Tauranga residents who want to keep their streets sealed in asphalt should pay for it themselves.
That’s the message from Tauranga City Council to those opposed to chipseal resurfacing of their developer-made asphalt or hotmix suburban streets.
In a meeting this week, the council decided to continue with its “fit-for-purpose” chipseal resurfacing programme this summer. It says this represents value for money as the material is five times cheaper than asphalt.
The council also agreed to develop a policy for street communities to self-fund the cost difference to upgrade to asphalt.
It has since issued two media releases explaining and defending the decisions, with Mayor Mahé Drysdale calling the solutions imperfect but the “best we could do”.
Pāpāmoa residents have complained that chipseal makes roads noisier, rougher and less durable, and that some roads set for resealing don’t need the work at all.
Pāpāmoa is not the only suburb, however, where chipseal may replace asphalt on lower-traffic streets.
In Tuesday’s meeting, Michael Wenzel represented residents of Phillips Drive in Oropi Downs with concerns about chipsealing plans.
He said they learned their asphalt would be replaced through a letter giving only four working days to provide feedback.
Wenzel said he went door-to-door asking neighbours for their views. He said he collected 80 signatures of people against chipsealing – the vast majority of those he spoke to.
“In one way, it’s good to see we’re not the only ones,” he said, referring to the other suburbs facing the same fate, such as Bethlehem, Poike, Pyes Pa and Hairini.
Newer parts of Tauranga may have suburban streets laid with asphalt by developers aiming to accommodate construction traffic or attract buyers. Photo / NZME
“We [will] try to find a solution together with the council.”
The council decided it would not be fair to impose the extra cost on all ratepayers to have like-for-like asphalt resealing where it was not considered necessary.
Community self-funding was discussed as a solution for streets that wanted to retain asphalt.
The meeting was told resealing six Pāpāmoa streets with asphalt instead of chipseal could require a lump-sum payment of up to $6000 per household, assuming all households contributed.
The sum could vary depending on the length of the road and the number of homes on it.
Mayor Mahé Drysdale backed this self-funding option.
“If you’re prepared to do it, you need to get around your community and you need to fund the cost difference; and that is only fair, as it is not something for the whole of Tauranga to contribute to.”
Pāpāmoa ward councillor Steve Morris. Photo / David Hall
Pāpāmoa ward councillor Steve Morris wanted the chipseal programme deferred a year so the council could consult on a targeted rate as part of the Annual Plan 2026/27 process in April.
He said affected sites were due to be resealed in February and it was unfair to ask affected residents for “substantial” upfront costs with so little notice.
Welcome Bay ward councillor Hautapu Baker said he believed giving a choice for an increased level of service would “open a can of worms” and overcomplicate things.
“What if not all residents agree? Who becomes a mediator of those discussions?”
He said Wellington and Porirua had attempted to offer this before, and both found it too complex to be viable.
Tauranga City Council Welcome Bay ward councillor Hautapu Baker. Photo / Alisha Evans
“Providing an option with such short notice, while it provides choice for those that are keen ... removes the option for those that don’t want the choice to begin with.”
Baker suggested the council consider a well-considered, thorough, debated and consulted option in the Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2027-37 process to take into account all the views and ways to mitigate any potential risks and harms.
The council voted to develop the self-funded asphalt proposal for the LTP.
In the first post-meeting media release on Tuesday, Drysdale said the chipseal programme was delivering value for money and needed to continue, as halting it would be costly.
Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale. Photo / Alex Cairns
The release said subdivision developers often paved their roads with asphalt to accommodate heavy construction vehicles and attract buyers.
Those buyers may not realise their streets would be resealed with chipseal when the asphalt deteriorated.
The council aimed to resurface before damage happened.
It resurfaced 25-35km of city streets annually, and this year, central government funding would cover about half the $9 million cost.
The second media release, on Thursday, emphasised the council had to meet NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) criteria for road maintenance co-funding.
“[NZTA] will only fund the additional cost of asphalt in exceptional circumstances – mainly on arterial routes with high traffic flows.”
Drysdale said like-for-like suburban asphalt resurfacing would “likely mean an increase of at least 2% in rates for every household, which we didn’t feel was an equitable outcome”.
He said the meeting was in response to “significant” feedback from people concerned about planned chipsealing of some deteriorating asphalt streets.
He said during more than two hours of “robust debate”, the council had weighed the options.
While views differed, and the “solutions may not be perfect”, they were the “best we could do” within the council’s constraints.
He said residents living on asphalt roads due to be chipsealed while the new policy was developed could work with the council to reach an agreement for the residents to pay the difference to get asphalt.
This could cost $2000-$10,000 per property, and streets would need to meet eligibility criteria.
Ayla Yeoman is a multimedia journalist based in Tauranga. She grew up in Taupō and studied at the University of Auckland, holding a Bachelor of Arts degree majoring in Communications and Politics & International Relations. She has been a journalist since 2022.



14 comments
Yeah nah
Posted on 28-11-2025 13:46 | By Kancho
Save some money and have noisy roads for taxpayers. Meantime spend up large on every other unnecessary thing and poor deals . And of course big increases in salaries . Seems the twenty odd percent approval rating is really going to take a much bigger dive . Fancy that . Roll on government restructuring of councils as the model is really not fit for purpose and top heavy much
Yet more BS
Posted on 28-11-2025 13:56 | By nerak
Sick and tired of this council riding roughshod over the ratepayers they fleece daily, just because they think they can. If the money they take off us was used appropriately, and cloth was trimmed to suit, maybe we could all have decent seal on our streets. Guarantee there are no council staff living in the 'chosen' streets.
sealed roads
Posted on 28-11-2025 14:46 | By peter pan
Now your talking sense .
Cheap alternative
Posted on 28-11-2025 16:43 | By The Sage
This stuff is cheap and nasty and doesn’t last. Street next to mine was done about a year ago and stones are still bouncing everywhere and the tar is always melting.
Instead of taking 15% pay increases for their part time jobs the Councillors could be reinvesting some of their inflated salaries into the roads.
Asphalt v chip seal
Posted on 28-11-2025 21:53 | By Papamoa Jen
Council need to encourage NZTA to change its current policy short life roading options and look at the true long tem cost, asphalt last at least 3 times longer and reduces tyre wear. I cannot understand why they chose to chip seal Tara Road (the surface is already breaking down) and are currently asphalting Cheyne Road why?
Let's do away with the council
Posted on 29-11-2025 07:30 | By Saul
If we have to fund our own roads why stop there?
Let's all stop paying rates that fund these grifters at the council.
I'll pay someone myself for pavement, road,rubbish....
...
Posted on 29-11-2025 07:58 | By This Guy
Pay for your own road while we give ourselves a 15% pay rise!
Nonsense really
Posted on 29-11-2025 09:34 | By Kancho
The idea that households will pay for asphalt is nuts. Everyone in the road would have to afford it to do it as a patchwork is ridiculous. That council should suggest that ratepayers spending thousands of dollars to council to then basically say they have spent the money already and on some dubious stuff and that we have to go for the cheap option . So user pay for roads nonsense
Double Standard
Posted on 29-11-2025 11:00 | By Pundit
There is a difference. The council are making the road worse and telling residents to pay to keep it the same. The council should not lower standards and tell residents "if you want to keep your area as it is now then you have to pay" this will be a slippery slope. By the same theory why are the residents of Links Avenue not paying the 8.6 millions dollars to have a football field in their street built with artificial turf? They are basically saying we will come and downgrade your area unless you pay us to keep it as it is now. Should pur a cycle lane on the street then they will spend millions on it..!! Shocking again from the council. Well I guess they have to save money to pay their new wage rise..!
I Have A Question.
Posted on 30-11-2025 09:08 | By Justin T.
Many moons ago I had it commented to me that, if the Council did not spend their total Government Roading Budget for that financial year, there would be a reduction allotted for the following year, or at best, no increase. So... as a result to guarantee an increased budget for future years, sometimes perfectly good roads were ripped up and resealed.
Tell me please.... conspiracy or fact?
councils are crazy??
Posted on 30-11-2025 10:39 | By rotovend
so coffee,staff pay-rises and low-quality short term answer are better than doing a good budget and doing the job properly? Maybe have a levi on developers that covers future resurfacing of fancy roads or other things that happen once they have sold properties and made their money and taken off. That levi must be held for each development though not spent on coffee and crazy payrises etc. Strangely we as in Tauranga are always in debt, Shouldnt that be paid off ASAP
Asphalt or chips are not the ONLY options
Posted on 30-11-2025 14:39 | By morepork
Imagine roads that heal themselves using polymers or even bacteria. Science fiction? Maybe, but how close are we? Are TCC even aware of the current alternative options, never mind the near-future ones?
Take a read of this website before you despair:
https://www.trafficsys.co.nz/road-surface-technology/
I would bet that the TCC people controlling roading have no idea of what's on the horizon. Neither have they given any thought to how the price of asphalt might be lowered, or possible alternative surfaces. Just take the cheapest option.
"Do what we always have done and if they want something better they can pay for it themselves."
Meanwhile, we'll vote ourselves a raise. And put their Rates up.
Total lack of imagination or innovation. (The same reason we won't get a water desalination plant; solve water problems with politics instead. Wait 'til climate change finally hits us, then see if you can drink prevarication.)
More shortermism
Posted on 30-11-2025 17:34 | By Duegatti
Chipseal is the worst option, especially since "environmentally safe" tar mixes have been used.
Asphalt lasts longer, and is the cheaper long term option.
Pressure also must be put on NZTA to cease their coercive behaviour of forcing the use of chipseal.
I'd also guess that asphalt surfacing without a million cones and other "safety" BS would be cheaper than chipseal with the BS.
House Owner Pays
Posted on 30-11-2025 23:20 | By Noel Silver
The TCC have come up with a great idea.
In the process they have just made themselves all redundant.
The house owners in each street pay their rates into an account rather than the Council, and then they self manage and pay for all the needs for their street. Then they control the expenditure for their needs and the street maintenance works they same as they fund their own property maintenance.
They then have what they want in or on their street. They pay ACTUAL costs and no expenditure on the 15% Salary Increase Club that they get ZERO return on.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.