I was not surprised to read in the Northland Age (July 11) of the Te Hiku Community Board's decision to recommend the lease of a 'small' portion of the Perehipe public reserve to the Top 10 Holiday Park owners.
'Small' it is not, incidentally, but in actual fact a very significant area of reserve that has been denied to public usage for many years, and was treated as the private domain of the previous owner, who was allowed to construct non-permitted cabins and install powered camper sites and a private children's non-compliant playground, and profit not only from holiday-makers but also in the selling of the camp site.
The 'small' might be referring the reduction of the original proposal to lease virtually the whole of the public reserve, but it is not small, and includes another park access to the road. However I can find no information relating to the lease other than what was available prior to the submission hearing, which is also vague in content.
The fact that the vast majority of submitters were against the proposed lease seems to have been given very minor account, and therefore makes a complete mockery of the proposed further public consultation in five years. It seems very obvious that is just window dressing, and I will make the prophecy now that in five years the lease will be renewed, and in 10 years the lease area will be sold to the present owners.
Regarding the submitters, what became of the documentation suggesting that the Urlich family have claim to ownership of the reserve area? Was this given any cognisance? Why were we not given notice of the meeting to be held at Waiharara? No one I've spoken to had any knowledge of the meeting and why at Waiharara and not at Karikari, where the issue is of concern?
