Totara Park residents in Ōtaki are continuing their fight against the Kāpiti Coast District Council decision allowing a road reserve at the end of Moy Place to provide a single point of access to a proposed 137-home subdivision, arguing that the Council’s reconsideration process failed to address procedural, safety and alternative-access opportunities.
Residents of Moy Place and Sue Avenue asked KCDC to reconsider its December 11th 2025 decision concerning the local purpose road reserve, following an earlier High Court Judicial Review that overrode two previous Council decisions not to change its land use.
In correspondence to residents, KCDC acknowledged concerns raised about “process, decision-making, Community Board resolutions, alleged predetermination or bias, and whether Council met its statutory obligations”. However, the Council said it did not accept that those matters provided sufficient grounds to reopen or reconsider the December 11th 2025 decision.
Residents have also questioned the Council’s description of the December Meeting. Correspondence describing its purpose as determining whether to dedicate the local purpose road reserve as legal road, while residents point to the wording of one of the formal options before Councillors: “Option B was: Resolve not to dedicate the local purpose reserve (road) as road.”
At the centre of the dispute is a proposed 137-dwelling residential development at 33 Main Highway, Ōtaki. Residents stress that they have never been opposed to the subdivision itself. Their objection is simply to using Sue Avenue and Moy Place as the development’s principal and only vehicle access rather than providing direct access from the former State Highway.
A particular concern is an all-ages children’s playground situated at the intersection of Moy Place and Sue Avenue. Residents argue that directing subdivision traffic past the existing neighbourhood, with substantially increased vehicle movements, will result in injuries and potentially fatalities.
Community representative Geoff Turnbull, a registered planner and landscape architect of over 35 years’ experience who has assisted residents since 2023, described the proposed access arrangement as “a recipe for disaster waiting to happen”.
“The whole situation is absurd where ‘Planning 101′ has simply been ignored,” he said.
The controversy follows a November 2025 High Court judgment arising from Judicial Review brought by the developer. The Court found that KCDC’s earlier two decisions refusing to dedicate the Lot 72 road reserve as legal road were unlawful.
Justice Gendall found that councillors had strayed beyond the scope of their decision-making role under the Reserves Act. The Council was directed to reconsider the road reserve consistently with the Judicial Review.
Residents dispute the way that reconsideration subsequently occurred. They argue that section 111 of the Reserves Act provides that qualifying reserve land “may” be dedicated as road, rather than requiring that “it must be” dedicated. They contend Councillors should therefore have been provided with a properly developed alternative involving access from the former State Highway before being required to vote for a third time.
According to the residents, the Council should also have considered its decision-making obligations under the Local Government Act 2002, including the consideration of reasonably practicable options.
The residents point to the permitted use of the former State Highway for all heavy construction vehicle access under the project’s fast-track EPA approval as further evidence that access from that direction deserved fuller consideration.
They also raised concerns about the information presented to newly elected Councillors, the public record of the 11 December 2025 meeting and whether all relevant aspects of the site’s planning history were adequately placed before decision-makers.
Separate allegations have been made about predetermination and potential conflicts of interest involving some elected members. The Council rejects the residents’ broader contention that these matters require the December decision to be reopened.
KCDC has also told residents that alternative access arrangements were not matters for the Council to determine through the 11th December 2025 Reserves Act decision. Residents disagree, maintaining that meaningful consideration of alternatives was necessary before Councillors could properly determine whether the existing reserve should become legal road.
The dispute has become a wider issue of local democracy for the residents, who say their concerns and those of the community have repeatedly been sidelined during the planning and decision-making process.
The Totara Park Community has funded planning, legal and traffic specialists to support their position. Residents say their objective has remained consistent throughout the dispute: the subdivision should proceed with direct access from the former State Highway rather than routing its traffic through Moy Place and Sue Avenue.
They are now seeking a fresh Council consideration based on what they say should be a complete assessment of the available alternatives, with any decision-makers affected by genuine conflicts excluded where legally required.
Residents ultimately want the land retained or returned to reserve status and argue that protecting children and other users of the neighbourhood playground must be given greater weight before substantial additional traffic is directed through the existing quiet residential streets.
That is one shameful council, they like other councils, deflect, minimize and ignore rate payers.
It appears that alot of these decisions are being made by beaure-craps against the will of the people. Like Newlands a 4 lane highway through the nature reserves instead of via undeveloped land. It seems a lot of people in government actually hate the community it seems. Let me guess are they a white neighborhood also??
Once again lcdc council have completely ignored and bypassed legitimate concerns from residents- as well as very reasonable options or solutions- they’re an utter disgrace )still not as awful as Wellington but not far off).
Commonsense cannot be allowed to prevail, and ratepayers cannot be allowed to have a say in how things should be run – even when asked. Kapiti overwhelmingly said no to maori wards but they were kept anyway because 11 non rate paying children under 16 said they should be kept & the mayor was listening to them!
C’mon Tim – where you on this?
Councils and councilors have no interest in the people that pay them to fight for ratepayers they are psychopaths and need to be fired!
Have a public meeting don’t pay your rates until they do what you want .Always safety in numbers.Most of these councils in this country think they can do what they want with your hard earned money.