Council defends buying occupied land as ex-owner threatens action
Mayor says offer ‘fair’ but GP wants hearing at tribunal
Far North District Council has defended buying an occupied section at Ahipara to be placed into a reserve that the owner says left him around $130,000 out of pocket.
Kaitāia GP Cecil Williams is thinking about leaving the town after 35 years after being “forced” to sell his property that had been occupied by a local iwi — for around $130,000 less than its official Quotable Value.
Williams is also looking at taking the council to the Disputes Tribunal to try to recoup some of his losses.
Williams’ property at 1, Wharo Way, Ahipara, was first occupied in October 2021 by members of Te Rarawa who were unhappy that a culturally significant pōhutukawa on the property had been partly felled for a house site.
The iwi members were angry as they were led to believe that the tree had been included in a reserve at the front of the land when it was subdivided. However, the reserve was later made smaller and the tree included in the property at 1 Wharo Way that the Williams’ bought.
Williams said he and wife Marna checked when they bought the section that were were no land claims or any other issues with it, and after being assured there were none, bought it. The tree was not listed as protected or significant on the council’s website.
He said they were the innocent parties in the debacle and had done nothing wrong, yet were seriously out of pocket due to no actions of their own.
The land was occupied for almost a year before the council, in an effort to solve the impasse, agreed to buy the land from the couple.
At the council’s August 2023 meeting where it agreed to buy the land, Kahika/Mayor Moko Tepania acknowledged that historic actions had seen undertakings to protect 1 Wharo Way broken. While the council would never be a default Office of Treaty Settlements, it had acknowledged there were special circumstances that saw the motion for council to negotiate the purchase of the land supported, he said.
Williams said the couple were caught in a fait accompli as they had to sell the land to the council as nobody else would buy a property that was being occupied and under such dispute.
The couple are angry and upset that they had to settle with the council for $437,500 for the land when the QV valuation a year earlier — that the council used to set rates on the property — was for $560,000, and feel they had no choice but to sell, given that nobody else would buy it.
Tepania said the decision to buy 1 Wharo Way was made by elected members.
“That decision took into consideration a recommendation from Te Hiku Community Board and meetings with Ahipara Takiwā and Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa around the history and significance of Moringaehe, the traditional name of the site,” he said.
Tepania said once it was decided to buy the land, staff were instructed to initiate a process that would ensure the offer made to the Williams was fair and served the interests of ratepayers.
“As a local authority, we have a duty to act in a financially prudent and responsible way. To achieve those goals, we commissioned an independent valuer to undertake a registered valuation of the property.”
He said the QV property valuation used a mass appraisal process. These are desktop valuations that gauge all properties in a council area for rating purposes. These reflect market trends across an area, but do not assess the value of individual properties.
“The registered valuation obtained by the council for 1 Wharo Way took into account more attributes than those used for the QV valuation,” Tepania said.
“I am heartened that we can now move forward, see protections put in place for the pōhutukawa tree, and acknowledge the history and significance of Moringaehe with a reserve for all the people of Te Hiku.”
Williams though said the council’s response was “nonsense”.
He said the couple were the innocent parties to the “shambles” that developed.
“I’ve been looking into this in the past few weeks and regarding the valuations, I believe their valuations were for a section with a house on it, which is totally different when compared to a clean section.
“For example a section at 89 Simon Urlich Drive [in Karikari] is 812 square meters and that’s a waterfront section sold f or $740,000. My section was also waterfront and on 789Sq m, yet they are saying there’s over $300,000 difference between the two. That’s just wrong.”
He said he was looking at taking the council to the Disputes Tribunal in April to try to recover some of the money they are out of pocket by.
“The FNDC is totally responsible for this by allowing the change in designation and size of the reserve to be reduced which then put the tree on my section. The council made some really big booboos here, but we are the ones that have suffered and continue to suffer from this unfairness.
“So we’ve taken massive hit in the pocket while the council has got a cheap, waterfront section for the good of all people of Te Hiku.”
Williams said he had been inundated with messages of support since the Northland Age broke the story about his loss and he had also received invites to apply for a GP’s role elsewhere. The couple were still considering whether to leave the town.
"So we’ve taken massive hit in the pocket while the council has got a cheap, waterfront section for the good of all people of Te Hiku."
Cecil Williams