Tauranga’s mayor says the council “won’t be funding” an extra access road for an 8000-home development planned in Tauranga’s east.
Tauranga City Council discussed secondary connection options for the Te Tumu development at a City Future Committee meeting on Monday.
The 740-hectare coastal development between the eastern end of Pāpāmoa at the Kaituna River was planned to eventually house 15,500 people, but development was not expected to begin until 2040.
The primary option for accessing it was to extend three local roads running parallel to the coast through Pāpāmoa East: Pāpāmoa Beach Rd, The Boulevard and Te Okuroa Drive in Pāpāmoa.
Te Okuroa Drive links to the Tauranga Eastern Link Toll Rd/State Highway 2 via the Pāpāmoa East Interchange, which should have its first off-ramp open this year.
A report presented to the meeting said connecting to Bell Rd as a secondary access for Te Tumu was investigated, but flood risks, “environmental and cultural sensitivities” and a $100m estimated build cost were “major constraints”.
Another option known as the Kaituna Link would involve joining the eastern end of Te Tumu to the SH2 by building an about-370m bridge over the Kaituna River and associated wetlands, the report said. For scale, the Tauranga Harbour Bridge spans 450-500m.
It was costed at $80m in 2019 and could have significant environmental and cultural impacts.
Both the Kaituna Link and Bell Rd options were unlikely to attract NZ Transport Agency co-funding, the report said.
Councillor Steve Morris said Te Tumu was “critical” to Tauranga to provide housing and construction jobs.
The lesson learned from the development of Pāpāmoa, which had congestion issues, was that “three roads are better than two”.

Pāpāmoa ward councillor Steve Morris. Photo / David Hall
He said he would not want future councils to look back and say the current council missed an opportunity to provide an additional link to the development.
“An additional link should be rightly funded by those who are wishing to develop, but I think that we shouldn’t stand in the way of that.”
Councillor Marten Rozeboom said the council needed to enable growth.
“Tauranga in the past has left a lot of its crucial development too late until the need has got so great that we’re forced into making development.”

Tauriko ward councillor Marten Rozeboom. Photo / David Hall
The council had an opportunity to engage with developers to futureproof Te Tumu, he said.
“Putting people closer to their workplace has benefits far beyond the cost of the road.”
It would be great if there was a second access and people could travel to work at the Rangiuru Business Park, a new industrial development near Te Puke, from their homes in Te Tumu, Rozeboom said.
This would prevent them having to drive back toward Pāpāmoa and could cut their travel time in half, he said.
Rozeboom also wanted the council to work with the Government on GST sharing for the development.
“On a growth project of this scale, with potentially 8000 to 9000 homes being built, the GST generated would more than cover the infrastructure bill that will be required.”
A GST-sharing scheme for new builds would see the Government share a percentage of the GST collected from new housing developments with the council that issued the building consent.

Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale. Photo / David Hall
Mayor Mahé Drysdale said the council had nothing to lose by supporting private enterprise exploring options for access.
“It’s not our priority and we won’t be funding it. But we’ve got to find new ways of delivering these things.”
Te Tumu had been talked about for 20 years and the council needed to do everything it could to enable it, Drysdale said.
The council resolved to keep options open for future-proofing a secondary access, and confirmed its preferred primary access option was extending the three Pāpāmoa roads.
Two of those three local roads, as well as other vital infrastructure such as reticulated services and utilities for the development, would need to cross the Tumu-Kaituna 14 land block.
Negotiations were under way with the trustees of the block and other landowners, the report said.
Council staff would report back to council about those negotiations in the next quarter.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.




7 comments
Core responsibility
Posted on 17-06-2025 07:24 | By jed
Tauranga council are shameful for rejecting their core responsibility for providing roads.
They waste so much money on needless projects and build edifices to themselves, yet are refusing to provide basic infrastructure.
This goes back to Helen Clark’s council changes in 2003. Clark has damaged local authorities in more ways than she could ever imagine.
@Jed
Posted on 17-06-2025 14:20 | By Howbradseesit
Don't know if I agree with you here. Why do rate payers have to keep picking up the bill for developers. If they are going to develop land, then they have a responsibility for making it accessible. The price should be clawed back in the sale price to the new residents, not shared over everyone else.
The Master
Posted on 17-06-2025 17:30 | By Ian Stevenson
The TCC spends ups have already happened, millions have been poured into it since 2006 and now its still not expected until 2040?
Of course that is a TCC "plan" which means it lacks any substance, reality and at best could be seen as an "extremely optimistic wild and completely fanciful dream"... on a good day. TCC does not have truthfully "good days"... at least when you remove the 100% spin-doctoring from every element of it all.
The Master
Posted on 17-06-2025 17:34 | By Ian Stevenson
TCC already have massive issues at Te Tumu... not least of which are: -
1 Block of land at the end of Papamoa Road has a massive dispute in progress between the owners (thousands of them - its worse than a committee of a bunch teachers talking about reality scenario)
2 The block to be developed is effectively land locked
3 The lands previous owner, an excessively wealthy developer) has a 20-year hold over TCC to pay everything (that's called a subsidy) until and if they want to, maybe take it all back.
4 Most of the land is a swamp/marsh like area, wet, flood plain stuff. Not really ideal to build on.
2040 isa truly optimistic and some
The Master
Posted on 17-06-2025 17:43 | By Ian Stevenson
The water supply to the site was to cost some $9-10m but ended up at some $55+m and the reasons were about as truthful/real as the numbers would reveal. This is just one element that went so badly wrong, of course none of the overpaid TCC staff or overpaid consultants never saw any consequence of anything for the cost blow out. +450%. But then why would there be, its just another day in paradise with $500k of coffee perks for nothing...
Just another well planned, exquisitely executed, on target, on budget and meaningful genuine spend ups by TCC.... perfectly carried out from start to finish, nothing to show for it except the debt burden of ratepayers.
Move on folks, nothing to see here...
Building on sand
Posted on 17-06-2025 20:05 | By rustyvr4
No other words describe the idea. Christchurch.
Building on sand is always a great idea.
More TCC Costs
Posted on 18-06-2025 13:23 | By k Smith
This is a tricky one as we know there are rates increase on the horizon.
Perhaps a toll road in out of this area can help? I know residents will not like it but other ways is a road fee on sections or building consents. They will need to find the money somewhere.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.