Yaldhurst Subdivision (former Noble Subdivision)
S T A T E ● O F ● P L A Y
Christchurch City Council is failing to ensure compliance with the subdivision consent and is then assisting the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta, to screw the Yaldhurst residents.
[click to enlarge]
****
About five of the affected Yaldhurst residents gave deputations to the full meeting of the Christchurch City Council on Thursday, 6 July 2017.
Prior to the meeting, the Infinity Joint Venture of which Delta is a majority partner (with its $13m gift investment from Dunedin City Council) had convinced CCC staff to sway Christchurch City councillors to vote for the dedication of private roads as opposed to vesting ownership in the Council. This in the attempt to first defeat land covenants the affected residents have over the property registered in 2003 to protect their inclusion in any subdivision. However, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) cannot accept roads vesting in ownership with the Council when there are any encumbrances on the land – such as the residents’ covenants.
For the residents, Colin Stokes, at the council meeting, distributed to councillors a review of what CCC staff have done over the years.
Of course, as the facts flow they continue to entwine around Delta.
The residents are fighting to protect and enforce their rights in the subdivision consent; and to halt Delta and their Southern associates’ onslaught against them.
****
Received from Colin Stokes (Yaldhurst resident and caveator)
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 9:16 a.m.
Thanks for your ongoing support Elizabeth
Chris Hutching’s piece (The Press 10.7.17) is weak and void of facts that present our case.
● We have Land Covenants registered over all the land in 2003 to protect our inclusion in any subdivision – our specific Access Lot road has to be formed and vested to Christchurch City Council standards with CCC as a term of extinguishment of the covenants.
● The encumbrance on the land prevent vesting of roads as LINZ won’t allow roads to vest with the council with them on.
● Infinity/Delta behind closed doors with CCC staff came up with a scheme to dedicate the roads under old rules (not compliant with the RMA and the subdivision consent) so as to circumvent our covenant protection.
● The real story is that CCC is breaking rules and NOT requiring compliance with the subdivision consent so as to cheat the residents of their protection and their interests protected by that protection so as CCC and the developer can cut them out of the subdivision.
● CCC and the developer Noble/Delta – Infinity/Delta have taken conditions out of the consent, varied the consent, and permitted non-complying undersized infrastructure that makes our part of the subdivision impossible – specifically stormwater pipes and basins required on the lower lying developers’ land which is where the consent (and physical topography and site layout) requires our stormwater to go.
● CCC failing to enforce the conditions of the consent as the law requires means our Access Lot road cannot be formed, meaning we can not subdivide.
● Delta with the misuse of mortgagee powers passed the property to itself, or at least part of the property ($13.4m of an $18.35m “sale” = 73% of which $12.5m was left in the property in passing it to Infinity in the orchestrated “sale”).
[ends]
****
Prepared Summary and Review with subdivision plans as tabled at Christchurch City Council’s meeting (6 July), to assist understanding:
███ D 2017 07 04 Summary and Review of Circumvention of Covenants for Councillors Yaldhurst (16 pages)
The coloured plan shows the residents’ Access Lot between green lines going from Yaldhurst Rd and then dog-legging east to west. What is inside the yellow border is what is within the Subdivision Consent (note there is an internal yellow small 2 sites that are NOT in the consent – and 3 other of the residents’ lots in common ownership on the NS leg are not included in the consent).
It is this east west leg of the Access Lot that requires widened roading to enable the Lots each side to be subdivided pursuant to:-
– 2002 Agreements for sale and purchase (and 2008 further agreement)
– 2003 Registered Land Covenant Protection [see Summary and Review, page 1 para 2 for terms of extinguishment]
– 2009 Subdivision Consent (Condition 5 and stormwater Conditions for it 9.) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12]
The problem is
– the Security Sharing Joint Venture (Noble/Delta/Gold Band) SSJV designed and constructed their part of the subdivision such that it made the East West Access Lot owners (residents) parts of the subdivision impossible AND that the Council permitted this.
– Undersized stormwater infrastructure was corruptly installed without consent to NOT include the residents’ subdivisions (all the while falsely assuring residents it did).
– The stormwater is required to be on land the residents transferred to the developer in return for this stormwater and other provisions. It is required to be there for numerous reasons including physical and legal reasons;
* Residents transferred the land in return for this provision
* 2003 Land Covenants protect this land for that provision (required for the Access Lot Road to be formed and vested)
* 2009 The Subdivision Consent requires it to be on the developers’ land (Condition 9.5 which “disappeared”) [see Summary and Review, page 5 para 12 and page 10 email 16 Feb 2010]
* Residents that are part of that subdivision consent have the legal rights to the stormwater (s134 RMA) – the Council is refusing to enforce the conditions of the consent; and permitted the developer to NOT comply with the conditions.
* Land topography and layout physically requires it to go there. The land slopes High NWest to SEast Low
– Delta went ahead and constructed the infrastructure without legal consent – [see Summary and Review, page 10 email 22 Aug 2012]
* This is akin to a builder building a house without consent.
* Council failed to issue an abatement notice for works being complete without consent, and to non-complying standards.
For all the Council staff failings, and the consent holders and JV partners’ failings and corruption of making the residents parts of the subdivision impossible:-
– Delta/Infinity and Council staff are recommending to the Elected Council to vote to circumvent the residents’ Land Covenants so:-
* the residents roading and subdivisions will no longer be protected and will be impossible;
* the JV Infinity/Delta will make more profit by not having to comply with the conditions of the consent that requires the residents’ roading and inclusion (as above)
* Council staff “mistakes” and wrongdoing of permitting non-complying works and not enforcing the conditions of the consent (as required by law) will be covered up.
– Delta and DCC was the facilitator of transferring the property from the Delta/Gold Band/Noble Joint Venture to the Delta/Infinity Joint Venture.
– Delta (illegally) owned 67.5% of the 1st mortgage and controlled Gold Band through their Security Sharing JV.
– Delta’s assurances it had nothing to do with the mortgagee sale is a lie.
– Delta refused to allow Gold Band to accept offers to redeem the 1st mortgage (illegal under s102 & s103 Property Law Act).
– DCC refused to allow redemption of the 1st mortgage.
– DCC (and Delta) refused to accept assignment of the 1st mortgage when Colin Stokes and another (as parties with interests in the land entitled to redeem) offered it to them
* had they done, Delta could have registered about an additional $16m in agreements to mortgage they were sitting on
* all that was required in return was “our little road” which is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT of the subdivision consent in any event.
[ends]
As reported by The Press, the eight-year dispute involving the stalled Yaldhurst subdivision has now gone to mediation between the property owners and the developers.
The dispute has been aired in several High Court cases between the private landowners and the developers, which are continuing.
Related Post and Comments:
11.7.17 Delta has deep fingers into 8-year subdivision dispute at Yaldhurst
█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
This post is offered in the public interest.
What if? Dunedin... 
The following (multimillion-dollar) news item was nearly missed near the back of Friday’s newspaper.
ODT 21.7.17 (page 19)
Dunedin City- Mudtanks cleaning contract- Fulton Hogan- Christchurch City Council, Delta, dual payments to mudtanks cleaning truck. Yaldhurst- Delta- DCC- Christchurch City Council.
Oh, what a tangled weave, when first we practice to deceive!
MORE TANGLES
What warped and torturous treatment the ratepayers and caveators at Yaldhurst Subdivision have received from the Developers and CCC Staff.
The relationship between Delta Utility Services Ltd and the Developer(s) is “intriguing” and has been for a very long time.
—
On Sunday evening (23 July 2017) Yaldhurst Subdivision resident and caveator Colin Stokes sent Elizabeth Kerr copy of an email letter he has provided to the Mayor of Christchurch and the Christchurch City Councillors as well as CCC’s lawyer and their chief executive in advance of the Council meeting to be held on 27 July. The letter was Cc’d to the other affected residents and caveators at the Subdivision, and to Clark Boyce Lawyers, Christchurch.
Note: the complex setout of the letter by a series of bullet points and numbered sections is reset here in a PDF document for clarity (7 pages), by whatifdunedin. Any typos are the writer’s own. All email addresses have been removed. The original email has been archived by whatifdunedin.
As follows (PDF letter with 4 attachments):
█ Email Colin Stokes to CCC Mayor and Councillors 23.7.17 (reformatted by whatifdunedin)
● 2010 04 01 privatisation Noble Kirkpatrick Buddle Findlay
● 2010 06 30 Utility assets and services at Noble Village Privatisation
● April 2010 Noble_Delta PRIVATISATION Roads and Services h
● Transfer and dedication for road by David Barker
New post sometime tonight/tomorrow early morning. Just been informed the residents have also been dealing with some dickbrain treatment from NZTA, on top of everything else – that quite apart from the Developer/CCC attempting to landlock the residents’ properties by removing their road access within the subdivision, NZTA threatens to do the same via problematising spine road access into Yaldhurst Rd. Bastards.
Elizabeth, have the residents considered or even already gone to the new Ombudsman. He seems like he gets to the nub of things quickly.
Guess who is a Regional Director of NZTA. no other than the former CEO of the DCC. J Harland. It doesn’t take much to join all the dots.
The Tangled Web. They talk about the tartan mafia.
What about the Local Government Tutus.
Gurglars, about to load more on the Tutus.
Bring it on Elizabeth, strike whilst the iron is hot, let the cat out of the bag, bring down fire and water- wait a minute just fire, you’ve had the water.
No good letting the cat out of the bag Gurglars. The new head of local bodies wants to neuter them all.
Received from Colin Stokes
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 at 3:41 PM
[Email addresses removed. -Eds]
On *Yaldhurst* Subdivision.
—
From: Colin Stokes
Sent: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 3:36 PM
To: [Mayor and Councillors, Christchurch City Council], [Jodie Shaw, CCC executive assistant to mayor], [Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members], [CCC lawyer Rob Goldsbury], [CCC chief executive Karleen Edwards]
Cc: [Hans van Schreven (partner), Clark Boyce Lawyers], [The Residents], [Vaughan Elder, ODT]
Subject: RE: Yaldhurt Subdivision – Council meeting 27 July
Dear Jodie and Mayor (please see Noble Investment Ltd legal advice (now Infinity in this matter) attached and in yellow below)
With respect in relation to your email below, the little information that affected resident/covenantors managed to convey in their short deputation pales in significance to the information they provided to the Mayor and Councillors, including through their lawyer, and in writing prior to the meeting and updating since (see also summary attached that was tabled at the 6 July Council meeting).
Through our lawyer and personally we have literally begged for an open meeting to explain our side of the covenant and how staff behind closed doors have for years been assisting the developer to make our consented and required parts of the Subdivision Resource Consent impossible. The evidence of this is irrefutable and warrants an investigation.
It includes staff and the developer inexplicably removing conditions without application or assessment that protected required lower lying land in favour of the Council for stormwater, and consenting proposals for stormwater on land 2m higher than land it was proposed to drain, and again without application or assessment. This was and is known to not be possible or feasible. When the opportunity for Staff was offered by the developers agent (who was not in the loop) to reinstate the stormwater protection required, staff inexplicably refused it. [attached summary para 22. Paul Lowe for developer to Sean Ward for CCC]
Respectfully, if votes are relying soley on the affected resident/covenantors short incomplete deputations, they will not be fully informed nor balanced. Staffs report did not seek nor consider their views, and relied on the other side, the Developer, to (wrongly) convey it to them.
Council staff and lawyers who are and have been brazenly advocating for the developers side for a decade, had as long as they wanted in a public excluded session to discredit the little information we were able to convey. They were able to advocate for the other side without the scrutiny of the residents facts, and for as long as they wanted.
Given the significance of the staff recommendation that circumvents legal covenant protection, and the damages (possibly $15 million losses) and other precedents the recommendation would set, I would have thought it essential for a Mayor to be fully informed and take part in the debate and vote:-
Staffs’ recommendation is to vote:-
– to override the Resource Management Act 1991
– to override the Subdivision Resource Consent 92009135
– for potential privatisation of roads and services that are required by the RMA and Consent to be owned by Council
– to circumvent ratepayers legal covenant protection registered in 2003 to protect the covenantors/residents inclusion and specific interests in the subdivision;
*specifically that their “Widened Access Road Lot 22” (now required “Road Lot 612” of the Consent) vests with the council at the same time as the new intersection to Yaldhurst Road opens (“term of extinguishment” (1.3.2) of the covenants):-
– and to do all the above while Council staff and the elected Council refuse requests to meet, discuss and receive information and advice from the affected covenantor/residents and their lawyer.
In complete contrast, Council staff sought, received, and adopted the Developers advice and requests, and are advocating for the Developer and for themselves to coverup “errors”, including around stormwater.
Further damning, is that legal advice and staff report refers only to completely irrelevant covenants matters such as “no pig farming”, and disturbingly makes absolutely no mention of the resident/covenantors Lot 22 road protected by the covenants (now Road Lot 612 on the consent) [see Noble Investment legal advice following and attached].
Even Noble Investments Ltd legal advice (the other side (now Infinity)) concurs with the residents:-
– It records that the covenants protect that the Lot 22 road (Road Lot 612) “must vest as legal road” when the “new (Yaldhurst Road) intersection opens”
*(i.e. nothing to do with staffs “no pig farming” diversion in their report at 5.4).
– The obligation’s remain with the land which is why the covenant was registered on all land titles; also
– The obligation for the Lot 22/612 road and stormwater remains with the consent and consent holder (Infinity)
Noble Investments Limiteds’ (now Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd) legal advice
– 19 May 2010 (see full letter attached) (“client” herein is residents):-
Voting as staff and the developer recommend and want, enables the developer and staff to continue to make the residents parts of the subdivision consent impossible, including their Lot 22/612 road, through no stormwater provision and undersized pipes and basins.
The Council by road dedication to circumvent the covenants is setting itself up to be liable for what the covenant protects, the Lot 22/612 road and the covenantors’ inclusion in the subdivision, including the loss of a minimum 32 sites and development profits thereof.
The staff “public” report about NOT dedicating, states:
– “7.11 The full risk is borne by the Developer” and
– “7.12.1 (Council) Residual risk rating: is low”.
It is only in public “excluded” that Council lawyers are scare mongering the opposite, and strongly advocating for the Developer for Councillors to vote for risky dedication that cheats the residents of their legal interests protected by the covenants.
It would seem the public will only be able to judge their Councillors votes by what is on public records (7.11 above), not what they were scare mongered by lawyers advocating for the Developer and Staff in public excluded. Staff appear to be setting up Councillors to take the blame for their “mistakes” in consenting and permitting non-compliances that make effecting the entire subdivision impossible.
Council simply needs to enforce the conditions of the consent, specifically around stormwater, and where necessary as the RMA specifically permits and requires (s128), review and add conditions to facilitate compliance with the consent. Doing so enables the subdivision to progress immediately with the residents removing their covenants.
The consent holder having provided inadequate stormwater and other information, means the consent holder cannot sue the Council. That Noble/Delta transferred the property to Infinity/Delta makes no difference to the Councils rights under RMA s128.
Delta Utility Services Ltd in fact, having progressed (non-complying) stormwater works ahead of Council consents and approvals (and contrary to advice from staff) is liable for “fines and prosecution” under the RMA. Delta/Infinity should not be rewarded for these non-compliances and residents should not be the scape goat for them.
Yours sincerely
Colin
Attachments:
● D 2017 07 04 Summary and Review of Circumvention of Covenants for Councillors Yaldhurst
● Lot 22 vests with Intersct open Covenant-RC NIL lawyer hlite – Copy
—
From: Shaw, Jodie
Sent: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 9:06 AM
To: Colin Stokes
Subject: Yaldhurt Subdivision – Council meeting 27 July
Dear Mr Stokes
As the Mayor didn’t hear the deputations she won’t be at the meeting on Thursday.
Kind regards
Jodie Shaw
Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Christchurch City Council
[ends]
A pile of email content has arrived but because it is not cleanly formatted as a PDF, I will instead provide here Colin Stoke’s quick overview of the current NZTA situation at Yaldhurst Subdivision. In other words, how the residents’ properties are being landlocked by NZTA, and CCC/Infinity.
****
From: Colin Stokes
Sent: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 8:54 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: FW: NZTA decision on access to Yaldhurst Road
Hi Elizabeth
I didn’t realise I hadn’t advised of the additional angst we’ve been under from NZTA.
Maybe I thought it was too much.
I’ve got a stack of OIA doc’s from them (hard copy) which they are now putting on pen drive for me.
The below will give you an idea what we’ve been up against with them.
The [CCC Staff recommendation] as it sits in front of Councillors at the moment deceived them [that] it allows the spine road to open up to Yaldhurst Rd.
It doesn’t. It refers only to Road Lots 601 and 613. However, on the small plan attached to [the] recommendation and barely noticeable to those that can’t read plans or small print, there is Lot 600 which is the end bit that connects the spine road to Yaldhurst SH73.
So, the Councillors were unbeknown voting for a giant cul-de-sac.
Even if adding the end Lot 600, if NZTA don’t or can’t close our access to enable the intersection to open (only one access allowed and we have it) they will still be voting for a giant cul-de-sac.
If they know this it will favour them NOT voting to dedicate which is what we need to prevent getting screwed.
However, NZTA [are] being vague in relation to this, and possibly intentionally so Councillors believe they absolutely can.
Cheers and thanks for your ongoing advice and support
Colin
—
From: Steve Higgs
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017 3:46 PM
To: Colin Stokes [and one other resident]
Cc: [Hans van Schreven (partner), Clark Boyce Lawyers], [other residents]
Subject: RE: NZTA decision on access to Yaldhurst Road
Hi Colin
My apologies if the last set of emails is now causing you concern – it was not intended to.
I am proceeding with the OIA request.
I am looking into providing a USB stick with the earlier OIA information.
I will look into the balance of your email (and earlier email).
Regards
Steve Higgs
Lead Strategic Planner
NZ Transport Agency
120 Hereford Street
PO Box 1479
Christchurch 8011
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Provided here by whatifdunedin – Reference maps for Yaldhurst Subdivision
[click to enlarge]
You know you’ve entered the world of Alice and the Mad Hatter & Co when you see “and consenting proposals for stormwater on land 2m higher than land it was proposed to drain”.
Then it goes on (and on) getting worse. The crotchfruit of Vogons are in charge, dozens of them not just the one we knew about – the gem in LTSA’s crown of pricks.
It was proposed and consented there by the crook developers and surveyor Cardno, and crook CCC staff to profit the consent holder/ developer and cheat the original landowners from being able to subdivide their remaining land.
A condition in the subdivision consent to reserve specific lower lying consent holders’ land for stormwater basins for the original owners’ part of the subdivision and roading was removed without application or assessment. The consent on 2m higher land outside the consent area was likewise given without application or assessment. It’s not possible or feasible and they knew that.
Council staff that consented this impossible stormwater “solution” are trying to persuade Councillors on behalf of the developer Infinity/Delta to vote TODAY at 2pm to circumvent the original landowners’ Covenants that are registered over all the land to protect their roading and stormwater provision in the subdivision consent.
Don’t leave us hanging……how did the vote go?
The results of this week’s Christchurch City Council meeting for (Agenda item 26) Yaldhurst Subdivision are published today at a new post:
Christchurch City Council : Highly Dubious Entity #YaldhurstSubdivision
We await word from the Residents.