Matata: Damned because dam never built

Saturday, 23 December 2017

Matata residents have been left fuming after being told their homes are unsafe to live in (This video was first published in 2017).

The plan for Whakatane District Council was to build a dam-like structure after the 2005 floods to protect Matata residents from debris washing down the Awatarariki Stream.

Because there was a plan to build a dam, residents in 2007 were given permission to return to their flood-damaged homes.

Because there was a plan to build a dam, people have bought and sold houses and sections along the coastline and made lives for themselves in the small town of Matata.

Whakatane District Council has made indicative offers to Matata residents.

Because there was a plan to build a dam, people are confused why, 12 years later, no dam has been built. Because there is no dam, their houses have been deemed unsafe and they may have to leave.

Matata resident Marilyn Pearce is distraught at having to leave her home.

The Whakatane District Council is lobbying the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to remove existing use rights for their properties.

It's little wonder the 34 affected owners in Matata, facing New Zealand's first eviction by removing existing use, are upset.

Tawai Thatcher and Ian Lockett are wanting answers after Whakatane District Council labelled their home 'unliveable'.

Whakatane District Council principal planner Shane McGhie said council looked at building the debris detention structure, like a net, to mitigate the risks to those in the debris flow.

'That decision was reviewed further in 2012 and the advice to see how it could work,' he said. 'They said they have looked at it and it just wouldn't work.'

While that decision was made in 2012, it did little to stop people purchasing land in the area. Ian Lockett and Tawai Thatcher purchased their home on Clem Elliot Drive in 2015.

'When we bought the house, we had heard about the flood and we decided to speak to council,' Thatcher said.

'They said nothing about a managed retreat of the area, so we had our lawyer look over the documents and purchased the home.'

Two months after settlement, they spoke to neighbour Marilyn Pearce, who informed them of the bad news.

'Maybe we could have looked a bit more into it, but we thought we had done our checks. If this was on their plans to do, they could have warned us.'

Thatcher and Lockett purchased their home for $305,000 and council put down a tentative offer of $305,000 to purchase their property from them. Neighbouring houses have been tentatively offered much more.

'Where are we going to go?' Thatcher said. 'At our age, we can't begin paying a mortgage again and $305k just won't get another house, let alone one by the beach.'

In recognition of existing-use rights being removed, McGhie said residents were given an indicative offer they could expect, should the decision be made to acquire the properties.

'A legal offer could not be made because council does not have the funds,' he said.

'We gave an indicative price based on 2016 values. District council believes it will be a fair package based on the value of the property, not recognising the hazard.'

Pearce says council will have to carry her out of her home.

'They have set us up to fail,' she said. 'They have stripped the values out of our homes over the last few years.

'My rates bill gets up to $3144, which includes a $352 targeted rate to maintain the stream, mitigate the risk and and build that dam.'

Pearce was living in Matata during the floods and said when council had considered a proposal to purchase six properties in 2005 to create a flood protection area, but the idea was dropped after the dam was considered the cheaper option.

'If they told us then we couldn't have gone back, we would have listened,' she said. 'But the dam never got built.'

Pearce said since the decision was made to scrap the dam project, her house value has eroded.

In 2011 her current valuation from her two-storey sprawling beachside home was $600,000.

In 2012 that figure dropped to $540,000 and degraded over time to just $485,000 in 2017. She says if her 'offer' was based on those figures, she would want a explanation as to how her house devalued at a time when many beachfront properties were rising in value.

McGhie said he was aware of several residents concerned over their indicative offers and there may be a review of those figures.

'If the package comes available, the valuations will be renewed at that point,' he said. 'No one will receive an offer based on the 2016 valuations. It will be based on present-day value.'