Search
  • Tina Pope

Report with images from our 2018 Community Hui


Over 60 people attended the Paekākāriki Housing Trust hui at St Peters Hall (contact us for a list) It was facilitated by Tina Pope and Keith Johnston. The images here are by Alister McAra. Karakia was provided by Karl Farrell of Ngāti Haumia. Minutes were taken by Linda McLaughlin and this report has been published from those minutes by Mark Amery. If any participants would like changes made to these minutes please contact

paekakarikihousingtrust@gmail.com

Chair’s report

Keith began by presenting our Chairs Report. He gave special thanks to our ‘angel investors’ in our first house purchase, to Mark Galbraith and Tina Pope for facilitating the buy back to 148 Tilley Road, and also to Linda McLaughlan for administrative support of the trust.

Questions from floor prior to breaking into groups:

What makes you from Paekākāriki? We are bound geographically by the boundaries - but other than that, this is a good question, one that is very hard to answer. We would like you to talk about this in groups.

What about the provision for public housing from local and central government? Shouldn’t we be lobbying for that? There are two state homes and a small block of flats in Wellington Road. Those discussions have been piecemeal so far, but want those conversations with local/central govt to become more formal. We are particularly concerned about housing for the elderly in the village – and we want feedback about how much we prioritise that.

How much is making warm and healthy homes part of your mission? We do see that as part of our remit. We are starting work on a policy around property management that includes this focus.

When tenants buy their home from the PHT, are they able to go on to sell their house on the open market? Yes they are if they own it outright, this is the model we have set up for 148, but does not have to apply this to every house going forward – there are lots of decisions and policy making to be done relating to retaining equity for the Trust.

Trustee appointment – Nominated and agreed to appoint Linda McLaughlan to the ninth trustee position.

Notes from discussions from tables:

1. Who do we assist?

Trustees on this table - Linda McLaughlan and Murray Julian

Questions that arose:

What’s the need for housing that has been identified already?

What research has been done?

Who are the elderly?

What does practical support for them actually mean?

How do we get the services provided by different agencies to help the elderly?

How do we define someone as being from Paekākāriki?

Are they from here from the moment they arrive?

Ideas / suggestions:

Look into Kay Saville-Smith’s work (works in housing with elderly)

Adaptations of homes to allow elderly people stay in Pae, and families to be housed with them. Physical access should be included in this.

Grandparent initiative is a good one - building relationships important in helping people too.

The PHT remit shouldn’t be too wide - keep it narrow and effective.

Relocating houses onto land.

PHT to lobby with land yet to be developed.

Use sweat equity - or a way of contributing skills in exchange of help with housing.

PHT must be clear about our scope of what we can do to help, once we know.

As well as roofs overhead, advocacy and advice would be good to have from PHT. eg advice to elderly about rates remission policy from KCDC - apparently this is not being taken up by anyone in the Kāpiti community https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/services/A---Z-Council-Services-and-Facilities/rates/rates-remissions/

Wishlist

Keep diversity in Paekākāriki

This is who people would like to see helped with housing:

  • Ngāti Haumia

  • Families with children

  • People with long-term connections

  • People whose circumstances have changed / who are struggling

  • Elderly

  • Those who need emergency housing

  • Tradespeople/creatives - so not just ‘professionals’ in village (thinking of our self sufficiency)

  • Refugees

  • People with a connection with Paekākāriki

Criteria for help should be based on need.

When reviewing applications for help, PHT should have the following on their criteria

  • immediacy of need

  • consequences of problem

  • how many people does the housing problem affect?

  • alternatives

  • support available for applicant outside PHT

  • solutions available - fit for purpose?

  • sustainability of solution - e.g. ability to pay rent, etc

  • what have they contributed to the village (people divided on this)

Everyone agreed that whatever the process ends up being for applications, it will feel unfair to some, and not please everyone.

Trustees gave this feedback to those present on the table: (Murray / Linda)

Taking your feedback, and working with models from other trusts/agencies we will develop policies and procedures around applying for help, and how we will review applications. We will come up with something that will be reviewed at set timeframes, and developed as time goes on. However, even once the policy is in place, we will only limited to what we can do to help by the opportunities that come up for us to be involved in housing projects (as owners/property managers/lobbyists). It is likely that we will end up with 3-4 concrete options for help with advice/advocacy available in addition. This list will look something like:

  1. Rental accommodation

  2. Emergency housing

  3. Practical support to stay in home

  4. Advice / advocacy

2. Ngāti Haumia

Trustees at this table - Holly Ewens, Levi Farrell, Halen Farrell. Notetaking by Justin Corbett.

Core conclusions from group discussions:

  1. Overall strong endorsement for the need to recognise historic injustices of land taken from Ngāti Haumia (inc. Public Works actions in the 1940’s ) without subsequent recompense or greater state investment in social housing and to explore options for responding in appropriate way.

  2. Ngāti Haumia representatives seeking not only to maintain and strengthen their social and cultural roots to the land but also to ensure that next generation has access to affordable housing in the village (a real risk that Karl Farrell’s daughters would otherwise have to leave Paekākāriki).

  3. Apart from issue of securing affordable housing, all participants endorsed the idea of establishing a Marae in the village that served not only as the social and cultural base for Ngāti Haumia based on a strong Hapū tikanga, but that also served as a community resource for all people living in the village and part of the Paekākāriki community. Karl mentioned that this also had been the vision of his grandmother (Miriona) to have a community Marae that could serve all the village – and that much thought had already gone into this idea in the past.

  4. While full and smooth collaboration between Ngāti Haumia and Ngāti Toa is expected for addressing all these issues, it was not felt that a “green light” was needed from Ngāti Toa so much as open korero and agreeing on next steps.

  5. It was recognised that the upcoming disposal of Perkins Farm land by NZTA overlaps very much with issues of accessing land for homes for Ngāti Haumia whanau (and possibly Marae) and that close coordination with that workstream is needed.

Action points

General access to housing and land: Coordinate with PHT work group following up on opportunities for possible property purchase from the state and coordinate with workgroup looking at decision making process for prioritising needs and with Perkins farm

On-going: Clarify exactly what land was taken (by Public Works in 1941 Settlement and others) and what provisions were made to Ngāti Haumia & Ngāti Toa.

Check original copy of Settlement Deed (in Museum) by mid June

Explore needs, feasibilities, options for initiating some sort of inquiry into recompense by the atate for land taken by Public Works and coordinate with group working on NZTA Perkins Farm land issues (inc. follow up with Nat Perkins and Leo Watson) Holly & Keith by end June

If necessary, be ready to organise a community petition to encourage KCDC/Region to consider case of Miriona’s house and inquiry. Holly/Justin

Discussing with Ngāti Toa on options for supporting Ngāti Haumia’s need for return of land (both for whanau housing and for the Marae)

Seek clarity from GWRC on time frame and process for ‘managed retreat’ around surf club and how best to go about helping Miriona’s house be relocated and returned to the Farrell family.

By end June. Discuss with Ngāti Toa on possible sites for relocation of Miriona’s house. Karl and Ray

By end June. Contact current WRC Ranger to see if possible for Farrell family to visit the house informally. Justin/ Holly

In coming days: Ngāti Haumia and Paekākāriki Community Marae

Seek closure on previous differences within the hapū on possible location of Marae to arrive at agreed preferences

Karl and family by end June

Inform Ngāti Toa and get their support and collaboration

Karl and Ray

on-going

Explore funding support options from Oranga Marae Fund (within Te Puni Kōkiri)

Justin

by 18 June

Explore possible increased role of the ‘Kopiti Māori’ in the village (as an existing, registered association providing community services) also as a possible fund raising mechanism

Halen & Levi and Ange

Reach out to scattered Ngāti Haumia to inform and elicit their support. Farrells & Ray

Others - please feel free to contact Holly and Justin to add anything we missed

3. Fundraising

Trustees at this table -Tina Pope and Sophie Handford

We broke Fundraising up into four sections; investment, admin, property management and cost cutting. The follow ideas were discussed under these umbrellas.

A. Investment

  • Many believed that we could gain investment in the form of loans from either banks, community members, or institutions such as the Nikau Foundation.

  • Donations could be seen as a form of investment.

  • Developers, Eco developers.

  • The government and Housing NZ supporting by investing in the projects.

  • The idea of ethical sponsors was also brought up which highlights the idea of choosing how we are fundraising/who we approach.

B. Admin/Activities

There was discussion around raising money for admin costs through different sorts of community events such as;

  • Another dinner

  • A community concert at St Peters Hall

  • Raffles

  • Getting grants through different organisations

  • A connection party where we invite different partners and get talking

  • Imagined inviting artists, organisers, investors, beneficiaries and this would help to display the purpose of the trust.

C. Property Management

  • A fee charging scheme (landlord)

  • Doing up

  • Applying for government money to do homes up to a good standard

  • Get volunteers involved from the Menz Shed

  • Apply for grants from Wellington Community Trust and COGS

  • Create a buffer of money (projects likely to be constant)

  • Provide Menz Shed with some kind of contract?

D. Cost Cutting

  • Ensure houses are warm, dry and safe

  • Identify any existing resources such as Menz Shed and the subsidies which GWRC have available for insulation and heating

Was agreed that the marketing and media approach is key to fundraising.

Discussion around having slick marketing and savvy media avenues through which we can promote projects. Also around having a physical brochure that could be handed to investors and groups.

Options for obtaining capital

  • Council relations

  • Buying cheaply, under the market price

  • Inheritances

  • Joint venture

  • Building on council land

The idea of relocatable housing was also mentioned in discussion. This was agreed to be a cheap and easy option for people with big sections and elderly who need a smaller place to live could get one on their land and then rent out their existing house. A design and repeat process was suggested. The plans from an existing tiny house could be used or it could be put to the School of Architecture to design something, they win a prize. Supports the transience of the village. Allows artists, musicians and creators to stay for a short time and then move on. Supports diversity.

4. Property Management

Trustee at this table - Mark Galbraith

There was much discussion around the experience and knowledge required to be a successful property manager. The main issues were the significant time commitment required and the potential liabilities.

Trust could be seen as a trustworthy property manager and so people may agree to let houses more readily but also reputation could be easily damaged.

Many people saw the trust more as an information and pressure group that could influence;

  • Encouraging longer term tenancies

  • Voluntary code of conduct

  • Identification of supply and demand

  • Ensuring housing quality through partnership with sustainability trust etc

  • Advising on tenant rights and supporting them

Communication via a noticeboard in the village for the trust was suggested.

Discussion around the possibility of becoming accredited as community housing providers.

Being able to identify unoccupied houses [or holiday homes] and being able to contact owners was perceived as a good step. This would enable contact so that say after an emergency [such as the floods of a few years ago when some people needed temporary accommodation] this could be a good resource. This could also facilitate occupation for some houses.

Encouraging Airbnb was not supported.

Supporting elderly to stay in their homes was supported.

Suggested that opportunity exists to contract existing community-based organisations such as Menz Shed for carrying out work/projects.

Also doing work with the trust could be a way for people to gain skills and knowledge. There was some interest in building tiny houses. This lead on to a discussion around skills as an exchangeable commodity and also that rent need not necessarily just be money.

Skills sharing workshops were suggested.

For fundraising it was suggested that people outside the community could employ/engage trust/community resources/services to raise money.

Opportunities potentially for the trust to organise economies of scale such as group insurance, bulk materials etc.

5. Perkins Farm

Trustee at this table - Keith Johnston facilitating. Kerren Hedlund notetaking.

First round

  • NZTA and LINZ put value on land offer back to original owners. In order: owners, Ngāti Haumia/Ngāti Toa, govt agencies, then council?, then market. Govt agencies unlikely to buy all the land.

  • Market-based developers likely to negotiate different housing scenarios (density etc) for profit. 20ha model under current plan.

  • PHT should influence councils decision on how land is used.

  • Rather than compete with others e.g. Housing NZ, to find solutions for the housing crisis.

  • Possibly work with HNZ and others to build housing aligned with PHT aims.

  • Away from ‘Tuscan Mansions”.

  • Study process and identify allies.

  • Risk that Paekakariki is joined with Paraparaumu.

  • Identify concrete/material/parameters that will maintain the character of the village e.g. access.

  • Opportunities with consortium of agencies/ministries.

  • Earlier efforts under Jenny Rowan

  • Led by KCDC

  • Janet H? to reconvene meetings

  • How to ensure PHT aims? Link with influencing development

  • E.g. sanitation/septic

  • Higher density means potential lower income housing

  • Housing on the flat to help with mobility issue, footpaths, access to the school

  • National competition with architecture schools for good plan that meets PHT aims and building parameters

  • Will struggle with sanitation due to high water table

  • Identify key geographic areas for development then identify partners and alliances (e.g. Perkins farm might not be available for development. Sang Sue’s might be)

  • Identify unintentional consequences e.g. joining up with council sewage system and then intensification.

  • Water supply will be a challenge.

  • Look at issues and identify risks/threats, solutions, partners, allies.

  • How many more houses could village support?

  • Positive and negative impacts?

  • Business development

  • School

  • What is the long term vision for the village?

  • Rural?

  • More populates?

  • PHT joins and influences discussion

  • Need baseline

  • Need environmental impact assessment

  • Climate change impacts

  • Could benefit from community process used for seawall? E.g. Waikanae (See Liana’s submission to Council Long Term Plan)

  • Some similarities but a different community consultation.

  • Needs to be enable/facilitated by Council or the Board (for the village to do).

  • Other models including in Wainuiomata, Papakainga housing on marae with renewable energy.

Second Round

  • How many houses could be built?

  • Under the existing plan rural zoning and averaging lots across the whole area of Perkins Farm – 20-35, if we keep 20ha zoning.

  • Or if we go to higher density, restrictions, flood zones, water table

  • Protecting streams as a priority. Possibility of wetlands to manage runoff.

  • PHT advocacy around environmental sustainability

ENDS.


204 views

© 2016 - Paekākāriki Housing Trust

  • Facebook Clean
  • Twitter Clean
  • White Google+ Icon
  • LinkedIn Clean