I’m writing to ask for your support for the campaign to protect property rights from council overreach by signing our petition.

If you’ve been following the campaign so far, you will know about our appeal to the Environment Court to stop how the Gore District Council uses Section 6 of the RMA to micromanage land and give iwi cultural values priority over local decision making.

But the most important point is this isn’t just about Gore and Mataura.

Gore’s proposed district plan shows what can happen when the planning bureaucracy loses sight of the people it is meant to serve (and who pay their salaries).

The plan applies broad Ngāi Tahu cultural values to land-use consent decisions across the entire district. It also puts new flood rules across much of central Gore that require new builds and renovations to raise their foundations by 1.5 metres or more to account for a modelled 1-in-200-year flood.

That will make homes harder to alter or sell, make new developments far too costly to go ahead, and cost local jobs as construction dries up.

The same planning framework applies across New Zealand. Any council could follow the same approach and the Government’s RMA replacement bills keep the basic Section 6 framework that allows it.

It’s Gore today, but your town tomorrow.

Will you sign our petition and stand up for property rights against council overreach?

What is a council for?

Flood risks are real. Particular natural, cultural, and historic sites can deserve protection.

Acknowledging those legitimate concerns, however, does not give councils a blank cheque to impose any rule they like regardless of its cost or practical effects.

Planning rules should respond to the actual impact. The RMA even says that they should be the efficient, effective, and appropriate way to get the desired outcome. Above all, councils should remember that they work for the residents and ratepayers who must live with and pay for their decisions.

In Gore, the council’s answer to a modelled 1-in-200-year flood is to shift potentially enormous costs onto individual property owners.

Instead of relying primarily on sensible river management and community-wide flood protection, the new rules could leave homeowners paying to raise their foundations by 1.5 metres or more for new builds and renovations. A project that made sense yesterday is becoming unaffordable tomorrow.

At the same time, instead of identifying particular sites with cultural significance, the proposed plan applies broad iwi cultural values across the whole district.

Technically, the council has the final say, but applicants going through the resource consent process will be up for additional consultation, cost, and uncertainty, all while the iwi is of course not democratically accountable to all Gore residents.

These may look like two different issues, but they come from the same mindset: bureaucrats and special interest groups get more influence while property owners lose control and ratepayers are left with the bill.

That is the council overreach we are fighting.

Why a petition when we’re already going to court?

Our Environment Court appeal challenges whether Gore District Council followed the law and properly considered the purpose of the RMA and the costs and effectiveness of new rules it’s making.

But this fight is just as much political as it is legal.

The Court can change the Gore plan, but public pressure is what will make other councils think twice and show the Government that these same mistakes must not be carried into the replacement RMA legislation.

More than 10% of Gore District residents signed our original local pledge, but the council still pushed ahead. So, while we are now taking the fight to the Environment Court, we’re also asking New Zealanders everywhere to stand up with us against council overreach and for property rights everywhere.

By signing, you will be sending a clear message that:

• Property rights must be the starting point for land-use regulation.
• Planning rules must address actual effects and be justified by their real costs and benefits.
• Shared problems need workable solutions, not costs and liability dumped onto individual residents.
• Decisions about the rules that bind everyone must remain democratically accountable.

If councils believe only those directly affected will object, they can dismiss each case as a local dispute.

A strong national petition shows them that New Zealanders recognise the wider pattern and will stand together against it.

Even if you live nowhere near Gore and Mataura, your support could make all the difference.

Check out Lean on a Gate

Lean on a Gate is a grassroots charity promoting rural mental health through encouraging people to talk to their friends, family, and communities, as well as providing training for how to talk with those in distress.

They also run the AgriConnect programme for rural professionals to ensure everyone in the agriculture sector and rural communities know what services are available and how to access them.

Take a look at www.leanonagate.co.nz.

Thank you again for your support.

Kind regards,
Bryce, Laurie, and the Team at Groundswell NZ