure 3, p 11 21 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, figures 4 & 5, pp 13, 15

12 Whareroa areas and the lower part of the Matapihi peninsula. Kahotea showed the tip of this peninsula as the traditional area of Ngati Tapu.22

1.3.2 Maori Land and Communities Post - World War II

Rapid urbanisation affected Maori in the Tauranga district particularly because in the 1950s Maori lived in ‘many rural marae with a cluster of households around each and some scattered households on family farms, mainly dairy units.’23 Stokes indicated that: The large majority of marae in the Tauranga district are traditional, community-based marae located on sites which have been continuously occupied at least since the late nineteenth century… By the 1920s the present pattern of marae was firmly established. The only major change has been the establishment of a new marae at Hungahungatoroa by Ngati Tukairangi in the 1960s. The location of Maori settlements by 1920 is shown in Figure 1.

Table 2 showing census figures for Maori population from 1926, 1936 and 1945 indicates that the overwhelming proportion of Maori in the Tauranga area lived in the rural area within the county (neither the Tauranga or Mount Maunganui urban areas were part of the Tauranga county). These figures support Stokes’ assessment that ‘the towns remained dominantly Pakeha’.24 However by 1981 a greater number of Maori lived in Mount Maunganui than lived in the Tauranga county and there had been a significant increase in the number of Maori living in Tauranga city.25

Table 2: Tauranga District Maori Population Figures, 1926 – 198126

Area 1926 1936 1945 1981 Tauranga County 2,218 2,883 3,222 3,771 Mount Maunganui Borough - 6 19 4,368 Tauranga Borough 46 47 87 1,941 Te Puke Borough 19 18 30 678 Total 2,283 2,954 3,358 10,758

22 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, figure 4, p 13 23 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 9 24 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 9. This geographic and cultural separation is graphically illustrated by the language used by Maori petitioning the Tauranga Borough Council in 1936 regarding rest room facilities for Maori women and children visiting Tauranga. This petition is reproduced in full in Tony Nightingale, ‘Tauranga Moana: A Social and Economic Impact Report, 1986 – 1960’, 1996, Wai 215 #A39, pp 55 - 56 25 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 31

13 So by the early 1950s, Maori land and marae communities were concentrated on the islands of Matakana and Rangiwaea and around the eastern harbour, with some forest blocks inland of Tauranga and a hill country block at Poripori developed for pastoral farming. Within the confiscated block and the purchased area west of the Te Puna Stream, Maori land is limited to small ‘compensation reserves’ awarded in 1869.’27 The location and extent of Maori land in 1950 is shown in Figure 3. By 1980 the area in Maori ownership had been reduced. This is shown in Figure 4.

26 Figures taken from Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 9 & Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 31 27 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 4

14

Figure 3: Maori Land in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District, c. 1950 (Based on La Rooij, Wai 215 #P14, 2002, Plate 3, p 62)

16

1.4 Changing Rural Land Use in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District

Urban sprawl was not the only change to the land use in the Tauranga district in the post war period. There were also considerable changes to the types of agriculture being undertaken. These changes affected the policies of the Tauranga County Council with regard to district planning, in particular those policies relating to subdivision of rural land. Such policies impacted upon the ability of Maori to utilise their land as they wished. Some of these changes in land use patterns resulted in higher property values which, in turn, raised Maori land values. This increased rates and put pressure of Maori owners to sell land to clear rate arrears. These themes are explored further in chapters four to seven of this report.

Stokes described how the initial nineteenth century European settlement ‘at Tauranga, Katikati and Te Puke formed the nuclei for subsequent expansion of European pastoral farms’. By the 1920s dairying had become well established in the coastal lowlands with sheep and some cattle raised on the hill country, ‘but in the 1940s there were still large areas of undeveloped land.’28 A number of factors constrained growth in pastoral farming in the Tauranga district before 1940: Farmers in the district found drainage of coastal swamp areas difficult and some areas remained largely undeveloped until quite recently whilst limited access and poor soils in the upland areas rendered them unattractive and uneconomic to any but the extensive farmers.29 In the post-war period there was considerable attention given to bringing more land into production and increasing livestock productivity. Stokes stated that In November 1944, Tauranga County Council outlined the main areas for rural developments to be: bringing in the large areas of fern country, breaking in land for sheep, and raising the carrying capacity of land for dairy production, reclamation of swamp lands and expansion of citrus culture. The success of this strategy in the 1950s and 60s ‘was reflected in increasing stock numbers in the county.’30 National innovations such as the discovery of cobalt as a cure for bush sickness in the mid-1930s and top dressing of pasture after 1945 also contributed to the expansion of pastoral farming in this period.31

28 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 16 29 Neil G Hansen, Tauranga County, 1945 to 1989: the story about the post World war II years, of wide ranging development, until local government reorganisation, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Tauranga, 1995, p 12 30 Evelyn Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 16 31 Hansen, 1995, p12

18 By 1960 the rural economy of the Tauranga county ‘was predominately based on pastoral farming.’32 In 1965 AFFCO established a meatworks at Rangiuru and this developed into an Export Slaughter House dealing with sheep and cattle in 1968. The port at Mount Maunganui provided a means of exporting the produce.33 The post-war period also saw strong growth in dairying with 52,000 cows in milk in 1947 increasing to 95,000 by 1970. However after 1970 many dairy units were subdivided and converted to horticulture and the number of milking cows dropped back to 56,000 in 1990.34 In the early 1980s deer became ‘an alternative animal farmed for their meat, antler velvet and hides.’ The first statistics for deer numbers in the Tauranga district were released in 1988 when 27,381 deer were record, by 1990 this had risen to 38,582. No doubt some farmers previously running drystock or dairy herds diversified into deer in this period.35 There were also a small number of intensive pig and poultry farms in the district, as well as a small amount of goat farming which peaked in the late 1980s.36

However, the most significant change in rural land use in the post-war period was a very significant growth in horticulture including kiwifruit, citrus, berry fruits, pit fruits and a variety of sub-tropical fruits. With regard to the Tauranga County Neil Hansen, the County Engineer and later director of planning and development between 1946 to 1981, noted that: In the late 1950s, horticulture generally began to increase and by 1964 there were 416 hectares in orchards, market gardens and nurseries. From then on there was a steady increase in horticultural products from this 416 hectares until by 1971 (i.e. seven years later) the totals rose to 1,486 hectares. By 1990 the area used for horticulture had increased markedly to 14,000 hectares.37 A major contributor to this increase was the kiwi-fruit boom of the late 1970s and 1980s. ‘In 1964 there were 33 hectares of kiwifruit plantings; that increased dramatically over the following years until by 1988 there were 9,840 hectares.38

1.6 Land Use Patterns and Maori Land in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District

Kahotea provides a brief summary of Maori land use patterns in the Tauranga district in the twentieth century. He suggested that ‘by 1900, depending on individuals or sufficient amount of area, commercial farming on Maori land was limited and followed the trends of Pakeha farmers in

32 Evelyn Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 16 33 Hansen, 1995, p13 34 Hansen, 1995, p13 35 Hansen, 1995, p13 36 Hansen, 1995, p14 37 Hansen, 1995, p19

19 the area such as cereals, wheat, livestock and later dairying.’ However ‘subsistence horticulture’ was also a ‘common pattern of use on the harbour edge and islands.’ Kahotea commented that ‘Maori were unable to borrow on their land for development’ and this ‘restricted the potential for commercial agriculture.’ 39 A 1953 land use plan of the Tauranga indicates that the remaining Maori land around Welcome Bay and Rangataua Bay and Papamoa was largely in mixed farming and dairying. The western side of the Maungatapu peninsula and the whole of the Matapihi peninsula were in fruit and market gardens. There was some undeveloped Maori land at Te Maunga, Hairini and between Welcome Bay and Ngapeke.40

From the 1930s there were several small Maori land development schemes established on the Mangatawa-Papamoa block, Ngapeke, Maungarangi and Kaitemako and later, in 1954, on the Poripori-Kumikumi block. ‘Ngapeke, Maungarangi and Kaitemako were used to settle a number of individual farmers on dairying units.’41 However, ‘there was little funding allocated to Tauranga because there were no great areas of land left’ after ‘confiscation, arranged sales [and] voluntary selling’. As a consequence the number and scale of these schemes was limited. A good example of these difficulties was Matapihi. In 1938 the Native Department reported that there were between 40 to 50 families living there and that about a dozen were engaged in farming operations. The dwellings were said to be of a ‘poor class’.42 Rose noted that in 1937 Matapihi peninsula was not considered suitable for a development scheme because ‘the people have very small individual interests, the holdings are small and the principal farming occupation is growing maize in small patches. Little stock is carried and much of the land is overrun badly with noxious weeds.’43

After World War II ‘all coastal lowlands, Rangiwaea and Matakana Islands were involved in dairy farming, or small scale livestock raising.’ Most of these farming units were ‘leasehold on multiply- owned blocks and rental was based on valuation.’ Some owners and other Maori were able to lease these blocks but ‘as small units became uneconomic by the 1960s, leasing of land to Pakeha farmers became common.’ Leases did generate some income for the Maori owners of the block but this ‘was generally a negligible sum to each individual owner in multiply-owned land’,

38 Hansen, 1995, p19 39 Des Kahotea, ‘Western Bay of Plenty Urban Development Study: Taha Maori/Maori Perspectives’, 1986, Wai 215 #A16, p 8 40 ‘Tauranga District Outline Plan’, A L Gabites, Town Planning Consultant, 1953, TCC/TDC, Town Planning file, New Zealand Room, Tauranga City Library 41 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 9 42 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p pp 15 – 26 43 Kathryn Rose, ‘The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori, 1865 – 1965’, 1997, Wai 215 #A38, p 153 citing AAMK 869/829b, supporting documents, volume IV, pp 1303 – 1312, p 1303

20 often it was only enough to ensure the payment of rates.44 When adjacent non-Maori land in the coastal lowlands was subdivided for horticulture from the 1970s, there was ‘a threat of alienation through high land values, with rates and lease rentals based on valuation.’ This ‘meant dairying income could not keep up or compete with horticulture.’45 Maori and Pakeha farming Maori land that had previously been placed under receivership leases to clear unpaid rates faced particular challenges. According to La Rooij, ‘valuation-based rentals along with increasing rates made established forms of agriculture in the district unprofitable.’ In 1978 it was estimated that values for some blocks had increased by anything from 300% to 1,000% from the previous valuation.46 La Rooij concluded that ‘both Maori landowners and many of those leasing Maori land, were completely unprepared for the rapid change in economic conditions.’47

Stokes also noted these pressures on Maori land as horticulture expanded in the Tauranga district. She indicated that ‘by the late 1970s a number of elders were encouraging local people to participate in horticultural development on Maori blocks.’48 A seminar was held at Hungahungatoroa marae at Matapihi on 24 March 1979. The seminar was opened by Turi Te Kani, rangatira of the marae, who outlined the challenges Maori landowners faced49: High values, based on the land’s potential as a marketable product, with the resultant influence on rating and the like, coupled with ever rising costs, have rendered normal pastoral farming inadequate and incapable of sustaining good farming practices or showing reasonable income at the end of each financial year.50 For Te Kani the solution was to follow ‘the lead given to us by our European neighbours, in an extensive change to horticultural farming’. He warned that ‘if we fail to read the signs and act accordingly, Maori farmers are going to end up as the casualties of the farming industry … and this can only mean the further, and even total alienation of Maori land from Maori ownership.’51

Te Kani saw obvious financial benefits of moving to horticulture, but he also saw some important social and cultural benefits for Maori communities. He emphasised that this would be a ‘more lucrative form of farming which would produce a satisfactory return on capital invested.’ It would but would also, ‘very importantly’, provide ‘a challenge to our young people’. He recognised that horticulture was far more intensive than pastoral farming. A 150 acre dairy farm would support

44 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p9 45 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p9 46 La Rooij, 2002, p 118 citing ‘Leases Committee working papers’, n/d [c. 47 La Rooij, 2002, p 120 48 Stokes, The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 142 49 Turi Te Kani was a veteran of the 28th Maori Battalion and was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal from 1988 to 1990. He died in 1990 after being hit by a bus at a tangi. 50 ‘Opening Address: Mr Turi Te Kani’, A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 2

21 one family but if the same property were subdivided into 10 acre lots and used for horticulture it could support anything up to 15 families. Thus the 800 acres of Maori land on the Matapihi peninsula could support 70 to 80 families.52 Minister of Maori Affairs, Ben agreed with Te Kani that horticulture could provide ‘greater opportunities for employment of local people and provides substantial social benefits in that it encourages families and communities to retain their traditional identity and ties to the land.’53

Much of the seminar focused on how Maori might obtain finance and training for successful horticultural development since they were the two key obstacles facing Maori considering horticultural conversion. There was some government assistance for Maori for these purposes, for example in 1974 an advisory committee to the Maori Land Board had been established.54 By 1979 this committee was empowered to ‘help consider proposals for the improvement of title to Maori land and the change of use of any Maori land.’ The Maori Land Board could then provide some financial assistance to the ventures they approved. Couch gave as an example the assistance Kihi Ngatai at Matapihi had received in establishing a kiwifruit farm and stated that ‘other loans have been given for boysenberries, market gardening and kumaras.’55

In 1983 Stokes noted that the Ngamawawa Incorporation had become involved in forestry in the Kaimai area and that the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation had begun to venture into horticulture. At Mataipihi the Matapihi-Ohuki Trust had been formed under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 this included: over 50 small blocks in multiple ownership…[and] this trust has arranged some horticultural development already and further negotiations are continuing. Ngai Tukairangi Trust is a large orchard scheme at Matapihi involving amalgamation of titles and Maori Land Board finance for kiwifruit and other subtropical fruit, particularly avocados.56 In addition, the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board has also purchased a kiwifruit orchard and ‘a few other Maori orchardists have obtained funds from the Rural Bank. The Tauranga tribes have also joined with Haurahi Developments Limited, a joint venture between several Maori trusts and

51 Opening Address: Mr Turi Te Kani’, A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 2 52 Opening Address: Mr Turi Te Kani’, A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 2 53 ‘Reply and Opening of Seminar’, Hon. Ben Couch, Minister of Maori Affairs, A seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 5 54 The committee consisted of ‘Maori representatives, who are assisted by senior officers of the departments of Maori Affairs, Lands and Survey and Valuation’ (Reply and Opening of Seminar’, Hon. Ben Couch, Minister of Maori Affairs, A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 5) 55 Reply and Opening of Seminar’, Hon. Ben Couch, Minister of Maori Affairs, A seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 5 56 Stokes, The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 145

22 incorporations in the Bay of Plenty and TNL Export Limited.’ Stokes concluded that ‘all this horticultural development on Maori lands suggests that Maori people are participating fully in local growth.’ 57 Whether these ventures enjoyed long-term success despite the barriers of finance, specialist horticultural expertise and title difficulties remains to be seen.

1.7 Local Authorities and Urban Expansion in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District

Until the local government reforms of 1989 the Tauranga Inquiry district was administered by three local authorities: two urban authorities, the Tauranga Borough (later City) Council and the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, and the rural authority, the Tauranga County Council.58 Boroughs and cities were regulated by the Municipal Corporations Acts while the Counties Acts governed counties, later all local bodies were regulated by the Local Government Acts. In addition, as noted above, local bodies had the power to plan and regulate development in their territory under the Town and County Planning Acts.

There were considerable changes to the boundaries of each of these local bodies in the 1953 to 1990 period. As the urban areas expanded they overflowed into the lands administered by the county. Periodically the boroughs applied to the Local Government Commission to have their boundaries expanded. ‘Over the period 1945-1968 some 4,463 hectares were transferred from County Council jurisdiction to local municipalities, a change from rural to urban use.’59 These boundary changes are shown on maps 3 and 4. However, it should be remembered that the official boundaries of the Tauranga and Mount Maunganui did not strictly correspond to the extent of the urban area. Kahotea noted that the urban-rural boundary was becoming less distinct as early as the 1950s: As areas of the County were absorbed into the neighbouring borough, the County became involved in providing a semi-permanent type of urban administration alongside the normal function of a rural Local Body.

The Tauranga County Council encouraged sporadic rural-urban development and during the 1950s was dealing with a number of subdivisional scheme plans in the County along

57 Stokes, The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 147 58 Tauranga Borough Council (23 February 1882 – 156 April 1963) became the Tauranga City Council (17 April 1963 – 31 October 1989) and Tauranga District Council (1 November 1989 – 29 February 2004) and Tauranga City Council from 1 March 2004 onwards. Mount Maunganui Borough Council (15 March 1945 – 31 October 1989). 59 Stokes, The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 21

23 the outskirts of the Tauranga Borough. Greerton, gate Pa, Otumoetai and Maungatapu were areas where these developments occurred.60 By the 1980s the boundaries between rural and urban areas in the Tauranga area had become thoroughly blurred, and the city and county councils no longer administered strictly urban and rural areas respectively. Walzl notes that ‘by the 1980s there had been expansions of city services to partially developed areas within the County although no formal boundary adjustment had occurred since 1968.’61

60 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p13 61 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 149 citing ‘Tauranga City Council Submissions to Local Government Commission, 27 September 1985, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 box 10 supporting papers doc. 11

24

1.8 Conclusion

Existing research suggests that the post-war urban expansion of Tauranga was particularly rapid with the consequent expansion of the administrative boundaries of the Tauranga Borough/City Council and the development of a semi-urban fringe in the Tauranga County. At the beginning of this period Maori land and communities were overwhelmingly located in rural areas, clustered around marae. However, rapid population growth, the expansion of the boundaries of the urban authorities and increasing demand for residential land saw many Maori communities ‘swallowed up’ by the Tauranga urban area. Stokes concluded that this process had a profound affect on the lifestyle of Tauranga Maori. A comparison between remaining Maori land in 1940 and the sequence of boundary expansions for Tauranga (Figure 2 and Figures 3 and 4) demonstrates that urban expansion threatened Maori land around the eastern edges of Tauranga Moana. Maori land use in rural areas tended to follow the farming trends of land rural land in the district moving from pastoral farming (especially dairying) in the 1950s and 70s to horticulture from the late 1970s early 1980s onwards. However, there is evidence that many Maori faced difficulties in developing their land and that there were larger areas of Maori land being used for subsistence or semi-subsistence agriculture. Although some Maori landowners were able to develop their land for horticulture it is unclear from the existing research whether these ventures have been sustainable.

27 Chapter 2: Town and Country Planning Policy and Urban Expansion in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District

2.1 Introduction

Nightingale noted that the acceleration of Tauranga’s urban growth ‘occurred at the same time as Government empowered local authorities to plan the development of their territories under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953.’ He argued that this ‘legislation left local authorities free to make a range of decisions critical for Maori development – both in terms of where they lived and how their communities developed.’62 This chapter examines the general policy of the Tauranga local bodies operating under this legislation. In particular, this section explores policies relating to the direction and extent of urban expansion. Attention is also paid to how these policies were put into practice using mechanisms available to local bodies under the town and country planning legislation. As mentioned in the introduction, this is essentially a synthesis of material already available on the Wai 215 record of inquiry with some further material provided by secondary literature and Tauranga district planning schemes.

2.2 Town and Country Planning Legislation: A General Overview

This section of the chapter provides a brief general overview of the powers and obligations delegated by the Crown to local bodies under the town and country planning legislation and under local government legislation, principally the Municipal Corporations Acts and the Counties Acts. This section also summarises the findings of existing research regarding the provisions in town and country planning legislation for the protection of Maori interests and for Maori participation in the planning process. This is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the provisions but an attempt to provide a context for understanding the discussion of Tauranga local body planning policy that follows.63

2.2.1 Town and Country Planning Legislation

2.2.1(a) Introduction Town and country planning legislation was designed to enable local bodies to carry out two related functions; to plan for future development, and to control land use. Kenneth Palmer noted that ‘planning connotes a concern for the physical design’ of a built environment whereas ‘land use regulation can be more broadly applied to the placing and relationship between activities on

62 Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga Maori…’,1996, p 6 63 Professor Kenneth Palmer’s report will provide this analysis and this report should be read alongside the current report

28 land and within buildings.’ In general, ‘forms of land use control, including zoning, may be considered as a means to implement future planned development.’64 Land use controls are future orientated, rather than being ‘used to alter what is being lawfully done at a given time’ their focus is on regulating ‘the future changes in land use.’65 Town and Country Planning legislation empowered local bodies to prepare district planning schemes to lay out general principles and policies regarding future development. Local ordinances facilitated and controlled that development. By 1977 town and country planning legislation required every district scheme to include a statement of particular objectives and purposes of the scheme and policies to achieve them, and indication of the reasons and sequence by which this will be done, a Code of Ordinances and maps to illustrate the proposals and any other material necessary to explain the scheme. Schemes must contain controls, prohibitions and incentives as are necessary or desirable to promote the purposes and objectives.66 The Code of Ordinances specified ‘the different land uses permitted within each zone and categorising these into those permitted as of right, those which may be permitted conditionally and those which may be permitted subject to Council’s discretion in respect of building design and landscaping.' Traditionally land has been zoned as ‘rural, residential, commercial and industrial.’ 67

2.2.1(b) The Town Planning Act 1926 ‘The Town Planning Act 1926 was the first attempt to formalise planning procedures for towns and cities, and in 1929 it was amended to provide for regional planning.’ It introduced a number of mechanisms that became the foundation of later legislation. In particular ‘it began the concept of ‘zoning’, or the allocation of different activities to predetermined areas.’ It also made the district planning scheme the central means by which local bodies expressed policies and objectives in relation to development in their districts. However, the 1926 Act required only ‘local authorities with a population of 1000 or more to prepare formal town planning schemes’, counties. Urban authorities with less than 1000 people were not required to prepare a planning scheme.68 As a result ‘Maori, who still lived mainly in rural areas, had little contact with the planning process.’69 Administratively, the Act established a Town Planning Board, whose role was to approve planning schemes submitted by local bodies, and a ‘Director of Town Planning

64 Kenneth Palmer, Planning Law in New Zealand, Sweet & Maxwell (NZ) Ltd, Wellington, 1977, p 1 65 C D Scott, ‘Land Value, Rating, Zoning and Land Use: Some Interrelationships and their Influence on Planning’, prepared for the Town and Country Division of the Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington,1982, p 11 66 Scott, 1982, p17 67 Scott, 1982, p18 68 ‘14.2 Environmental and Resource Management’, New Zealand Official Year Book 1990, Department of Statistics, Wellington, 1990, p 423

29 responsible to the Minster of Internal Affairs, later the Minister of Works.’ However, the Depression and a shortage of trained town planners meant that by 1939 ‘only a handful of authorities had prepared district plans.’70

Willan concluded that the Town Planning Act 1926 provided only limited avenues for those Maori whose land was included in urban areas between 1926 and 1953. She noted that the 1926 Act included provisions for public input and consultation about town plans, but it did not specifically mention Treaty issues or consultation with Maori. As occupiers of rateable property, Maori had the right to object to the plan, but they could not object as Treaty partners. Additionally, neither the National Town and Country Planning Board nor the Minister was obligated to consult with Maori owners or authorities.71

2.2.1(c) The Town and Country Planning Act 1953 Marr noted that various pieces of legislation continued to regulate planning and provided ‘procedures governing the use to which land could be put, types of development permitted and approval of developments. Processes included planning schemes, designated uses, zoning and subdivision requirements such as public reserves contributions.’ This legislation included ‘the 1944 Finance Act, the 1948 and 1953 Planning Acts and their amendments, and the Land Subdivision in Counties Acts of 1946 and 1961.’ 72

The Town and Country Planning Act 1953 Act ‘made compulsory the requirements for District Schemes that local governments had been ignoring since the earlier Act of 1926.’73 ‘For the first time legislation made provision for planning documents in all districts covered by a local authority, both urban and rural … hence this legislation brought many Maori within its bounds, who had not been greatly affected in the past.’74 The 1953 Act ‘tightened the requirements for local authorities to spell out their planning schemes and, having abolished the earlier board, established a Town and Country Planning Appeal Board’ (later the Planning Tribunal).75‘The Act established a public consultation process for the preparation and approval of district planning schemes, ‘whereby it was prepared in draft form first, then objections could be made and considered before a final scheme was brought down and declared to be operative for the next

69 Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga Maori…’, 1996, p 8 70 14.2 Environmental and Resource Management’, New Zealand Official Year Book 1990, p 423 71 Willan, 1999, p 12 72 Marr, ‘Crown-Maori Relations in Te Tau Ihu: Foreshores, Inland Waterways and Associated Mahinga Kai’, 1999, Wai 785 #A61, p 128 73 Irene B Gollop, ‘The History of Town Planning, Government Policy and the Provision of Low-cost Housing’, MA thesis (Anthropology). University of Auckland, Auckland, 1995, p 19 74 Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga Maori…’, 1996, p 8 75 14.2 Environmental and Resource Management’, New Zealand Official Year Book 1990, p 423

30 five years, when a review and a new scheme was required.’76 Under the 1953 Act district planning schemes divided the area within the boundaries of a local authority into a series of zones. ‘Each zone had its own rules about what could or could not be allowed.’ Land uses within each of these zones were categorised into three types: • ‘Predominant uses, which were allowed as a right • Conditional uses, which were regarded as acceptable in principle, but had to be vetted to see if the particular site was suitable, or if any particular conditions would be imposed • Other uses, which required approval under an application and approval process known as specified departure.’77

The 1953 Act offered little by way of protection for Maori interests. Auckland lawyer Steve Bielby concluded that ‘the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 failed to make express provision for Maori interests … Although evidence of the special interests of a particular group was relevant in assessing the planning needs of that group no guidelines existed as to their status relative to other planning considerations.'78 More specifically Willan found that there were ‘provisions for public notification and consultation, but it did not mention Treaty issues.’ However, Maori could address town and country planning issues as landowners and occupiers but not simply as members of the general public or of hapu.79 However, as town planner Ree Anderson noted ‘public participation … is not limited to what the law stipulates,’80 there was nothing in the legislation to stop local bodies involving the public (and Maori) in the planning process to a greater degree than the legislation required.

This lack of provision for Maori interests had a number of consequences. It ‘meant, for example, that if a hapu had a wahi tapu on land that it did not own, which was going to be adversely affected by a planning decision, they had no legal means to voice their opposition to the decision.’81 Willan also noted that the costs of objecting to planning schemes and decisions may have discouraged Maori participation in the process. She concluded that in the period between the 1953 and 1977 Town and Country Planning Acts: Professional town planners were more common and the process became increasingly captured by lawyers and developers … objecting to district and regional schemes became

76 Alexander, ‘Land Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, June 2006 (Draft for Northland Inquiry), p 224 77 Alexander, 2006, p 224 78 Steve Bielby, ‘Section 3(1)(g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977’, Auckland University Law Review, 1988 Vol. 6, No. 1, p 52 citing Palmer, 1977, pp 34 – 54 and Morris v Hawke’s Bay County Council (1977) 6 NZTPA 219 79 Willan,1996, p 12 80 Ree Anderson, ‘Planning for Maori Needs’, Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Auckland, 1983, p 14

31 an expensive business, and its unlikely that the general public or Maori authorities had the resources to compete with the developers and their counsel.82 Town planner Stephen Thomsen also cited a comment by Robert Mahuta regarding these barriers, Mahuta suggested that much of the problem lay in the fact ‘that Maori communities, generally speaking, are less well organised, less educated, and less able to afford the expenses involved in compiling and preparing evidence for costly litigation suits.’83 Thomsen argued that there were also a number of cultural reasons why Maori found it difficult to engage with the town and country planning process. He pointed out that ‘the objection and appeal system contrasts sharply’ with Maori decision-making at hui. The speed of the Town and Country planning objection and appeal processes often did not accommodate these cultural practices.84 Thomsen also suggested that the pre-1977 focus on the Town and Country legislation on the physical environment rather than on the protection of social and cultural values may have deterred some Maori from engaging with the regime.85

2.2.1(d) The Town and Country Planning Act 1977 The New Zealand Maori Council’s submission to the select committee on Town and Country Planning in 1977, cited by Thomsen, indicates a level of Maori frustration with the provisions and operation of the Town and Country Planning regime under the 1953 Act. The submission stated that: The existing statute has for far too long been a matter of grave concern and serious and continuing strife for the Maori race. Some of the effects of the existing statute have been very poor communications; lack of real participation; cumbersome machinery; incomprehensible district schemes; lack of clear objectives and policies; the frustration of Maori land improvement schemes aimed at promoting the better administration and utilisation of land …. Planning provisions for the affluent without adequate residential zoning; lack of provision and protection for maraes, traditional and cultural usages of historical places.86

As a result of these submissions and other lobbying, the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 required local bodies ‘to pay more attention to community interests, including Maori concerns.’87 The 1977 Act also reflected a shift in planning philosophy taking the legislative regime ‘beyond

81 Willan,1999, pp 12 - 13 82 Willan,1999, p 13 83 Stephen Thomsen, ‘A Critique of Planning Practices with Special Reference to Maori Communities – A Non-European Perspective’,1979, p 32 84 Thomsen, 1979, p 33 85 Thomsen,1979, pp 32 - 33 86 Thomsen,1979, p 23

32 the purely physical planning of the 1953 Act, and added social and cultural dimensions as well.’88 In particular, the 1977 Act set out a number of ‘matters of national importance’ to be considered in the drawing up district, regional and maritime planning schemes. Three of these had being required under a 1973 amendment to the 1953 Act but a fourth was now added, ‘the relationship of the Maori people and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land.’89 In addition, Councils preparing district and regional planning schemes were required to make ‘provision for marae and ancillary uses, urupa reserves, pa, and other traditional and cultural Maori uses’. 90

There may have been some delays and difficulties for councils in implementing these provisions. In March 1979 the chairman of the Tauranga County Council noted these provisions in the 1977 Act but admitted that ‘my Council has yet to receive comments from its planning advisers on this particular question and I am quite unable at this stage to make any comment as to what the proposed amended ordinances are likely to cover in this respect.’91 As late as 1983 the Town and Country Planning Division of the Ministry for Works and Development realised that ‘there was also an urgent need to provide local authorities and their planners with a document that could assist them in carrying out their new responsibilities under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.’92

There were also difficulties in the application of these provisions because as Anderson noted the section of the Act requiring planners to take into account Maori relationships to ancestral land ‘has been the subject of controversy since its inception, primarily because the section is not precisely defined. In particular, the term “ancestral land” is not defined by any Act of Parliament.’93 Until relatively recently the Planning Tribunal (now the Environment Court) took a narrow definition of ‘ancestral land’. This was particularly evident in the case of Knuckey vs Taranaki County Council (1978) 6 NZTPA 609. Here the Planning Tribunal acknowledged that in section 3 of the Town Planning Act 1977

87 Willan,1999, p 13 88 Alexander, 2006, p 227 89 Willan,1999, p 13 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977, s.3(1)(g) 90 Anderson, 1983, p 9 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977, clause 9(d), First Schedule, also see Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 10. Haywood noted that in the Town and Country Planning Amendment Act 1987 ‘local government was further compelled to acknowledge Maori values in resource management decision making. Provision was made for Maori traditional and cultural uses, including fishing grounds (section 33(2)(a)) though still without reference to the Treaty’ (Janine Haywood, ‘The Treaty Challenge: Local Government and Maori: A Scoping Report’, 2002, Wai 863 #A65, p 7) 91 E K Barrett (Chairman of the Tauranga County Council), ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 15 92 Anderson, 1983, pp 2 - 3 93 Anderson, 1983, p 4. However as far back as 1957 the Planning Tribunal granted departures from the local zoning provisions to allow the partition of Maori land (Margaret Cotton, ‘Resource Management Law Reform: Town and Country Planning and the Treaty of Waitangi’, Working Paper No. 28, Part A, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, September

33 the cultural environment of New Zealand a whole is a matter of national importance but that in considering that particular aspect of a certain subculture, namely that of the Maori people, that that must be placed in a special compartment of its own. Nevertheless, the Planning Tribunal ‘held in that case as a matter of law that the land in question not being Maori land or Maori freehold land was no longer ‘ancestral’ land of the Maori people.’94 As Love pointed out in this definition of ‘ancestral’ the land had to have been continuously held by the tribe. Members of the tribe must therefore show a link with that land by virtue or [of] their marae (meeting house), ancestors, or urupa (burial sites). In real terms Maori could only exercise this section with respect to land that was already in their possession and control.’95 There was a very similar outcome in the case of Quiltet v Manganui County Council 1978 Appeal No.s 296/77 and 38/78 the appellant was intending to build a shed on his property but Maori had raised concerns because the area was an old burial ground. ‘But the Appeal Board contended that because the land had been ‘Europeanised’ it could no longer be regarded as ancestral land, that is to say; ‘the land in question, not being Maori land or Maori freehold land is no longer ancestral land to the Maori people.’96 Shonagh Kenderdine, now a Judge of the Environment Court, concluded that ‘thus the status given in the interaction between the Maori and his land in the 1977 Act was diminished by the strict legal interpretation of the word ‘ancestral’.97

This definition of ancestral land appears to have been used in the Planning Tribunal and higher courts until a 1987 High Court case Habgood v Royal Forest and Bird Society (unreported pp 655 – 686) where ‘the notions of ownership and ancestral land’ were finally separated. the court favoured an approach that allowed the Maori people to show ‘some factor or nexus between their culture and traditions and the land in question, that affects the relationship of the Maori people to the land’. The existence of such a nexus meant that the land would be ‘ancestral land’ for the purposes of section 3(1)(g) of the Town and Country Planning Act.98 For Kenderdine these cases raised a number of issues. Firstly, ‘nothing in s 3(1)(g) requires the ancestral land to be in Maori ownership and it is unclear whether this has adequately debated in the Courts. Further, whilst Maori interests are given recognition, no priority of recognition is

1988, p 1 citing Watson v Wairoa Borough 1 NZTPA 47). The Planning Tribunal had also acknowledged the rights of Maori to live near their marae (Cotton, 1988, p 1 citing Morris v Hawke’s Bay County Council 6 NZTPA 19) 94 Shonagh E Kenderdine, ‘Statutory Separateness (1): Maaori Issues in the Planning Process and the Social Responsibility of Industry’, New Zealand Law Journal, August 1985, p 252 95 Morris Te Whiti Love, ‘Resource Management, Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi’, Janine Haywood (ed) Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 2003, p 28 96 Thomsen, 1979, p 41 97 Kenderdine, 1985, p 252 98 Love, 2003, p 28. A full exploration of case law and the implications surrounding it with regard to the definition of ancestral land is provided by Cotton, 1988

34 provided for.’ Kenderdine suggested that this was particularly problematic where there were conflicts between different matters of national importance that the Act required be considered in district, regional and maritime planning. 99 Anderson also highlighted the potential for conflict between a number of the matters of national importance. In particular, he noted that local bodies were required to balance consideration of ‘the relationship of Maori people and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land’ against several other matters of national importance such as the need to prevent sporadic urban development in rural areas, and to protect land having a high productive value for food. These matters can conflict with the objective of providing housing on rural Maori land.100

Given the very strong emphasis the Tauranga County Council placed on preserving productive farmland by limiting minimum subdivision size it is clear that this was a tension for planners in the region. The research located so far suggests that Tauranga Maori interests were often forced to give way to these other matters of national interest. The second review of the Tauranga County Council District Scheme from the late 1970s articulated some of these conflicts, but it came down firmly on the side of protecting highly productive farmland from residential development. The scheme noted that 13% (24,200 hectares) of the county was classified as Maori land, much of it ‘with a potential for high agricultural or horticultural production.’ But a conflict arose where Maori owners ‘wish to subdivide out their individual shareholdings, gain title and use the land for food production’ making lots smaller than the council’s minimum subdivision size. In this case the council was clear that because ‘the resulting subdivision would not provide independent, economic units’ approving such subdivisions would conflict with the 1977 Act which designed the protection of land with high productive value as a matter of national importance. Hansen noted that the primacy of this principle ‘was also reiterated from time to time from Government and upheld by the Planning Tribunal.’ He admitted that for these reasons ‘the Council were unable in many cases to allow for residential subdivision in these multiply-owned blocks of land in rural areas.’ 101

The need for planners to take account of Maori interests as one of a number of, sometimes competing, matters of national interest potentially complicated the planning process. As the town planner C D Scott has pointed out, ‘the Town and Country Planning Act accepts the need for land use control so as to protect the public interest against the harmful actions of

99 Kenderdine,1985, p 254 100 Anderson, 1983, pp 61 - 62 101 Hansen, 1995, pp 35 - 36

35 individuals.’102 Yet the 1977 Act’s requirement that planners have due regard to the interests of Maori and of minority groups within the wider community raises the question of how Maori interests were to be weighed where they conflicted with those of the wider public.

Administratively, the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 provided for ‘increased delegation of planning authority to regional and maritime authorities. The Local Government Act 1974 also created the regional and united councils, and these were delegated regional planning responsibilities under the 1977 Act.’103 Under the 1977 Act ‘where in the opinion of the united or regional council there are significant Maori landholdings within its region, the Council may request such Maori District Council as it considers most appropriate to nominate a representative of the Maori people in the region as a member of the regional planning committee.’104 Anderson observed the discretionary nature of this provision and commented that ‘the rationale for Maori representation on regional planning committees is limited to and nebulously defined as ‘significant Maori landholdings’. He noted that it was unclear what ‘significant’ meant in this context: whether it related to the area of land remaining, to economic potential of that land or to the cultural and spiritual significance of the land to Maori.105 It should be noted that the 1977 Act only made provision for the united or regional council to work with the District Maori Council not with hapu, whanau or marae-based groups.106

In practice it appears to have proved difficult for councils to decide which District Maori Council was the ‘most appropriate’ to work with. Anderson noted that in the case of the Bay of Plenty region both Te Arawa and Tauranga Moana people would consider that they needed representation.107 The Act also ‘assumes that the District Maori Councils have the necessary resources (for example, time, money and expertise) which are required if planning proposals are to be properly scrutinised and objections and submissions to them lodged.’108 It is not clear whether a Maori representative(s) were appointed to a regional planning committee in the Bay of Plenty. At the time of writing in 1983 Anderson noted that eight regional/united councils had appointed a Maori representative, the Bay of Plenty was not among those regions.109 In addition to this possible role on regional planning committees the Town and Country Planning Regulations

102 Scott, 1982, p 9 103 Marr, 1999, p 129 104 Anderson, 1983, p 15 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977, s.6(3) also see Marr, 1999, pp 129 - 130 105 Anderson, 1983, p 15 106 District Maori Councils and related structures were established under the Maori Community Development Act 1962 (Anderson, 1983, p 21). There is a useful diagram showing how elected members of these various structures contribute representatives to the District Maori Councils and how these DMCs in turn contribute representatives to the New Zealand Maori Council (Anderson,1983, p 23) 107 Anderson, 1983, p 16 108 Anderson, 1983, p 17

36 1978 also required that certain regional, district and maritime planning information be sent to District Maori Councils. These regulations are summarised in table 3 below110:

Table 3: Town and Country Planning Regulations 1978 Planning Information to be Sent to District Maori Councils (DMC)

TYPE REGULATION DETAILS Regional Regulation 5 Preparing the Regional The united/regional council must notify the appropriate DMC of Scheme its intention of preparing a regional planning scheme or section of it. Regional Regulation 7(5) Draft Regional Scheme The united/regional council must send a copy of the draft scheme or section of it to the appropriate DMC. Regional Regulation 15 Approved Regional The united/regional council is obliged to send the appropriate Scheme DMC a copy of the approved regional scheme or section of it. District Regulation 24 Provisionally Approved The Council must serve a copy of its provisional approved District Scheme district scheme to the appropriate DMC. District Regulation 25 Proposed District Scheme The Council is required to send a copy of its proposed district scheme to the appropriate DMC. District Regulation 32 Approved District Scheme The Council is required to send a copy of its approved district scheme to the appropriate DMC and also to the Registrar of the Maori Land Court district in which is situated any Maori land affected by the scheme. District Regulation 34 Soap Document (Pre- Council is required to send a copy of its statement of planning Review Statement of Objectives and objectives to the DMC. Policies)

Aside from these specific provisions for the protection of Maori interests there were a number of general provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 that could be interpreted as encompassing Maori interests. In 1979 the chairman of the Tauranga County Council addressing Maori at Hungahungatoroa marae at Matapihi emphasised these provisions, implying that they also offered Maori a means of making objections. He concluded by assuring Maori that ‘your right to put forward your views and criticisms are well protected.’111

The overall purpose of planning as it is set out in the 1977 Act appears to have encompassed the interests of the whole community of a district or region. Regional, district and maritime planning was required to manage the resources and direct development of a region, district or area in such a way that ‘… most effectively promotes and safeguards the health, safety, convenience,

109 Anderson, 1983, pp 18 - 19 110 Anderson, 1983, p 22 111 E K Barrett (Chairman of the Tauranga County Council), ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 15

37 and the economic, cultural, social and general welfare of the people.’’112 District schemes were required to make provision for ‘social … and spiritual opportunities and amenities appropriate to the needs of the present and future inhabitants of the district, including the interest of minority groups’.113 In regard to regional planning, schemes were required to make provision for ‘social …. opportunities appropriate to the employment, housing, and welfare needs of the people of the region’.114 Kenderdine has argued that the presence of all of these provisions in the 1977 Act meant that ‘the statute is broad enough to enable regional, local and maritime planning authorities to advance the physical, social and cultural aspects of the Maori environment.’115 The Resources Management Act 1991 The Town and Country Planning Legislation was repealed the 1977 Act after the government reviewed ‘all major laws concerned with New Zealand’s natural and physical resources, including planning legislation and environmental assessment procedures.’116

2.2.2 Local Government Legislation

District planning schemes and the zoning plans they put in place only applied to land within the administrative boundaries of the local authority that prepared a particular scheme. Once land was included within these boundaries the urban planning scheme could be applied and previously rural land could be zoned residential in anticipation of future urban growth. Hence mechanisms for extending the boundaries of local authorities, especially in urban areas such as Tauranga which were rapidly expanding, played a significant role in bringing further land within the boundaries of urban authorities and ought to be considered as part of the planning process. Provisions for the extension of the boundaries of local authorities were included in the Counties Acts and the Municipal Corporations Acts (and later in the Local Government Acts). Willan observed that ‘throughout most of the twentieth century the Local Government Commission was charged with drawing up proposals for changes to local government boundaries.’ There was some public input into this process, ‘the commission’s proposals were made public, and any person or local body could object to them. Furthermore, local authorities could conduct a poll of electors to exclude an area from a new boundary or to stop the alteration of an existing boundary.’117 Willan commented that it was ‘through their position as local body constituents’ that Maori had ‘input into how local government boundaries’ were drawn up.118 However, only ‘if more than 66 per cent of the electors voted in the poll’ and ‘50 per cent vote against the scheme,

112 Anderson, 1983, p 9 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977, s. 4 113 Anderson, 1983, p 10 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977, clause 1, Second Schedule, also see Kenderdine, 1985, p 252 114 Anderson, 1983, p 9 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977, clause 1, First Schedule 115 Kenderdine, 1985, p 252 116 Marr, 1999, p 130 117 Willan, p 45

38 (or 60 per cent if less than 60 per cent turn out)’ could the commission be prevented from approving the provisional scheme for boundary changes.119

2.3 Planning Policy Regarding the Direction of Urban Growth in Tauranga

2.3.1 Regional Planning

Commentators on Town and Country Planning legislation have noted that ‘given the highly fragmented local government structure, there is ample scope for regional planning in New Zealand, both as a co-ordinating mechanism for local planning and as a necessary component to national planning.’120 However, although the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 ‘had the intention of making regional planning authorities and territorial authorities complementary and integrated … the original concept made regional schemes no more than district schemes writ large.’121 There appear to have been several other reasons for the lack of direction in early attempts at regional planning: Most notably the absence of co-operation from central and local government and a shortage of resources. On the one hand there was the parochialism from local authorities who could not see the need for a wider regional interest to be explored. On the other, the undeveloped state of central government planning meant that the regional planning which did occur was often done in a vacuum.122

This general picture seems to have been reflected in the Bay of Plenty region in the period between 1953 and 1977 where there had been various unsuccessful attempts to establish a regional planning authority. Stokes notes that: In 1944 there had been talk of setting up a Regional Planning Council for the Bay of Plenty. In 1954 there was talk of setting up a Regional Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 … The County Council supported the idea as the best means to take an overall view of planning for the region but there was not enough support among other local bodies for a Regional Planning Authority to be set up.123 The idea of a co-ordinated regional planning approach was resurrected again in 1963 when the Bay of Plenty Local Bodies Association commissioned a report on setting up a regional planning

118 Willan, 1999, p 45 119 Willan, 1999, pp 45 – 46 citing Local Government act 1974, Local Government Commission Act 1967 and Local Government Commission Act 1961 120 Scott, 1982, p 18 121 Scott, 1982, pp 18 - 19 122 Scott, 1982, p 19 123 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County. 1980, p 332

39 authority. However a meeting of the Local Bodies Association in April 1965 failed to generate enough support across the region and the matter was deferred.124

However, since 1967 the Tauranga District Officials Working Committee has met at least quarterly. This committee ‘of the executive officers of the territorial local authorities in the Tauranga district’ was established ‘following a suggestion by the Minister of Works’. Its purpose is to ‘develop a working partnership in attacking problems of mutual concern. In August 1971 the Tauranga District Planning Forum was also established, ‘again on the recommendation of the Ministry of Works’. 125

2.3.2 District Planning

2.3.2(a) Planning Policy in the Immediate Post-War Period: c.1953 to 1976

The overall policy direction of the Tauranga Borough (later city) Council and Tauranga County Council planning under the town and country planning legislation was focused on planning the geographical direction and extent of future urban expansion. Both Stokes and La Rooij pointed out that the consistent policy of directing urban growth to land on the eastern side of Tauranga Moana placed the remaining Maori land and the associated communities in the path of major urban growth.

As early as 1951 H O Cooney, representing the Tauranga County Council in a rating case before the Maori Land Court in 1951, talked about ‘the development envisaged on the eastern side of the Tauranga Harbour which is about to commence.’126 La Rooij elaborated on the rationale for this policy, stating that: From the mid-1950s, the [Tauranga] county was determined to ensure that prime agricultural land in Bethlehem, Wairoa, Matapihi and Te Puna were preserved for farming and horticulture. Conversely during the 1960s, the county administration put a great deal of effort into encouraging urban expansion eastwards towards the less productive lands of Te Maunga and Papamoa.’127

The preservation of high quality agricultural land can be seen as the key focus of Tauranga County Council planning policy in this era. In 1965 the county council opposed an application by

124 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 333 125 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 333 126 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 45 citing Extract from Tauranga Minute Book Vol. 16, 11 July 1951 in MA 1, 31/1/16 W2490 supporting papers, doc. 9, p 159 127 Marinus La Rooij, ‘That Most Difficult and Thorny Question: The Rating of Maori Land in Tauranga County’,2002, Wai 215 #P14, p 74

40 the Tauranga City Council to have 4,500 acres of county land to the west of Tauranga included in the city. The county council’s submission asserted that it ‘cannot afford to let good agricultural land’ such as the land in question ‘to feed the expansion of one local body.’ The county council emphasised that it had used several planning and local government mechanisms to prevent urban encroachment in the western part of its district. Firstly, the council had ‘strictly enforced’ rural zoning in the county ‘in recent years.’ This was ‘apart from questions of providing some allotments for the re-housing of our Maori citizens’. Secondly, over the previous 13 years (since 1952) the county council had ‘applied an effective system of rating relief to farmlands where values have been affected by the proximity of urban development.’128 That is, rating relief was applied where the proximity of residential development had raised the property values of adjacent farms hence raising rates. Presumably this aimed to discourage farmers from selling land for residential subdivision. These comments raise several questions, firstly in what areas of the county were Maori being ‘relocated’ from and what land was provided for housing? What town and country planning policies and mechanisms did the county council use to achieve this? Secondly, did the rating relief apply to farming units on Maori land? How much Maori land was considered by the county to be ‘farmlands’ affected by such rises in valuation and rates?

The county council attempted to retain land in the west of the county by arguing that there was ‘suitable land of a lower agricultural productive ability’ on the Matapihi peninsula. They felt that this could be used for urban expansion instead.129 At this time Matapihi was an area of the county almost completely owned by Maori. The county saw Matapihi as ideal for the purpose, seemingly ignoring Maori communities living on Maori land there, they stated that ‘the relatively unoccupied Matapihi peninsula lies as County territory between the two municipalities, and offers a unique opportunity for development as a true centre for both municipal areas; such a situation would be rare in any other part of N.Z. or elsewhere’ (emphasis added).130

A 1965 ‘Tauranga District Outline Plan’ by Gabites and Beard planning consultants employed by the Local Government Commission indicated that Matapihi was definitely regarded as a site for future residential development. The plan demonstrates that planning for motorways, highways and major district roads was closely connected to planning for urban expansion. The plan showed

128 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 71 citing Moore to Local Government Commission, LGC 7/1, ANZ Wgt, supporting papers doc. 10, p 194 129 Maori land on the Matapihi peninsula was also under pressure because of the rapid expansion of the port facilities in nearby Mount Maunganui. A transport Commission Inquiry in 1966 ‘emphasised how important the port was to the development of the Bay of Plenty, South Waikato, Rotorua and Taupo Districts’ (Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 71 – 62) 130 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 71 citing Moore to Local Government Commission, LGC 7/1, ANZ Wgt, supporting papers doc. 10, p 194

41 a network of major highways and smaller ‘local distributor routes’ criss-crossing the existing urban area of the time. A motorway down the centre of the Maungatapu peninsula connected by a bridge to the Matapihi peninsula and continued along the eastern side of Matapihi. A major interchange at Te Maunga was planned taking port traffic off and connecting to a major route through the middle of what is present day Papamoa. The tip of Matapihi was also shown as connected by road bridge to central Tauranga (see figure 13).

Alongside this roading plan public amenities and residential areas were planned for land on the eastern fringes of the harbour, this included significant areas of Maori land. The tip of the Matapihi peninsula itself was shown as ‘university and cultural centre/secondary school.’ Proposed first and second stage extensions to the city are also shown on this 1965 plan. The first stage extensions were to be located to the south and to the west of the area formerly known as the Waimapu block. The second stage extension was located on Matapihi peninsula spreading north into the Mount Maunganui area. Papamoa and Welcome Bay/Ngapeke were seen as areas for ‘potential urban expansion beyond 1985’. The base of the Matapihi peninsula and further land at the eastern end of the Mount Maunganui Borough were marked as areas for ‘possible future expansion of Mount Maunganui Urban Area’.131 Mostly the development of new areas coincides with local body boundary changes. The continuation of rural zoning over Matapihi did offer the Maori land there some protection from inclusion within the city boundaries (and subsequent rezoning as residential land). However, the County Council’s determination to prevent the best farmland in the county from being encroached on by urban development put considerable pressure on Maori land at Matapihi and elsewhere.

By 1966 Gabites and Beard acknowledged ‘the likelihood that all areas adjacent to Tauranga city would be under pressure by the turn of the century.’ As a result they recommended that planning policy regarding the direction of urban growth should be revised: ‘we consider that concentration of housing development entirely on to one side or other of the harbour would not be sound planning. Our conclusion, therefore, is that limited expansion should be planned on both sides, together with the second stage urbanisation of the Matapihi peninsula, with provision for ultimate expansion beyond 1986 to take place around Welcome Bay to link eventually with the expansion to the east of the Mount Borough.’132

131 ‘Tauranga District Outline Plan’, Gabites and Beard, 1965 in TCC/TDC Town Planning Folder, New Zealand Room, Tauranga City Library 132 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 72 – 73 citing Report of Gabites and Beard, AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers doc. 11, p 254

42 However, what remained constant was the policy of preventing of urban encroachment on high quality agricultural and horticultural land to the west of the city. From a planners perspective there were other economic and functional advantages in keeping development ‘balanced and compact’, in particular the urban area could ‘be readily serviced and provided with an economical network of internal traffic routes.’133 Gabites and Beard stated that it was their opinion that ‘if firm planning measures are taken, the spread of urbanisation to the westward can be permanently checked at the limits shown on the plan, while ample scope for future development is maintained to the eastward.’134 As Maori had very little land in this western area (which had been confiscated or purchased in the 1860s) this policy continued to put pressure on Maori land, particularly on Maori owners at Matapihi.

In the wake of the Gabites and Beard 1965 report all three local authorities supported the urban development of Matapihi and provision plans were made for the Mount Maunganui Borough to provide essential services and infrastructure to the proposed development.135 However, the county council was disappointed that Gabites and Beards’ report did not make a stronger case for restricting urban expansion to eastern areas. In particular, the council was critical of the report ‘for not emphasising the poorer quality soils to the east and for not strongly stating the need for the future amalgamation of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui.’ Again, in prioritising the preservation of farming land in the west of the county the county council advocated that the borough and city push residential development into Greerton, Poike, Hairini, Ohauiti, Welcome Bay, Mangatawa and Matapihi, all areas with significant pockets of remaining Maori land. 136

By contrast, ‘the Tauranga City Council remained equally adamant in claiming the need to extend to the west.’ A significant factor for the council was that this area was flatter and without harbour views making it cheaper to service and less valuable for housing.137 It envisaged that residential development in the west would meet the requirements for low-cost housing, something that building statistic had revealed was in high demand.138 For the Tauranga City Council certainty about the direction of future urban expansion was important as it wished ‘to take a long term view in providing for future need so that the necessary major streets and water mains can be

133 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 73 citing Report of Gabites and Beard, AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers doc. 11, p 254 134 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 73 citing Report of Gabites and Beard, AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers doc. 11, p 254 135 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 73 - 74 136 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 75 - 76 citing Moore to Local Government Commission, 11 July 1966, LGC 7/1, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers doc. 10, p 192 137 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 76 - 77 citing ‘Tauranga City Council Submissions…’, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 box 10, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers doc. 11, p 228 138 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 77

43 planned and provided in advance of development, rather than their creation being forced and directed by spasmodic development.’139 The city council argued (unsuccessfully it would appear) for all the land proposed for long term urban growth to be added to the urban authority. Land could then be released as it was needed from rural to residential zoning. The council was concerned that piecemeal extensions to its boundary every couple of years made this kind of advantage planning and execution of services and infrastructure impossible.140

In 1968, having considered the report by Gabites and Beard, the Local Government Commission confirmed that ‘the main direction of urban growth will be in the eastern part of the Tauranga District, around Welcome Bay, at Matapihi, Te Maunga, Mangatawa and Papamoa’.141 This effectively ruled out urban expansion in a westerly direction and ‘development to the south was restricted by difficult topography – steep gullies separated by small plateau areas – which would increase the cost of roads, water, sewerage and other services.’142

The Tauranga County Council produced its first district plan in 1969 shortly after the Local Government Commission’s decision. The county engineer and later director of planning and development, Neil Hansen, indicated that until 1960 town planning in the county ‘was not given the serious attention that was required later.’143 The general policy of the county council before about 1960 was ‘to implement the Town Planning Act where and when it was required to do so’. This suggests before this 1969 district scheme the county’s planning was somewhat ad hoc. It appears that the county did not prepare its own planning schemes before 1960 but prepared ‘joint planning schemes with the Mount Maunganui Borough Council … it included the adjoining County areas at Papamoa as far as the main road, Mangatawa and Matapihi.’ The county council produced a similar joint scheme with the Tauranga Borough Council and Te Puke Borough Councils.144

The Tauranga County Council’s 1969 district planning scheme reflected the county’s earlier planning practices and concerns. The plan sought ‘the orderly development of a rapidly expanding district’. This was to be achieved by confining urbanisation to approved areas whilst

139 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 77 citing ‘Tauranga City Council Submissions…’, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 box 10, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers doc. 11, p 228 140 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 78 - 79 citing Tauranga City Council Submissions…’, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 box 10, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers doc. 11, p 238 – 239, 248 141 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 19 citing the preliminary Statement of Policy and Objectives for the City of Tauranga District Scheme Review, 1976 142 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 20 143 Hansen, 1995, p 22 144 Hansen, 1995, p 22

44 preserving good farmland from urban acquisition.’145 A revised scheme for the county under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 confirmed this policy. The scheme aimed ‘to protect and preserve where practicable the better pastoral and horticultural land of the district from residential subdivision and other competitive land uses.’146 A strategy adopted to meet this goal was to ‘concentrate further significant residential development within and adjacent to the [existing] community of Katikati, Omokoroa, Papamoa, Maketu and Paengaroa.’147 The County’s planning policy certainly took account of two of the matters of national importance requiring consideration under the 1977 Town and Country Planning Act. Namely, ‘the avoidance of encroachment of urban development on, and the protection of, land having a high actual or potential value for the production of food [and] the prevention of sporadic subdivision and urban development in rural areas.’148

Meanwhile, the focus of the Tauranga City Council district scheme in 1976 remained on ensuring suitable land and services were available for continued residential development. The Council aimed: To ensure that adequate provision is made of land suitable for further residential development, and to provide a choice of residential location and dwelling type by expanding the residential zones into the remaining rural zones and extending water supply and sewerage reticulation, and by providing for the redevelopment at higher

densities of older residential areas.149 In addition, the scheme identified the rural land at Welcome Bay as an area that ‘will be opened to residential development as soon as a public water supply can physically and economically be provided’. There were also plans to further develop existing suburban areas within the city.150 The policy of planning for future urban growth on land in the east of the Tauranga district throughout the 1950 – 1977 period meant that ‘eastern harbour Maori land was still desired due to its location’ which in the mid-1960s was thought to make it an ideal ‘site for a municipal centre for Tauranga district.’151 The Tauranga County Council ‘was more than happy to earmark all the eastern harbour Maori land as available for urban development that it might save what was

145 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 79 146 Hansen, 1995, p22, p 24 147 Hansen, 1995, p24 148 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 85 citing Town and Country Planning Act 1977 s. 3(1) 149 Tauranga District Council, Tauranga City Council District Scheme: Preliminary Statement of Policy and Objectives, 1976, p 40 150 Tauranga District Council, Tauranga City Council District Scheme: Preliminary Statement of Policy and Objectives, 1976, p 40 151 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 98

45 regarded as available agricultural land in the west.’152 However, as Walzl explained, the nature of Maori land also posed some dilemma for planners: The undeveloped and non-productive nature of eastern harbour Maori land (and the impact this had on rating matters) made it a target for the County to release out of its administrative control. Although not specifically stated, it is possible that the City did not want the land because it was Maori owned. The complexity of Maori titles would make it difficult to develop the land. In its July 1966 submission, when weighing up the difference between extending west towards Bethlehem or east towards Matapihi, the Tauranga City Council admitted in respect to Matapihi that ‘the matter of Maori land titles also has to be adjusted to make its use for residential purposes practicable.’153 Despite, these constraining factors, Walzl concluded that: A predetermined future for the eastern harbour land was envisaged by those local government officials involved in the city boundary expansion question of 1966. It was assumed that all eastern lands would be urbanised, the only question was when. Those considering the matter never once considered the way in which Maori were linked to their land as being a reason for hesitation or the consideration of alternatives.154

2.3.2(b) Planning Policy in the later period c. 1977 to 1990 In 1976 the Tauranga City Council reviewed the growth options for the Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui areas. As already discussed above, this plan confirmed the policy of directing urban growth in an easterly direction. The report considered the planning options for Matapihi, Te Maunga, Papamoa Beach and Kaituna (the coast area east of Papamoa). The plan made no recommendations regarding Matapihi, concluding that the existing land use should be preserved until ‘the future use of this area can be determined more clearly’. However several options for development at Matapihi were put forward in the plan. For example, the plan commented that the area was ‘very suitable’ for residential development or because of its proximity to the port the area could possibly be used for associated industrial purposes. Stokes commented that ‘whatever option was taken, Matapihi landowners would be under considerable pressure.’155

Stokes’ assessment of this 1976 plan was that ‘the Te Maunga area will become a focal point in the eastern growth of the urban area.’ Stokes noted that ‘much of the Te Maunga area is also Maori-owned’, and included the former Mangatawa Land Development Scheme land now part of the Mangatawa-Papamoa Incorporation.’ The plan did consider that ‘it is in the public interest’ to

152 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 98 153 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 98 154 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 99

46 retain the hill of Mangatawa (a significant wahitapu) ‘in its existing state.’ To ensure that residential development did not occur ‘the existing Rural B zoning has been retained on this land.’156 The district plan stated that ‘the planning option for this area for the immediate future ‘has been limited to that existing in the area and to uses of regional importance.’157 Stokes considered that ‘landowners in this area will also be under considerable pressure in the near future, particularly as much of this areas was in 1979 incorporated into the Borough of Mount Maunganui.’158

The 1976 Tauranga City Council district plan also included a proposal for an urban ‘growth cell’ at Papamoa Beach. An area along the main highway had already been zoned residential (it is unclear at what date this zoning was put in place) and there were a large number of houses along this coastal strip. The plan noted that the existing resort housing area, roading pattern and services made ‘the immediate use of this area for urban purposes very attractive’.159 In 1980 Stokes noted that: The Tauranga County Council is proceeding with plans to develop an urban growth cell in this area. When this is more fully developed, decisions will be made about Te Maunga. There is no immediate plan to develop the more hilly Rangataua coastlands east of the present city boundary in Welcome Bay.160

Meanwhile zoning and controls on the minimum size of lots in subdivisions continued to be the primary means for the Tauranga County Council to control land use and contain urban sprawl in rural areas. By the 1970s it was clear to the County Council that a new planning scheme was required. Several trends motivated the council to reconsider its scheme. There was increasing demand for the subdivision of dairy, and in some cases sheep and cattle, units into smaller lots for horticulture and major development was anticipated. There was also a continued need to control residential subdivision to preserve productive farmland. In response to pressures on rural land the Tauranga Council amended the district scheme in 1972 to raise the minimum lot size in subdivisions from 10 acres to 100 acres. This was ‘a move designed to prevent indiscriminate subdivision into 10 acre blocks’, and an attempt by the county council to compensate for the weaker controls it had over subdivision of land of 10 acres or less.161 Scott noted that under the Land Subdivision in Counties Act 1946 subdivisions of rural land with lots less than 10 acres

155 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 20 156 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 20 157 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 20 158 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 21 159 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 21 160 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 21 161 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 86

47 required the approval of the Minister of Lands while an subdivision with lots of more than 10 acres did not require consent. In approving subdivisions with lot sizes of 10 acres or less, the Minister ‘could ignore the desires of the County Council if he wished.’ This jurisdictional conflict was somewhat resolved ‘through an amendment to this [Land Subdivision in Counties] Act and the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act which related the approval of subdivisions to the planning schemes of County Councils.’ Nevertheless, ‘responsibility for approving subdivisions of less than ten acres was not transferred from the Minister of Lands to the Counties until 1961 and it was 1974 before the Act was amended to require approval for all rural subdivisions.’162

The first review of the county’s scheme became operative in 1976. This scheme was still place when the Chairman of the County Council explained to Maori at the 1979 hui on alternative uses of Maori land that all land within the county was subject to the district scheme and its ordinances (including these subdivision restrictions). At this point the chairman estimated that 13% of the land in the county was Maori land (this excluded Europeanised land). All the land was zoned and the minimum size of subdivisions varied according to the zoning. The minimum lot size for subdivision in each zone is set out in the table 4 below. These were retained in the second review of the county scheme.163

Table 4: Tauranga County Rural Zones and Minimum Subdivision Sizes, 1979

Zone Minimum Subdivision Size

Rural A (Forest & Conservation) 200 hectares (494 acres) Rural B (Farming) 50 hectares (124 acres) Rural C (Horticulture) 6 hectares (14.8 acres) Rural D (Intensive Horticulture within Community Council boundaries) 1 hectare (2.47 acres)

The Tauranga County Council’s new planning scheme prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 also listed the matters of national importance set out in the schedule to the Act and then set out a number of specific planning objectives for the county. Hansen admitted that, while it listed the ‘relationship of the Maori people and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land’ amongst the matters of national importance, there were no specific objectives relating to Maori, their lands or communities. However, he noted one of the general objectives – ‘to encourage the development of those community facilities which contribute to the social,

162 Scott, 1982, p 12. Also see Hansen, 1995, pp 22 & 24 163 ‘E K Barnett (Chairman of the Tauranga County Council) ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 15, and Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 88

48 economic, and economic opportunities of the people of the district - could have included Maori.’164 Hansen indicated that some thought was given to matters impacting on Maori in the county. He noted that in preparing the new scheme ‘consultations were had with a wide range of people involved in agriculture, horticulture and the Maori situation in order to take into account the needs of all residents in the County.’165 It is not clear from Hansen whether the county consulted Maori communities directly or whether they consulted Maori Affairs officials.

The County Council carried out a second review of its planning scheme and a third review became operative in 1989. Hansen notes that ‘this third review was largely a continuation of the principles enunciated in the second review but with some refinements and some additional zonings. It remained in place until Local Government reform took place in 1989/90 and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council continued with the scheme.’166

By the mid-1980s the attention of planners in the urban authorities had turned to how Welcome Bay, one of the last remaining undeveloped areas in the east of the city, might be developed for future urban expansion. However, there were concerns that the terrain in this area would make service provision expensive as well as barring low- cost housing. Instead it was believed a better option to explore was higher density housing within the city through in-filling of city sections and building high-rise apartments.167 In 1985 ‘the attempt to extend residential housing through Welcome Bay was regarded as having not been successful as the terrain there had made it expensive to develop and service. In effect only a ribbon development along the harbour edge had been feasible.’ 168 Attention then turned to ‘extensions in the Cambridge Road and Wairoa River area. It was felt that better servicing could be supplied here and horticultural development was less advanced.’169

At the same time uncertainties over the future direction of urban development prompted the Bay of Plenty United Council (comprising representatives for all local bodies from Tauranga to Opotiki) to ask

164 Hansen, 1995, pp 23 - 24 165 Hansen, 1995, p 24 166 Hansen, 1995, p 25 167 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 149 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 13 Feb 1984, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 box 10 supporting papers doc 11, p 217 168 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 149 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 3 Oct 1985, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 pt 2 supporting papers doc 11, p 271 169 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 149 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 3 Oct 1985, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 pt 2 supporting papers doc 11, p 271

49 ‘that the Ministry of Works and Development undertake a ‘reconnaissance to identify urban growth issues in the Western Bay of Plenty and to define the nature and extent of the urban development problem’. A particular question was whether the ‘eastern option’ growth direction which had been in place for 20 years should be maintained.170 The Ministry reported a few months later in December 1985 noting that ‘there may be merit in modifying the ‘eastern option’ and allowing for flexibility to extend development towards certain western districts.’ The report also highlighted in-filling in the existing city area as an option. Fourteen possible sites for urban development were put forward in the report. The United Council selected 6 areas to be included in a more detailed study by the Ministry of Works and Development. These included: • Papamoa • Waitaha-Waikite Roads • Poike-Ohauiti Roads • Pyes Pa Road • Bethlehem-Cambridge Road • Omokoroa171 Walzl noted that the Matapihi area ‘would be excluded from the list of possible sites for future urban development’. The reasons for this appears to have included: it being too flat (thereby lacking harbour views) and the idea of it being retained to provide a ‘green belt’ edge to Mount Maunganui, the key factors were that 62% was still in multiple Maori ownership and 56% of the land was in horticultural use. Officials were aware that Maori were attempting to develop their land there. They also noted how difficult it was to develop Maori land.172

By 1986 the Bay of Plenty United Council were undertaking an urban development strategy study in which two options to meet the need for land for future urban expansion were being considered: the ‘coastal option’ and the ‘south-western option’.173 The ‘coastal’ option involved land belonging to the Mangatawa Papamoa Incorporation adjacent to the Tamaphore marae.174 The ‘south-western’ option involved extending residential development in the Bethlehem/Cambridge Road area ‘which would affect marae and Maori land at Wairoa and

170 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 149 citing ‘Tauranga City Council Submissions to Local Government Commission’, 27 Sept 1985, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 box 10 supporting papers doc 11, p 208 - 216 171 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 150 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 26 Oct 1985, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 pt 1 supporting papers doc 12, p 265 172 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 150, citing Bay of Plenty Times, 26 Oct 1985, AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115 pt 1 supporting papers doc 12, p 265 173 Kahotea, ‘… Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 1 174 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 32

50 Bethlehem.’175 But in the meanwhile ‘subdivision of rural dwelling lots and horticultural sections particularly occurred in the Oropi and Pyes Pa areas and along State Highway 29 outside of city boundaries’ took place from 1987. 176

The Urban Development Strategy Study included clear consultation with Maori in the affected areas before decisions were made about which option would be pursued. Des Kahotea was contracted by the United Council and the Town and Country Planning Directorate of the Ministry of Works and Development in 1986 to ‘provide a Maori perspective on the economic, environmental, financial and social implications of these [two] options’.177 Kahotea explained that: Discussions were held with key informants in Maori communities who have been affected by urban development or are likely to be affected. Interviews were conducted with people in each area who were generally owners in Maori multiple-owned land … Two hui were held on marae in areas specifically affected by the two development options. Bethlehem and Tamaphore Marae were chosen and Philip Tait and Stephen Colson, Urban Study Team Planners attended these hui and gave a general outline of the process involved in selecting areas for future urban expansion in the Tauranga area. The response from those attending the hui was used as a general measurement to gauge attitudes and feelings to urban expansion to their particular areas.178 Tangata whenua witnesses may be able to provide a perspective on their experience of this 1986 consultation process and its outcomes for their communities.

In 1990 the newly formed Tauranga District Council also re-evaluated the options for future urban growth. That council launched an Urban Growth Options Study ‘to identify the best residential growth options for the 1990s’. The study was undertaken by Bea Carter Consultants in 1990 and their report was released in June 1991. ‘This was followed by a consultation process of public meetings at various locations and submissions which culminated with the release of Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy 1991 in November [1991].’ In that report Tauranga District Council planning staff reviewed the Bea Carter report and the public response to it.

By 1991 the Tauranga District Council certainly appeared to be taking into account Maori concerns in planning for further urban expansion (at least until a District Plan could be prepared).

175 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p27 176 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 153 177 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p1. 178 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p3

51 In this final report the Council set out in its strategy statement its interim policy regarding Maori land: • Avoid the use of Maori Land for urban development where alienation may result. • Research land use issues relating to Marae and other hapu lands in 1992/93 and undertake consultation prior to including appropriate policy and rule changes with the District Plan which support the appropriate development of hapu land and avoid alienation. • Identify spiritual and cultural resources of significance to Maori within areas selected for immediate urban development prior to rezoning and that appropriate action be taken, in order of priority, to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of urban development on those resources.179 These policies indicate that by 1990 – 1991 the Council was making attempts to take Treaty issues seriously. In part Kahotea puts this ‘sympathetic attitude to the issues of Maori land’ down to ‘the inherent administrative obstacles’ faced in utilising such land for urban growth. However, ‘the constant lobbying with support from Tauranga Executive Maori District Council [also] raised the profile of Maori desire to retain land and manage the natural landscape.’180 But Kahotea warned that even this policy risked repeating the mistakes of the past. He noted that: The opportunity now exists for a form of strategic planning to be done by both the District Council and tangata whenua. The issue of Maori land needs to be examined as a complete strategy for all Maori land, rather than the present policy represented by the Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy and Study reports, which recommend dealing with the issue of specific Maori land and cultural landscape values as it surfaces. This is a repeat of the past pattern.181

2.4 Conclusion

Town and country planning legislation enabled local bodies to plan for future development. A key means of implementing future development was to control land use - primarily by zoning land to restrict types of activities to particular areas. After 1953 all local authorities were required to prepare district planning schemes, as a result Maori land and communities still primarily located in rural areas became subject to planning policies and regulations. Until 1977 there were no specific statutory provisions for the protection of Maori interests or for Maori participation in the planning process other than those open to all landowners and occupiers. After 1977

179 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 1 180 Kahotea, ‘...Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 21 181 Kahotea, ‘...Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 23

52 statutory provision to object to planning schemes and decision was extended to the general public living within the local body territory concerned.

From 1977 there were changes to town and country planning legislation that reflected a growing awareness of the importance of Maori concerns and cultural practices with regard to land. The Town and Country Planning Act 1977 made provision for a number of matters of ‘national importance’ which local bodies were required to consider when preparing district planning schemes. These matters included ‘the relationship of the Maori people and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land.’ Planners were also required to make ‘provision for marae and ancillary uses, urupa reserves, pa, and other traditional and cultural Maori uses.’ Where a regional or united council considered there was ‘significant’ Maori land in the district the council could request that the District Maori Council nominate a representative as a member of a regional planning committee. The 1978 planning regulations required that regional and district planning information be sent to District Maori Councils. Neither of these statutory provisions required local bodies to work with iwi, hapu or whanau organisations.

The existing research indicates that there were some delays and difficulties in implementing these provisions. Even as late as 1983 the Town and Country Planning Division of the Ministry of Works and Development stated that there was an urgent need for material that would assist local authorities in meeting their responsibilities under these sections of the 1977 Act. A number of difficulties arose, in particular research has highlighted that the term ‘ancestral land’ was narrowly defined by the Planning Tribunal until 1987. There was also a lack of clarity about what constituted ‘significant Maori land’ in a district or which District Maori Council was the appropriate body to be represented when there were several in the district. Several authors pointed out that the Act provided no guidance as to which matters of national importance ought to have priority in cases where conflicts arose between them.

Although there were statutory provisions made for regional planning and for regional planning schemes to be prepared existing research suggests that regional planning, at least at a formal level as envisaged by the legislation, has not been a strong feature of the planning environment in the period under consideration. An Officials Working Committee was established in the Tauranga district in 1967 and this appears to have had a regional focus. In 1971 a Tauranga District Planning Forum was also established. It is unclear from the existing research what role these bodies played in regional planning.

53 The existing research suggests that from the early 1950s local authorities in the Tauranga inquiry district were directing future urban expansion onto land east of the Tauranga Harbour. The primary reason for this policy was to preserve high quality horticultural land in the west of the city. The two principle mechanisms for implementing these policies were the expansion of the boundaries of the urban authorities, particularly of the Tauranga Borough/City to enable the land to be re-zones as residential and the restrictions on subdivision (particularly on minimum size of sections) in rural areas.

Unfortunately, this policy placed the bulk of the remaining Maori land in the district directly in the path of planned urban development putting considerable pressure on Maori to alienate their land. Areas such as Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Hairini and Matapihi were considered to be of lower value for agriculture but were centrally located between the municipal areas of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. As a result throughout the 1950s and 1960s these areas were regarded as ideal areas for residential subdivision and public amenities to meet the needs of rapidly growing population and port and industrial facilities at Mount Maunganui. By 1965 plans showed Matapihi, Maungatapu and central Tauranga linked by a network of major roads, bridges and motorways and earmarked for residential development as far ahead as 1985.

By the mid-1970s the force of planned urban growth was in the areas of Te Maunga and Papamoa and by the mid-1980s there was debate over whether expansion should continue in these coastal areas or move in a south-westerly direction towards the Cambridge Road/Bethlehem area. By the 1990 it was evident that the Tauranga District Council was considering how planned development in these two areas might affect Maori communities and were making attempts to involve Maori communities in this planning.

54 Chapter 3: Planning for Marae and Maori Communities in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter outlined what can be gleaned from the existing research about the general policy of the local bodies in Tauranga employed when planning future urban growth. The impact of these policies on particular areas of Maori land will be examined in chapter four. This current chapter draws together material from existing research to examine what is known about what provisions local bodies made under planning legislation for the continuance of rural marae-based communities. As has been indicated in chapter one of this report, this is particularly relevant in this inquiry because the majority of Tauranga Maori in the immediate post-war period were living on Maori land surrounding their marae. This chapter begins with a brief discussion of provisions for marae and Maori community development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953. This is followed by an overview of the way Tauranga County Council controls on subdivision restricted the ability of Maori landowners to build houses on rural Maori land. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the research available on the council’s marae community zones, which were a response to concerns about the impact of these housing restrictions on Maori communities. Further discussion of the outcome of a number of these marae community zones can be found in chapter 4 of this report.

3.2 Marae and Maori Community Development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953

Nightingale provided a succinct summary of the obligations on local bodies under the Town in Country Planning legislation from 1953 with regard to marae and Maori community development. Although the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 conferred on local bodies the power and responsibility to create a plan, ‘in that process there was no specific statement as to how the plan should relate to Maori development. While marae were an ‘existing use’, there was no recognition that marae might have different planning needs than Pakeha institutions.’182 Nightingale concluded that ‘there was little in the legislation that would support the active development of marae as a nucleus to an ongoing living community.’ He commented that as the overall purpose of the legislation was ‘to facilitate planned development, one can argue that this

182 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 3

55 lack was a substantial failure of duty by government.’183 Stokes foreshadowed these views concluding that: There is little evidence of any planning for the needs of these Maori communities in the early years of urban expansion … Neither the City of Tauranga nor Mount Maunganui Borough District Schemes made any special provision for Maori communities. Marae have been preserved by virtue of being ‘an existing use’ under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 and Amendment and the areas around them have been developed as residential, industrial or whatever, as part of the overall growth of the urban area. 184 Kahotea noted the problems that face marae that are now surrounded by urban (even industrial) development: An important component of traditional ceremony on the marae is speechmaking in the open courtyard. The Maungatapu and Whareroa Marae are affected by noise pollution. Public access to the beach front of the Maungatapu Marae expose the Marae to insensitive people using the beach and boat ramp … At Whareroa, the development of the port, and now the harbour bridge has hemmed in the marae and caused problems of noise pollution. There has been little room for residential development and industrial uses in the area have a severe effect on the marae.185

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 sections 10 to 13 of the second schedule required local bodies to have regard for the prevention of urban development from encroaching in preparing district planning schemes. This included regulating minimum subdivision size. Nightingale considered that the evidence available showed that ‘the Western Bay of Plenty Councils chose to interpret these requirements narrowly and as a consequence greatly impinged on marae development.’186 However, as noted in the previous chapter the County Council did not have complete control over all rural subdivision until 1974. By the early 1970s ‘a harder line in dealing with rural subdivisions has become evident at meetings of the Tauranga County Council.’ As a measure to control subdivision of rural areas the council moved, as several other counties with urban components have done, to restrict rural subdivision to a four hectare minimum.’187 These controls were tightened even further so that by mid-1972 the county council ‘had adopted measures which gave complete control over all subdivisions up to 40 hectares.’188 Stokes suggested that this might have been in response to claims ‘that dairying industry would suffer if

183 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re`-housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 8 184 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 11. Kahotea makes the same point in Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 15 185 Kahotea, ‘... Maori Perspective’, 1986, pp 18 - 19 186 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing…’, 1996, p 9 187 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 334 citing the New Zealand Herald, October 1970, n/d 188 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 334

56 the Council continued allowing subdivision of dairy land for growing subtropical fruit, especially kiwifruit.’189

In an address at the 1979 Maori land use hui at Matapihi, the chairman of the Tauranga County Council E K Barrett admitted that these restrictions were having an impact on Maori communities. Barrett outlined the problems encountered when owners of Maori land wish to partition out their interests for housing purposes but the proposed subdivision fell below the minimum subdivision size set by the district scheme. He stated that in those cases: Council does not have dispensatory powers under the Town and Country Planning Act relating to rural land and therefore we are unable to deal with any application for a subdivision below the minimum area except by way of a Specified Departure and then a very strong case has to be made. Primarily the Tauranga County Council like any other local body is responsible for administering the district scheme without fear or favour to any particular group.190 It is likely that the County Council had a number of reasons for not making exceptions for Maori landowners (including concerns about incurring the extra cost of providing services to such subdivisions) and: fear that conflicts may arise if Maoris are allowed to subdivide and develop outside the general rule, especially in coastal areas and close to urban areas where there may be pressure from non-Maoris who are also seeking to promote subdivision and development.191

Existing research indicates that in the Tauranga Moana the Maori Land Court tended to be constrained by subdivision controls in the County’s district scheme and this restricted the ability of Maori owners to have house sites partitioned out of multiply-owned blocks. La Rooij’s in his rating report noted that the Maori Land Count had the power to partition Maori land under section 173 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 only with ‘due regard to the requirements of any operative scheme under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953.’192 La Rooij concluded that in cases involving Maori land in the county: it was rare for any decision to be made without the court hearing the view of the local body concerned. From 1953 onwards, Tauranga County was increasingly strict in its

189 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 334 190 E K Barrett (Chairman of the Tauranga County Council), ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 16 191 Planning for Maori Needs in Rural Areas’, Town and Country Planning Bulletin. Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, No. 16, September 1975 192 La Rooij, 2002, p 75 citing Maori Affairs Act 1953, s. 432

57 application of the district plan and increasingly confident in its knowledge of the Maori Land Court process. Because of this, the Town & County Planning Act 1953 did much to discourage the Maori Land Court from allowing subdivision in rural areas when faced with local body opposition.193 However, while the Maori Land Court was required to take account of district schemes it is unclear whether this was the case for other agencies and regulatory authorities. Anderson reported that in 1980 ‘the Planning Tribunal made a ruling in the case of Maori Land Trust v Minister of Works and Development (1980) 7NZTPA 108 that the provisions of a district scheme cannot prevent the exercise of statutory powers given by another Act of Parliament.’194

Hansen also noted the general compliance of the Maori Land Court with the county’s subdivision restrictions. He observed that ‘until 1962 the subdivision of land [in the Tauranga County] was controlled under the Land Subdivision in Counties Act and its regulations.’ However, the Maori Land Court ‘did not have to comply with the Land Subdivision in Counties Act as Maori land was exempted from the requirements of that Act.’ Hansen’s experiences as County Engineer and Director of Planning and Development lead him to comment that despite this exemption ‘the policy of the Judge [in the Maori Land Court] usually was to endeavour to comply with the requirements of the Act. Such partitions were submitted to the Council for comment in the same way that the Chief Surveyor forwarded schemes of subdivision of less than ten acres [of non- Maori land] for comment.’195

It appears that the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 restricted the powers of the Maori Land Court with regard to partitioning of Maori land and returned ‘decisive power regarding subdivision and roadways to county councils.’196 So by 1974 a newspaper article on the situation in Tauranga stated that: In the areas outside the city and borough boundaries there are blocks of Maori land suitable for house sites but, because of the operative scheme plans under town and country planning, only in exceptional cases will the county approve the partition of areas less than set out in its ordinances.197 However, Scott observed in 1982 that nationally ‘the use of minimum lot sizes and the concept of an economic farm unit has given way to more elaborate sets of procedures designed to ensure that the user is genuine in this intentions of making productive use of the land.’ It is unclear

193 La Rooij, 2002, p 75 194 Anderson, 1983, p 11 195 Hansen, 1995, p 31 196 La Rooij, 2002, p 77 197 La Rooij, 2002, p 79 citing ‘Housing Major Social Problem’, NZ Herald, 10 June 1974

58 from the existing research whether this shift in types of land use control also occurred in the Tauranga County.

La Rooij concluded that comments regarding the difficulties faced by Maori trying to obtain title to land for housing in the Tauranga County prompted Matiu Rata, Minister of Maori Affairs, in 1974 to attempt to have the Maori Housing Act 1935 amended to allow for a more flexible approach to the subdivision of rural Maori land. However, this attempt failed at least partly because ‘both the Ministers of Local Government and Works and Development raised strong objections to the amendment.’ These objections illustrate that at least some government officials held strong view regarding the primacy of district planning schemes. The Minister of Works objected on the basis that The [local] council and all citizens are bound by the provisions of any operative district scheme. It would be most undesirable to create a special exclusion (and privilege) for one group or race, or a certain class of land in any district. The trend is to extend the binding nature of Town and Country Planning Act to include the Crown (and thus everybody) rather than to exclude any sections of the community.198

As the next section will discuss, the Tauranga County Council responded to Rata’s concerns with two initiatives. The first of these initiatives, the provision for marae community zones in 1974, is discussed in the next section. The second initiative was the amendment of the Tauranga County Council’s district scheme in February 1977 to make ‘provision for the excision of a site on which a house has existed prior to 31 March 1976’.199 This meant that Maori with existing houses built on multiply-owned Maori land would not be subject to the usual district scheme restrictions on the minimum size of rural subdivisions. Therefore the owners of these homes could obtain a legal title by applying to the Maori Land Court to have the land on which the house had been built partitioned out without any opposition from the Council. This provision was to remain in place until 31 March 1981.200 However, as the chairman of the Tauranga County Council admitted in 1979, the marae community zones and exemption were ‘really the only specified concessions made in respect of Maori land in our present Ordinances.’201

198 La Rooij, 2002, pp 78 – 79 citing Minister of Works & Development to Minister of Maori Affairs, 25 September 1973, AAMK 25/4/4, ANZ, Wgt 199 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 27 200 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, pp 27 – 28. This policy was repeated by E K Barrett the Chairman of the Tauranga County Council in a presentation covering ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ at ‘A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 15 201 E K Barrett (Chairman of the Tauranga County Council), ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 15

59 3.3 Maori Community Development and Marae Community Zones in the Tauranga Inquiry District

3.3.1 The Marae Community Zones Policy

La Rooij suggested that the Tauranga County Council ‘seems to have responded to Rata’s move by introducing ‘Marae Community Zones’ into its district plan.202 Stokes provided a detailed discussion of the marae community zone policy and the extent to which it was able to provide for housing on rural Maori land in the vicinity of marae. Marae community zones were proposed by the Tauranga County Council as ‘a new type of zoning in its district scheme to allow development of marae as cultural centres for community activities and some residential areas in rural zones for Maori people.’203

Marae had to meet several conditions before a marae community zone could be approved by the council. First they had to provide ‘a management committee or group of trustees or advisers, responsible for maintenance and operation of the marae and surrounding area in the marae zone.’ Then the marae had to submit ‘a development plan of services, access, parking areas, landscaping in relation to community buildings, sports grounds and recreation areas, housing area and so on’ for council approval.204 The planning scheme statement specified that the development plan could include the following predominant uses: 1. Community halls, churches, recreational buildings and residential accommodation associated with them and forming part of the marae. 2. Sports grounds and recreation grounds associated with and forming part of the marae. 3. Dwelling houses, household units and pensioner housing provided that these uses form only a minor or ancillary land use associated with the marae. 4. Vehicle parks associated with the marae. [emphasis added]205 The Council’s statement in the Tauranga County Approved District Scheme (First Review) 1976 regarding marae community zones indicated that the Council was ‘concerned that certain maraes should continue as the cultural and social centre for the area in which they are situated.’ By ‘certain marae’ the Council appeared to have meant those which the Council (not Maori) deemed to be ‘active marae’ as the proposal emphasised ‘it is not the Council’s policy to include within

202 La Rooij, 2002, p 79 citing ‘New Types of Zoning in District Scheme’, NZ Herald, 6 November 1973 203 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 23 204 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 23 205 Thomsen, 1979, p 48 citing Tauranga District Planning Scheme 1976 Code of Ordinances, p 80

60 marae community zones disused or infrequently used maraes [sic] and graveyards.’ 206 ‘Inactive marae and urupa would continue ‘to have the protection of an ‘existing use’ under the Act (Town and Country Planning Act 1953 and Amendments).’207

To some extent the Tauranga County Council also saw the marae community zones as a way of controlling development around marae (just as any form of zoning aimed to control development). They stated that the proposed zones would ensure ‘that the development and maintenance of such areas should continue in a manner that would provide an acceptable standard of land use and fulfil the proper functions of a marae … and allow them to develop in an orderly and attractive manner’.208 Thomsen concluded that one of the purposes of the development plan was ‘to provide the Council with some sort of assurance, that the quality and usefulness of the rural environment, will not be undermined by the sale of land that is not an economic unit.’209 Research also noted that although the development plan would be developed by the marae the council had the right to approve or reject it. The preparation of such a development plan also required a considerable financial outlay and a commitment to a large amount of subsequent expenditure in carrying out the work specified in the development plan. For some marae this may have been a barrier to taking advantage of the marae community zones.

Stokes’ research seems to indicate that the Tauranga County Council put forward the marae community zone proposal in its draft first review of the Tauranga County District Scheme in 1974. The wording and content of the proposal in this draft is not clear (Stokes quotes only from the resulting first review of the Tauranga County Approved District Scheme not from the draft). 210 However, it is clear from subsequent submissions received by the council that the council had proposed a number of marae community zones. There is no evidence in the existing research of consultation with Maori communities over marae selection. Council planning staff may have drawn up the list. Given that no marae community zones were initially proposed for the Matapihi area it seems unlikely that there had been consultation there. E T Durie’s submission on behalf of the Matapihi-Ohuki Trustees and marae committees at Bethlehem and Wairoa suggested that this

206 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 24 207 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 24 208 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 24. These policies were repeated by E K Barrett the Chairman of the Tauranga County Council in a presentation covering ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’ at ‘A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 15 209 Thomsen,1979, p 48 210 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 24

61 omission was the result of doubts about the place of Matapihi in planning for urban expansion.211 It is possible that the County Council were reluctant to encourage marae community zones in this area on the basis that it might interfere with the acquisition of land for large scale subdivisions and housing.

Existing research does not disclose all the Maori responses to the initial marae community zone proposal. Stokes provides a detailed discussion of the two submissions; that by Durie and her own. Durie argued that the Council needed to rethink its policy on Maori community development and to consider a wider co-ordinated approach to the development of marae-base Maori communities in rural areas. He suggested ‘that there should be a fuller understanding of Maori needs in the area, both to develop the concept of a marae and to co-operate with proposals to ensure the most effective farm usage of the surrounding Maori lands.’212 In support of his argument he cited the general objectives of district planning schemes laid out in section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 which stated that planned development should ‘promote and safeguard the health, safety and convenience, and the economic and general welfare of its inhabitants’. Durie argued that as ‘large parts of the county are predominantly Maori in population’ any failure by the Council under this section of the Act to implement a wider development strategy for Maori communities would be ‘to ignore the general welfare of a significant proportion of the County’s inhabitants.’ Durie also argued that ‘the fostering of marae, and thereby of a distinctive Maori way of life, is to enrich the social and cultural welfare of the whole district; and to make special provisions for area of Maori land to improve land usage, benefits the productivity of the county as a whole.’213

Durie noted that the marae community zone proposal permitted ‘some residential development although this is intended to be ‘a minor or ancillary land use’. While he appreciated the flexibility this would give the Council he warned that: If the Council intends … that the residential development should be limited to caretakers and some of the old people living in pensioner flats, then I submit that the development envisaged could lead to the death of a marae and the very laudable object of maintaining and developing existing marae will not be achieved.214

211 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 40 citing submission to the Tauranga County Council by E T Durie on behalf of the Matapihi-Ohuki Trustees 212 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 24 213 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 25 214 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 25

62 Durie contended that, without a significant community of young and old living close to the marae, a marae could not effectively function as the cultural, social and spiritual heart of a Maori community. He advocated a larger residential zone around marae. Marae community zones must be large enough to permit a reasonable number of homes to surround the marae – to provide an adequate age coverage, a sufficient caring force and to ensure through numbers the continuation of the culture that those marae represent.215 Durie recognised that ‘by existing law, Council is limited in the creation of special residential zones of any size’. However, he urged the Council ‘to go as far as it can however in extending the scope of such zones in order that they will be more palatable to the Maori people, and allow trustees to implement their proposals for better land usage and the removal of existing substandard homes.’216

Similarly, the Maori community surrounding the Wairoa Marae raised concerns that the marae community zone failed to include hapu land what could be used for horticulture. Their submission (prepared by Stokes) also sets out, as Durie did in his 1974 submission, an alternative and wider vision of development and the protection of Maori land from alienation: Inclusion of all hapu lands in a development plan could be a device to make alienation more difficult by requiring potential sellers to discuss their proposals with the whole community. Inclusion within a Maori Community Zone encourages planning for the whole area, not piecemeal development block by block. In the process of planning, the trustees or management committee, with the assistance of planners, agriculture people or other experts who may be brought in as consultants, can work out with the local people a development plan to cover marae, other community facilities, housing, agricultural or horticultural activities. Inclusion of hapu lands in a Marae Community Zone, rather than other rural zoning, may also help discourage outside investors anxious to acquire title to Maori lands for their own development schemes.217 It is unclear from the existing research how this submission (and other submissions from Maori) shaped the final marae community zone policy.

215 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 26 216 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, pp 26 - 27 217 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, pp 72 - 73

63 3.3.2 Implementation of Marae Community Zones

According to Stokes ‘the Marae Community Zone was incorporated into the Tauranga County District Scheme (First Review) which became operative on 1 April 1976.’218 In this scheme ‘a number of marae were zoned’ but their designation was not confirmed until proof of a committee was received and a development plan was submitted and approved by the Council. It appears that these initial marae were selected ‘because their existence was significant and therefore considered by Council to be ideal for trial selection at this stage.’219 At a meeting of owners with land around Waikari marae at Matapihi on 16 May 1976 Mr Kanapu, Maori Land Officer, emphasised that ‘only the owners could decide as to whether the proposed zoning was acceptable and that they need not participate in the overall scheme’. He also made it clear that in any development plan ‘only the owners could decide in the allocation of sections’ for housing.220

‘By May 1978 five marae had been so approved and several more followed in the next two years.’221 Figure 2 in Stokes shows the seven marae community zones within the Tauranga Moana inquiry district, the first of these six were Ngaiterangi marae and the seventh a Ngati Ranganui marae.222 These are listed in table 5 below. Walzl stated that by 1988 seventeen marae community zones had been established.223

Table 5: Marae Community Zones within the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District, 1978

Marae District Hapu Meeting House (date built) Tuapiro Katikati Whanau a Tauwhao (Bryan Family) Tuapiro Hall Rereatukahia Katikati Ngai Tamawhariua Tamawhariua (1969) Oporeora Matakana Is. Ngai Tuwhiwhia Tuwhiwhia (1874) Waikari Matapihi Ngati Tapu Tapukino (1880) Tamapahore Mangatawa Ngapotiki Tamapahore (1967) Tahuwhakatiki Waitao Ngapotiki Romainohorangi (c.1910) Peterehema Bethlehem Ngati Hangarau Hangarau (1967)

Kahotea noted that despite the very limited provision for housing made in marae community zones, Maori communities have attempted to use the marae community zones as a way of getting around restrictions on building homes on rural Maori land. He stated that ‘since its

218 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 27 219 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 43 citing comments by County chairman in minutes of meeting of owners, 16 May 1976 220 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 43 citing comments by Mr Kanapu in minutes of meeting of owners, 16 May 1976 221 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 27 222 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, Figure 2 map and key, pp 5 - 6 223 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 153

64 inception, the response of Maori communities has been to press for residential development to meet the demand by hapu members for housing on ancestral land near marae.’224 Kahotea argued that this engagement with the provision was a response to a number of factors. Firstly, as already mentioned, the controls on the size of rural subdivisions restricted Maori ability to improve or build new houses around marae. Secondly, the high price of sections in Tauranga made building on ancestral land attractive, and finally a growing Maori population created demand for homes near marae. For many of these people there were strong cultural reasons for supporting housing around marae, these included a desire to support the marae; ‘disillusionment with the urban environment for the maintenance of culture’; desire of elders ‘to see adequate age coverage in the area’; the maintenance of ‘hapu ties and relations’; a ‘preference to live on ancestral land’, and the desire to retain continued occupation of ancestral land by whanau.225

3.3.3 Critiques of the Marae Community Zone

The Tauranga County Council, was as Stokes noted, ‘among the first local authorities to make provision for special marae zoning in their district scheme.’226 It also appears that the council made a concerted effort to communicate face to face with marae communities by attending meetings at the marae concerned. In the 1970s this was probably unusual amongst local authorities and indicates that the council was forward thinking.227 Stokes noted that: In Tauranga, the Maori Land Officer, a Maori who had worked for some years with the Department of Maori Affairs before his appointment to the county, arranged and conducted the meetings. On most occasions the County Chairman and Riding Councillors have attended to ensure a variety of aspects involved were discussed and indicate council’s enthusiasm for the scheme.228 On the other hand, Stokes also commented that ‘many Maori people are deterred by the apparently complex procedures of the Town and Country Planning Act, which are operated by Pakeha bureaucrats. And many feel that county councils which are dominated by Pakeha farmers have little sympathy with Maori aspirations.’229

224 Kahotea, ‘…Maori Perspectives’, 1986, p 23 225 Kahotea, ‘… Maori Perspectives’, 1986, pp 23 - 24 226 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 28 227 Evidence that this approach was innovative can be found in the tone, content and even the existence of a booklet detailing the visit of Auckland City Council staff to a Tauranga marae in 1978: Haare Williams (ed), The Maungatapu Experience: A visit to a Tauranga Marae by Auckland City Councillors, Council Staff and Community Workers, Department of Planning & Social Development, Auckland City Council, Auckland, 1978. It was clear that this was a totally new cultural experience for almost all the visitors and for many a revelation of Maori tikanga and worldviews. This certainly indicates that meetings on marae by council staff were not the common practice at this time. 228 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 28 229 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 29

65 Nightingale concluded that, while the Tauranga County had been ahead of its time in implementing marae community zones, the initiative was essentially several decades too late to contribute substantially in assisting Maori communities to remain on Maori land around their marae. ‘By 1973, when the zone concept was adopted the larger debate over whether hapu could remain intact as distinct social groupings had already been lost and so the concession, while real, was only very partial.’230 Nightingale argued that these marae community zones ‘relegated marae living to an ancillary use, and so made it clear that it was there as a vestige, rather than a reinforcement, of marae living.’231 Even at the time marae community zones were put forward in the Tauranga county district plan in 1974 by E T Durie’s submission cited above admitted that not all owners of Maori land around a marae would want to build houses there because ‘many have left the Tauranga area and many again have already built in town.’232

3.4 Conclusion

The existing research highlighted the lack of provisions in the town and country planning legislation for planning for the retention and development of Maori communities. Although local bodies recognised marae as ‘an existing use’, they failed to recognise that marae and their surrounding communities might have different planning needs from Pakeha institutions. In addition, Maori ability to subdivide rural Maori land for housing near marae was restricted by local authority restrictions relating to the minimum size of sections in rural areas. The existing research suggests that the Tauranga County Council saw these policies as particularly important by as it faced pressure from the expansion of residential areas into western horticultural land.

For many Maori landowners building houses on multiply-owned land near their marae was made more difficult by these planning restrictions. In the majority of cases the Maori Land Court took into account these planning regulations and only approved partitions for housing in exceptional cases. In 1974, in response to concerns raised by Tauranga Maori the Minister of Maori Affairs, Matiu Rata, attempted to have the Maori Housing Act 1935 amended to allow for a more flexible approach to the subdivision of rural Maori land. Although Rata’s bid to amend the legislation failed, it appears to have helped prompt the Tauranga County Council to propose a new form of zoning around marae in rural areas. The council introduced the marae community zone in 1974 to allow for the development of marae as cultural centres for community activities. The Council was the first in New Zealand to implement such a policy with many councils modelling later marae community zones and papakainga zones on those established in Tauranga. It also appears

230 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing…’, 1996, p 3 231 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing…’, 1996, p 4 232 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 27

66 that council staff were ahead of their time in engaging Maori communities in discussion about the marae community zones at meetings on marae. To some extent this enabled Maori to put forward their views in a culturally reassuring environment. Once a marae committee had been formed and a professionally drafted marae development plan approved by the council, marae development and associated housing subdivision could proceed.

Evidently, Maori communities saw the marae community zones as a means of circumventing restrictions on rural subdivision. They hoped to be able to use the provision to develop extensive housing subdivisions on Maori land in the vicinity of their marae. However, there were a number of factors that limited the impact of marae community zones as a development strategy for Maori communities. Initially at least, the council decided which marae were suitable for a marae community zone, although they may have consulted with Maori communities before proposing a number of marae for this zoning. However, the fact that none were proposed for Matapihi, an area where the majority of land was Maori land, suggests that consultation was incomplete. The council had the power to reject or ask for changes to any development plan put forward for approval. However, the major limitation of the marae community zones was their timing and the limited provision for housing. Nightingale concluded that the initiative was several decades too late to make any substantial contribution to keeping Maori on their land, coming at a time when the real debate over whether hapu could remain as distinct social groupings had already been lost. The marae community zones policy made provision for housing, but only as an ancillary use — not as a main function of the zone.

67 Chapter 4: Overview of the Impact of Town and Country Planning on Tauranga Maori Communities

4.1 Introduction

Town and Country Planning policies and mechanisms have had a considerable impact on Tauranga Maori communities and their land in the 1953 – 1990 period. In his 1974 submission to the Tauranga County Council E T Durie stated that: I know that Council is aware of the Maori land problem and the feelings of the Maori people. I would go further to say however that no minority group has been more harshly affected by town planning laws than the Maori people. I am not aware of any other group of people that have so many interests in land, the use of which is denied them by town planning. The Maori people have inherited interests in the land which they cannot use for their own farming purposes. A very significant number of people are prevented from remaining on the land by the effect of town planning laws.233

The following discussion summarises the existing research with regard to the principal impact of planning policies and mechanisms on Maori and their land in Tauranga Moana between 1953 and 1990. The discussion is divided into two sections, the impact on rural land and the impact on urban land. As previously noted, the geographical separation between rural and urban land was often blurred. Stokes noted how rural areas shaded into urban areas creating a zone of peri- urban land and the urban area overflowed the boundaries of the Tauranga Borough/City. Neither can policies relating to the direction and extent of urban expansion be separated from those controlling rural land use. As has already been discussed in the previous chapter, the desire to protect areas of high horticultural value from urbanisation was a key factor in the formulation of policies that directed Tauranga’s urban growth in an easterly direction. Having said this, it is useful to discuss the way that similar processes in rural and urban areas impacted on the ability of Maori to develop and retain their land.

4.2 The Impact of Planning Policy and Process on Rural Maori Land

Until the 1980s ‘the overarching principle of the [Tauranga] county’s district planning strategy was to control urban development and preserve the integrity of the rural areas’ by ‘ensuring urban development was guided towards areas of low productive value’ on the eastern side of the

233 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 27

68 harbour’234 The resulting controls on subdivision in rural areas restricted the ability of Maori to live on their rural blocks. ‘While the county wanted Maori land developed, occupied and paying rates, this did not mean that it favoured uncontrolled residential development that could threaten it boundaries.’235 The desire to preserve the best agricultural/horticultural land and the fear of losing territory to urban spread (decreasing rating revenues) meant that the county was reluctant to ease the restrictions on subdivision.236

Subdivision restrictions ‘rarely allowed owners of rural Maori land to partition out their interests into lots of less than ten acres. As a result, many Maori simply built homes on the corner of communal land without county approval’.237 The Department of Maori Affairs identified this problem in 1975 when they noted that, ‘many Maori families are refused permission to build houses on traditional land (in some cases where settlements are close to employment and in the vicinity of an existing marae) because the land is zoned rural.’ In many cases those who had already built homes on multiply-owned land were then ‘prevented from having their house sites partitioned out because it is contrary to the district scheme.’ Without a ‘proper title’ it was ‘extremely difficult for him to raise a mortgage to do any maintenance on, or renovations to, his home.’ This seems to have become a particular problem after the passing of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. The Department noted that since that Act was passed 'all partitions have now become subject to the Counties Amendment Act and must conform to subdivision requirements.’238 It should be noted that this problem was reduced by the Tauranga County Council 1977 initiative not to oppose applications for partition of land on which houses had already been built (discussed in the previous chapter). Even those who were able to have the section on which their home stood partitioned out by the Maori Land Court faced further planning hurdles. The Department noted that even those with an individual title were ‘often still refused building permits because their sites do not meet the subdivisional standards in the district scheme.’ 239

This may have left Maori landowners doubly disadvantaged. Controls on subdivision restricted the their ability to develop the land, and urban encroachment raised valuations and rates at the same time. In particular partition restrictions left those with houses on multiply-owned Maori land

234 La Rooij, 2002, p 74 235 La Rooij, 2002, p 75 236 La Rooij, 2002, p 74 and Stokes, A History of the Tauranga County, 1980, p 332 citing Chairman of the Tauranga County Council, 1960 237 La Rooij, 2002, p 77 238 Planning for Maori Needs in Rural Areas’,Town and Country Planning Bulletin. Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, No. 16, September 1975 239 Planning for Maori Needs in Rural Areas’, 1975

69 vulnerable to rates rises because ‘under the Rating Act as occupier they were liable for rates on the block, yet they were unable to partition out their interests.’240 Stokes identified valuation and rating rises as adversely affecting rural Maori land adjacent to residential development. Stokes admitted that: Maori owners of land on the fringes of growing urban areas face similar pressures to other owners in the form of rising valuations and corresponding increases in rates, competing uses for the land, and pressure to sell to the highest bidder.241 However, Maori landowners also faced peculiar cultural pressures not experienced by other landowners: For the Maori owner there is the additional pressure of traditional attitudes to ancestral land, the desire to retain it in Maori ownership. In order to retain ownership, rates and other expenses must be paid, preferably out of income made from the land. Selling up and going elsewhere is not an option for Maori owners faced with administration of blocks of land, often in multiple ownership, on which established pastoral farming is no longer economic.242

This chain of processes and consequences: the policy of preserving agricultural/horticultural land from urban expansion, subdivision controls, restrictions on partitioning of Maori land, urban and horticultural expansion, rising valuations and rising rates became an increasing problem as the growth in horticulture accelerated in the Tauranga district from the late 1960s. Stokes noted that ‘land values in the Tauranga district have been rising since the 1940s, but in the 1970s accelerated sharply with the increase in demand for horticultural land.’ She cited a comment by the District Valuer, Len Green that it was not until the late 1960s that the development of Kiwifruit orchards ‘began to have a scientific effect on land values in Tauranga County.’ 243 By 1981 the Tauranga County Council had established Rural zone C to allow for and regulate this development and 400 hectares of land had been split into 548 lots for horticultural use. The impact of this expansion was rising valuations and rising rates. Walzl noted that ‘the impact of the horticulture expansion on rating was soon felt. In 1977, the Tauranga County Council struck rates at a total of $977,709 which was more than double the $470,414 in 1971/72.’244 This had a particular impact on Maori land, for example, Walzl concluded that by the 1970s ‘the biggest threat to the owners of Poike and other eastern harbour Maori land was the increased rates

240 La Rooij, 2002, p 77 241 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 2 242 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 2 243 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 129 244 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 137 – 138 citing New Zealand Herald, 16 March 1981 and Taranaki Daily News, 7 June 1977, both AANX 7536, W5027, LGC 1/1/115, pt 1, supporting papers, doc. 12, p 266 & 268

70 burden arising from an increase valuation of land which had been developed for horticultural expansion on the countryside.’245

Stokes discussed the impact that rising valuations and rates had on Maori landowners with land in leasehold. She concluded that: Often leasehold arrangements with rentals based on valuation worked out in earlier years cannot be maintained. Low productivity, low incomes and indebtedness are not uncommon among Maori farmers struggling to keep up with loan repayments on pastoral farming enterprises that have become marginal.246 The difficulties for Maori landowners whose land was leased either to one of the other Maori owners or to a Pakeha farmer was that ‘Maori leasehold rentals are tied to a percentage of valuation. When a rent review occurs the current valuation at the time of the review is the basis for setting the rental for the period set out in terms of the lease.’247 This could produce dramatic jumps in rents and lead to the surrender of leases. Stokes cited the example of a lessee in the Katikati district who ‘applied to the Maori Land Court for surrender because his rental will jump from $500 per annum to around $15,000.’248 Stokes commented on the difficulties facing Maori owners when leases on Maori land were surrendered in this way: ‘Maori Land Board funds are limited and cannot therefore cover the high capital costs of expanding horticultural development. The temptation to sell out at the inflated prices now offered for kiwifruit land is very great indeed.’249

4.3 The Impact of Planning Policy and Process on Maori Land Included in Urban Areas

Similar problems with rising valuations and rates resulted when previously rural Maori land was included within the boundaries of the Tauranga Borough/City or Mount Maunganui Borough. As Young noted ‘the shift from rural agricultural land use to urban residential land use had the effect of pushing up land values. Furthermore, when land was included in the boundaries of an urban local authority, rates became an impossible burden.’250 Willan also concluded that ‘for landowners the matter of whether they were in a rural or urban area was a key issue because it related to the account of rates they were required to pay and the planning restrictions that they were

245 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 137 – 138 246 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 2 247 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 147 248 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 148 249 Stokes, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 148 250 Grant Young, ‘The Alienation by Sale of the Hapu estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana, Volume Two: The Twentieth Century’, 2001, Wai 215 #M3, p 112

71 subjected to.’251 Crucially, Kahotea found that generally there was little formal notification or consultation with Maori regarding changes to local authority boundaries: Since the 1950s, the Local Government Commission or its equivalent was approached by Councils for boundary extensions, either by suggestion of new areas or the investigation procedure of the Commission. In most cases Maori landowners and community representatives were not forewarned or approached specifically to be made aware of any boundary changes that might come about. However, Kahotea also indicated that Maori organisations were very active in supporting Maori communities in their struggle to remain in the Tauranga County. He noted that: There was intense lobbying from firstly the Tauranga Executive of the Waikato Maniapoto District Maori Land Council and then the Tauranga Moana District [Maori] Council to support Maori communities and land trusts who sought to remain in the county, which was perceived to offer them protection against urban development. 252

The inclusion of rural Maori land lying in the path of planned urban expansion in the borough/city boundaries inevitably led to the land being zoned residential. Nightingale concluded that, with notable exception of Matapihi (discussed further below), ‘once inside the Borough Maori owners were consistently unable to retain non-residential zoning.’253 Nightingale also noted that Maori were aware that the local bodies’ power to zone areas as residential was the root cause of the chain of consequences that inevitably followed. He concluded that ‘Tauranga Maori equated urban zoning with enforced land sales as owners became overburdened by increased rate demands.’254 Kahotea also reported that amongst Tauranga Maori ‘generally residential zoning of Maori land is viewed as compulsory alienation. Once zoned it inevitably becomes subdivided for residential use, sections sold, and the land rarely comes back to Maori ownership.’255 Inclusion within the boundaries of an urban authority also put considerable pressure on Maori landowners to sell their individual interests to developers. Walzl concluded that even the ‘rumours of Maori land being on the verge of inclusion in city or borough boundaries was usually sufficient to begin a concerted effort from land speculators to attempt the purchase of Maori land for residential subdivision.’256 Conversely, residential zoning could hinder Maori who wished to farm their land and to earn enough income from the land to pay rapidly increasing rates. Oral testimony from a member of Nga Potiki stated that in the case of land zoned residential:

251 Willan, 1999, p 45 252 Kahotea, ‘… Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 29 253 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 4 254 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 3 255 Kahotea, ‘… Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 15 256 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 166

72 There are certain developments you can do, like subdivision etc of urban land, but you can’t dry stock it or whatever you want to do on it to raise enough finances on it to pay for the rates because it’s urban. But we asked that the zoning be changed to allow us to do that to pay for the rates and they [the council] refused.257

Residential zoning increased land valuations because valuation was partly based on the potential uses of the land and well as on the value of surrounding residential property in the area. In general, ‘a zoning change, for example from rural to urban residential, ‘creates’ value by assigning a site to a more intensive use.’258 At the 1979 Matapihi hui on alternative Maori land use, the district valuer, Len Green, outlined the principles underlying valuation of land in the Tauranga district. Green emphasised this connection between valuation, planning policies and zoning for future development. He stated that ‘the value of land is influenced basically by the best use to which the land could be put at the date of valuation.’259 He gave as an example a dairy farm, if it were ‘located in an area where dairy farming is the most suitable use and there is no potential seen at the time for any residential sub-divisional development or a switch to horticulture or other more productive use then that is how it is valued – as a dairy farm.’ On the other hand if this same farm ‘was situated on the fringe of an urban area (city or borough or even a small township) then if it was actually zoned residential it would be valued as land ripe for development as a residential subdivision. The value in this case would probably be ten times as high for residential development as it would be for strictly dairy farming use.’260 Green also noted that land values begin to reflect this potential future use well ahead of the areas being developed, ‘the potential for residential use is seen some years ahead and that potential becomes built into the land value and pushes it more gradually up to its highest and best use over a period of years.’261 Clearly these processes of zoning and increasing valuation were well underway in the Tauranga district by 1979. Green noted that ‘examples of where this has happened or is happening in the Tauranga area is at the Welcome Bay which is now pretty much advanced, at Papamoa where land values are currently about midway between farming and residential levels

257 International Research Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, University of Auckland, ‘Socio-economic Impact Report for Nga Potiki’, n/d, p 124 258 Scott, 1982, p1 259 Len Green, District Valuer, ‘Land Values in the Tauranga District’, in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 8 260 Len Green, District Valuer, ‘Land Values in the Tauranga District’, in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, pp 8 - 9 261 Len Green, District Valuer, ‘Land Values in the Tauranga District’, in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 9

73 and at the top of Matapihi where the Local Government Commission has recently seen fit to recommend local body boundaries.’’262

Increases in valuation significantly increased the rates paid by landowners. While local bodies had have some power to establish differential rating areas to ease the impact of these rises this power seems to have been used in a very limited way in the Tauranga district. The Chairman of the Tauranga Count Council noted in 1979 that his council had ‘only used this provision of differential rating areas to a very limited degree’ principally because the rate burden would then be shifted to other ratepayers in the county.263 Rising valuations and rates created problems for Maori owners who were under exceptional financial and cultural constraints. Nightingale concluded that: where the value of surrounding land increases, then so do the rates for the area. In the case of Maori freehold land this means that the costs of maintaining that land increase, even though it was often not practical to develop the land, and culturally unacceptable to sell it. This tension was particularly acute in Tauranga in the post-war period as rapid urban expansion and horticultural development lead to an escalation of land process for both rural and urban land.264 A socio-economic report for Nga Potiki provides further insights into the dilemma this chain of events caused for many Maori landowners. Oral testimony cited in this report outlined these dilemmas: When you look back over the years, our multiply-owned land, not being able to borrow money on it, and yet the land is being valued the same as Pakeha land. And if you can’t borrow money you can’t really develop it to get the income to, not only pay the rates but anything else … in that regard the legislation was set up for Pakeha to succeed and Maori to fail … the only way you can get money for it is to sell part of it to develop it, it’s getting more difficult to sell Maori land because of the number of shares that are required for the sale, 75 percent of the owners.265 Kahotea also noted that residential zoning, rising valuations and rising rates often had a negative impact on Maori motivation to develop their land: Urban valuation accentuates rating problems associated with multiply-owned land. The incentive for organisation or management of Maori land is lacking because of the

262 Len Green, District Valuer, ‘Land Values in the Tauranga District’, in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 9 263 E K Barnett, Chairman of the Tauranga County Council, ‘County Ordinances – District Scheme – Rating’, in A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, 1979, p 17 264 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 12 265 International Research Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, University of Auckland, ‘Socio-economic Impact Report for Nga Potiki’, n/d, pp 122 – 123

74 perceived inevitability of alienation and the prospect of little future economic benefit. When zoned for residential development that is the only economic use.266

Aside from the difficulties rising rating debt created for Maori attempting to develop their land unpaid rating debts posed a significant risk of alienation of Maori land in the Tauranga district. Walzl concluded that one of the significant threats to Maori land in the eastern harbour area was from being included within urban administrative boundaries. Higher rates and land use restrictions [from zoning] combined to force sales from owners who could not sustain the cost, but could not develop the land. As a reflection of this, Maori lands such as Maungatapu and Hairini included within Tauranga city boundaries before 1970 soon began to be alienated.267 Alienation occurred either by lease or through subdivision and sale for residential development, privately or via the Maori Trustee. Hamilton noted Ngai Te Ahi lands in the period from the 1950s to the 1970s were ‘put into receivership leases, vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision and sale or sold privately by owners who felt they had little choice because of an ongoing heavy rates burden.’268

Cases of unpaid rating debts were often taken to the Maori Land Court by local bodies resulting in the court vesting the land in the Maori Trustee (or occasionally in other trustees) for the purpose of lease or subdivision and sale to recover the rating debt. Maori land legislation passed around the same time as town and country planning legislation enabled the court to vest the land in this way. The Maori Purposes Act 1950 section 34 ‘empowered the Maori Land Court to vest Maori land in the hands of the Maori Trustee for lease or sale if most or all the following factors were applicable: • The land was unoccupied. • The land was covered in noxious weeds. • Rates are owed on the land and a charge has been made. • The land is neglected and not used in best interests of the owners or the public interest. • The owner of the land cannot be found.’269

266 Kahotea, ‘… Maori Perspective’, 1986, p 15 267 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 169 268 Fiona Hamilton, ‘Ngai Te Ahi Historical Report’, 2000, Wai 215 #G1, p 150 269 La Rooij, 2002, p 64. La Rooij discusses in detail the Tauranga County Council’s use of these provisions to attempt to recover unpaid rates in Maori land (La Rooij, 2002, pp 65 – 72).

75 The Maori Affairs Act 1953 section 33 also gave the Maori Land Court the power to appoint a receiver to enforce charges against the land. Section 387 gives the Maori Land Court the power to appoint the Maori Trustee as the agent of the owners where land is unoccupied, weed infested and unpaid rates are charged on the land. Under section 438, the Maori Land Court can make an order vesting Maori freehold land (or land owned by Maori) in any trustee to be held in trust for the benefit of the Maori owners [this included the Maori Trustee].270

Receivership leases were generally regarded as a more suitable solution to rating debts on rural Maori land. As La Rooij explained ‘leasehold Maori land in urban areas was simply not an attractive proposition to developers who preferred building on freehold land.’271 Walzl also noted that by 1950 ‘by law the council could apply to have land compulsorily vested in the Waiariki Land Board so that the land would be available for leasing and the lessee would be responsible for the weed eradication and rates.’272 However, such leases (and the consequent development of Maori land they may have been able to achieve) ‘was not to occur at the expense of restricting spreading urbanisation.’ The Tauranga County Council stated that ‘there was unlikely to be a long term lease of any land situated in a locality that was likely to become urbanised within the next ten to fifteen years.’273 La Rooij’s extensive discussion of receivership leases and vesting of land in the Maori Trustee for subdivision concluded that ‘by 1961, the Maori Trustee reported that nationally it was acting as receiver for 431 blocks totalling 46,000 acres. Tauranga County Council was certainly making regular use of Section 33 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.’274

The Maori Land Court favoured vesting land in the Maori Trustee for a subdivision schemes in an attempts to recover outstanding rates and to prevent rating debt escalating to the point where more was owed on the land than it was actually worth. La Rooij explained that: the Maori Land Court saw a quick sale as the only real alternative for Maori land in urban areas. If the land was not sold, or there was a significant delay in the sale, rates charges would build up so rapidly that thousands of pounds could be owed within only a couple of years. In such circumstances, it was possible under the Rating Act, for rate charges to eat away the entire freehold value of a block, leaving the owners with nothing.275 Hamilton provided a summary of how this provision was generally carried out. She noted that:

270 Hamilton, 2000, p 152 271 La Rooij, 2002, p 126 272 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 43 273 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, citing Bay of Plenty Times, 30 August 1950, MA 1, 20/1/33, supporting papers, doc. 6, p 98 274 La Rooij, 2002, p 72 275 La Rooij, 2002, p126

76 Vesting land under Section 438 in the Maori Trustee meant that the Trustee had legal title of the land. For the duration of the trust, the owners were merely beneficial owners. The Maori Trustee’s powers (including the powers of alienation) were defined in each case by the ‘terms of trust’ set out by the Maori Land Court at the time it made its vesting order. With the Ngai Te Ahi land examined here, the Maori Trustee was empowered in a broad sense to subdivide and sell the land, usually with a proviso that owners were to have sections if required and if they had sufficient shares or cash to have one vested in them.276 In his research on Ngati He lands in the Maungatapu and Welcome Bay area, Young observed that the ‘a number of Crown agencies [were] involved: the Maori Land Court, the Maori Trustee, and local authorities. Each played a role in facilitating the process of subdivision, as did the owners.’ However, he concluded that: The owners’ role was nevertheless, severely circumscribed. Meetings of owners were consulted over plans to subdivide land and their consent was obtained, but the minutes suggest this was often because there appeared to be no possible alternative … However, once approval was gained, the Maori landowners tended to be marginalised as decision makers.277

These subdivision schemes were intended to benefit Maori. Potentially at least ‘landowners would be able to obtain sections using their shares in the former block and any shortfall could be made up by a cash payment. The profits of any sub-division scheme, and they could be substantial, were then distributed to the beneficial owners.’278 However, because subdivision schemes were driven by the ever-mounting rates debt on Maori blocks the benefits many owners derived from the subdivision and sale of their land were often less than the Court had envisaged. One of the primary reasons for this lay in the need for the Maori Trustee to act rapidly before the amount to be paid back in rates became a significant portion of the expected return from the sale. La Rooij concluded that ‘in practical terms, the Maori Trustee’s major operational concern was to recoup the money advanced to fund the development projects, and prevent the accumulation of rates that would consume the value of the subdivision.’279

To preserve the Maori owners’ equity in the land the Maori Trustee often could not risk waiting until there was a strong market demand for the land as residential or industrial sites before they

276 Hamilton, 2000, p 183. Hamilton also offers a critique of the relationship between the Maori Trustee and the Crown (p 184) 277 Young, 2001, pp 112 - 113 278 Young, 2001, p 112 279 La Rooij, 2002, p 140

77 placed the sections on the market. Market demand often lagged considerably behind the zoning of the land as zoning was a planning tool used to earmark land for development several decades hence rather than to cater to current ventures. So although the valuation of the land for sale might be high based on its potential use lack of market demand often meant that the sale price was lower than the valuation. For example, La Rooij concluded that ‘although the land at Maungatapu-Hairini had high valuations, this did not necessarily correspond with market demand. While some sections sold for more than was expected, others sold on or below the valuation price.’280 This was compounded by the fact that ‘most Maori land was either undeveloped or under-developed, the land often had high potential value without having any real of productive or immediate sale value.’ This made the rapid sale of sections in subdivisions ‘extremely hard.’281 La Rooij suggested that the Maori trustee may have inadvertently ‘accentuated the problem by making more sections available than the market could absorb.’282

There were a number of other reasons why subdivisions carried out by the Maori Trustee tended to benefit Maori less than had been envisaged. In particular it was difficult for many Maori to retain sections in these subdivisions. Because ‘they were unable to meet the cost of purchasing a section outright or in part’ and ‘generations of successors meant that there were many many owners in blocks holding tiny shares. Such shares did not go anywhere near meeting the number required to obtain a section outright … The huge number of owners also had the effect of fragmenting the profits of any subdivision.283 Overall Young concluded that, if the intention was to locate the former Maori landowners on their land, in practice subdivision was a cause of further and significant alienation of Maori land at Tauranga Moana … as a result [Maori] were excluded from participating in urban growth in Tauranga.’ 284 La Rooij also observed that ‘while many of the owners were able to either retain a residential section for themselves or receive a modest cash payout, the process of urban growth in Tauranga effectively saw the wholesale alienation of large areas of Maori land at Whareroa, Maungatapu, Hairini and Welcome Bay … [all areas] notable for having large concentrations of Maori land before they were consumed by the urban advance.’285

280 La Rooij, 2002, p 144 281 La Rooij, 2002, p 137 282 La Rooij, 2002, p 141 283 Young, 2001, p 126 284 Young, 2001, p 126 285 La Rooij, 2002, p 145

78 4.4 Conclusion

In conclusion, the existing research demonstrates the connections between the planning policies that aimed to protect valuable agricultural land by directing urban growth in an easterly direction and the controls on urban spread used in carrying out this policy. The research also indicates that these policies triggered rises in land valuations that increased rates in rural and urban areas. Rating debt on Maori land overrun by urbanisation or affected by adjacent urban development increased the likelihood of land alienation by lease or subdivision and sale. Most frequently the Maori Trustee administered these leases and subdivision schemes. The net result of these difficulties for many Tauranga Maori were barriers to retaining and developing their land and the alienation of a significant proportion of the Maori land remaining after 1945. The three chapters that follow examine how this general pattern was played out in three locations: Whareroa, Matapihi and Maungatapu.

79

Chapter 5: Town and Country Planning and Maori land at Whareroa

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarises the existing research regarding the impact of the policies, mechanisms and factors discussed in the preceding chapters on Maori land and communities at Whareroa. As has already been seen, and as noted in the introduction to this report, making sense of the impact of planning policies and processes requires that planning and urban development be viewed more broadly than simply what local authorities were doing. Urban development was a collaborative enterprise involving not just local authorities but also harbour boards and the Ministry of Works planning for the entire urban environment. This included roads, airports, ports, industry and residential development. The Department of Maori Affairs, the Maori Land Court, the Waiariki Maori Land Board and the Maori Trustee were also involved where this development involved Maori land. In many cases the acquisition of land for urban amenities involved utilised the provisions of the public works legislation. As Willan pointed out ‘for Maori at Whareroa, Matapihi and Mount Maunganui, town planning and public works were closely intertwined issues. Legislation pertaining to both affected land designations, land valuation, and development potential.’286 This chapter examines how urban planning was used to convert Whareroa into a port, airport and industrial zone. This discussion is placed alongside research regarding attempts by Maori to utilise their land in the face of urban planning and the acquisition of their land for these developments. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the research regarding the outcome of these processes for Maori at Whareroa.

5.2 Whareroa and Government Plans for Urban Development

As early as 1926 a government commission had earmarked Mount Maunganui as the location of a substantial port development. However, the commission decided ‘that owing to the financial state of the country at the time the matter should be deferred.’287 The commission sat at Te Puke between 9 and 19 March 1927. ‘During this time, all local authorities in the Bay of Plenty district presented evidence to the inquiry. There was no Maori representation to the inquiry or any explicit regard to Maori interests in the port development.’288 The need for a deepwater port to cope with the ‘export of timber from Kaingaroa forest and pulp and paper from the proposed mill

286 Willan, 1999, p 100 287 Kere Te Cookson-Ua, ‘Te Awa-o-Tukorako & Whareroa Blocks’, 1996, Wai 215 #A27, p 31 citing AAMK 869/60b, p 89 288 Robert McClean, ‘Tauranga Moana Fisheries, Reclamations and Foreshores Report’, 1999, Wai 215 #D7, p 63

81 at Kawerau’ became more pressing in the late 1940s. Once again, Mount Maunganui was selected as the most suitable site but this time ‘plans included not only the Crown land adjacent to the proposed wharf but also private and Maori land in the Whareroa and Te Awaotukorako Blocks.’289 At around the same time as the development of a deepwater port at Mount Maunganui was being debated, ‘on 4 April 1940 the Tauranga Borough Council and the Crown compulsorily acquired 214 acres of land at Whareroa for an airport as part of a joint project.’290 Almost all, 192 acres, of this land was Maori land.291 Hearings regarding compensation were held in the Maori Land Court in December 1940.292 The court awarded Maori £2,668 for this taking.293 After 1945 additional land was taken for the aerodrome in anticipation its development as a commercial airport to service the growing urban area. As a result a further 67 acres, 3 roods and 25.7 perches of Maori land were taken for an airport extension in 1959 (see figure 7).294 This was land ‘to the east of the runway’ acquired ‘in order to ensure that nearby buildings and trees complied with height restrictions.’ These restrictions could have been policed through the district scheme prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act but the town clerk ‘argued that town and country planning regulations were ineffective and that ‘ownership would give positive control with much less trouble and inconvenience and possibly no greater cost.’295

The establishment of an aerodrome and plans for a deepwater port at Mount Maunganui meant that after 1945 Whareroa was included in several regional planning initiatives that also included road, rail and residential development. The Ministry of Works prepared these plans with the support and cooperation of local authorities: On 6 June 1947 the Minister of Works published a Notice of a Comprehensive Scheme of Development and Reconstruction in the Bay of Plenty. This notice was issued under the provisions of s.29(2) of the Finance Act (no. 3) 1944 and affected a substantial geographic area … the notice was affirmed by the Tauranga, Rotorua and Thames Borough Councils as well as the Tauranga, Whakatane and Rotorua County Councils.’296

289 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 15. Stokes gives a much fuller account of the growth of forestry, pulp and paper processing and exporting and debate over whether Tauranga or Whakatane were the best options for a deep water port from 1925 to 1950 (Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, pp 350 – 359) 290 Willan, 1999, p 34. See NZ Gazette, No. 30, 4 April 1950, p 628 and plan SO 30302 (McCaw Lewis & Chapman, ‘Wai 211, Final report on Mount Maunganui’, Volume 1, 1992,Wai 215 #A10, p 6) 291 This land was in addition to ‘some 296 acres from Maori and European owners through negotiations at £8 per acre’ the Tauranga Borough Council had purchased for aerodrome purposes in 1938 (Wendy Hart, ‘A Comparative Study of Public Works Takings in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District’, August 2006, Wai 215 #S2, p 36) 292 Cookson-Ua, 1996, p ix 293 Cookson-Ua, 1996, p x 294 See also Hart, 2006, pp 44 – 49 for full details of additional Maori and European land taken for airport purposes in Tauranga between 1957 and 1962 and its subsequent vesting in the 1962 295 Willan,1999, p 35 citing Town Clerk to Director of Civil Aviation, 11 November 1959, AAQB W4073, 23/404/1, ANZ, Wgt 296 Cookson-Ua, 1996, p 31 citing AATE A934, 290c, 6/58/1/0/42

82 In 1948, possibly as part of this larger 1947 plan, ‘the Ministry of Works examined the need for building a town at Murupara, constructing a branch railway from the East Coast Main Trunk Line at Edgecombe to Murupara and from Te Maunga to Mount Maunganui.’ This was to be accompanied by ‘the necessary harbour works, housing and related land requirements for a port at the Mount, and the development of the airport.’297

5.3 Maori Plans to subdivide and sell the Whareroa Block

Maori owners were also considering the utilisation of their land at Whareroa. In May 1948, Judge Harvey of the Maori Land Court requested H O Cooney, legal counsel for the Tauranga County Council, the Tauranga County Clerk and Engineer to meet and discuss a plan to subdivide the Whareroa block. Following this meeting ‘A M Linton, the Development Officer attached to the Maori Affairs Department, was instructed to prepare a scheme plan of subdivision in accordance with the proposals and standards laid down by the judge and in compliance with the local authority’s requirements.’ At the same time application was made on behalf of the owners to vest the land in the Maori Land Board for the purpose of sub-division and sale.’298 The subdivision covered an area of 278 acres, with ‘some 600 sections.’299 Of this, 242 acres were Maori land with the remainder being the adjacent Tudhope estate.300

The existing research indicates several reasons why Maori proposed a subdivision and sale of the block. In a 1959 summary of the Whareroa case the Maori Trustee stated that the subdivision plan was in response to a 1947 proposal for a ferry service that would require a road across the Whareroa blocks. The Maori Trustee noted that ‘the population of the township of Mount Maunganui increased rapidly and the owners of the Harbour Ferry Company conceived the idea of instituting a vehicular ferry service from the north end of the Tauranga peninsula to the Aerodrome Wharf adjacent to the Whareroa land.’ Because the ferry company had applied to the Maori Land Court for ‘a road line across the Whareroa land, Judge Harvey of the Maori Land Court called a conference of interested parties to institute a subdivision of the Whareroa land adjacent to the road line, so that Maori owners could reap the benefits of subdivision and sale that were being achieved by their European neighbours.’301 Walzl speculated that the earlier taking for an aerodrome under public works legislation possibly ‘led the owners of Whareroa to

297 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 352 298 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 16 299 Willan, 1999, p 26 and Cookson-Ua, 1996, p 35 300 Hart, 2006, p 56 301 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt, document bank pp 44 – 48, cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 16

83 view their reserve from this time as being vulnerable to acquisition,’ and therefore (he implied) Maori decided to subdivide their land and sell it before it could be taken.302 It is also clear that ‘Whareroa owners had made a decision to subdivide and sell the reserve and use the capital raised to improve the land and houses on which they actually lived at Matapihi and other places.’303 A survey by Maori Affairs Department staff at Rotorua noted that the Whareoa block was owned by the same people as had land at Matapihi. This survey of Matapihi indicated that much of the Whareroa block was not suitable for farming, so its subdivision and sale to fund community development at Matapihi can be seen as a strategic decision. The survey stated that: These same people have another block of land on the Mount Maunganui side of the Aerodrome. This land is not good farming land and is not in use but appeared to have a high potential value. The Department’s surveyor at Rotorua, Mr Linton, assisted by the Tauranga County Council Engineer, Mr Hanson, had prepared a scheme of subdivision of this area into residential building lots’304 It is likely that this decision was also informed by the difficulties owners of multiply-owned blocks had in obtaining finance for farming and housing. It is possible that the funds generated from the subdivision were to be used more widely amongst Tauranga Maori. Walzl quoted a letter from the Waiariki Maori Land Court Registrar to the Minister of Maori Affairs submitting the subdivision for approval in August 1950 and stating that: This area is completely unoccupied and the owners agreed to vest it in the Maori Land Board to ensure an orderly subdivision, and proper utilisation of their land. They also have agreed that all revenue received is to provide for the proper economic use of their lands at Matapihi, Matakana and round about Tauranga (emphasis added).305

At the time the subdivision plan was prepared the Maori Trustee was confident that the subdivision and sale would provide a significant sum of money for Maori community development. The Maori Trustee noted that ‘upon the basis of similar sales and the cost of providing roads up to the county council standards of that time, the net return which could have been confidently expected was a sum which would rehabilitate the owners and establish them upon lands at Matapihi and elsewhere.’ 306 Subdivision of Non-Maori land adjacent to Whareroa at

302 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 34 303 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 34 304 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 35 citing Minister of Maori Affairs to the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs, 30 July 1948, AAMK 869, 59G, 5/9/20 pt 1, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers, doc. 3, p 44 305 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 40 citing Registrar to Under - Secretary of Maori Affairs, AAMK 869, 59G, 5/9/20, pt 1, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers, doc. 3, p 73 306 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 17

84 this time was seen as an indication of the market price for the land, there was certainly demand as Mount Maunganui was growing rapidly and 81 sections adjacent to Whareroa had recently sold after being advertised. The Whareroa ‘subdivision was expected to net £60,000, which the owners planned to use to improve the living conditions of Maori at Matapihi.’307

Two months later on 15 July 1948, the Maori Land Court issued an order under section 8 of the Maori Purposes Act 1943 vesting the land to be subdivided in the Waiariki Maori Land Board as trustee. It appears that the owners present in the Court agreed to have it vested in the Board to avoid need for all owners to sign their permission to subdivide. The owners also ‘unanimously agreed to subdivide the land provided that space was reserved for the Whareroa marae and that some owners had house sites within the subdivision.’308 However, the order could not become operative until approved by Minister of Maori Affairs.309

5.4 Whareroa Owners’ Subdivision Plan overtaken by Government Development

As a result of delays in having the subdivision plan approved by the Minister of Maori Affairs a large portion of the Whareroa block was taken under the public works legislation for ‘better utilisation’ before the subdivision could begin. From the existing research it appears that uncertainty regarding the final shape of the future development of the area and concerns that subdivision would conflict with plans for a deepwater port at Mount Maunganui were a significant factor in this delay. There were constant proposals for public works and development between 1948 and 1951. As a result ‘in the next three years the Board could make no progress towards carrying out the trust accepted by it’, that is, to subdivide and sell the land. In 1959 the Maori Trustee stated that: Frequent and various proposals were advanced by the Ministry of Works or the Regional Planning Authority, e.g. alterations to the aerodrome with a runway pointing straight for Mount Maunganui, or a railway sweeping in a wide arc throughout the proposed subdivision so that trains could run head on alongside shipping. None of these proposals, naturally, ever came to anything, but as the necessity of each was advanced at the time as a fatal objection to the scheme proposed by Mr Linton.310

307 Willan, 1999, p 26 citing Cookson-Ua, 1996, p 35. Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 35 cites Minster of Maori Affairs to Under Secretary of Maori Affairs, 30 July 1948, AAMK 869, 59G, 5/9/20 pt 1, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers, doc. 3, p 44 308 Willan,1999, p 26 citing Tauranga Minute Book 16, Folio 34 also see Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga Maori, 1935 – 1972’, 1996, p 16 309 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 15 310 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga…’, 1996, pp 17 - 18

85 The order appointing the Waiariki District Maori Land Board as trustee for the purposes of subdivision and sale was submitted to the Minister of Maori Affairs on 27 July 1948 but not approved until November 1951. Three days after receiving the court order, the Minister of Maori Affairs minuted the papers with the note: ‘Please ascertain what are the proposals of the Forestry and Works Department in respect of rail and harbour development in connections with the Murupara Forest Products etc., scheme.’ Details and plans of the subdivision were sent to the Minister of Works and to the Director of Forestry. ‘The Director of Forestry replied on 25th August 1948 that in this opinion the whole area should be acquired by the Government and not subdivided at that stage.’311 Cookson-Ua noted that ‘both Departments objected to the scheme, the Director of Forestry preferring the whole area should be acquired by the Crown.’312

In the meantime decisions regarding a port at Mount Maunganui were being taken at a national level. By October 1949 it was public knowledge that Tauranga was the most likely location of a deepwater port for timber and paper export. Stokes cited the New Zealand Herald, October 1949: ‘A decision by the Government to establish the deep sea port for Tauranga at the Mount is thought by local body and other interests to be inevitable.’313 This was most likely reporting on ‘a conference of local authorities to discuss the matter [suitable port for the Bay of plenty region] … held in Rotorua in October 1949.’ McClean concluded that ‘no Maori groups were represented at this conference.’314 ‘In October 1950 a Committee was set up by the Minister of Works to enquire into and report as to which of Whakatane and Tauranga was the best site for a harbour … In considering this matter the Committee held public hearings and heard submission … The Committee made its report in November 1950 recommending that the harbour be built at Mount Maunganui.’315

Stokes made it clear that advocating for Tauranga as a deepwater port was a co-operative planning and development effort between local and national government. ‘The Tauranga County Council, under the Chairmanship of H B Capamagian, compiled information from various local authorities and supplied this to the Harbour Board. The County also prepared its own submission for the Inquiry [in support of the port development at Tauranga]’.316 ‘The Ministry of Works submissions to the Committee of Inquiry also supported the Tauranga alternative, and opinions

311 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 17. Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 36 cites Director of Forestry to Commissioner of Works, AAMK 869, 59G, 5/9/20 pt 1, ANZ Wgt, supporting papers, doc. 3, p 43 312 Cookson-Ua, 1996, p xi. Note that Cookson-Ua gives a comprehensive account of the compensation process for the airport lands. 313 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 352 314 McClean, 1999, p 63 315 Cookson-Ua, 1996, p 32 citing Transport Commission, (1966) p 4

86 had been canvassed by the Ministry of Works from various Government departments, statutory bodies and other organisations.’317 McClean noted that ‘the Department of Maori Affairs was invited to give evidence before the committee on Maori interests in the area. This invitation was forwarded to the Waiariki Maori Land Board as the owner of Maori land near the aerodrome. It does not appear that the Maori Affairs Department or Land Board gave evidence before the committee. The report also makes no mention of Maori interests, or the environmental effect of the works on the harbour.’318

In the mean-time, the process of getting approval for Maori plans to subdivision their land at Whareroa continued. At a meeting on 30 June 1950 attended by with the Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘representatives of Matapihi owners and the Waiariki Maori Land Board’ the Minister agreed that the Maori people could not be expected to wait for a decision indefinitely. If any land required to be taken in the public interest the matter should be thoroughly investigated without delay.’319 By August that year the subdivision plan had been approved by the Surveyor- General but still required the approval of the Minster of Maori Affairs under the Land Subdivision in Counties Act 1946. Again, concerns about how the subdivision might impinge on planned development delayed the Minister’s approval. ‘On the 17th day of August, 1950, the Hon. E B Corbett [Minister of Maori Affairs] had written to the Minister of Works advising him that he was in favour of the proposed scheme but was withholding his approval until after the Committee of Enquiry had investigated the necessity of works at Tauranga.’320

Although there was considerable inter-departmental input into planning decisions regarding the port, there was also cooperation from local authorities, as can be seen from Stokes’ comments on the 1950 committee of inquiry. Cabinet authorised the 1950 recommendation that a deepwater port be developed at Mount Maunganui on 5 June 1951. Following this working plans were prepared. A meeting of the Tauranga Harbour Board on 19 January 1951, after the committee had approved Tauranga’s bid for the port, was ‘attended by representatives of the Tauranga and Mount Maunganui Borough Councils and Tauranga County Council.’ Stokes cited minutes of that meeting at which ‘the Chairman of the Harbour Board explained that the object of the meeting was to place before local body representatives a plan that had been drawn up by the Board’s

316 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 353 317 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 354 318 McClean, 1999, pp 63 – 64 citing Sec. Bay of Plenty Harbours Committee, MOW to Sec Maori Affairs, 16 October 1950, MA 1, 19/1/207, ANZ, Wgt 319 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga…’, 1996, p 18 and Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 39 320 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga…’, 1996, p 18

87 Consulting Engineer, Mr Andrew Murray, showing the possible use that might be made of the Government ground adjoining the proposed harbour site.’ 321 McClean discussed a further meeting of the Tauranga Harbour Board, the Ministers of Works, Railways, Lands, State Forests, Maori Affairs, and Internal Affairs on 26 April 1951. This Officials Committee recommended the following strategy: • Government would design and construct the port; • After the initial stages of development were completed, the port would be handed over to the Tauranga Harbour Board; … • Land nearby (including 100 acres of Maori land) should be acquired by the government.322 This appears to have been the first time a definite agreement was reached to take land for the port. Although Maori were not represented on this committee, ‘the Maori Affairs Department gave advice to the officials committee concerning Maori land holdings in the area.’323 In November 1953 the Crown and the Harbour Board signed an agreement for the Works Department to construct 1,225ft of berthage at Mount Maunganui.’324 The port was not simply designed to handle timber products ‘but also to cover the increased trade which the establishment of the port should develop over the whole Bay of Plenty and adjacent areas.’ As a result wharves, storage and rail facilities were to be constructed and ‘some 300 acres of land is held to services the port and to provide for the establishment of industries to be located there.’325 The port was officially opened on 3 December 1955 but not handed over to the Tauranga Harbour Board until 1965.326

The agreement to hand the land over to the Tauranga Harbour Board, rather than to the local authority, once the port was constructed is a reminder that the Harbour Board had considerable autonomy to plan and develop wharves and other facilities required by shipping. Marr pointed out that from ‘as early as 1870 the Crown began passing a series of Harbour Board Acts that provided for the establishment of separate elected Harbour Boards to control port areas’. These Boards ‘were elected and had delegated powers to make bylaws, levy charges and penalties, authorise and undertake or contract works, carry out reclamations, lease or licence land, use or licence or sell materials on foreshores and have land and foreshores vested in them.’ As a result

321 Stokes, A History of Tauranga County, 1980, p 357 322 McClean, 1999, p 64 citing Tauranga Harbour Officials Committee, April 1951, TR 1, W2587, ANZ, Wgt 323 McClean, 1999, p 64 324 Cookson-Ua, 1996, p 32 citing Transport Commission, (1966) p 4 325 W S Goosman, ‘Ministry of Works Statement’, Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1953, D-1, pp 15 – 16 cited in Hart, 2006, p 54 326 Hart, 2006, p 58

88 of the expectation that Harbour Boards would finance their own works many had significant lands vested in them as an endowment.327

It is unclear from the existing research to what extent the Tauranga Harbour Board was required to comply with the district planning scheme. However, McClean’s comment suggests that the Harbour Board retained considerable autonomy with regard to planning up until the 1970s. McClean explained that it was not until the early 1970s that: the Tauranga County Council assumed primary planning authority over the harbour … In 1973, the County Council introduced a planning objective within the district scheme to ‘develop the harbour for recreational and commercial activities in co-operation with the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board, with an emphasis on protection of the unique amenities this area affords.’ This authority was exercised using harbour zones in the district plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1953.328

Given that the Maori Affairs Department advised the committee on the 1951 port development plan, it is likely that plans for the port and uncertainty about exactly which land to be taken for port development further delayed the decision by the Minister of Maori Affairs regarding the subdivision plan put forward by Maori at Whareroa. On 14 June 1951 H O Cooney again wrote to Minister of Maori Affairs protesting at delays in getting the subdivision plan approved.329 In the meantime on 13 September 1951 ‘the Minister of Works gave notice of intention to take about 37 hectares of this land under the Public Works Act 1928 for ‘better utilisation’ (see figure 7).330 Bassett and Kay noted that the term ‘better utilisation’ ‘was an incredibly wide definition of a ‘public work’ created by section 30 of the Finance Act (No. 2) 1945, which empowered the Governor-General to take land under the Public Works Act 1928 for ‘subdivision, development, improvement, regrouping, or better utilisation.’ 331 A few weeks later ‘on 6th November, 1951 the Commissioner of Works suggested that the vesting order of 15th July, 1948 could now be approved if the area on the notice of intention were excluded. The reason given for suggesting such exclusion was that otherwise it might possibly have a bearing on the amount of

327 Marr, 1999, pp 116 – 177, 120 328 McClean, 1999, p 156. Under the Local Government Reforms in 1989 ‘The Harbour Board was disbanded and its corporate functions transferred to the Port Company, with regulatory functions transferred to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council [Environment Bay of Plenty] (McClean, 1999, pp 159 – 160) 329 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 18 330 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 15 331 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim’, 1997, Wai 215 #A51, p 8

89 compensation. However, the Minister approved the whole order on 21st November, 1951.’332 On 11 September 1952 a gazette notice took this land [37 hectares] and 55 sections in the Te Awaotukorako Block and vesting the whole area in the Crown.’333 Willan states that the total area in this proclamation was 96 acres.334

332 Maori Trustee to Minister of Maori Affairs, ‘Whareroa Compensation Case’, undated but c. March 1959, AAMK 869/60b, ANZ, Wgt cited in Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga…’, 1996, p 18 333 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 15 334 Willan,1999, p 27. See New Zealand Gazette, No. 60, p 1468 (McCaw Lewis & Chapman, 1992, p 8)

90

5.5 Subdivision of the Remaining Maori Land at Whareroa

All that was left for Maori to do under the circumstances was to subdivide and sell the smaller area of land that remained in the original subdivision plan and hope to make enough money to develop their land at Matapihi. After the taking in 1952 there were (by Willan’s calculations) 182 acres remaining (see figure 8). In 1964, after little interest from buyers in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Maori Trustee sold approximately 103 acres to Tasman Pulp and paper and Tidds Tankers Ltd. Willan calculated that Maori received between £833 and £2000 per acre for this land.335

In attempting to sell their remaining land Maori owners had to deal with the consequences of the port development around their land. Maori were disadvantaged because ‘their land was unfavourably sited compared to the Crown portion of 96 acres within the industrial zone.’ The Crown’s land had several advantaged over Maori owners, firstly ‘the Crown land bordered the harbour’, and secondly, ‘the Crown had the resources to quickly clear and develop the site’. This ‘meant the Crown was able to quickly sell off the land it had acquired for better utilisation. By 1963, the Crown had secured sales to large concerns such as oil companies and the fertiliser works. The Maori Trust Office realised that the land they administered was less attractive to major industries and tried unsuccessfully to get the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to rezone the land as a residential zone.’336 Market demand for industrial land was weak, even when the Maori Trustee had cleared the blocks and advertised there was little serious interest in the block for almost three years: ‘while future industrial development of Whareroa was not in question, the immediate demand for land in the area was slow.’337

The inclusion of Whareroa in the boundary of the Tauranga Borough, its rezoning as industrial land and the subsequent rises in valuation and rates led the Maori Land Court to vesting the remaining land in the Maori Trustee for subdivision and sale. La Rooij concluded that the port development ‘dramatically changed the status of Whareroa as the land’s proximity to the port development made it ideal for industrial development. As a result, the Whareroa area was taken from the county and included in the borough in 1953.’ Inclusion in the Mount Maunganui Borough meant that ‘the borough council zoned most of the Whareroa area as ‘heavy industrial’. By zoning the land as industrial, the borough council hoped to facilitate the orderly and

335 Willan, 1999, pp 28 – 29, 31. In 1961 Tidds Inland Tanker Service paid £4000 for two acres so this accounts for the higher of the two figures 336 Willan, 1999, p 31 citing District Officer to Mr Blane, 17 September 1963, BBHW 4958 1473c, ANZ, Auck 337 La Rooij, 2002, p 130 citing Bruce Cunningham to Maori Trustee. 28 May 1963, BBHW, 12/206, vol. 2, ANZ, Auck

92 progressive development of the Whareroa area over the coming decades.’ La Rooij concluded that both the port development and zoning changes, however, caused a dramatic increase in land valuations for the Whareroa area in the late 1950s. The huge valuation increase resulted in a corresponding increase in rate charges. Whareroa 2J3A, a block of just over 29 acres in area, for example, accumulated a rate debt of £1540 in only five years. As a result, the block was sold for£28,830 with a considerable portion of the proceeds going to the borough council.338 The valuation and rating changes ‘adversely affected the Whareroa 2E9 and 2E10 blocks, an area of just over 100 acres. As the blocks were undeveloped, the owners simply could not meet the increased rate demands. As a result, in 1959 the Maori Land Court amalgamated the remaining land to form Whareroa 2E10 (73:0:6.6) to make one block which would be ‘easier to subdivide’. Together with the Whareroa 2E9 block (29:3:38), Whareroa 2E10 was vested in the Maori Trustee under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.339

Attempts by the Maori Trustee to win a concession from the Tauranga Borough Council regarding the amount of the total rates arrears that would be paid out of profits of the sale ultimately failed putting pressure on Maori Trustee to sell the remaining sections as rapidly as possible. ‘In 1960, the Maori Trustee agreed that the council would receive three years’ worth of rates when the land was sold.’340 However, in May 1963 ‘the borough demanded payment of all rates owing.’341 La Rooij noted that ‘the Maori Trustee was unhappy with this approach, however, as he wanted a clear undertaking that the borough would write off the rates levied’ but the Maori Trustee ‘had to be careful about asserting that the Whareroa blocks were overvalued’ in any attempt to have the rates written off or reduced because at the same time in the courts he ‘was arguing that these blocks had a higher value than the compensation paid.’342 The Maori Trustee feared ‘that it could take up to twenty years to realise the value of the land.’ His bid to ‘change the Whareroa’s zoning from industrial to residential’ failed and he ‘sough the advice of D B Hill, a registered valuer … ‘Hill recommended selling the Whareroa blocks as quickly as was possible.’ 343The Maori Trustee in Wellington then instructed staff in Hamilton sell as ‘the rates cannot be held at bay

338 La Rooij, 2002, pp 127 – 128 citing Town Clerk (MMBC) to MT (Ham), 2 August 1965, BBHW, 4958/889e, 7/687, ‘Whareroa 2J3A’, ANZ, Auck 339 Willan,1999, p 29 and La Rooij, 2002, p 128 citing Tauranga MLC minute book, vol. 22, 1 December 1959 ff. 202 - 203 340 Willan, 1999, p 31 citing District Officer to Town Clerk, 20 May 1964, BBHW 4958 1473c, ANZ, Auck. La Rooij provides further detail of how this decision was reached (La Rooij, 2002, pp 128 – 129) 341 La Rooij, 2002, p 130 citing Bruce Cunningham to Maori Trustee. 28 May 1963, BBHW, 12/206, vol. 2, ANZ, Auck 342 La Rooij, 2002, pp 129 - 130 343 La Rooij, 2002, p 131 citing D B Hill to Maori Trustee (Ham), 19 June 1963, AAMK 869, 54/18/133, ‘Maori Trustee – Whareroa 2E9 + Whareroa 2E10 Section 438 Vesting’, ANZ, Wgt

93 indefinitely.’344 The borough council finally took £3,421 11s 5d in rates from the £69, 634 price received. ‘After the Maori Trustee had taken out rates and its own expenses, the remaining sale money was distributed among the blocks’ many owners.’345

5.6 The Impact of the Loss of Whareroa Land on Tauranga Maori

Ultimately the acquisition of a large portion of the Whareroa block by the Crown for port, industry and airport development, as well as sale of Maori land in the area to fund Maori community development elsewhere in the district, resulted in little Maori land being left in the area. Willan estimated that ‘in 1883, when the land was first awarded to Maori, the Whareroa block comprised 1,263 acres. By 1998, only 23 acres 1 rood and 33 perches remained in Maori hands in the Mount Maunganui area.’346

Nightingale concluded that Maori attempts to utilise their land at Whareroa by subdividing and selling it to ‘re-house using their own capital … were deliberately subverted by the Crown’s use of the Public Works Act.’347 Willan found that ‘the Crown took land at Whareroa from Maori, to on- sell to industry. It is questionable whether it was necessary to do so. Given that the Maori Trustee planned to sell that land anyway, it is not inconceivable that Maori could have sold the waterfront land directly to industry.’ She admitted that ‘the plan to subdivide land for residential purposes was at odds with the Crown’s plans to expand the port. But argued that, ‘if one accepts the right of local bodies to plan for the benefit of the general public, the Crown could easily have made a case to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to rezone the land as industrial land. Maori could then have sold the undeveloped land and let industry develop and improve the land.’ Willan concluded that the Crown took ‘all the best waterfront land, and entered into competition with Maori to sell industrial land.’ The Crown’s land sold quickly making a profile, ‘Maori, by contrast, were paid compensation that excluded the future potential of their land and they were unable to benefit from the sale of waterfront land to industry. Furthermore, the less desirable land that they had left was hard to sell.’ Willan also argued that Maori were significantly disadvantaged by the timing of the Crown’s acquisition of their land. The land was taken three years before the port related development began. This had major implications in the valuations of the land for compensation. One of these is mentioned above, that is the obvious future potential of the land was not factored into compensation. The other was

344 La Rooij, 2002, p 131 citing Maori Trustee to MT (Ham), 8 July 1963, AAMK, 54/18/33, ANZ, Wgt 345 La Rooij, 2002, p 131 citing District Officer (MA Ham) to MA (Wgtn), 21 January 1964, AAMK, 54/18/133, ANZ, Wgt and Town Clerk (MMBC) to MA (Ham), 26 August 1964, BBHW, 12/222, ANZ, Auck 346 Willan, 1999, p 21 347 Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga…’, 1996, p 21

94 that the land was valued as one undeveloped parcel, rather than the several subdivisions that the Maori owners wanted to establish. If the Crown had taken the land two or three years later, it is likely that the planned subdivision would have been well underway and the Crown would have paid a much higher price for the land.348 Willan noted that ‘after five years of litigation (including an appeal to the Privy Council), the owners received £45,582 for the Whareroa land and £1428 plus £31 10s 0d interest for the parts of Te Awa-o-Tukorako blocks taken for better utilisation.349 This is around £490 per acre, and it was considerably less than the owners might otherwise have got had they received compensation for the subdivided value of the land, or if they had subdivided and sold the land. The Maori Trust Office estimated that the land would have fetched £80,000, or approximately £833 per acre, as a residential subdivision and £150,000 - £160,000, or approximately £15500 - £16600 per acre, as an industrial subdivision.’350

Today Whareroa marae remains ‘hemmed in by the development of the port and associated industrial land uses to the north and the airport to the south and east … there is little room for residential development for tangata whenua here.’351 Stokes commented that in the period from 1960 to 1980 ‘the marae community has been transformed from rural isolation to intense urban and industrial growth by forces which were largely beyond the control of the local people’ (see figure 9).352 In 1960, after the remaining land was alienated, eight acres ‘was set aside as a Maori Reservation ‘for the purposes of a marae and recreation ground for the common use and benefit of the Ngai Tukairangi hapu of Ngaiterangi and other Maoris resident in the area.’353 By 1982 the small areas of land around the Whareroa marae that could have been used for housing had been rezoned as industrial land (it had been shown as rural land on a plan in 1964).354 It is unclear why this occurred. McCaw, Chapman and Lewis noted that ‘many of the hapu houses on and around the marae were shifted to the Matapihi peninsula. The reasons for this are not known, although local kaumatua say it is because the harbour around Whareroa no longer supplied the people with kaimoana’. There also appears to have continued pressure on the Whareroa Maori community to yield completely to the port and industrial development. ‘In 1970

348 Willan, 1999, pp 102 – 103. Willan’s conclusions regarding the delay and its effect on the compensation paid are echoed by McCaw Lewis & Chapman, 1992, p 11 349 See Hart, 2006,pp 60 - 61 for a summary of the compensation case 350 Willan, 1999, p 28 citing Cookson-Ua, 1996, p 49 351 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 15 352 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 15 353 McCaw Lewis & Chapman, 1992, p 29 354 ‘Mount Maunganui Borough District Scheme Third Review District Planning Map’, Mount Maunganui District Scheme, third Review, 1982, New Zealand Room, Tauranga City Library

95 there was an attempt to relocate the marae by the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board. It was stopped by the people, there was a big hui and the protest was effective.’355

355 McCaw Lewis & Chapman, 1992, p 29

96

5.7 Conclusion

Port and associated industrial development at Mount Maunganui had a significant impact on Maori land and communities in the adjacent Whareroa block. Existing research indicates that construction of a deepwater port at Mount Maunganui became part of larger scale national and regional economic planning in the immediate post-war period involving road and rail networks, port and residential development. The decision to establish the port at Mount Maunganui stemmed from a recommendation of a commission of inquiry in 1950, but research highlights the role played by local and regional government in advocating for port development. Detailed planning for the development involved a wide range of government departments and local bodies including the Tauranga harbour Board.

In 1948, several years before the plan for a port was confirmed, Maori owners of the Whareroa blocks had agreed to the subdivision and sale of their land in the Whareroa block. The initial impetus for this decision appears to have been an application for a road line across part of the block by a ferry company wishing to establish a ferry service from Mount Maunganui to Tauranga. However, it is also very clear that many of the owners of the land at Whareroa, also had land at Matapihi and wished to sell the Whareroa land, which was reportedly not good farm land, to develop their Matapihi land and build or improve houses there. At the time the subdivision was proposed the Maori Trustee was confident that the sale of the land would provide sufficient funds for this development. It is also possible that the earlier acquisition of their land for an aerodrome under public works legislation led owners to view the remainder of the land as vulnerable to similar acquisition.

Although the Maori Land Court issued an order vesting the land in the Waiariki Maori Land Board for subdivision and sale on 15 July 1948 under section 8 of the Maori Purposes Act 1950 the Minister of Maori Affairs did not approve the order until 21 November 1951. This approval delayed plans to subdivide and sell the land and in the meanwhile on 13 September 1951 a large proportion of the block was acquired for ‘better utilisation’ under the Public Works Act. The existing research highlights the extent to which conflicting development proposals created uncertainty about the final shape of port and industrial development and contributed to this delay. Maori were eventually able to subdivide and sell the remaining land at Whareroa. However, research suggests that the profitability of the venture was significantly reduced.

A number of planning decisions and processes had an impact on Maori owners at Whareroa and their remaining land. Today Whareroa marae is hemmed in by the airport and industry with very

98 little land available for housing. Because the land taken by the Crown for the port development was considered to be ideal for industrial development it was included in the boundary of the Mount Maunganui Borough in 1953 and rezoned industrial. Research indicates that this resulted in significant rises in valuation for the remaining Maori land at Whareroa, which in turn raised rates and led to considerable rating debts. By the early 1960s the Maori Trustee made the decision to try to sell the land as rapidly as possible to stop its value being eroded by rating debt and maximise profits for the owners. Selling the land was more difficult for the Maori Trustee than it had been for the Crown. Essentially, Willan concluded that the Crown was in competition with the Maori trustee to sell industrial land. The land taken by the Crown had the advantage of harbour frontage making it more attractive to industry and the Crown had the resources to clear and market the land. Willan also concluded that while the Crown land sold quickly making a profit Maori land was harder to sell and the amount of compensation paid for the land that had been taken was reduced by the timing of the acquisition. Willan argued that had the acquisition had taken place after the land had been subdivided the compensation paid would have been significantly more. She concluded that the Whareroa land finally sold for £490 per acre and that this was considerably less than the owners might have received in compensation for the subdivided value of the land, or if they had been able to subdivide and sell the land as planned.

99

Chapter 6: Town and Country Planning and Maori Land at Matapihi

6.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of the existing research relating to the impact of planning policies and processes on Maori land and communities at Matapihi. To some extent the fate of Maori land at Matapihi contrasts with the experience of Maori at Whareroa and Maungatapu. As Willan observed in 1999, ‘Matapihi is a peninsula of rural land between Mount Maunganui and Tauranga. It is almost entirely Maori land owned by Ngati Tapu and Ngai Tukairangi hapu who have resisted pressure to sell their land and to become part of the Tauranga borough for nearly fifty years.’356 This chapter examines the pressures Maori at Matapihi faced from planning for urban expansion in the post-war period and draws on the existing research to discuss some of the reasons why landowners at Matapihi have been able to retain so much of their land on the peninsula.

6.2 Planned Urban Expansion and the Pressure on Maori Land at Matapihi

The proximity of the Matapihi peninsula to the rapidly expanding urban areas of Tauranga and to the port and residential area of Mount Maunganui made it was a desirable location for future residential development. Between 1938 and 1990 numerous proposals included Matapihi in plans for future development. These plans put considerable pressure on the Maori owners of the peninsula to alienate their land for residential purposes.

As early as 1938 a inter-departmental government committee proposed building a road bridge linking Matapihi with central Tauranga to shorten the distance between the two points and make Matapihi accessible for future development. ‘It was noted that the centre of Matapihi was currently more than 14 miles from Tauranga by existing routes. The building of the bridge would place it two miles from Tauranga.’ A bridge was regarded as important because the committee believed ‘that geographically and topographically the area is destined to be part of the [Tauranga] Borough.’357 In response to this proposal ‘the Under-Secretary of the Native Department sought to explore options which included the retention in Maori ownership of most of

356 Willan, 1999, p 37, Willan notes that MA 1, 29/4/11, ‘Matapihi Peninsula Consolidation, 1947 – 1961, ANZ, Wgt contains further discussion regarding urban encroachment in this area

101 the land through which the road would pass. Other officials on the inter-departmental committee, however, favoured taking all the land and reserving a portion only for Maori residency.’358 When a proposal for the government to compulsory acquire land at Matapihi was put forward the Under-Secretary proposed instead ‘the alternative of a consolidation of titles and the consequent orderly subdivision of the area for suburban purposes.’359 It seems that this was the only strategy the Department had which would appease those seeking urban expansion but at the same time offer Maori owners some profit from their land where alienation seemed inevitable. However, ‘for reasons to do with overall expense of the project, matters did proceed at this point and the harbour bridge idea was shelved for some time.’360

Again in 1945 plans were put forward to subdivide Matapihi for residential purposes. C H Burnett, a representative of the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce, ‘suggested that the land at Matapihi could be vested in the Waiariki District Maori Land Board to enable it to be leased as a residential area.’361 Burnett proposed that: 100 acres would be cut out of this subdivision as a reservation for Maori, with the remaining 300 acres compromising 2,000 sections for Pakeha. Burnett supposed that the increased income from leases would be adequate compensation for the forced move onto the 100-acre reservation. He favoured a system of 21-year perpetual leases for the 300 acres set aside for Pakeha. Half the sections would be put up for auction where Pakeha could buy the leasehold. Another 25 per cent would be given to the Native Land Court for individual non-Maori applicants to apply for leasehold, and the other 25 percent was for Maori.’362 Willan’s account of this proposal (based on newspaper sources) suggests that Burnett ‘spoke to local Maori about a proposal for a 400-acre subdivision of Matapihi land.’363 However, it is clear from a letter by H Reweti, the Secretary of the Matapihi Land Owners’ Committee, to the Native Minister that the people at Matapihi first heard about the proposal when a judge of the Maori Land Court ‘called together a meeting of the owners of the above lands and acquainted them with a proposal from certain people in the Borough of Tauranga to set aside the above lands for residential sites for Europeans under the Borough of Tauranga.’ 364 Reweti asked the Minister to

357 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 15 – 16 citing Chairman of Inter-departmental Committee, 23 September 1938, MA 1, 22/1/106, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers, doc. 8, p 123 358 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 29 359 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 30 360 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 18 361 Rose, 1997, p 154 citing MA 1, 22/1/106, supporting documents Volume III, p 792 362 Willan, 1999, pp 39 – 40 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 20 June 1945 363 Willan, 1999, pp 39 – 40 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 20 June 1945 364 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 23 citing Reweti to Native Minister, 6 June 1945, MA 1, 22/1/106, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers, doc. 8, pp 127a – b

102 furnish us with all the details of the proposal so that the people may be fully informed thereof.’365 It is unclear why this proposal was never taken further, although the opposition expressed in Reweti’s letter and the Minister’s assurance that he would oppose any action that did not have the support of Maori owners’ was most likely a significant factor. 366

Aside from the owners’ inherent opposition to selling ancestral land, it is clear that this resistance was motivated by a desire to develop their land and communities at Matapihi. At about this time the Maori owners of land at Whareroa were attempting to subdivide and sell that land to fund development of their land at Matapihi (see the discussion above for details). There also appears to have been some official support for Maori housing and farming development at Matapihi in this period. In a 1951 rating case before the Maori Land Court, H O Cooney, representing the Tauranga County Council, stated that urban development of the eastern side of the harbour was ‘about to commence’. Judge Harvey of the Maori Land Court warned: ‘The planners should bear in mind that it is proposed to recast Matapihi peninsula so that its Maori owners can make the best use of their lands in ways other than alienating them to Europeans or European concerns. We want to develop it as a model Maori centre from both social and economic angles.’367

By the mid-1950s local authorities consistently stated that large scale residential development at Matapihi was inevitable and with it the integration of Maori from Matapihi into an urban Pakeha way of life. In another rating case before the Maori Land Court in 1955 Cooney noted that the areas of Maori land in Matapihi, Maungatapu and Hairini ‘may be visualised as potentially residential.’368 ‘In 1956 a County Council report noted ‘it is likely that urban development will come in a reasonable time in the Matapihi area as the port develops.’369 Even Judge Pritchard of the Maori Land Court described Matapihi in 1957 as being ‘in the melting pot period of transition from a small farming area to a residential one’.370 The County Council favoured subdivision because it would individualise title making the collection of rates easier, at the same time, the Council argued that individualising the title to the land would afford ‘each owner the opportunity of building himself a suitable home close to the market for his labour, i.e. the port of Tauranga and its industries in course of establishment.’ As Walzl pointed out that ‘there is predetermination

365 Nightingale, ‘Tauranga Moana: A Social and Economic Impact Report, 1996, p 102 citing P Reweti to the Native Minister, 6 June 1945, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ Wgt 366 Willan, 1999, p 40 citing Mason to Reweti, 27 July 1945, MA 1, 22/1/106, ANZ, Wgt 367 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 46 – 47 citing ‘Extract from Tauranga Minute Book Volume 16…’, 11 July 1951, MA 1, 3/1/16 W2490, supporting papers, doc. 9, p 159 and Harvey to Registrar Maori Land Court Rotorua, 20 July 1951, MA 1, 31/1/16 W2490, supporting papers, doc. 9, p 161 368 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 66 369 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 18 370 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 68 citing Pritchard to Secretary, Department of Maori Affairs, 4 June 1957, MA 1, 22/1/206, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers, doc. 8, p 127c

103 in how Maori land and its future use was being viewed. Land on the eastern side of the harbour was expected to become residential and Maori were expected to be the labour force within the developing port facility. There is no talk of the land being developed into valuable farmland or of Maori being farmers.’371 Instead suburban housing for Maori was to be integrated with that of Pakeha, therefore, as Cooney put it, ‘further promote the happy relationship between the associated people.’372

There were some difficulties with a proposed subdivision of Maori land at Matapihi. In particular subdivision for residential purposes could increase valuations and rates. Cooney admitted that residential development was some way off and depended on ‘the provision of roads and other amenities and governed also by the date when a market is available for residential sections.’ He feared that ‘the Valuation Department may take the partition as evidence of a market for subdivisional sale and place an immediate residential value on a remote potentiality.’373 In any case, as Walzl concluded, ‘in outlining a view of the future of Maori land, the Council neglected to take into account the difficulties and expenses of partition. Therefore the process of individualisation did not proceed as envisaged.’374

In 1965 the Tauranga City Council applied to the Local Government Commission to have its boundaries extended to include 4,500 acres of county land to the west of Tauranga city. In opposing this application the Tauranga County Council argued that rather than spreading to the west, the city should expand into Matapihi. The County Council considered that Matapihi was more suitable than these western areas because they believed that there was ‘suitable land of a lower agricultural productive ability’ there, it was ‘relatively unoccupied’ and centrally located ‘between the two municipalities.’375 Planning consultants, Gabites and Beard, employed by the Local Government Commission, produced an outline plan of Tauranga the same year, showing the intention to link Matapihi to central Tauranga, Maungatapu and the port/Mount Maunganui areas by a network of major roads and to utilise a large area at the tip of the peninsula as a ‘university and cultural centre/secondary school.’ The base of the Matapihi peninsula and further

371 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 96 372 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 66 citing ‘Extract from Tauranga Minute Book Volume 19…’, 17 November 1955, MA 1, 20/1/33, supporting papers, doc. 6, pp 92 - 93 373 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 66 citing ‘Extract from Tauranga Minute Book Volume 19…’, 17 November 1955, MA 1, 20/1/33, supporting papers, doc. 6, pp 92 - 93 374 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 67 375 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, Wai 215 #N2, p 71 citing Moore to Local Government Commission, LGC 7/1, ANZ Wgt, supporting papers doc. 10, p 194

104 land at the eastern end of the Mount Maunganui Borough were marked as areas for ‘possible future expansion of Mount Maunganui Urban Area’.376

The proposal for a university and cultural centre at Matapihi was developed jointly by the Tauranga County Council and the Mount Maunganui Borough Council in 1964. They chose Matapihi as the location because they considered that Matapihi offered the advantage of a position fairly central to both municipalities. Walzl noted that ‘at this point little thought seems to have been given to involving the owners of the Maori land on which these facilities would inevitably be sited other than for it to be noted “that subject to the rights of the Maori owners the Council would look favourably on the scheme shown on the Gabites Outline Plan for the Regional Sports Centre and University and Cultural Centre.” ’ ’377 The two councils then approached the Tauranga City Council with the proposal who supported the plan and noted that ‘when the areas so planned are approved by the three local authorities concerned the Tauranga County Council be asked to move for a specific departure from the plan for the area, to give effect to the proposals.’378

The 1964 Gabites plan represented a long-term co-ordinated urban development strategy for Matapihi involving the provision of services well in advance of urban expansion. The Tauranga County Council Clerk, in a letter to the Local Government Commission in support of the Matapihi plan, stated that ‘this policy means that all of Matapihi would be available for transfer to the Mount Maunganui Borough so that its urban development along with provision for civic and national requirements in cultural and recreational fields could be planned in advance of need.’379 In 1966 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council stated that it had an agreement with the County Council that the Mount Maunganui Borough Council would ‘accept responsibility for the supply of services and engineering investigations have been made for the extension of water supply to the whole peninsula.’ Tellingly there were moves to have the peninsula taken into the urban area of the Mount Maunganui Borough. In 1966 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council informed the Local Government Commission that ‘the [County] Council holds the view that Matapihi should be brought under Borough administration and it is believed the proposal is generally acceptable to

376 ‘Tauranga District Outline Plan’, Gabites and Beard, 1965 in TCC/TDC Town Planning Folder, New Zealand Room, Tauranga City Library 377 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 74 citing ‘For the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’, 11 July 1966, LGC 7/1, supporting papers, doc. 10, p 166 378 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 74 citing ‘For the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’, 11 July 1966, LGC 7/1, supporting papers, doc. 10, p 166 379 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 74 citing Fox to Town Clerk Mount Maunganui Borough Council, LGC 7/1, supporting papers, doc. 10, p 169

105 residents in the area but no date has been suggested for such change over.’380 However, by the end of that year newspapers were reporting that that the Local Government Commission was preparing a provisional scheme to include Matapihi, along with areas at Poike, Ohauiti, Welcome Bay and Cambridge Road in the city of Tauranga instead.381

Despite the Local Government Commissions’ plans in 1966, ‘Matapihi was excluded from the 1968 extensions to the [Tauranga] city. However, there was continued uncertainty about the nature of future development at Matapihi.382 The McCaw Lewis & Chapman report on Mount Maunganui noted that Matapihi’s ‘central location between the urban areas of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga has meant the area has been the subject of various attempts by local authorities to include it in several development proposals in 1960s and 1970s.’383 Stokes noted that ‘in 1967 a report of the Tauranga District Officials Working Committee on development proposals for the Tauranga-Mount Maunganui area summarised the conflicts in planning proposals for Matapihi.’ Stokes provided a detailed discussion of these plans: The long-term plans of the harbour board included extension of wharves to Whareroa, reclamation of Aerodrome Bay to provide land for industrial purposes, and dredging a deep- water basin and building up further dock areas at the southern end of Stella passage. At the same time, a development plan submitted to the Local Government Commission, at their request, included a new road bridge and highway roughly parallel to the existing railway and connected with a Te Maunga-Maungatapu motorway which ran across the historic pa site of Oruamatua, at the eastern point of Matapihi, and across a causeway in Rangataua Bay. At the western end of the Matapihi peninsula and to the north of the railway, an area was labelled ‘Regional Sports centre’, and south of the railway, a ‘University and Cultural Centre (Secondary Schools)’. The southern part of the peninsula was labelled ‘Extension to the City’ and an area adjacent to the aerodrome ‘Possible Future Extension of Mount Maunganui’, but no boundaries were drawn in. On the Oramatua pa site the Electricity Department had plans to build an oil-fired power station drawing cold water from Aerodrome Bay, cooling ponds in the western end of Rangataua Bay, and ‘warm water egress’ into Welcome Bay. Oxidation ponds for sewage treatment and a municipal refuse tip for Mount Maunganui Borough were also planned for Rangataua Bay, near Mangatawa.384

380 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 73 citing ‘For the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’, 11 July 1966, LGC 7/1, supporting papers, doc. 10, p 166 381 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 18 382 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 18 383 McCaw Lewis & Chapman, 1992, p 21 also see Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 30 for further details 384 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 18

106 It is unclear what consultation was carried out with the Maori community at Matapihi regarding these proposals. Bassett and Kay concluded that ‘industrial and urban development proposals for Maori land [at Matapihi] appear to have been well under way before consultation with Maori owners or possession of the land had been achieved.’385

The 1968 decision to exclude Matapihi from the Tauranga City did not stop uncertainty about whether Matapihi would remain rural land within the Tauranga County or become urban land (to be zoned residential or industrial). Inclusion in an urban authority would have had significant implications for Maori landowners in terms of rises in valuation and rates and pressure from developers to alienate the land. Even the rumour of a boundary change could increase pressure to sell. ‘In 1972, when it was believed that Matapihi would be made a part of Mount Maunganui Borough, land speculators stepped up their efforts to purchase sections from Maori owners on the peninsula.’386 Maori owners gained a reputation for tenaciously retaining their land. As an educational representative observed at a meeting in 1972, ‘in the past 20 years … European developers had not been able to move into the peninsula because of the ‘firm grip by the Maori people’.387

There were a number of attempts by both the Tauranga City and the Mount Maunganui Borough to bring Matapihi within their control. In 1973 ‘the Local Government Commission presented a provisional scheme to include Matapihi in Tauranga City and transfer the Te Maunga-Mangatawa areas (largely Maori-owned) to Mount Maunganui Borough.’388 The issue arose again in 1976 when the Tauranga City Council ‘applied to the Commission to include Matapihi in their boundary.’389 There was also pressure for Matapihi to be included in the Mount Maunganui Borough. In September 1976 a poll of Matapihi residents rejected a proposal to come within the boundaries of the Mount Maunganui Borough: ‘of the 71 persons at Matapihi who voted 63% were against joining the Borough.’390 The issue resurfaced again in 1985 when Maori at Matapihi had learnt of plans from the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to bring Matapihi within the Borough’s boundaries.’ Maori had grave fears that this would push up valuations and rates putting significant pressure of Maori to alienate their land to pay the rating debts incurred. Walzl cited Tauranga Moana Maori District Councillor Mahaki Ellis who stated that ‘we have spent

385 Heather Bassett and Richard Kay, ‘Ngaiterangi and the Crown’, 1998, Wai 215 #C1, p 190 386 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 134 citing McKellar File Note, 20 March 1972, AAMK 869/60c, 5/9/20 pt 5, supporting papers, doc. 5, p 87 387 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 134 citing New Zealand Herald, 14 March 1972, AAMK 869/60c, 5/9/20 pt 5, supporting papers, doc. 5, p 88 388 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 30 389 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 30

107 thousands developing the land for horticulture which will provide jobs for years to come’ and feared that if the borough were to ‘take over we think we will be forced off the land. We think their objectives will be urban and residential development, and that we will be forced out by high rates.’391

Meanwhile planning for urban development continued to threaten Maori retention of land at Matapihi. In 1972 educational authorities ‘were looking at the Matapihi areas as the site for a new technical institute and ‘the Tauranga Hospital Board has been thinking in terms of expansion to that area and the Ministry of Works has been considering a motorway.’392 ‘In response to these threats, a meeting of owners was held soon after and the decision was made to either incorporate the land at Matapihi or vest it in trustees under s.438 of the Maori Affairs legislation.’393 Turi Te Kani, a proposed trustee, explained that a meeting of owners of blocks at Matapihi had been called because outside interest had been shown in acquiring land on the peninsula, and the owners felt it was time they ‘closed their ranks’.394 It appears that support for retaining Matapihi as a green belt or open space by the Mayor of Tauranga in 1974 was also a factor in the Local Government Commissions decision to abandon plans to bring Matapihi within the boundaries of Tauranga City.395 As recently as 1991 there were submissions to the Tauranga District Council regarding its Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy from ‘Pakeha landowners in both Matapihi and Ranginui to change the zoning from its present rural status.’ Kahotea concluded that ‘this it appears that presently the biggest threat to Maori landowners in these two desirable areas is the pressure from both Pakeha landowners and developers to change the zoning status to allow development of these areas.’396

6.3 Maori Initiatives to develop their Land at Matapihi

The research discussed above suggests that Maori owners faced sustained pressure for Matapihi to become part of an urban authority and be developed for housing and public amenities. At the same time Maori at Matapihi desired to retain their communities and marae on the rural land on the peninsula and to develop economically viable ventures on that land to support those

390 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 140 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 4 October 1976, AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, pt 1, supporting papers, doc.12, p 269 391 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 151 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 23 October 1985 [?],AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, pt 1, supporting papers, doc.12, p 264 392 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 135 citing New Zealand Herald, 14 March 1972, AAMK 869/60c, 5/9/20 pt 5, supporting papers, doc. 5, p 88 393 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 135 citing McKellar File Note, 20 March 1972, AAMK 869/60c, 5/9/20 pt 5, supporting papers, doc. 5, p 87 394 Bassett and Kay, ‘Ngaiterangi and the Crown’, 1998, pp 192 – 192 citing Tauranga Minute Book 32, fol 152, 19 July 1972 395 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 19 396 Kahotea, ‘… Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 42

108 communities in face of urban encroachment and the pressure to relocate to suburban areas. Willan concluded that: Local Maori opposed Matapihi becoming part of Tauranga and that they were clearly opposed to selling their ancestral lands so that Pakeha could have sections at Matapihi. Local bodies evidently felt it was inevitable that Matapihi would become part of Tauranga but Maori forcefully resisted this proposition. They did not want to live in Tauranga, and opposed assimilation. Maori demonstrably wanted to retain some land, and retain its rural character.397 As recently as 1986 a spokesperson for Matapihi owners emphasised that ‘the Matapihi community wanted to preserve the rural character to provide a future home for families and descendants of today’s residents’398 It should be remembered that while the existing research provides some details of these initiatives it is likely that there were other proposals by tangata whenua that are not recorded in the current research.

At the beginning of the post-war period housing and economic conditions at Matapihi were still inadequate. In 1948 the Minister of Maori Affairs summed up the results of a’ flying survey’ conducted by staff at the Rotorua office of Maori Affairs by saying that ‘the Maori people live at the Matapihi end of the area mostly in substandard houses.’ Some small-scale farming schemes funded by the Waiariki Maori Land Board had brought about ‘some improvement in the lands’ involved. ‘But the general increase in population makes the need of houses progressively greater than the supply.’399 It appears that both officials and Maori were relying on the profits from the subdivision of land at Whareroa to improve this situation (see chapter 6). The Minister of Maori Affairs noted that the people at Matapihi ‘have another block of land on the Mount Maunganui side of the Aerodrome’ and ‘a scheme of subdivision of this area into residential building lots’400 Profits from this subdivision with significantly reduced and compensation for the taking of land under public works legislation at Whareroa was delayed until 1959 and was less than Maori had hoped for. It is not clear from the existing research what impact this had on Maori ability to finance housing and farming development at Matapihi. In the meantime there appears to have been an attempt to instigate ‘a Maori Affairs housing scheme at Waikari on Matapihi 3A2B2D,

397 Willan, 1999, p101 398 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 151 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 20 September 1986, AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, pt 1, supporting papers, doc.12, p 260 399 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 35 citing Minister of Maori Affairs to the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs, 30 July 1948, AAMK 869, 59G, 5/9/20 pt 1, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers, doc. 3, p 44 400 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 35 citing Minister of Maori Affairs to the Under Secretary of Maori Affairs, 30 July 1948, AAMK 869, 59G, 5/9/20 pt 1, ANZ, Wgt supporting papers, doc. 3, p 44

109 near the marae’. However, dissension amongst owners over land to be taken for a proposed road for the housing scheme ‘meant that the housing scheme never got off the ground.’ 401

In 1959 Maori approached the Department of Maori Affairs ‘to request that the Department initiate consolidation of Maori titles in Maungatapu and Matapihi, that the Department support the formation of a corporate body to farm a given area at Matapihi, together with a subdivision for residential purposes.’402 This time Maori were planning to retain the land to house and sustain their community. Clearly Matapihi was the area they had chosen to retain and develop, having attempted to sell their lands at Whareroa to fund development here. However, having lost land from the public works taking at Whareroa and facing continual pressure from urban encroachment meant that there was ‘uncertainty among Maori who lived close to the growing urban centre’. The wrangle over compensation for the Whareroa land had also ‘revealed that Government agencies greatly undervalued Maori land compared with the view of its owners.’403 The secretary for the Ngaiterangi Tribal Executive raised these concerns to the Maori Trustee in February 1959. He stated that ‘it is with concern that the Maori people of Tauranga and Matapihi in particular, view the spread of the Tauranga and Mount Maunganui boroughs into their tribal land boundaries’. They feared a repetition of the Whareroa case and concluded that ‘as with the Whareroa block our Maori land titles have proved insufficient protection against civic expansion.’404 In a further letter in March 1959 the Secretary for the Tribal Executive noted that the Whareroa block decision ‘has prompted my people to search every avenue for a safeguard against a possible reoccurrence of a virtual confiscation of this nature.’405

The Maori Affairs Department did not refuse outright to assist the development that Matapihi owners wanted, but they did point out a number of immediate difficulties when the Under- Secretary for Maori Affairs met with local Maori at the Matapihi School on 8 April 1959. The Under-Secretary told owners that consolidation would be delayed by at least 18 months while the Department finished a backlog of other consolidation schemes.406 He also raised the issue of the costs of subdivision and that this would mean alienation of some of the land to cover those costs. He indicated that ‘housing subdivision would naturally have to be in roaded areas. Roads have to

401 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 38 citing submission to the Tauranga County Council by E T Durie on behalf of the Matapihi-Ohuki Trustees 402 Nightingale, ‘Tauranga Moana: A Social and Economic Impact Report’, 1996, pp 104 – 105, citing W Ohia, Hon Sec Ngaiterangi Tribal executive to M Sullivan, Secretary for Maori Affairs, 23 March 1959, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ, Wgy 403 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 68 citing Willan, 1999, p 41 who cites W Ohia to M Sullivan, 1 February 1959, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ, Wgt 404 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 68 citing Willan, 1999, p 41 who cites W Ohia to M Sullivan, 1 February 1959, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ, Wgt 405 Nightingale, ‘Tauranga Moana: A Social and Economic Impact Report’, 1996, pp 104 – 105, citing W Ohia, Hon Sec Ngaiterangi Tribal executive to M Sullivan, Secretary for Maori Affairs, 23 March 1959, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ, Wgy

110 be formed and that requires money which I suggest could be obtained by the selling of certain sections.’407 By April 1960, a consolidation scheme had been taken out for Matapihi 3A2 block, but the subdivision had not been approved by the Tauranga County Council.’408

It is clear that Maori at Matapihi were seeking a subdivision to improve Maori housing and keep Maori communities intact in the face of pressure to move into the suburbs of Tauranga or Mount Maunganui. In seeking the approval of the County Council for the subdivision plan in April 1961 Turi Te Kani expressed the concern of the people that only two houses had been built in the district in the past four years, although the population was approximately 600. As a result, people from the area had moved to Tauranga or Mount Maunganui. Te Kani stated ‘most of the people at the meeting own land here. They feel very strongly that they have to go afield to find shelter and homes.’ 409 However, at least amongst some local bodies, there was opposition to Maori remaining in rural communities. At a public meeting called by the Ngaiterangi Tribal executive to discuss the subdivision plan the Chairman of the County Council, voiced his opposition. He said ‘subdivide the land in Matapihi and its Maori residents could possibly go the way of the black race in South Africa – become segregated – with the blacks in Matapihi and the whites living on the other side of the water.’ The Chairman informed those gathered that ‘integration was the way of the future and he predicted that in two generations Maori would not want to be living separately from Pakeha.’410 ‘Mr T R Te Kani replied on the owners’ behalf. He said that while the owners did not want segregation, neither did they want over-development of the district. Furthermore, Te Kani knew of no Pakeha who wanted sections in the district and he said that ‘the last thing the Maoris want to do is sell their birthright’.411

Willan noted that ‘the outcome of the meeting was that despite their preference for a racially integrated subdivision the county council consented to the scheme.’412 It appears that the County Council were willing to approve a subdivision if it was designed to expand the residential area. Nightingale observed that:

406 Nightingale, ‘Re-Housing Tauranga…’, 1996, p 24 407 Nightingale, ‘Re-Housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 24 citing Minutes of meeting held at Matapihi School Tauranga, 8 April 1959, p 2, MA 1, 30/3/130, document bank pp 102 - 106 408 Rose, 1997, p 160 citing MA 1, 29/4/11, supporting documents volume III, pp 847 – 851 & 838 409 Rose, 1997, pp 160 – 161 citing MA 1, 29/4/11, supporting documents volume III, pp 837 and AAMK 869/1020c, supporting documents volume IV, pp 1427 – 1434, p 1432 410 Willan, 1999, p 43. Rose noted that ‘The County Council supported the recently released Hunn report, which recommended that Maori housing should be pepper potted, to enable the integration of Maori into Pakeha society. However, even Mr Hunn had stated that although he disapproved of separate housing developments, he believed that the Council should accept the proposal for a separate development in this case.’ (Rose, 1997, pp 160 – 161 citing MA 1, 29/4/11, supporting documents volume III, pp 837 and AAMK 869/1020c, supporting documents volume IV, pp 1427 – 1434, p 1432) 411 Willan, 1999, p 43 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 12 April 1961 412 Willan, 1999, pp43 - 44

111 On one hand the county was unwilling to consider a subdivision of 32 sections for tangata whenua, but was willing to consider a subdivision of 65 sections – large enough for there to be sections available to Pakeha. It is quite clear from this that the county saw it as their duty to frustrate marae development and to facilitate what they termed integration, even where a hapu had the resources to re-house their own. This refusal to consider a Maori subdivision on ancestral lands took place within the context of a concerted campaign by the Borough Council to have Matapihi brought within the Borough to facilitate the expansion of the city and provide future residential space.’413 It is unclear whether the subdivision and farming development plan proposed by Matapihi Maori was ever implemented. Nightingale concluded that ‘while there was no significant subdivision at Matapihi in the early 1960s, neither was it incorporated into the Borough. Despite several attempts by the Borough to take the issue before the Local Government Commission and an acceptance by that body that Matapihi should be in the Borough, polls of local ratepayers consistently voted down the proposal.’414

It is possible that attempts at implementing a coordinated development plan for Maori land at Matapihi were suspended until the early 1970s. In 1972 the Matapihi-Ohuki Trust was established under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to administer 58 blocks of Maori land (208 hectares).415 Shortly afterwards the Tauranga County Council introduced marae community zones. As has been seen above, the pressures of urban encroachment continued through the 1970s and it appears that earlier plans for subdivision and farming had not to fruition. Therefore, the Maori Trustee considered that the marae community zones might provide a means for Maori communities at Matapihi to safeguard and expand their communities around marae on the Matapihi peninsula. By 1974 the trustees feared that urban expansion into the Matapihi peninsula was likely in the near future and the trustees hope to take advantage of the tranquil period before the impending invasion should this area became part of a city … to consolidate and amalgamate titles to establish marae community zones that would ensure the continuation of their way of life here in the future.416 However, in the meantime, some members of the community ‘whose shares in blocks were too small to be cut out to make a viable residential section had been forced to move to Tauranga City

413 Nightingale, ‘Re-Housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 23 414 Nightingale, ‘Re-Housing Tauranga …’, 1996, p 25 415 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 38 416 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 38 citing submission to the Tauranga County Council by E T Durie on behalf of the Matapihi-Ohuki Trustees

112 or Mount Borough Council in order to live but retain hopes of re-establishing their children in the area.’417

There was an attempt to establish several marae community zones on the Matapihi peninsula from 1974 onwards. E T Durie’s submission to the County Council on behalf of the Matapihi- Ohuki Trust and others regarding the marae community zones policy asked the Council to consider creating marae community zones around the Waikari and Whakahinga marae (see figure 10). ‘A Waikari Marae Community Zone was included in the Scheme Plans when the First Review of the Tauranga County District Scheme became operative in April 1976.’418 In May 1976 a meeting of owners elected a management committee for the Waikari marae community zone. ‘On 1 March 1977 a scheme change was approved by the County Council to extend the marae zone boundary to include an area for housing between the marae and the urupa’ (see figure 11).419 On 5 May 1977 the committee submitted a provisional development plan to the Council, the plan showed 20 sections as ‘proposed housing’ and the letter accompanying the plan stated that ‘the management committee consider their foremost responsibility is to encourage housing’ (see figure 12).420 It is very clear that despite the Council’s policy stating that housing was to be an ancillary use only that Maori were very much focused on using the marae community zone process to develop more extensive housing around marae.

The committee was required to submit a final development plan drawn up by a registered surveyor to the County Council for approval. But Stokes reported in 1980 that there were significant delays ‘over the question of amalgamation of title and the required meetings of owners to agree to this before the matter can be finally approved by the Land Court.’421 It is not clear from the existing research whether a development plan was ever approved for the Waikari marae community zone or whether any subdivision and housing was ever completed.

417 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 40 citing submission to the Tauranga County Council by E T Durie on behalf of the Matapihi-Ohuki Trustees 418 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 42 419 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, pp 43 - 45 420 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, figure 15, p 44 and p 45 421 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: the Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, p 45

113

6.4 Factors in the Successful Resistance of Maori at Matapihi to Urban Encroachment

Maori at Matapihi successful retained their land in the face of the significant and sustained pressure from urban encroachment. This was a considerable achievement, as Bassett and Kay observed, ‘the Matapihi example stands out as an exception to the rule that the growth and development of Tauranga came at the expense of surrounding Maori communities.’422 In 2001, ‘a total of 680 acres – or 73% of the original land returned after confiscation – remain in Maori ownership.’423 However, the existing research indicates that hapu at Matapihi also had a plan to develop their land to sustain and house their communities, at best the existing research indicates that this has been a struggle that has met with only partial success. This section examines some of the reasons put forward for Maori success in retaining their land at Matapihi.

Maori resistance to urban encroachment was partly motivated by stark examples of land loss in other areas such as Whareroa and Maungatapu. Bassett and Kay cited oral evidence gathered during their research on the relationship between Ngaiterangi and the Crown. Members of the Ngaiterangi discussion group recounted: It was an indictment on the owners of that particular place Maungatapu where they were selling up little pockets of land, you know to settle, to settle accounts. And that was the tragedy, and, [Turi Te Kani] saw that and so he says that’s not gonna happen to Matapihi.’424 In 1986 a representative of Matapihi owners also cited the loss of Maungatapu as something they wanted to prevent at Matapihi.425 In part the desire to retain land also arose from increased influence of Maori in the Tauranga area. By 1976, the population of Maori had increased from 3,358 persons in 1945 to 7,812.426 A determination increased to retain any remaining Maori land. Therefore, over the period from 1967 to 1972, there were few sales of Maori land on the Matapihi peninsula with the result that more than five-sixths of the land remained in Maori hands.427 These factors were probably important in the decision to put forward a proposal for a consolidation scheme that would then allow for subdivision for housing and land to be retained for farming.

422 Bassett and Kay, ‘Ngaiterangi and the Crown’, 1998, p 194 423 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, pp 171 - 172 424 Bassett and Kay, ‘Ngaiterangi and the Crown’, 1998, p 197 citing the Ngaiterangi discussion group from Bassett and Kay ‘Case Studies of Crown administration…’, 1997 425 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 151 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 20 September 1986, AANX 7536 W5027, LGC 1/1/115, pt 1, supporting papers, doc.12, p 260 426 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 134 citing Stokes, A History of the Tauranga County, 1980, pp 415 - 6 427 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 134 citing ‘Matapihi Peninsula Development’, c. March 1972, AAMK 869/60c, 5/9/20, pt 5, supporting papers, doc. 5, p 89

116 Several authors agree that attempts by Maori at Matapihi to develop their land were also a deliberate strategy to strengthen Maori communities and keep people living, working and earning a living from the land. In this way it was hoped that few people would feel the need to sell their shares in the land and relocate to the suburbs. With positive economic development underway ‘the web of collective ownership, normally a restraint to positive development for owners, now became a shield against private speculation in cases where owners did not wish to sell. The complexities of the Land Court system in identifying and extracting the land of those owners willing to sell was too difficult and experience showed the result was uncertain.’428 It was also felt that developed land was less likely to be compulsory acquisition for public works as more compensation would need to be paid by the Crown.

Willan concluded that Maori at Matapihi were very pro-active in pursuing development: During the 1960s and 1970s, local Maori initiated discussion and consultation about the future of their land. They called meetings with the Maori Trustee, local bodies, and the wider community to discuss their concerns about urbanisation and public works. They campaigned to keep their land by lobbying the Crown to amalgamate land titles, set up land trusts, assist with horticultural development, and support Maori housing ventures.429 This level of action was possible partly because of a critical mass of Maori land and Maori owners still living on the land. Walzl compared the situation at Poike and noted that ‘Poike owners were not able to undertake a similar development process due to the small numbers of total owners as well as the small number of owners still residing on the land.’430

In the late 1970s leaders at Matapihi identified a need to diversify agriculture on the peninsula and sought assistance and advice from the Department of Maori Affairs, local government and other sources to convert land into horticultural blocks.431 As discussed in previous chapters, horticultural expansion in the district posed challenges for Maori landowners. The 1979 Matapihi seminar was opened by Turi Te Kani, who outlined the challenges Maori landowners faced: High values, based on the land’s potential as a marketable product, with the resultant influence on rating and the like, coupled with ever rising costs, have rendered normal pastoral farming inadequate and incapable of sustaining good farming practices or showing reasonable income at the end of each financial year.432

428 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 166 - 167 429 Willan, 1999, pp101 - 102 430 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 167 431 Stokes, The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, 1983, p 142 432 ‘Opening Address: Mr Turi Te Kani’, A seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 2

117 Not only would horticulture be economically viable it would provide employment for a larger number of people than conventional farming, thus sustaining and rebuilding Maori communities. Te Kani hoped that the 800 acres of Maori land on the Matapihi peninsula could be developed for horticulture supporting 70 to 80 families.433 Existing research regarding the extent and success of horticultural development at Matapihi is limited. However, Walzl’s conclusion that it was the fact that ‘Matapihi was, by the mid 1980s, primarily in horticultural development which led to it being excluded as a site of development by the investigation which then took place [1985]’ suggests that the conversion to horticulture was widespread. Willan also concluded that ‘the owners appear to have successfully used horticultural development to strengthen the landowners’ position and resist land speculators.’434 ‘Development was seen as the answer to retaining land, developed land was more costly to acquire for public works, and owners who were getting profits from their land were less likely to sell it. Given the amount of Matapihi land that remains in Maori hands it is clear that this strategy was a successful one.’435

Organised resistance to urban encroachment and proactive development of Maori land at Matapihi were complimentary strategies. As early as 1945 Maori landowners at Matapihi had formed a Matapihi Land Owners’ Committee, the Secretary of that committee, H Reweti wrote to Minister of Maori Affairs on behalf of the community expressing strong opposition to a proposal to subdivide and lease their land for residential purposes. Reweti told the Minister that ‘as the above lands have been our ancestral homes for hundreds of years, we are very much perturbed at any such move and I on behalf of my people and with their full authority desire to emphatically protest against such a proposal.’ 436 By 1959 the Ngaiterangi Tribal Executive had become involved. On several occasions in 1959 the Secretary of the Ngaiterangi Tribunal Executive, Wiremu (Bill) Ohia, expressed to government the rising concerns of Maori at Matapihi that their land would be taken for public works and otherwise encroached on by urban development officials.437 Again, in 1972 when Matapihi was proposed as a site for a technical institute and hospital the Tauranga District Maori Executive expressed their concern at the prospective alienation of their land and feared that ‘the acquisition of land by one government department could lead to other departments and bodies gaining a foothold. It appeared that the

433 Opening Address: Mr Turi Te Kani’, A seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land’, 1979, p 2 434 Willan, 1999, p45 435 Willan, 1999, p102 436 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 23 citing Reweti to Nat Minister, 6 June 1945, MA 1, 22/1/106, ANZ, Wgt, supporting papers, doc. 8, pp 127a - b 437 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine...’, 2001, p 68 citing Willan, 1999, p 41 [who cites W Ohia to M Sullivan, 1 February 1959, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ, Wgt] and Nightingale, ‘Tauranga Moana: A Social and Economic Impact Report’, 1996, pp 104 – 105 citing W Ohia, Hon, Sec. Ngaiterangi Tribal Executive to M Sullivan, Secretary for Maori Affairs, 23 March 1959, MA 1, 29/4/11, ANZ, Wgt

118 hospital board were looking at 90 acres at Matapihi.’438 As a response to these threats two trusts were set up ‘to ensure that they retained their land and to ensure that owners could use their land profitably and not be forced to sell due to poverty and debts such as rates arrears.’439 Matapihi-Ohuki Trust ;’which consists of 50 small blocks for horticultural development’ and the Ngaitukairangi Trust containing a title amalgamating seven blocks into a block now known as the Ngaitukurangi block.440

Remaining under the administration of the Tauranga County Council played a critical part in the ability of Maori landowners at Matapihi to retain and develop their land, sustain their communities and resist urban encroachment. Successfully resisting the pressure to have Matapihi bought under the control of either the Tauranga City Council or the Mount Maunganui Borough Council meant that the land continued to be zoned rural which allowed for horticultural use but not intensive residential development. To some extent this also meant that valuations and rates did not rise rapidly to the extreme levels they may have reached had the land become zoned residential. Maori at Matapihi were keenly aware of the advantages of staying in the County. Kahotea commented that ‘the Tauranga County Council as a rural authority, was perceived by the Maori Community not to make the same demands on Maori land as the urban authority had.’441 Overall, La Rooij concluded that Matapihi Maori had been skilfully in using the conflict between rival local authorities over territory to keep the peninsula out of both Tauranga City and Mount Maunganui Borough.442

6.5 Conclusion

As a result of the proximity of the Matapihi peninsula to the rapidly expanding urban areas of Tauranga and the port and residential area of Mount Maunganui it was a desirable location for future residential development. Between 1938 and 1990 there were numerous proposals that included Matapihi in plans for future development. These plans put considerable pressure on the Maori owners of the peninsula to alienate their land for residential purposes. By the mid-1950s local authorities consistently stated that large scale residential development at Matapihi was inevitable and with it the integration of Maori from Matapihi into an urban Pakeha way of life. In 1965 an outline plan of Tauranga showed the intention to link Matapihi to central Tauranga, Maungatapu and the port/Mount Maunganui areas by a network of major roads and to utilise a

438 Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine…’, 2001, p 135 citing New Zealand Herald, 14 March 1972, AAMK 869/60c, 5/9/20 pt 5, supporting papers, doc. 5, p 88 439 Willan, 1999, p 44 440 These blocks were Puwhariki 2, Te Ngaio 2, Taumatanui 3B2, Oruamatua 2A2B, Oruamatua 2B2, Otuawahia 1 and Otuawahia 3B (Willan, 1999, p44) 441 Kahotea, ‘...Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, p 21 442 La Rooij, 2002, p 78

119 large area at the tip of the peninsula as a ‘university and cultural centre/secondary school.’ The base of the Matapihi peninsula and further land at the eastern end of the Mount Maunganui Borough were marked as areas for possible future expansion of the Mount Maunganui urban area.

There were repeated attempts by both the Tauranga Borough/City Council and the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to have Matapihi included within its boundaries so that rezoning for residential development could take place allowing for urban expansion. Matapihi was excluded from the 1968 extensions to the Tauranga city. However, there was continued uncertainty about the nature of future development at Matapihi. In fact throughout the 1960s and 1970s there were conflicting planning proposals for the area that created considerable uncertainty for Maori owners. It is unclear what consultation was carried out with the Maori community at Matapihi regarding these proposals. But Bassett and Kay concluded that industrial and urban development proposals appear to have been well under way before consultation with Maori owners or possession of the land had been achieved.

In the face of this sustained pressure from urban encroachment Maori owners of land at Matapihi were successful at resisting attempts to bring the peninsula under the administration of an urban authority and resisted pressure to sell their interests in the land. It is less clear from the research whether they were fully able to develop their land at Matapihi for farming and housing. Maori resistance to urban encroachment was partly motivated by stark examples of land loss in other areas such as Whareroa and Maungatapu. Viable economic development of land and housing for families was seen by Matapihi leaders as the best means ensuring that communities remained on the land and land was not sold. Matapihi owners were proactive in pursuing development opportunities and in organising resistance to proposals for urban development. Attempts were made to facilitate development in the 1950s by selling other Maori land at Whareroa. There also appears to have been some support from the Department of Maori Affairs and Maori Land Board for Maori housing and farming development at Matapihi in this period. In 1959 Maori approached the Department of Maori Affairs requesting a consolidation scheme and support in forming a corporate body to farm some areas while others were subdivided for residential purposes. Correspondence indicates that fears of a repetition of the Whareroa case had prompted Maori at Matapihi to examine the available avenues to safeguard against a similar taking. By April 1960, a consolidation scheme had been taken out for Matapihi 3A2 block, but the subdivision had not been approved by the Tauranga County Council.’443

443 Rose, 1997, p 160 citing MA 1, 29/4/11, supporting documents volume III, pp 847 – 851 & 838

120 It is clear that Maori at Matapihi were seeking a subdivision to improve Maori housing and keep Maori communities intact in the face of pressure to move into the suburbs of Tauranga or Mount Maunganui. But the existing research does not show whether the subdivision and farming development plan proposed by Matapihi Maori was ever implemented. It is possible that attempts at implementing a co-ordinated development plan for Maori land at Matapihi were suspended until the early 1970s. In 1972 the Matapihi-Ohuki Trust was established under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to administer 58 blocks of Maori land (208 hectares). Shortly afterwards the Tauranga County Council introduced marae community zones. A marae community zone was proposed for the Waikari marae, but it is unclear whether a housing subdivision there was finalised.

121

Chapter 7: Town and Country Planning and Maori Land at Maungatapu

7.1 Introduction

Planning for urban expansion at a local level also involved planning for a network of roads to connect the residential suburbs in which most of the population lived with the commercial and industrial areas of cities and boroughs where most employers are located. The topography of Tauranga with its estuaries and peninsulas made a network of major roads and harbour bridges a high priority for planners. Bassett concluded that ‘the geography of Tauranga harbour meant that Maungatapu was to become very important in the city’s transport system.’444 The fate of Maori land and communities on the Maungatapu peninsula was heavily influenced by the decision to build a motorway through the middle of the peninsula. This chapter summarises the existing research relating to the impact of the planning and building of this motorway, the resulting demand for residential development, rises in valuation and rates and the pressure this created on Maori land at Maungatapu.

7.2 National Planning for a Motorway through Maungatapu

In the early 1950s, at the beginning of the period under consideration, Maungatapu was a quiet, rural community, with houses scattered along the peninsula, and the marae was at the end of a gravel road. There was little to spoil the peace and from the marae it was possible to look across the Rangataua area of the harbour to Matapihi and Mangatawa.’445 However, the proximity of Maungatapu to central Tauranga and the possibility of bridging the narrow gap between Maungatapu and Matapihi to create a route to and from the rapidly developing port, airport and industrial complex at Mount Maunganui meant that proposals to put a major road through Maungatapu were put forward. Bassett noted that the ‘impetus for building a bridge across the harbour, linking Mount Maunganui with Tauranga, dates from at least 1930 … Lack of funds meant this project was consistently refused.’446 It appears that by 1952 a route had been proposed but not finalised. ‘In March 1952 Tareha Makarauri wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs to ask for ‘assistance and support in the objection of the Maori people concerned in having a Public thoroughfare made on their private reserve [Maungatapu 2] … The district officer

444 Heather Bassett, ‘Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga’, Wai 215 #A26, 1996, p 4 445 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The impact of Urban Growth’, 1980. P 14 446 Bassett, 1996, pp 9 - 10

123 concluded that as no plans were yet finalised no action was necessary, and the owners’ objections should be passed on to the Ministry of Works’. A reply by the Ministry of Works ‘contained some assurance that local Maori would be consulted before the route was finalised.’447

Despite these reassurance, when ‘plans for the new transport system giving access to the port at Mount Maunganui had been finalised’ in 1955 the outcome was ‘as the owners had feared, a public road was going to be put through their ancestral lands.’ After the construction of the Maungatapu-Matapihi bridge, the first requirement was for the existing Maungatapu Road to be linked to the bridge. ‘Negotiations were held between the Ministry of Works and Maori as to the exact line the link should take, but there was no negotiation or consultation about the use of Maungatapu for the route.’ Bassett concluded that ‘public pressure to shorten the route between Tauranga and the port at Mount Maunganui was such that Maori would have been unable to argue against the motorway going through their land.’448 Bassett discussed the limited consultation that was carried out with Maori at Maungatapu, Maori objections to the route and the impact on the marae. She also provided a full discussion of the taking of land under public works legislation for the motorway.449

The decision to build a motorway was confirmed at national government level. ‘In November 1955 the National Roads Board approved six stages of road construction, the first stage of which was to be the bridging of the Tauranga harbour between the Matapihi and Maungatapu peninsulas.’ Bassett noted that the Maungatapu road was ‘to be followed by the construction of a city bypass route from Barkes Corner to Hairini and a motorway route from Hairini through the Maungatapu peninsula to the causeway. There were also other stages of the development for rural routes into the city areas, and on the Mount Maunganui side of the harbour.’450

Subsequently, local planners took into account the motorway at Maungatapu and appear to have developed their roading plan for the wider Tauranga area around it. A 1965 Tauranga District Outline Plan by Gabites and Beard showed a network of major highways and smaller ‘local distributor routes’ criss-crossing the existing urban area. The motorway down the centre of the Maungatapu peninsula was shown connected by a bridge to the Matapihi peninsula and continuing along the western side of Matapihi. A major interchange at Te Maunga was planned taking port traffic off and connecting to a major route through the centre of present-day

447 Bassett, 1996, p 10 citing Tareha Makarauri to Minister of Maori Affairs, 1 March 1952; Maori Affairs Rotorua to Head Office, 3 April 1952 and District Commissioner of Works, 20 August 1952 all in MA 1, 21/3/264, ANZ Wgt 448 Bassett, 1996, p 12 449 Bassett, 1996, pp 12 - 16 450 Bassett, 1996, pp 9 - 10

124 Papamoa. The tip of Matapihi was also shown as connected by road and bridge to central Tauranga (see figure 13).451

The Maungatapu road was built as a motorway, rather than simply as a road. This was a planning decision which had a significant impact on the outcome for Maori owners with land taken for the motorway and land bisected by it. Bassett noted that the requirements under public works legislation with regard to taking land for motorways offered landowners less protection than other types of taking: The Maungatapu – Matapihi bridge was opened on 1 May 1959, and the first legal steps were taken soon after to define the motorway route under the Public Works Acts. While it was general practice to issue a Notice of Intention to take land under the Public Works Act 1928, this was not the procedure followed for the acquisition of land for the motorway. Instead a centre line proclamation was issued on 7 September 1959 that defined the blocks that would be affected.452 Bassett also explained that ‘the use of a centre line proclamation was in accordance with the Public Works Amendment Act 1947 section 4 of which laid down the procedure to be followed in the taking of land for motorways.’ Subsection 2 of this section ‘provided that the Governor- General could issue a proclamation defining the middle line of a motorway and that section 216 and 217 of the Public Works Act 1928 would apply.’ This meant that the same processes that applied to the construction of railways applied in the case of motorways. Significantly these provisions ‘required lesser protections for landowners (either Maori or Pakeha) than for other public works takings.’ In particular, ‘section 216 of the Public Works Act 1928 specifically stated that section 22 and 23 of that Act, which laid out the notification procedures and included an allowance of time for objections to be lodged, would not apply in the case of railway, and therefore motorways under the 1947 Act.’ Bassett also noted that: after the definition of a centre line, the actual area of land required was to be taken by proclamation, and only at this stage was there any requirement for notification of the owners. It should be noted, however, that subsection (g) of section 216 only required the owners to be notified ‘either before or after (emphasis added) the land was taken, clearly showing that this notification was intended to be informative rather than providing an opportunity for consultation and objections.453

451 ‘Tauranga District Outline Plan’, Gabites and Beard, 1965 in TCC/TDC Town Planning Folder, New Zealand Room, Tauranga City Library 452 Bassett, 1996, p 14 453 Bassett, 1996, pp 14 - 15

125 The fact that Maori land at Maungatapu was taken for a motorway had some further practical implications. Significantly, ‘from 12 April 1965 all the land that had so far been proclaimed as taken was declared to be a motorway under section 44 of the Public Works Amendment Act 1948.’ As a result of ‘this declaration of motorway status … there could be no direct access from the adjacent blocks onto the motorway. This was later to have implications for how those blocks left without road access could be used, and led to further alienation of land.’454 Overall, Bassett concluded that ‘the provision of a modern transport system was seen, at that time, as a matter of national importance, and the Public Works Amendment Act 1947 gave special priority and exemptions to the construction of motorways. This meant that there was very little possibility of Maori successfully objecting to the motorway proposals.’455

7.3 The Maungatapu Motorway and Demand for Residential Development

The motorway through Maungatapu was not important simply because it involved the compulsory acquisition of Maori land under public works legislation, but also because it put considerable pressure on Maori to alienate their land for residential development. Bassett noted that ‘the Maungatapu and Hairini areas in particular were seen as desirable housing sites for Tauranga’s growing population’.456 In particular the centre line proclamation in September 1959 ‘immediately place pressure on the Maori landowners of the land to sell the blocks for residential subdivisions because it was now certain that Maungatapu would become part of Tauranga city, and be easily accessible.’ At the same time uncertainty remained about ‘exactly what, or how much land would be taken.’457

Indeed since at least 1955 the Tauranga County Council had favoured subdivision of the area into individually owned lots. In a 1955 rating case in the Maori Land Court, the County Council stated their firm understanding that ‘areas of land in Matapihi, Maungatapu and Hairini may be visualised as potentially residential’. The Council believed ‘it would be of advantage now to individualise the titles this affording each owner the opportunity of building himself a suitable home close to the market for his labour i.e. the port of Tauranga and its industries in course of establishment.’ Of course the advantage to local bodies was that a considerable amount of land would be available for suburban housing and ‘the council would find that on partition of these lands the difficulties of rate collection would largely disappear; the individual Maori would gladly

454 Bassett, 1996, pp 15 – 16 citing New Zealand Gazette, 1965, p 582. Bassett provides a detailed discussion of disputes over compensation payments for land taken for the motorway (Bassett, 1996, pp 16 – 34) 455 Bassett, 1996, p 73 456 Bassett, ‘Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga’, Wai 215 #A26, 1996, p 4

126 pay his dues …’458 Bassett also concluded that ‘the construction of the new roading system through Hairini and Maungatapu was closely linked with the urban expansion of Tauranga city, and both Maungatapu Maori and the authorities involved knew that once the road link was established there would be great pressure for Maori land to be subdivided and alienated.’459 The net result is ‘that today there is very little Maori-owned land left in these blocks, and that the area is now a scenic and desirable housing suburb of Tauranga city.’460

7.4 Local Body Boundary Changes and the Subdivision of Maori Land at Maungatapu

In 1959, about the same time as the motorway centre line was proclaimed, plans by the Tauranga Borough Council for Maungatapu to become a residential suburb in the near future led to the area being included within the boundaries of the borough. One of the consequences of this boundary change was that the poor housing conditions amongst Maori at Maungatapu came to the attention of local and centre government agencies. However, the proclamation of the centre line for the motorway and uncertainty about which land would ultimately be taken for that purpose delayed attempts by the Maori community, local bodies and the Department of Maori Affairs to improve housing and general economic conditions at Maungatapu.

The bringing of Maungatapu into the Tauranga Borough in 1959 altered local bodies to the substandard housing experienced by many Maori at Maungatapu. Rose stated that ‘none of the houses at the settlement were in a satisfactory condition, fourteen were unsatisfactory and nine urgently needed improving’ and Nightingale noted that it was only ‘after the incorporation of Maungatapu in 1959 the Borough Council became keen to see that Maori were re-housed.’ 461 The Mayor of Tauranga at that time began a public campaign to have substandard Maori housing at Maungatapu and elsewhere removed. This included orders to demolish houses considered by the Medical Officer of Health to be substandard.462 The Tauranga City Council developed a policy which included a resolution ‘that the Maori land owned by the Maori community be divided so that individual owners can have title for building’. Nightingale noted that the central problem for Maori in this situation was that finance was required to re-house and obtaining a loan generally required an individual title. He concluded that:

457 Bassett, 1996, p 14, see New Gazette, 1959, p 1295 (Bassett, 1996, p 15) 458 Bassett, 1996, p 38 and Hamilton, ‘Ngai Te Ahi Historical Report’, 2000 citing Extract from Tauranga MB 19, 17 November 1955, fol 116, MA 1, 20/1/33, ANZ Wgt 459 Bassett, 1996, p 37 460 Bassett, 1996, p 37 461 Rose, 1997, p 163 citing MA 1, 30/3/130 pt 2, supporting documents volume III, pp 980 & 989 and Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-Housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 25

127 by putting pressure on Tauranga Maori to re-house Government and Council officials were putting huge pressure on them to sell ancestral land to finance their re-housing. The timing of the demolition orders cannot be seen as coincidental. It is too convenient for a local body keen to re-house Tauranga Maori and more significantly open up Maori lands for residential development.’463

Maori Affairs staff had also been concerned at the standard of Maori housing on Maungatapu peninsula (as well as other areas of Tauranga), and in 1959 were working with the Ministry of Works to determine the influence motorway construction would have on proposed subdivisions.’464 But ‘the proposals to re-house Maori in the area had in fact been stalled by the Ministry of Works’ plans, as explained by the district officer: The position at Maungatapu in so far as the provision of housing sites is concerned, had been made difficult by the proposed Motorway which traverses right through the middle of Maori owned land. The centre-line proclamation has affected all the most suitable housing areas and unless the Ministry of Works can define the actual route of the Motorway to allow the subdivision and roading schemes for the area to proceed, there does not appear to be any immediate prospect of housing sites being able to meet the demand on hand.465

The combined pressures of demand for residential land, the need to improve Maori housing and the impact of boundary changes, rising valuations and increasing rates debt led to subdivision and sale of Maori land at Maungatapu. Bassett concluded that: Land sales and residential development was facilitated on the Maungatapu peninsula and at Hairini by the inclusion of these lands in the Borough and the building of the bridge and motorway. Residential development was greatly facilitated by the fact that a considerable number of blocks of land had rates debts for which charging orders were taken by the borough.466 The burden of rates often fell to those in occupation of blocks had accumulated making subdivision an attractive option, however restrictions on the minimum size of subdivision lots meant that simply partitioning out a house sites and leaving the remaining blocks in multiple

462 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-Housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, p 25 citing L R Charters, Borough Housing Inspector, ‘Inspector’s Report’, 22 July 1959. Tauranga District Council Archives, 16/9 (microfilm 78) 463 Nightingale, ‘Maori Re-Housing: Tauranga…’, 1996, pp 26 – 27 citing Bay of Plenty Times, 31 May 1960, MA 1, 30/3/130, pt 2, document bank, p 108 464 Bassett, 1996, p 37 citing Resident Engineer to Waiariki District Maori Land Court, 29 July 1959, MA 1, 30/3/130 pt 2, ANZ, Wgt 465 Bassett, 1996, p 37 citing District Officer to Head Office, 20 July 1959, MA 1, 30/3/130 pt 2, ANZ Wgt 466 Bassett, 1996, p 37

128 ownership was difficult. For example at Maungatapu 1A5 in 1972 ‘Mrs Little has her house on this property’ she was repaying rates debts to the city council but had been unable to get other owners of the block to contribute towards the rates. The Littles wanted to partition out their house ‘but they are unable to obtain the consent of the City Council which requires a scheme plan for a subdivision of the whole area. The cost would be beyond our client’s pockets.’467 It was later explained that the Mrs Little ‘originally had ideas of either free-holding the land or at least acquiring sufficient shared to enable her to get a house site for a new home. Difficulties in tracking down owners and with the Town and Country Planning regulations has forced her to give up.’468

Rating debts were a significant factor in all the Maungatapu blocks that were later subdivided and sold. Bassett and Kay noted that in Maungatapu ‘in most cases, the pressure of mounting rates charges was one reason why the owners had agreed to the land being vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision.’469 In the case of the individual blocks included in Maungatapu B rates arrears accrued between 1963 and 1966 amounted to between £42.13.06 and £464.09.00. Of the nine blocks listed six had debts over £100 and in three of these the debt was over £200. In total £1696.09.09 was owed on the nine blocks.470 This three year period was during the delays caused by the motorway proposal but after the land had been included in the Tauranga Borough in 1959 and earmarked as residential.

A similar pattern can be seen in the case of Maungatapu Z. In November 1958 the Maori Land Court was amalgamating land to form this block for the purposes of vesting in trust, subdivision and sale. ‘Judge Prichard announced that it was obvious that this land must be cut up into sections and either sold or built on.’ The problem of rates ‘will make this imperative’.471 The land would shortly be included in the Tauranga borough and rates were likely to rise. The judge stated that ‘seeing what is about to happen and seeing the impossibility of holding sections in the future one group of the owners for whom Mr Morgan acts applied for partition. The Court decided that it must not chip off more sections but rather make a reasoned and final division of the block still

467 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A report on the Papakanui Trust Claim’, 1997, p 40 citing Murray Dillon Gooch & Durie to Maori Trustee, 14 November 1972, BBHW A1240, box 146, 14/75/C, ANZ, Auck 468 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A report on the Papakanui Trust Claim’, 1997, p 41 citing District Officer for Maori Trustee to Murray Dillon Gooch & Durie, 20 December 1972, BBHW A1240, box 146, 14/75/C, ANZ, Auck 469 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A report on the Papakanui Trust Claim’, 1997, pp 39 - 40 470 Bassett, 1996, pp 41 - 42 citing Sharp, Tudhope & Co to Maori trustee, 26 November 1965, 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office, Hamilton 471 Young. ‘The Alienation by Sale of the Hapu Estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana, Volume Two: the Twentieth Century’, 2001, p 114 citing Tauranga MB 20, 27 November 1958, fol. 354

129 remaining.’472 Early in 1959 Judge Prichard once again expressed fears that the rating situation would become worse once land came into the Tauranga Borough: ‘what is regarded as a most desirable part which will in a few months be in the Tauranga Borough and on the main road to Mount Maunganui. The rates are even in the County £300 odd and they will in the Borough be several times this.’473 Prichard stated that ‘the Court agrees with the conclusions reached – it is no longer practicable for Maoris to retain sections in a Borough ‘for our children or grandchildren’ – the burden of rates makes such an impossibility. The only thing that can be done is to sell and invest the money for the children or grandchildren when they are ready.’474 Similarly, in 1972 ‘the residue of the Maungatapu No. 1A5 block, about 2 acres and 22 perches’, was causing ‘some of the owners concern as rates were outstanding and arrears were growing rapidly … rates continued to be a problem and in August 1974, the Maori Trustee arranged for surveyors to assess the possibility of subdividing the blocks.475

Once ‘the areas of land to be taken for the motorway had been defined by proclamation in 1963, it became possible for proposals to develop the land to be formulated and considered.’ 476 As Bassett explained once Maungatapu came under the authority of the Tauranga City Council ‘the Council assessed the rates for the blocks on the value of the land as urban residential sections, and when Maori would not pay those rates, the council insisted on pursuing charging orders over the blocks through the Maori Land Court. As a result several trusts were established under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to subdivide the blocks and sell sections to pay the outstanding rates.’477 In many cases the trustee was the Maori Trustee. ‘The intention was to subdivide blocks in order to provide housing sites for the Maori landowners’ with some sections sold on the open market for the purposes of meeting rate arrears and the costs of subdivision – roading, survey and administration expenses.478

472 Young. ‘The Alienation by Sale of the Hapu Estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana, Volume Two: the Twentieth Century’, 2001, p 115 473 Bassett, 1996, p 38 citing Tauranga MB 22, 9 February 1959, fols. 17 - 21 474 Bassett, 1996, p 38 citing Tauranga MB 22, 9 February 1959, fol. 17 475 Young, ‘The Alienation by Sale of the Hapu estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana, Volume Two: The Twentieth Century’, 2001, p 124 476 Bassett, 1996, p 39 citing Maori Trustee (Hamilton) to Head Office, 24 September 1965, 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office Hamilton 477 Bassett, 1996, p 75 478 Grant Young. ‘The Alienation by Sale of the Hapu Estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana, Volume Two: the Twentieth Century’, Wai 215 #M3, 2001, pp 112- 113

130 7.5 The Subdivision of Maungatapu Blocks and the Outcome for Maori Owners

7.5.1 Introduction

The motorway and subsequent subdivision and alienation of land at Maungatapu had a significant impact on the marae itself. Bassett concluded that: the construction of the motorway, right from the first earthworks, had a traumatic effect on the whole environment of Maungatapu and Hairini, and changed its character irrevocably. At Maungatapu Marae, once on the peaceful harbour shore, the speakers have to contend with the roar of traffic from the adjacent motorway and bridge, which is used by large trucks going to and from the port. The Maungatapu No. 2 block, an ancient pa and urupa, was cut through and levelled. This resulted in the creation of a sports ground for the benefit of the hapu, but at the expense of physical desecration of a wahi tapu.479 In addition, Stokes noted that ‘the construction of the causeway and bridge to Matapihi … blocked the view from the marae … There is a boat launching area between the marae and the causeway and on fine weekends a regular stream of local boaties drive along the edge of the marae to the beach.’480 Overall, Bassett concluded that in the case of the blocks vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision and sale at Maungatapu the ‘Maori Trustee administration was generally poor and of a total of 259 sections formed in its Maungatapu subdivisions, only 36 were purchased by Maori. Most of those purchased were in the vicinity of the marae.’481

7.5.2 The Subdivision of Maungatapu B

Maungatapu B, containing 137 acres 3 roods and 23.3 perches, was created by the amalgamation of number of blocks at north-eastern end of the peninsula.482 In this case the Maori Trustee was not the automatic choice as a trustee to facilitate the subdivision and sale of the block. There were competing subdivision schemes put forward by the Maori Trustee and a private developer, Beazley Homes Ltd. Each presented its proposal before the Maori Land Court at a hearing to vest the land for subdivision in May 1965. Owners were divided as to which they supported:

479 Bassett, 1996, p 73 480 Stokes, ‘Tauranga Moana: The impact of Urban Growth’, 1980. pp 14 - 15 481 Bassett, 1996, p 37 482 Maungatapu B block formerly 1C2A, 1G, 1M, 1R, 1S, 1B, 1S2, 1N, ZV, pts A3, 1W, 1K2B, 1JA2, 1J1 blocks & Te Mara Tatahau Blocks (Bassett, 1996, figure 11) and Young, ‘The Alienation by Sale of the Hapu estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana, Volume Two: The Twentieth Century’, 2001, p 122

131 The Maori Trustee was represented by Apperly, who told the court that at a meeting the previous year the owners had requested the Maori Trustee to subdivide the land to provide them with housing sites, and sell the remaining sections so that profits could be distributed to the owners. Since that time Maungatapu 1D2C had been released from the original amalgamation proposal and had been sold to Beazley Homes, a group of blocks near Maungatapu school (1D2X) had also been excluded and was already being developed (both of these areas were south west of the Maungatapu B block area). Now, some owners had changed their mind about the Maori Trustee’s involvement, and wanted Beazley Homes to handle the subdivision.’483 However, after a further meeting of owners the majority opted for subdivision by the Maori Trustee.484 The presence of private developers at Maungatapu wishing to buy land from Maori owners indicates that having been included within Tauranga City, zoning permitted subdivision for residential purposes. It also likely that as a result Maori with interests in Maungatapu blocks were being approached to sell their interests putting pressure on all the owners to make a decision about selling their land.

An amalgamation order to create Maungatapu B and an order vesting it in the Maori Trustee under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 were both made on 16 September 1965.485 Terms of the trust allowed Maori Trustee to: • subdivide for residential purposes provided the plan is approved by the Tauranga City Council; • to carry out subdivision work to that end; vest lots in beneficial owners where there is an existing house on the lot; • sell lots on open market; • vest lots in any beneficial owner (or child or grandchild of such owner) who had enough shares or could make up the difference in cash. But application for a section had to be made within two years of the title to the section becoming available. Maori Trustee to make decision regard the choice of lot; • money made from selling lots was to cover Maori Trustees expenses and repay loans then the balance was to be distributed to beneficial owners in accordance with their respective shares in the block; • Maori Trustee could borrow and employ contractors.486

483 Bassett, 1996, p 40 484 Bassett, 1996, p 41 citing Minutes of Meeting, 9 September 1965, 12/246 vol, 1 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office, Hamilton 485 Bassett, 1996, p 41 citing Tauranga MB 26, 16 September 1965, fols 207 - 208

132 With regard to these provisions Bassett noted that the Maori Trustee’s application for funding highlighted ‘that Maungatapu was by 1965 an area where there was considerable demand for sections, and that no specific mention is made of reserving sections for the owners to buy. It also seems that proceeds from the sale of sections would be used to pay for the development itself, as there were to be a fund for roading the subdivision.’487

Bassett’s research suggests that there was a lack of involvement of and communication with owners once the subdivision was underway. Bassett observed that there was ‘very little correspondence on file from or to the owners of the land’ but ‘what there is of the correspondence … indicate how little involvement the owners had in the administration of their own land, and also … suggest that the results of the subdivision were not as the owners had hoped.’488 The correspondence considered by Bassett also suggested that there was a lack of communication regarding the payment of the proceeds of sale. Bassett concluded that ‘the Hamilton Maori Trustee staff did not regularly keep owners informed of progress and decisions that were made, most communications on file were in responses to queries, and in general it would seem that the relationship of trust staff to the owners was purely reactive.’489

Maori owners with interests in the Maungatapu B block expressed concerns that ‘not enough sections were being made available for the owners of the land in accordance with their intention in setting up the trust.’490 The subdivision progressed in stages, with varying proportions of the sections at each stage available for purchase by Maori owners. In stages I and II, subdivision along the existing Maungatapu Road, were opened for selection by Maori owners. ‘This was probably because, being the first sections available, they were needed to provide for those owners who had been identified as having the greatest urgency … those whose homes are on the line of the actual motorway or who are living in houses that have been condemned by the Tauranga City Council.’ However, Maori could not apply for all the sections in those stages because the Maori Trustee’s plan required that some sections be sold (as opposed to vested) so as to provide a cash fund.’491 Nearly 200 sections were provided in stage III of the subdivision but these were to be exclusively for sale on the open market. Following a complaint by owners in February 1967 about the availability of sections, a meeting between the owners and the Maori

486 Bassett, 1996, pp 42 – 43 citing Terms of Trust for Maungatapu B, 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office, Hamilton 487 Bassett, 1996, p 43 citing Application for advance from Maori Trustee general purposes fund, 21 September 1965, 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office, Hamilton 488 Bassett, 1996, pp 43 - 44 489 Bassett, 1996, p 44 490 Bassett, 1996, p 44

133 Trustee was held in March 1967. At this meeting owners ‘resolved that owners should have first preference on the sections near the marae, according to their shares in the land. Turi Te Kani also requested that other Maori (not owners) be allowed to purchase sections, and was assured that any Maori ‘would be encouraged to purchase sections in the area.’492 As a consequence, subdivision around the marae became stage IV with all lots to be ‘vested in the beneficial owners for housing purposes.’493

Although the sections available to Maori owners in stage IV of the subdivision of Maungatapu B were located close to the marae as the owners had requested the outcome was less than satisfactory. It turned out that this land was ‘not to be very good land on which to build’ as the topsoil had been removed previous for causeway fill and to level the playing field. ‘This meant that ‘drainage would be difficult and the land at this stage not suitable for housing purposes. The meeting therefore agreed that top soil from the areas that were already being developed would be shifted to the site, to replace that which had been lost to public works.’494 However, this did not solve the drainage problem that by 1971 had halted vesting of sections in this area. Some of those that had bought sections ‘later found that the Council would not issue building permits for them as the sections were considered too unstable.’495 In August 1971, two months before the two year period in which Maori could apply for sections, ‘owners were advised that there were only six sections still available, all of which were in stage IV and had drainage problems. However, a summary of section sales prepared in October 1971 reveals that in fact there were 38 sections in stage III at this time.’ Bassett concluded that ‘this is further evidence that the Maori Trustee, when exercising its power under the terms of trust, restricted the amount of sections that were available to be vested in the owners.’496 Stage V was sold as whole lot to the Catholic Church and stage VI, ‘a small area between the motorway and Maungatapu Road … was the last area to be subdivided, and was the only stage where all sections were vested in the owners.’ Bassett commented that ‘this was probably because stage VI was located near stage IV,

491 Bassett, 1996, p 45 citing Maori Trustee to Maungatapu Maori Committee, 15 February 1966 and Maori Trustee (Hamilton) to Head Office, 24 September 1965, both in 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office Hamilton 492 Bassett, 1996, p 45 citing Minutes of Meeting, 9 March 1967, 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office Hamilton. Original complaint see File note, 16 February 1967 in same file (Bassett, 1996, p 44) 493 Bassett, 1996, p 46 citing Maori Trustee to Town Clerk, 31 July 1968, 12/246/D vol. 1 Maungatapu B subdivision – Stage IV, Maori Trust Office Hamilton 494 Bassett, 1996, p 46 citing Minutes of Meeting, 9 March 1967, 12/246/D vol. 1 Maungatapu B subdivision – Stage IV, Maori Trust Office Hamilton 495 Bassett, 1996, p 46 citing Maori Trustee (Hamilton) to Tauranga Office, 11 March 1971; File note, 2 July 1971 both in 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office Hamilton, and personal communication from A Gardiner, 1 December 1995 496 Bassett, 1996, p 47 citing Maori Trustee to owners, 31 August 1971 and File note 8 October 1971 both in 12/246 Maungatapu B s438/53, Maori Trust Office

134 near the marae, and did not have the same drainage problems that had made sections in stage IV difficult to allocate.’497

A summary of the number of sections in each stage of the subdivision, the number vested in Maori owners and that figure as a proportion of the total sections in shown in table 6 below.498

Table 6: Number and Proportion of Sections Vested in Maori Owners in the Subdivision of Maungatapu B

Stage Total Residential Sections vested in Percentage of Total Sections Maori owners Stage I 19 7 39% Stage II 13 3 23% Stage III 198 1 0.5% Stage IV 16 13 81% Stage V Sold as one lot 0 0% Stage VI 12 12 100% Total 259 36 14%

In terms of the distribution of the profits from the subdivision Bassett found that: The Maori Trustee received 4.6 percent of the total income, and 73.4 percent was distributed to the owners. The block, which was alienated from the owners, was obviously very valuable land, as nearly 1 million dollars was paid out to the beneficial owners as a result of the Maori Trustee’s subdivision. However, it should be noted that this did not necessarily mean that individual owners received large payouts because there were more than 1000 owners of the block.’499

7.5.3 The Subdivision of Maungatapu 1A5

Maungatapu 1A5 is an example of a smaller subdivision rapidly completed by the Maori Trustee. ‘The block was subdivided into ten residential sections, and nine owners expressed interest in having a section.’ However, as Bassett concluded, although ‘the owners were given the impression that they would be able to have a section vested in them’ many later found ‘that they could not afford a section. In most cases the amount of shares held in the block was not worth enough to cover the 20 percent deposit. As a result only one section was vested in an owner.’500

497 Bassett, 1996, p 47 498 Figures are drawn from Bassett, 1996, pp 47 - 48 499 Bassett, 1996, pp 49 - 50 500 Bassett and Kay, ‘Ngaiterangi and the Crown’, Wai 215 #C1, 1998, pp 196 - 197

135 In August 1974 ‘the Maori Trustee arranged for surveyors to assess the possibility of subdividing the blocks. The report concluded that the area could be cut into eight lots at a cost of $9700 per section. The owners were given the details of the plan and told they would have to sell two of the proposed eight lots on the open market to recover the costs of subdivision. The other six sections could be vested in the owners.’501 Bassett and Kay’s account shows that this cost was not per section but for the whole subdivision.502

Maungatapu Maori expressed some misgivings about having the land vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision. But, as noted above, the subdivision was driven by the necessity of clearing the rates debts that had built up, this left the owners with few options. ‘It was claimed that the subdivision was considered the best possible means of addressing the owners’ requirements, and a way of meeting outstanding rate payments amounting to $1,208.64.’503 The total cost of the development was estimated at $10,500. ‘The surveyor estimated that each lot should sell for $9,000. On the basis of there being eight sections, the subdivision was expected to produce a gross profit of $72,000. The net profit was estimated to be about $61,500.504 Turi Te Kani ‘pointed out he was not happy with the Maori Trustee’s conduct in another subdivision on Hairini, and after an assurance that the owners would be given “a definite say in the proceedings”, the owners unanimously agreed that the block be vested in the Maori Trustee for subdivision … A trust deed formalising the plan was approved by the Maori Land Court in March 1975.’505 The terms of the trust were very similar to that drawn up for Maungatapu B. However, it also included provision for the appointment of advisory trustees to work with the Maori Trustee in selecting candidates for sections to be vested in individual owners.’506 The trust deed specified that up to three advisory trustees may be appointed but that their ‘directions would be considered, but not necessarily acted upon.’ Aside from the normal powers given to subdivide and sell, a clause required that ‘the beneficiaries arranged purchase or vesting within three months of title of the lots becoming available.’507

501 Young, 2001, p 124. A fuller account of the subdivision of Maungatapu 1A5 can be found in Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, pp 39 - 51 502 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, p 41 citing Elder and Mackay to Maori Trustee, 14 August 1974, BBHW A1240, box 140, 12/314, ANZ, Auck 503 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, p 44 citing Application for an Advance from the Maori Trustee’s General Purposes Fund, 23 May 1975, BBHW A1240, box 140, 12/314, ANZ, Auck 504 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, p 44 citing Application for an Advance from the Maori Trustee’s General Purposes Fund, 23 May 1975, BBHW A1240, box 140, 12/314, ANZ, Auck 505 Young, 2001, p 124 citing Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay…’, 1997, pp 39 - 51 506 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, p 42 507 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, p 43 citing terms of trust for Maungatapu 1A5, 11 March 1975, BBHW A1240, box 140, 12/314, ANZ, Auck

136 As Bassett noted, Maori owners attempting to purchase sections in the Maungatapu 1A5 subdivision encountered finance difficulties. At a meeting on 3 June 1976 once the subdivision work was completed owners were told that each share was currently valued at $50 and that ‘if insufficient shares were held to equate to one fifth of the value of the section (which would be the required deposit if the section was to be purchased on terms), then the balance could be made up by cash.’ ‘In most cases it turned out that the value of their shares was not sufficient to even cover the deposit.’508 Some tried to get around the difficulty of holding too few shares to equate to the value of a section by attempting to pool their shares with other family members. Young noted that ‘several families wanted to pool their shares to give them enough to acquire a section. However, the process was long and complicated and required a Court hearing.’509 Bassett and Kay considered the correspondence from owners after this meeting and suggested that ‘the process of obtaining enough shares for a section was quite complicated’, especially where family members were attempting to pool their shares. They also concluded that ‘the explanations provided at the meetings of owners did not necessarily mean that the owners understood what would be involved, and how to go about getting a section.’510 In fact so ‘many owners found the cost of acquiring a section prohibitive, and in the end only two sections were occupied by the Maori landowners. One owner had enough shares to acquire a lot outright, another was acquired when one family pooled its shares to meet the cost of the deposit … the remaining eight sections were sold on the open market.’511

Although all eight sections placed on the market were sold only ‘two were sold for cash, and the remaining six were under agreements from sale and purchase. This meant that they were paid for over a five-year period.’ With the Maori Trustee paying Maori owners profits in instalments over a five-year period ‘few could use this money for a deposit on a section elsewhere.’ Bassett and Kay cited the case of a shareholder with 2.19445 shares who received just $4.36 out of instalment of $3,000 paid to the total owners as an example of the small sums many owners received in instalments.512

508 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, pp 48 - 49 509 Young, 2001, p 125 510 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, p 49 511 Young, 2001, p 125, note that this contradicts Bassett and Kay, 1998, pp 96 – 97 which stated that only one section was vested in Maori owners 512 Bassett and Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration …’, 1997, pp 50 –51 citing Maori Trustee to P Kingi, 7 April 1981, BBHW A1240, box 140, 12/314, ANZ, Auck

137 7.5.4 The Subdivision of Maungatapu Z

The subdivision of Maungatapu Z came about after requests in 1958 from one group of owners to partition the block, but again the problem of rates and a desire to build their own homes on some of the sections appears to have been behind this application. Fearing that rating debts, which were already significant, would increase once the land was brought into Tauranga Borough the Court declare that subdivision was ‘imperative’ and that it was best to ‘make a reasoned and final division of the block still remaining.’513 However, the Court was very much concerned with making sure that a subdivision was not going to interfere with Ministry of Work and County Council plans for the area. Sketch plans for the subdivision was prepared and ‘the judge announced that the plan should be circulated among the parties, especially the County Council, for their views. The cost of roading and survey had to be determined and the site valued.’ Subsequently the ‘Senior Engineer at the Ministry of Works in Tauranga gave evidence regarding the land taken for the motorway. This was yet to be finalised but he assured the Court that the subdivision plan prepared for the Court was compatible with the Ministry’s intentions.’514 The County Council also had no objections to the subdivision plan ‘although they were not willing to formally notify the Court because the land was due to come into the borough council boundaries.’515

The Court appointed retired Maori Land Court Judge, E M Beechey as the trustee to oversee the subdivision and sale of the block as ‘the Maori Trustee could not act as trustee to sell the land.’ Roads were laid off by court order and the remaining land renamed Maungatapu Z. ‘The sections, labelled A – V were awarded. Two trusts were also set up. The first involved ZL and ZM which were to be sold and the proceeds used to pay the costs of survey, clearing the sections, legal services provided by Morgan, and the commission of the trustee. A number of other sections were vested [in] a second trust, to be sold by the trustees.’516

The existing research is not extensive, but what is available suggests that there were a number of factors that reduced the profitable of the subdivision for Maori owners. Young concluded that ‘major problems subsequently arose because the Ministry of Works decided to change the location of the motorway and this adversely affected the subdivision. It prevented the sale of

513 Young. 2001, p 115 514 Young. 2001, pp 114 - 115 515 Young. 2001, p 115 516 Young. 2001, p 116 citing ‘Notes regarding Trustees Dealings with Maungatapu Z Blocks’, BBHW 4958/1353c 12/232, ANZ, Auck

138 some of the sections and delayed the distribution of funds to the beneficial owners.’517 Rates were levied on that basis the Maungatapu Z was one title. This contributed to ‘the growing rates bill’ which created ‘increasing pressure to sell the remaining Maungatapu Z allotments quickly.’ This meant that the trustee ‘simply could not wait around for the best price. Partly as a result, Maungatapu Z-I was sold at £150 below its market valuation. During the hearing, counsel for the Trustees told the Maori Land Court that with annual rates of £27 a year, ‘it seems better to sell at £1600 than £1750 in 2 years time.’518 The necessity for speed meant that the trustee was selling ahead of market demand, La Rooij noted that ‘sale prices were also below valuations because the Valuation Department had over-estimated the demand for sections in the Maungatapu area.’ For example, Judge Prichard commented that ‘Maungatapu Z-E suffered from the high expectations of the values. Throughout Tauranga as the city expanded so did expectations of land values. In reality this left large areas of land overvalued and therefore overrated and difficult to sell.’519 It is unclear what the final profit from the subdivision was or whether any of the owners were able to purchase sections in the subdivision.

7.6 Conclusion

The planned motorway through Maungatapu was confirmed at a national level and was part of a long-term plan for the development of Tauranga that would ensure the viability of a nationally and regionally important port. In 1965 local planners incorporated the motorway as an important link in a proposed network of major highways and smaller ‘local distributor routes’ criss-crossing the existing urban area with the motorway down the centre of the Maungatapu peninsula connecting by a bridge to the Matapihi peninsula and continuing along the western side of Matapihi. A major interchange at Te Maunga was planned taking port traffic off and connecting to a major route through the centre of present-day Papamoa. The motorway proposal was locked to a national roading plan and there was public pressure for a shorter route between centre Tauranga and the port. This made it difficult for Maori to argue against the motorway going through their land.

In 1959 the Crown issued a proclamation showing the centre line for the motorway at Maungatapu and the peninsula was bought within the boundaries of the Tauranga Borough. Both of these events immediately place pressure on the Maori landowners of the land to sell the blocks for residential subdivisions because it was now certain that Maungatapu would become

517 Young. 2001, p 116, citing ‘Notes regarding Trustees Dealings with Maungatapu Z Blocks’, BBHW 4958/1353c 12/232, ANZ, Auck 518 La Rooij, 2002, p 136 citing Tauranga MB, vol. 21, 2 February 1961, fol. 211 519 La Rooij, ‘2002, pp 136 – 137 citing MLC Minute extract on file, 29 September 1961, BBHW, 4958-873e, 7/395, ANZ, Auck

139 part of Tauranga city, and be easily accessible. The prospect of the area becoming accessible bought the poor state of Maori housing in the area to the attention of local government and the Department of Maori Affairs. However, attempts to improve conditions by subdividing the land and proving individual titles were delayed because of the uncertainty surrounding which land would be taken for the motorway.

The inclusion of Maungatapu in the Tauranga Borough Council meant that rates on Maori land were assessed on the value of the land as urban residential sections. The Council then pursued unpaid rates through the Maori Land Court. Several trusts were established by the court under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 these allowed for the subdivision of the blocks and sale of sections to pay the outstanding rates. The casebook research deals with three of these subdivisions - Maungatapu B, Maungatapu 1A5 and Maungatapu Z. In each case the key factor in the alienation of the land was the need to halt the escalating rates debt. In the case of Maungatapu B only 36 of the 259 sections (14 percent) in the subdivision were finally vested in Maori owners. One of the reasons for this was that individuals did not hold enough shares to pay for a section or, in some cases even a deposit for a section. Although the profits from the sale were substantial research indicates that there were 1000 owners in the block and many held very small numbers of shares so individual payouts were not necessarily large. Those sections that Maori did purchase were all located near the marae at the request of owners, however many of these sections had poor drainage because topsoil had been removed during motorway construction and associated works. It appears that attempts to remedy the problem were not entirely successful and some owners had difficulty obtaining building permits.

The Maungatapu 1A5 subdivision was much smaller and dealt with more rapidly by the Maori Trustee than Maungatapu Z. There were ten residential sections, initially nine owners had expressed interest in having a section but the difficulties of financing a purchase meant that In the end only two sections were occupied by the Maori landowners. The remaining eight sections were sold on the open market. The subdivision of Maungatapu Z was initiated by a request from some of the owners to partition the block, but the problem of rising rates and the desire to build their own homes on some of the sections were also important factors in the application. The court sought approval for a subdivision from the Ministry of Work and County Council.

140 However, after giving its approval the Ministry of Works later decided to change the location of the motorway and this adversely affected the subdivision. It prevented the sale of some of the sections and delayed the distribution of funds to the beneficial owners. Rating debts built up and there was pressure on the trustee to sell the sections rapidly. As a result the trustee could not afford to wait until market demand increased and sections were sold for less than the market valuation. It is unclear what the final profit from the subdivision was or whether any of the owners were able to purchase sections in the subdivision.

141 Chapter 8: Summary

This report was commissioned to see what could be gleaned from the existing casebook research for the Tauranga Moana inquiry with regard to town and country planning policies and their impact on Maori land and Maori communities over the 1953 to 1990 period. Several things became immediately apparent on reading the casebook, and these had a bearing on the coverage this report has been able to provide. The focus of the existing casebook has been on the sustained and accelerated urban expansion of the city after 1945 and its impact on Maori. The casebook discussion of planning centred on urban expansion. This report has focused on delineating the policy decisions relating to the geographical areas selected as sites for urban expansion, and other areas to be protected from urban encroachment. Some policy initiatives and directions that had a bearing on the impact of urbanisation on Maori land and communities have not been explored either in the existing casebook, or in this report.

The casebook research provided relatively little specific material on Tauranga town and country planning policies and practices. However, in reading the material one particular thread emerged very strongly from the existing research and connected these policies and a range of other processes and mechanisms. This was a causal chain that led from planned urban expansion to the alienation of Maori land in key areas. Again, this report is confined to delineating this chain of consequences. Further research may well uncover other factors that would add to our understanding of the connections between planning and alienation of Maori land in Tauranga. Finally, in reading the existing research it became clear that attention needs to be paid to the way in which the whole package of urban development – roading, residential subdivision, port, airport and industrial development – was planned. This planning often involved government departments as well as local authorities.

The existing research strongly suggests that from the early 1950s local authorities in the Tauranga inquiry district were directing future urban expansion onto land on the eastern side of Tauranga Moana. The primary reason for this policy was to preserve high quality agricultural/horticultural land for farming in the western part of the district. Unfortunately, these policies placed the bulk of the remaining Maori land in the district directly in the path of planned urban development, putting considerable pressure on Maori to alienate their land. Planners considered areas such as Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Hairini and Matapihi to be of lower value for agriculture but were centrally located between the municipal areas of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. By 1965 plans showed Whareroa, Matapihi, Maungatapu and central Tauranga linked

142 by a network of major roads, bridges and motorways and earmarked for residential development looking as far ahead as 1985. By the mid-1970s the force of planned urban growth was in the areas of Te Maunga and Papamoa and by the mid-1980s further there was debate over whether expansion should continue in these coastal areas or move in a south-westerly direction towards the Bethlehem area. By the 1990 it was evident that the Tauranga District Council was considering how planned development in these two areas flanking the city might affect Maori communities and were making attempts to involve Maori communities in this planning.

Until the 1980s local authorities in the Tauranga district sought to control urban development and preserve the integrity of the rural areas by ensuring urban development was guided towards areas of low productive value on the eastern side of the harbour. This easterly development of the urban area was reflected in the extension of the boundaries of urban authorities between 1945 and 1980. These boundary changes brought a significant area of land that had formerly been zoned rural and used for agriculture and horticulture under the administration of urban authorities. Research suggests that these boundary changes resulted in the land being rezoned residential or, in the case of Whareroa, industrial permitting it to be subdivided for future housing or industrial development. Once land Maori land was rezoned residential, the pressure on owners to sell increased as developers began to move into the areas earmarked for housing.

The impact of rezoning was to increase land valuations, which in turn triggered a rise in rates. Zoning often took place some years in advance of urban development but restrictions on the type of activities permitted on the land could hinder Maori who wished to farm their land to earn enough income to pay rapidly increasing rates. Existing research indicates that local bodies had some power to establish differential rating areas to ease the impact of these rises, they apparently used this power in a very limited way in Tauranga. Rising rating debt was a significant factor in decisions by Maori owners and the Maori Land Court to vest land in trust (usually in the Maori Trustee) under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 for the purposes of subdivision and sale. The existing research concludes that the Maori Land Court saw a quick sale as the only real alternative for Maori land in urban areas. If the land was not sold, or there was a significant delay in the sale, rates charges would build up rapidly. In such circumstances, it was possible under the Rating Act, for rate charges to eat away the entire freehold value of a block, leaving the owners with nothing. The Maori Land Court thought that landowners would be able to obtain sections using their shares in the former block and any shortfall could be made up by a cash payment. The profits of any sub-division scheme were then distributed to the beneficial owners. However, there is evidence from the research that indicates that in some cases profits were affected by the need to sell quickly, without having time to wait until market demand peaked.

143 Although the valuation of the land for sale might be high based on its potential use, lack of market demand often meant that the sale price was lower than the valuation. Existing research indicates that it was difficult for many Maori to retain sections in these subdivisions. Many owners were unable to meet the cost of purchasing a section, and a large number of owners held too few shares in the block for the value of their shares to meet the cost of a section, or even a deposit on a section. Even when those who did receive section and/or a significant share in the profits of a subdivision are considered, these processes evidently led to the alienation of a large amount of Maori land in Tauranga after 1950.

The casebook research relating to Whareroa and Maungatapu illustrates how this chain of consequences impacted on Maori attempts to utilise their land and to maintain their communities in the face of planning for urban expansion. At Whareroa the development of Mount Maunganui as a deepwater port was part of a larger scale national and regional economic planning in the immediate post-war period involving road and rail networks, port and residential development. The existing research indicates that detailed planning for the development involved a wide range of government departments and local bodies including the Tauranga Harbour Board. In 1948, several years before the plan for a port was confirmed, Maori owners of the Whareroa blocks had agreed to a subdivision and sale of their land in the Whareroa block. The initial impetus for this decision appears to have been an application for a road line across part of the block by a ferry company wishing to establish a ferry service from Mount Maunganui to Tauranga. However, sources also show that Whareroa owners had decided to sell their land there in order to fund the development of their land at Matapihi.

The existing research highlights the extent to which uncertainty about the final shape of port and industrial development amongst government departments contributed to this delay. Although the Maori Land Court issued an order vesting the land in the Waiariki Maori Land Board for subdivision and sale on 15 July 1948 under section 8 of the Maori Purposes Act 1950, the Minister of Maori Affairs did not approve the order until 21 November 1951. In the meanwhile on 13 September 1951 a large proportion of the block was acquired for ‘better utilisation’ under the Public Works Act. Maori were eventually able to subdivide and sell the remaining land at Whareroa, however, research suggests that the profitability of the venture was significantly reduced. Aside from the land lost to public works and lower than hoped for compensation, local body boundary changes, rezoning as industrial land, rising valuations and rising rates impacted on the outcome of the sale and subdivision of the remaining land. In 1953 the remaining Maori land at Whareroa was included in the boundary of the Mount Maunganui Borough and rezoned industrial. Research indicates that this resulted in significant rises in valuation for the remaining

144 Maori land at Whareroa, which in turn raised rates and led to considerable rating debts. By the early 1960s the Maori Trustee made the decision to try to sell the land as rapidly as possible to stop its value being eroded by rating debt which would need to be paid out of the sum the land would realise on the open market. Selling the land was more difficult for the Maori Trustee than it had been for the Crown.

Existing research highlighted the fact that the planning decisions regarding a motorway through Maungatapu were confirmed at a national level and were part of a long-term plan for the development of Tauranga that would ensure the viability of a nationally and regionally important port. Under these circumstances it was very difficult for Maori to argue against the motorway going through their land because of public pressure for a shorter route between Tauranga and the port at Mount Maunganui. By 1965 a development plan proposed a network of major highways and smaller ‘local distributor routes’ criss-crossing the existing urban area with the motorway down the centre of the Maungatapu peninsula connecting by a bridge to the Matapihi peninsula and continuing along the eastern side of Matapihi. A major interchange at Te Maunga was planned taking port traffic off and connecting to a major route through the centre of present-day Papamoa. In 1959, at the same time as a centre line was declared for the motorway the Maungatapu peninsula was brought within the boundaries of the Tauranga Borough. Both of these events immediately place pressure on the Maori landowners of the land to sell the blocks for residential subdivisions because it was now certain that Maungatapu would become part of Tauranga city, and be easily accessible. The opening up of the area bought the poor state of Maori housing in the area to the attention of local government and the Department of Maori Affairs. But attempts to improve conditions by subdividing the land and proving individual titles were delayed because of the uncertainty surrounding which land would be taken for the motorway.

After Maungatapu came within the area administered by the Tauranga Borough Council rates on Maori land were assessed on the value of the land as urban residential sections. The Council then pursued unpaid rates through the Maori Land Court. Several trusts were established by the court under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 these allowed for the subdivision of the blocks and sale of sections to pay the outstanding rates. The existing research provides material regarding the subdivision and sale of three Maungatapu blocks, Maungatapu B, Maungatapu 1A5 and Maungatapu Z. This research indicates that in each case the key factor in the alienation of the land was the need to halt the escalating rates debt. In the case of Maungatapu B only 36 of the 259 sections (14 percent) in the subdivision were finally vested in Maori owners. Research indicates that this was largely because individuals did not hold enough shares to pay for a section

145 or, in some cases even a deposit for a section. The profits for the sale of sections came to nearly one million dollars and 73.4% of this went to Maori owners, although Bassett noted that this did not necessarily mean that individual owners received large pay-outs because there were more than 1000 owners of the block. Those sections that Maori were able to purchase were all located near the marae at the request of owners, however many of these sections had poor drainage, attempts to remedy the problem were not entirely successful and some owners had difficulty obtaining building permits.

The Maungatapu 1A5 subdivision consisted of ten residential sections, and nine owners expressed interest in having a section, again, the difficulties of financing a purchase meant that In the end only two sections were occupied by the Maori landowners. One owner had enough shares to acquire a lot outright, another was acquired when one family pooled its shares to meet the cost of the deposit. The remaining eight sections were sold on the open market. The subdivision of Maungatapu Z came about after requests in 1958 from one group of owners to partition the block, but again the problem of rates and a desire to build their own homes on some of the sections appears to have been behind this application. Although the court sought approval for a subdivision from the Ministry of Work and County Council the Ministry of Works subsequently decided to change the location of the motorway and this adversely affected the sub-division. It prevented the sale of some of the sections and delayed the distribution of funds to the beneficial owners. Rates were levied on the block as if it were one title (it was an amalgamation of a number of separate titles) as a consequence rating debts built up and there was pressure on the trustee to sell the sections rapidly. La Rooij concluded that this meant that the trustee could not afford to wait until market demand increased and sections were sold for less than the market valuation. It is unclear what the final profit from the subdivision was or whether any of the owners were able to purchase sections in the subdivision.

In rural areas, particularly from the late 1960s onwards, urban encroachment and demand for horticultural land had the effect of pushing up the valuation of adjacent Maori land. Increased valuations also increased rates for these blocks. This had a number of consequences for Maori landowners. Often the land had been leased and rentals were based on valuation. When a rent review occurred the current valuation at the time of the review became the basis for setting the rental for the period set out in terms of the lease. Where the valuation had risen rapidly rents also rose sharply. In many cases the tenant then surrendered the lease and the block reverted to the control of the Maori owners. However, it was difficult for Maori with multiple owner land to obtain the finance to cover the high capital costs of converting the property to horticulture.

146 In rural areas subdivision restrictions rarely allowed owners of rural Maori land to partition out their interests into lots of less than ten acres. Many Maori families are refused permission to build houses on traditional land because the land was zoned rural and the request to partition out a section was deemed to conflict with these restrictions. Without an individual title it was difficult to raise a mortgage to do any maintenance on, or renovations to, existing homes. Even those who were able to have the section on which their home stood partitioned out by the Maori Land Court faced further planning hurdles. Building permits were sometimes refused because their sites do not meet the subdivisional standards in the district scheme. This situation may have left some Maori landowners doubly disadvantage with controls on subdivision still in place restricting the ability of owners to stay on the land and develop it and urban encroachment raising valuations and rates on Maori land at the same time. In particular, not being able to partition out a section for a house left those with houses on multiply-owned Maori land vulnerable to rates rises because the occupier was liable for rates on the block.

Despite rural Maori land, marae and communities being in the path of planned urban expansion the existing research suggests that there was a lack of provisions in the town and country planning legislation for planning for the retention and development of Maori communities. Although marae were recognised as ‘an existing use’ research concluded that there was no recognition that marae and their surrounding communities might have different planning needs from Pakeha institutions. The existing research suggests that the rigid adherence of local bodies to restrictions on subdivision, particularly regulations relating to the minimum size of sections in rural areas in the face to urban encroachment made it very difficult for Maori landowners in rural areas to subdivide land for housing around marae. Research suggests that in the majority of cases the Maori Land Court took into account these planning regulations and only approved partitions for housing in exceptional cases.

In the mid-1970s, local bodies in the Tauranga district took the initiative and developed a new form of zoning around marae in rural areas. The council introduced the marae community zone in 1974 to allow for the development of marae as cultural centres for community activities. It should be noted that this policy was developed before the requirement to consider Maori relationship to their ancestral land was as a matter of national importance was introduced in the 1977 Town and Country Planning Act. The Tauranga County Council was the first in New Zealand to implement such a policy and other councils modelling later marae community zones and papakainga zones on those established in the Tauranga district.

147 However, there were a number of factors that limited the impact of marae community zones as a development strategy for Maori communities. Initially at least, it was the council that made the decision about which marae were suitable for a marae community zone, it is unclear from the existing research whether they consulted with Maori communities before proposing a number of marae as candidates for this zoning. However, the fact that none were proposed for Matapihi, an area where the majority of land was Maori land, suggests that consultation was not carried out. The council had the power to reject or ask for changes to any development plan put forward for approval. Evidence from the existing research suggests that Maori communities saw the marae community zones as a means of circumventing restrictions on rural subdivision and hoped to be able to use the provision to develop extensive housing subdivisions on Maori land in the vicinity of their marae. However, the major limitations of marae community zones were their timing and the limited provision for housing. Nightingale concluded that the initiative was several decades too late to make any substantial contribution to keeping Maori on their land, coming at a time when the real debate over whether hapu could remain as distinct social groupings had already been lost. The marae community zones policy made provision for housing but only as an ancillary use not as a main function of the zone.

Only at Matapihi were Maori successful in keeping their land from being included in the boundaries of an urban authority, rezoned residential and finally subdivided and alienated. It is less clear from the research whether they were fully able to develop their land at Matapihi for farming and housing. There were repeated attempts by both the Tauranga Borough/City Council and the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to have Matapihi included within its boundaries so that rezoning for residential development could take place allowing for urban expansion. These moves were largely because the proximity of the Matapihi peninsula to the rapidly expanding urban areas of Tauranga and the port and residential area of Mount Maunganui made it a desirable location for future residential development. Between 1938 and 1990 there were numerous proposals that included Matapihi in plans for future development. Throughout the 1960s and 70s there were conflicting planning proposals for the area that created considerable uncertainty for Maori owners. These plans put considerable pressure on the Maori owners of the peninsula to alienate their land for residential purposes. By the mid-1950s local authorities consistently stated that large-scale residential development at Matapihi was inevitable and with it the integration of Maori from Matapihi into an urban Pakeha way of life.

It is clear that from the 1950s onwards, with the alienation of Whareroa and Maungatapu as a warning of what might happen to Matapihi, that Maori at Matapihi took a two-pronged approach

148 to protecting their land and communities for urban encroachment. Owners put up organised resistance to proposals to develop the peninsula for residential, industrial and public purposes. At the same time they were proactive in pursuing development opportunities to make the land economically viable and stabilise the community in the face of pressures to sell interests in land and relocate to suburbs in Mount Maunganui and Tauranga. In the 1950s attempts were made to facilitate development by selling other Maori land at Whareroa. There also appears to have been some support from the Department of Maori Affairs and Maori Land Board for Maori housing and farming development at Matapihi in this period. The existing research does not show whether the subdivision and farming development plan proposed by Matapihi Maori was ever implemented. It is possible that attempts at implementing a co-ordinated development plan for Maori land at Matapihi were suspended until the early 1970s when several trusts were formed to implement horticultural development. While the research indicates that there were a number of horticultural ventures assisted by the Department of Maori Affairs and Maori Land Board it is unclear whether these were able to be sustained in the long-term. In 1974 the Tauranga County Council introduced marae community zones. A marae community zone was proposed for the Waikari marae but it is unclear whether a housing subdivision there was finalised.

149

Bibliography and List of Further Reading

Primary Sources NB: This is not a complete list of all files relevant to town and country planning in the Tauranga inquiry district but instead provides a starting point for further research.

Archives New Zealand, Wellington

Department of Internal Affairs, Head Office Town and Country Planning - District Schemes AAAC W3207/97 WIL 37/4/18 pt 2 – Tauranga 1977-1980 Town and Country Planning - District Schemes AAAC W3207/97 WIL 37/4/18 pt 3 – Tauranga 1980-1984

Housing Corporation of New Zealand, Corporate Office Land planning – Tauranga 1975-1978 ABVF 975 W4925/18 6/5110 pt 1 Land planning - Tauranga - Poike Ridge 1979- ABVF 975 W4925/18 6/5110/1 pt 2 1983

Land Information New Zealand, National Office [South Auckland Land District]- Town & ABWN 6095 W5021/710 Country Planning - Mount Maunganui Borough, 25/743/50 pt 1 Tauranga Borough & Tauranga County 1952- 1976 South Auckland Land District- Tauranga County ABWN 6095 W5021/711 Council extra-urban Planning scheme - Mount 25/743/50 pt 2 Maunganui Borough Town Planning Scheme, Tauranga Borough Town Planning 1952-1986

Local Government Commission (AANX)

A. Legislation Reviews

Town and Country Planning Act – review and AAAC 6015 W5224/263 148/10 pt 3 amendments thereto Town and Country Planning Act – review and AAAC 6015 W5224/263 148/10 pt 4 amendments thereto

152 Town and Country Planning Act – review and AAAC 6015 W5224/263 148/10 pt 5 amendments thereto Town and Country Planning Act – review and AAAC 6015 W5224/263 148/10 pt 8 amendments thereto Town and Country Planning Act – Resource AAAC 6015 W5224/263 148/10/5/7 pt 3 Management Law Reform – Bill Town and Country Planning Act – Resource AAAC 6015 W5224/263 148/10/5/7 pt 4 Management Law Reform – Bill

B. Regional and District Files Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/232 LGC/103/3/4 pt 1A Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Bay of Plenty Region Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/232 LGC/103/3/4 pt 2 Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Bay of Plenty Region Reports – June 1989 Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6A Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6B Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6D Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6D1 Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District

153 Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6E Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District – Letter Mount Maunganui Residents Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6F Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District – Letter Mount Maunganui Residents Local Government Commission – Bay of Plenty AANX 7536 W5027/233 LGC/103/3/4 pt 6G Region – Kawerau, Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Whakatane Districts - Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty District – Letter Mount Maunganui Residents

C. County Series for Tauranga County

Local Government Commission - County Series AANX 7536 W5027/15 LGC/1/2/75 pt 1 - Tauranga County 1946-1986 Local Government Commission - County Series AANX 7536 W5027/169 LGC/1/2/75 pt 2 - Tauranga County 1987-1987 Local Government Commission - County Series AANX 7536 W5027/169 LGC/1/2/75 pt 3 - Tauranga County 1987-1987

D. Municipal (City & Borough) Files

Local Government Commission – Municipal – AANX 7536 W5027/10 LGC/1/1/115 pt 1 Tauranga City Local Government Commission – Municipal – AANX 7536 W5027/147 LGC/1/1/115 pt 2 Tauranga City Local Government Commission – Municipal – AANX 7536 W5027/147 LGC/1/1/115 pt 3 Tauranga City Local Government Commission – Municipal – AANX 7536 W5027/6 LGC/1/167 pt 1 Mount Maunganui Borough Local Government Commission – Municipal – AANX 7536 W5027/138 LGC/1/167 pt 2 Mount Maunganui Borough

154 D. Boundary Alteration Files

Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/73 LGC/101/69 Alterations – Tauranga County: Mount Maunganui Borough Alteration of Boundaries Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/29 LGC/101/74 pt 1 Alterations – Tauranga County/Tauranga City Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/29 LGC/101/74 pt 2 Alterations – Tauranga County/Tauranga City Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/240 LGC/101/138 pt 1 Alterations – Tauranga County/Mount Maunganui Borough/Papamoa Boundary Alterations Petition under Section 12 MCA [Municipal Corporations Act] 1954 Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/240 LGC/101/138 pt 2 Alterations – Tauranga County/Mount Maunganui Borough/Papamoa Boundary Alterations Petition under Section 12 MCA [Municipal Corporations Act] 1954 Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/240 LGC/101/138 pt 3 Alterations – Tauranga County/Mount Maunganui Borough/Papamoa Boundary Alterations Petition under Section 12 MCA [Municipal Corporations Act] 1954 Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/75 LGC/101/84 Alterations – Tauranga City Council – Boundary Adjustment Local Government Commission – Boundary AANX 7536 W5027/105 LGC/101/261 Alterations – Tauranga County & Tauranga City (Welcome Bay)

Maori Affairs Department, Head Office Tauranga Confiscations 1946-1975 AAMK 869/207a 7/6/168 pt 2 Tauranga Confiscations 1975-1980 AAMK 869/1589a 7/6/168 pt 3 Town and Country Planning files, 1954-1983 AAMK 869 series 25 (11 files)

155 Ministry of Economic Development, Head Office Tauranga Zoning, 1969 – 1987 AATJ W4100 Box 42 97/6 pt 1

Ministry of Justice, Tribunals Unit Town and Country Planning - Tauranga County AADM W3644/18 338/80 Council 1980-1980

Ministry of Transport, Head Office Airports: Tauranga Airport: Policy and Master AAPR W3962/82 76/28/14 pt 1 Planning 1957-1964 Airports: Tauranga Airport: Policy and Master AAPR W3962/82 76/28/14 pt 2 Planning 1964-1966

Ministry of Works, Town and Country Planning Division Tauranga Planning Survey by Department of ABOB W4261 356 Industries and Commerce 1958

A. General Files under TCP Act 1953

Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 1 General, 1952 - 1956 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 2 General, 1956 – 1959 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 3 General, 1958 – 1961 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 4 General, 1961 – 1966 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 5 General, 1967 – 1969 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 6 General, 1969 – 1971

156 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 7 General, 1971 – 1972 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 8 General, 1972 - 1975 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 9 General, 1975 - 1976 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 10 General, 1976 - 1977 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 11 General, 1977 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 12 General, 1977 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 13 General, 1977 - 1978 Town and Country Planning Act (1953) ABOB W4261/10 148/8 Pt 14 General, 1978 - 1980

B. General files under the TCP Act 1977

Town and Country Planning Bill (77) - ABOB W4261/13 148/8/0/3 pt 1 Ministerial Correspondence etc, 1977

Legal Opinions and Court Decisions, 1957 - ABOB W4261/15 148/8/4 pt 1 1975

New Zealand Forest Service The Murupara Scheme - Plant, Equipment and ADSQ 17639 F1W3129/342 de Industrial Works - Affiliated Industrial Works 80.4071 Planning - Tauranga Harbour Board – Storage 1948-1960

Public Works Department, Head Office Tauranga District Planning Scheme 1927-1969 W40 149/22 parts 1-4 Tauranga County Planning 1944-1967 W40 149/191 parts 1-3

157 Works and Development Services Corporation/R Corporation (formerly Public Works), Head Office Town and Country planning - Appeal Board 1954-1960 AAQB W4073/447 32/9239/4 pt 1 Town and Country planning - Appeal Board 1961-1964 AAQB W4073/447 32/9239/4 pt 2 Town and Country planning - Appeal Board 1964-1966 AAQB W4073/447 32/9239/4 pt 3

Archives New Zealand, Auckland

Department of Conservation, Bay of Plenty Conservancy Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning – BAHT 1542/1717a 6/115 pt 1 Tauranga 1974-1985 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1715a 6/105 pt 1 Tauranga Borough District Scheme 1968-1977 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1680a 6/90 pt 1 Tauranga County 1933-1966 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1681a 6/90 pt 2 Tauranga County 1963-1976 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1681b 6/90 pt 3 Tauranga County 1967-1976 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1878b 6/90 pt 5 Tauranga County 1984-1986 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1877b 6/90 pt 6 Tauranga County 1986-1987 Local Bodies - Town and Country Planning - BAHT 1542/1717b 6/115 pt 2 Tauranga Town 1983-1987

New Zealand Forest Service, Auckland Conservancy Tauranga County - Town and Country Planning BBAX 1124/651a 45/12/1 Act 1953 - 1964-1986

Works Department, Hamilton District Office Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1620a 60/3/3/1 pt 1 Changes to District Scheme - Tauranga Harbour Plan 1983-1984 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1620b 60/3/3/1 pt 2 Changes to District Scheme - Tauranga

158 Harbour Plan 1984-1984 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1620c 60/3/3/1 pt 3 Changes to District Scheme - Tauranga Harbour Plan 1984-1987 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1620d 60/3/7 pt 1 Fisheries Liaison Committee Meetings 1987- 1987 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1618c 60/3/1/1 pt 1 Ogier M D and T E appeal 1982-1987 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1618d 60/3/1/2 pt 1 Scheme Change No.9 - Evidence and preparation for hearing appeal 1985-1985 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1619a 60/3/1/2 pt 2 Scheme Change No.9 - Evidence and preparation for hearing appeal 1985-1985

Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1619b 60/3/1/2 pt 3 Scheme Change No.9 - Evidence and preparation for hearing appeal 1985-1987 Rural Planning - Tauranga County Council - BCCH 5113/1619c 60/3/1/2 pt 4 Scheme Change No.9 - Evidence and preparation for hearing appeal 1987-1988 Town and Country Planning - Application AATE 5113 A947/254c 60/54/3 Mining Act Tauranga County 1984-1988 Town and Country Planning - Applications - AATE 5113 A949/82n 40/SP4543 Tauranga County Council 1960-1960 Town and Country Planning - Bay of Plenty AATE 5113 A949/191a 60/1/2/1 Tauranga. Rotorua. Taupo 1956-1964 Town and Country Planning - Health Tauranga AATE 5113 A947/210e 60/51/6/4 Hospital Board 1979-1979 Town and Country Planning - Intermediate AATE 5113 A947/204f 60/51/3/1 School - Tauranga No.2 1975-1983 Town and Country Planning - Tauranga District AATE 5113 A949/191c 60/1/2/3 Officials Working Committee 1967-1970

159 Town and Country Planning - Tauranga District AATE 5113 A949/192a 60/1/2/3 Officials Working Committee 1971-1973 Town and Country Planning - Tauranga District AATE 5113 A949/193a 60/1/2/3 Officials Working Committee 1973-1973 Town and Country Planning - Tauranga District AATE 5113 A949/194a 60/1/2/3 Officials Working Committee 1978-1982 Town and Country Planning - Tauranga District AATE 5113 A949/194b 60/1/2/3 Officials Working Committee 1982-1983

New Zealand Room, Tauranga City Library, Tauranga Ams 227 Goulding, Robert – Correspondence relating to Town Planning, Box 378, NZ Room, Tauranga City Libraries

Folder entitled ‘TCC/TDC Town Planning’, NZ Room, Tauranga City Libraries

160 Secondary Sources

Book Bellamy, A C (ed), Tauranga 1882 – 1982, Tauranga City Council, 1982

Hanson, Neil G,Tauranga County, 1945 to 1989: the story about the post World War II years, of wide ranging development, until local government reorganisation, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Tauranga, 1995

Palmer, K A, Planning Law in New Zealand, Sweet & Maxwell, Wellington, 1977

Palmer, K A, Planning and Development Law in New Zealand, Law Book Company, Sydney, 1984

Palmer, K A, Local Government Law in New Zealand (2nd ed), Law Book Co., Sydney, 1993

Shepherd, David F G, The Town Planning Act 1977 and the regulations thereunder: with notes, Brooker & Friend, Wellington, 1978

Stokes, Evelyn, A History of Tauranga County, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1980

Articles, Technical Papers and Reports Anderson, Ree, ‘Planning for Maori Needs’, prepared for the Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, 1983

Bielby, Steve, ‘Section 3(1)(g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, Auckland University Law Review, 1988 Vol. 6, No. 1, pp 52 – 64

Cotton, Margaret, ‘Resource Management Law Reform: A, Town and Country Planning and the Treaty of Waitangi, B, The Planning System and the Recognition of Maori Tribal Plans, C, Maori Participation in Resource Management’, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 1989

De Luca, Russell, ‘Rural Subdivision Controls – where to now?’, Planning Quarterly, June 1991, No. 102, pp 8 – 10

161 Foster, M J, ‘Land Use Conflicts and Urban Growth Options in the Bay of Plenty’, New Zealand Agricultural Science, 1991, No. 26, pp 20 –23

Haywood, Janine, ‘Is Local Government a Treaty Partner?’, Janine Haywood (ed), Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 2003, pp 3 – 20

Hearn, Tony, ‘Review of the Town and Country Panning Act 1977’, Planning Quarterly, June 1987, No. 86, pp 16 – 26

Holmes, Lois, ‘The Impact and Validity of Matters of National Importance (does nature get a fair deal?)’, Planning Quarterly, December 1987, No. 88, pp 18 – 22

Kenderdine, Shonagh, E, ‘Statutory Separateness (1): Maaori Issues in the Planning Process and Social Responsibility of Industry’, New Zealand Law Journal, August 1985, pp 249 – 259

Love, Morris Te Whiti, ‘Resource Management, Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi’, Janine Haywood (ed), Local Government and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 2003, pp 21 - 38

Memon, P A; McDonald, Sandra, ‘Research Report on the Regional Planning Function of United and Regional Councils’, Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, 1983

Ministry of Works and Development, Town and Country Planning Division, ‘A Guide to the Town and Country Planning Act 1977’

New Zealand Maori Council, ‘Maori Ancestral Land: A Definition for Adoption and Promulgation by the New Zealand Maori Council’, 1980

Palmer, K A, ‘Acquisition of Maori Land for Public Works’, Town Planning Quarterly, vol. 65, pp 35– 43

Scott, C D, Land Value, Rating, Zoning and Land Use: Some Interrelationships and their Influence on Planning, prepared for the Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, n/d

162 Stokes, Evelyn, ‘Land Use on Peri-Urban Maori land: A Case Study of Tauranga’, Background Paper for the Seminar on Peri-Urban Land Use, University of Waikato, Hamilton, 1 – 3 December 1979

Stokes, Evelyn, ‘The Impact of Horticultural Expansion in the Tauranga District’, Technical Report, No. 14, prepared for the Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, 1983

Stroud, R G, ‘The Effect of (the demand for) Smallholdings on Rural Planning’, New Zealand Valuer’s Journal, September 1985, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp 148 – 151

Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, ‘Planning for Maori Needs in Rural Areas’, Town and Country Planning Bulletin, No. 16, September 1975

Wanganui City Council, ‘The Town and Country Planning Act 1977: Administration of District Planning Schemes’, prepared by the Town Planning Department, Wanganui City Council, 1978

Williams, Haare (ed), ‘The Maungatapu Experience: A Visit to a Tauranga Marae by Auckland City Councillors, Council Staff and Community Workers’, Department of Planning & Social Development, Auckland City Council, 1977

‘Planning for Maori Needs in Rural Areas’, Town and Country Planning Bulletin, Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Works and Development, Wellington, No. 16, September 1975

A Seminar on the Alternative Use of Maori Land, held at Hungahungatoroa marae, Matapihi, Tauranga, 24 March 1979

’14.2 Environmental and Resource Management’, New Zealand Official Year Book 1990, Department of Statistics, Wellington, 1990

Theses and Unpublished Academic Research Essays Asher, Te G W E, ‘Planning – A Matter of Values: A Maori Cultural Dimension in Planning’, A research essay for Bachelor of Town Planning Degree, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1980

Bryce, D A, ‘Rural Planning Objectives and Policies: An Assessment of Some Common Objectives

163 and Policies in New Zealand Rural District Planning’, MSc thesis, University of Canterbury, Joint Centre for Environmental Sciences, 1981

Thomsen, Stephen, ‘A Critique of Planning Practices with Special Reference to Maori Communities – A Non-European Perspective’, Research essay for Bachelor of Town Planning, University of Auckland, 1979

Gollop, Irene B, ‘The History of Town Planning, Government Policy and the Provision of Low-cost Housing’, MA thesis in Anthropology, University of Auckland, 1995

York, Peter W, ‘From Amenities under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1953 and 1977 to Amenity Values in the Resource Management Act 1991’, research project for MA in Regional and Resource Planning, University of Otago, Dunedin, 1995

District and Regional Plans and Planning Reports Tauranga City Council Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1964: section no. 1 Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1965 Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1969 Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1973 Tauranga City Council District Scheme: Preliminary Statement of Policy and Objectives, 1976 Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1977, Review no.1 Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1977, Section no. 3: Scheme Statement, Code of Ordinances, District Planning Map Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1981, Review no. 1, District Planning Maps Tauranga City Council District Scheme, 1981, Review no. 1, Scheme Statement, Code of Ordinances City of Tauranga District Scheme, 1989, Recommended Review no. 2, Revised Edition

Mount Maunganui Borough Council Mount Maunganui Borough reviewed District Scheme, 1964 Mount Maunganui Borough reviewed District Scheme, 1974 Mount Maunganui Borough reviewed District Scheme, 1982 Mount Maunganui Borough reviewed District Scheme, 1988

164 Western Bay of Plenty District Council Town and Country Planning Directorate, Western Bay of Plenty Urban Development Strategy Study: Reconnaissance, prepared by the Town & Country Planning and Civil Engineering Directorate, Ministry of Works & Development for the Bay of Plenty United Council, Wellington, 1984

Town and Country Planning Directorate, Western Bay of Plenty Urban Development Strategy Study: Summary and Recommendations, prepared by the Town & Country Planning and Civil Engineering Directorate, Ministry of Works & Development for the Bay of Plenty United Council, Wellington, 1986

Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Rural Subdivision Review, Western Bay of Plenty Council, Tauranga, 1992

Tribunal Research Reports Alexander, David, ‘Land Based Resources, Waterways and Environmental Impacts’, (Draft for the Northland Inquiry), June 2006

Bassett, Heather, ‘Aspects of the Urbanisation of Maungatapu and Hairini’, 1996, Wai 215 #A26

Hamilton, Fiona, ‘Ngai Te Ahi Historical Report’, 2000, Wai 215, #G1

Hart, Wendy ‘A Comparative Study of Public Works Takings in the Tauranga Moana Inquiry District’, August 2006, Wai 215 #S2

Haywood, Janine, ‘The Treaty Challenge: Local Government and Maori: A Scoping Report’, 2002, Wai 863 #A65

International Research Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education, ‘Socio-economic Impact Report for Nga Potiki’, n/d, Wai 215 #M1

Kay, Richard and Bassett, Heather, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim’, 1997, Wai 215 #A51

Kay, Richard and Bassett, Heather, ‘Nagiterangi and the Crown’, 1998, Wai 215 #C1

165 Kahotea, Des, ‘Western Bay of Plenty Urban Development Study: Taha/Maori Perspectives’, 1986, Wai 215 #A16

Kahotea, Des, ‘Tauranga Urban Growth Strategy Cultural Resource Inventory’, 1992, Wai 215 #A17

La Rooij, Marinus, ‘That Most Difficult and Thorny Question: The Rating of Maori Land in Tauranga County’, 2002, Wai 215 #P14

McCaw Lewis Chapman, ‘Wai 211 Final report on Mount Maunganui Peninsula, Volume 1’, 1992, Wai 215 #A10

McClean, Robert, ‘Tauranga Moana Fisheries, Reclamations and Foreshores Report’, 1999, Wai 215 #D7,

Marr, Cathy, ‘Crown-Maori Relations in Te Tau Ihu: Foreshores, Inland waterways and Associated Mahinga Kai’, 1999, Wai 785 #A61

Nightingale, Tony, ‘Tauranga Moana: A Social and Economic Impact Report, 1865 – 1960’, 1996, Wai 215 #A39

Nightingale, Tony, ‘Re-housing Tauranga Maori, 1935 – 1972’, 1996, Wai 215 #A41

Rose, Kathryn, ‘The Impact of Confiscation: Socio-economic Conditions of Tauranga Maori, 1865 – 1965’, 1997, Wai 215 #A38

Stokes, Evelyn, ‘Tauranga Moana: The Impact of Urban Growth’, 1980, Wai 215 #A15

Te Cookson-Ua, Kere, ‘Te Awa-o-Tukorako & Whareroa Blocks’, 1996, Wai 215 #A27

Walzl, Tony, ‘Ngati Ruahine: and Issues Overview, 1900 – 2000’, 2001, Wai 215#N2

Willan, Rachel, ‘From County to Town: A Study of Public Works and urban Encroachment in Matapihi, Whareroa and Mount Maunganui’, 1999, Wai 215 #F29

166 Young, Grant, ‘the Alienation by Sale of the Hapu Estate of Ngati He at Tauranga Moana’, 2001, Wai 215 #M3

Waitangi Tribunal Research Map Books ‘Ngai Te Rangi Iwi Map Book, Part I’, July 2006, Wai 215 #R53

Waitangi Tribunal Research Document Banks Wai 215 #A41 (a) supporting documents for Tony Nightingale, ‘Re-housing Tauranga Maori, 1935 – 72, 1996

Wai 215#A26(a) supporting documents for Heather Bassett, ‘Aspects of Urbanisation on Maungatapu and Hairini, Tauranga’, 1996

Wai 215#A51(a) supporting documents for Heather Bassett & Richard Kay, ‘Case Studies of Crown Administration in Welcome Bay: A Report on the Papakanui Trust Claim’, 1997

Wai 215 #F29 (a) supporting documents for Rachel Willan, ‘From Country to Town: A Study of Public Works & Urban Encroachment in Matapihi, Whareroa & Mount Maunganui’, 1999

Wai 215 #G1 (b) and Wai 215#G1(c) supporting documents for Fiona Hamilton, ‘Ngai Te Ahi Historical Report’, 2000

Wai 215 #N2(a) supporting documents for Tony Walzl, ‘Ngati Ruahine: Land Issues Overview 1900 – 2000’, 2001

167