top of page

Broken highway update

State Highway 25A Taparahi Rebuild announcement

The broken Highway update:

TV One 6.00pm news. Monday, 1 May News Host: ‘The Mayor says the region is suffering and needs even more Government funding.”

Mayor Len: “We are continuing that conversation and we need that to continue until right through until State Highway 25A is open, which is likely to be the middle of next year.”

As this issue goes to print, there is to be a live announcement 9.30am Tuesday, 9 May by Waka Kotahi as to which structural option has been chosen to rebuild SH25A huge slip.

Editor’s comment: Obviously, whatever option has been chosen Mayor Len is aware that it will take to the middle of this year. The way the time scale is sliding (from starting at 6 months, then 6-9 months, the end of the year, then ‘after 2023/24 Summer and now middle of 2024) this is a very frustrating situation. The media conference Tuesday morning (it will have happened by the time you are reading this) will have needed to answer transparently why outside consultation has not been done and why other proposals from qualified companies have not been brought before the taxpayers or costed and perhaps never seriously considered.

Last week Australia newspaper headlines reported the engagement of top engineers from three different countries to advise and work on better roading solutions for Australia. It is not as if we (NZ) are doing brilliantly on the scale of roading solutions. We were not doing so well before this succession of storm events and even if we were, every good idea has already been thought of and tried. We could learn something from others.

From Thames Coromandel District Council

The Informer article published on

2 May “It Doesn’t feel right” contains some misinformation and bias about a resource consent

application and decision that need to be pointed out:

• There is a lack of understanding about the Resource Management Act and how it

applies to decisions on land use applications.

• The article does not acknowledge the fact that local government is bound by legal

requirements and regulations that must be followed in making decisions. The law

is designed to ensure that decisions are made fairly, with consideration given to all

relevant factors and evidence, rather than opinion or ‘majority rules’.

• The article’s criticism of Council’s processes is based on assumptions and

misinterpretations rather than an understanding of the legal framework that must be

followed in Resource Management Act decision-making processes.

• The article is biased towards one perspective. It doesn’t contain the resource consent

applicant’s viewpoint or contain context about Council’s impartial role in assessing

resource consent applications.

• The decision on the application was made by an independent commissioner, a fact the

article also fails to mention.

bottom of page