Case studies · 2 of 3
Kohupātiki Papakāinga
The purpose was not only to provide housing but to reconnect whānau with their ancestral whenua and whakapapa while creating affordable, secure housing and strengthening intergenerational wellbeing.
- Location
- Kohupātiki, near Clive, Hastings District
- Developed by
- The Aroha Te Rangi Robin Ahu Whenua Trust and the wider Aroha Te Rangi Robin whanau developed the project.
- Land
- The Aroha Te Rangi Robin Ahu Whenua Trust owned the land.
- Homes
- The original papakainga opened in December 2019 with four homes.
Who developed it?
The Aroha Te Rangi Robin Ahu Whenua Trust and the wider Aroha Te Rangi Robin whanau developed the project.
Sources: Te Puni Kokiri: A place to heal
Who owned the land?
The Aroha Te Rangi Robin Ahu Whenua Trust owned the land. Te Puni Kokiri identifies Aunty Bessie Manaena as a trustee of the Aroha Te Rangi Robin Trust and states that the Trust owns the land and manages the rental homes. The land was ancestral whenua belonging to the whānau.
Sources: Te Puni Kokiri: A place to heal
How many homes?
The original papakainga opened in December 2019 with four homes. They all have a mixture of individually owned and affordable rentals. A fifth two-bedroom rental home is planned to complete the project.
Sources: Te Puni Kokiri: A place to heal
What was the purpose?
The purpose was not only to provide housing but to reconnect whānau with their ancestral whenua and whakapapa while creating affordable, secure housing and strengthening intergenerational wellbeing. A family member described the driving force behind moving there as healing, particularly because deceased whānau members were buried nearby at the urupa.
Sources: Te Puni Kokiri: A place to heal
What planning was required?
- The whanau spent several years developing the project and working through family differences before agreeing on the direction. Te Puni Kokiri identifies that getting whanau ‘on the same page’ as an important part of the process.
- The Hastings framework treated papakāinga as a controlled activity, meaning a resource consent was required. However, consent generally had to be granted subject to conditions. The Hastings District Council Papakāinga Guide identifies several planning requirements relevant to papakāinga: district-plan compliance; land-use consent; subdivision consent, where applicable; building consent; wastewater treatment and disposal; water supply; stormwater; site access; and other infrastructure.
What funding was required?
Te Puni Kokiri’s Maori housing network funded $1.02 million into the infrastructure and construction of the four homes. Demonstrating that the development needs funding for more than just the construction of the homes.
What infrastructure was required?
Within Hastings District Council, the district plan states that a papakainga requires a minimum of 80 m2 of outdoor living, parking space, a service court, and a domestic sewage treatment system, if applicable. The District Council also identifies that a dedicated Kohupātiki wastewater solution was constructed. It included a sewer pump station in the area, a pipeline beneath the Clive River, a connection to the main domestic wastewater interceptor, and a connection to the East Clive Wastewater Treatment Plant. HDC states that this project would enable the construction of Papakainga housing within their community. Kohupātiki has continued to experience clustered housing development, with stormwater infrastructure required separately.
What barriers appeared?
- The whānau had to work through differences and agree on a shared vision for their whenua. TPK's case study says that working through differences was key to agreeing and achieving their goals.
- The $1.18m Kohupātiki wastewater project is significant evidence that wastewater capacity was an infrastructure constraint for development. HDC explicitly connects the infrastructure project with enabling papakāinga housing.
- Like other papakāinga projects, the Trust needed significant external funding for infrastructure and construction. The $1.02m TPK investment demonstrates the scale of financial support required.
What helped the project succeed?
The project was driven by the whānau and Trust rather than an external developer. The whānau learned to work through differences and develop a shared vision. The Aroha Te Rangi Robin Ahu Whenua Trust provided a structure for owning the whenua and managing the rental homes. The $1.02m TPK investment was critical to the delivery of infrastructure and construction. The papakāinga was close to the marae, allowing residents to participate in kapa haka, te reo Māori classes and community activities. The project wasn't just driven by housing demand. It was connected to whakapapa, whenua, healing and intergenerational connection. The wider $1.18m Kohupātiki wastewater solution created infrastructure capacity to enable further papakāinga development.
What could have shortened the process?
An earlier whānau agreement, because TPK specifically identifies getting whānau aligned as a major source of potential delay. Earlier infrastructure certainty, as the Kohupātiki wastewater infrastructure shows, was important to development. Confirming wastewater capacity earlier would have made planning and funding easier. More coordinated agency processes because HDC itself acknowledges that the historical processes of HDC, the Māori Land Court and TPK did not initially align. Earlier technical planning HDC's Papakāinga Guide recommended talking to Council planners before submitting consent applications because following Council advice can make consent processing simpler, faster and less costly.