https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/news-and-events/newsletters/artmid/1424/articleid/2741

Statement (2 August 2018) still alive today!

What the Council should have said (but didn’t):

"We wish to update the public on the charges referenced in our 2 August 2018 statement. After further review, Tauranga City Council withdrew all 24 charges laid under the Building Act.

Upon reassessing our own records, we acknowledge that the charges were incorrectly filed. Had we properly reviewed our internal documentation, we would have recognized that prosecution was not warranted.

We regret that this update was not communicated at the time and recognize the impact this omission may have had on those involved. No wrongdoing was found, and the charges should not have been pursued."

WHY WHY WHY ??? There is more that an apology needed.

After five long years of silence, the full story behind the Bella Vista subdivision disaster is finally being revealed—and it’s not what the public was told.

Builder Danny Cancian has launched legal proceedings against Tauranga City Council (TCC), alleging defamation, malicious prosecution, negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office.

At the heart of the case?

Warnings from Hon Paul Heath QC that TCC   hadnt had  the indepentant building  reports   “robustly tested.”

Charges laid without lawful foundation, based on building work that Mr Cancian neither performed nor supervised—and for which the Council never issued a legally required Notice to Fix.

Independent evidence, including MBIE reviews, the Opus report, and demolition footage, proving that the buildings were not dangerous and that the Council’s public claims were factually incorrect.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Spencer on Byron, confirming that Councils owe developers and builders a duty of care—a legal principle TCC appears to have ignored.

A timeline that shows TCC failed to act for over 1 year and 7 months after identifying issues, then prosecuted Cancian while withholding key exculpatory evidence.

Today, the damage remains: Mr Cancian’s 35-year career is shattered. His name and business destroyed. His family and subcontractors blacklisted by association.

This isn’t just about one man’s reputation.

It’s about truth, accountability, and the rule of law in local government.

50 charges laid - 2 found guilty. The Criminal Case Commission are investigating the 2 remaining. Advice is the two remaining -  shouldnt have been laid.

We want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

These posts are not for vengeance. It is for history. It is for the record and to show the public how misinformed they have been by MSM. Its also so our elected members have, if they choose, to counter the lies they are told. For the next person who finds themselves trapped in the BS TCC system that destroys peoples lives. A system that FIGHTS us with our money to stop the truth coming out. The same system that refuses to admit what it has done.

If we allow the Bella Vista story to fade, we allow it to happen again.

And next time, it might be even worse.

The Lakes dream in the early 2010s, Tauranga’s western corridor was booming. The Lakes a vast, master-planned development nestled into the rolling hills of Pyes Pa — promised a new lifestyle for first-home buyers, families, and investors. With wide streets, proximity to schools, and modern urban design, it quickly became one of the city’s most sought-after suburbs.

Bella Vista Homes Limited (BVHL), a growing construction company led by Daniel Cancian, was among those riding the wave. Between 2014 and 2016, Bella Vista built dozens of homes across the Lakes: modern, efficient, and affordable homes that were in high demand. Families moved in. Smiles abounded. Council inspectors signed off on Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs), and all appeared well.

When Bella Vista purchased 297 - to 311 lakes Boulevard and Aneta Way Danny Cancian subdivided 11 sections meaning there were then 22 sections. A great way to keep the house prices down. This initiative upset some in the game and the vile attacks started slowly but surely.

As many know, in the early 2010s, Tauranga’s western corridor was booming. The Lakes — a vast, master-planned development nestled into the rolling hills of Pyes Pa — promised a new lifestyle for first-home buyers, families, and investors. It quickly became one of the city’s most popular suburbs.

Bella Vista Homes Limited (BVHL), a growing construction company led by Daniel Cancian, was among those riding the wave. Between 2014 and 2016, Bella Vista built dozens of homes across the Lakes: modern, efficient, and affordable homes that were in high demand. The were getting a high end of the share of contracts.

Council inspectors signed off on Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs), and all appeared well. However behind the tidy fences and newly laid driveways, a storm was brewing. Was there some jealousy festering as BELLA VISTA was powering it?

In August 2015, a seemingly routine meeting took place at 133 Kennedy Road — a house built by Bella Vista and awaiting its CCC. Danny Cancian and Craig Carter (Bella Vista CEO) met with a Tauranga City Council inspector DD and a Council contractor CC on secondment.

What happened in that meeting marked a turning point. As Cancian later described, they were told something that sounded more like a bribe than advice:

"If you shared the love with other engineers and not just used Bruce Cameron, BVHL would get an easier ride through Council." Bruce Cameron is a very skilled Engineer.

This suggestion was more than a hint — it was a warning - a threat! And Danny Cancian would not forget it.

It would take nearly two years — from that meeting in August 2015 to March 2017 — to get the CCC issued for 133 Kennedy Road. Even more troubling was the delay in certifying the retaining walls — critical structures that would later be at the centre of Council's accusations.

The Code of Acceptance for these walls was not issued until 10 July 2017. That's nearly two years after construction. Yet during this time, Bella Vista continued building. By the end of 2016, 45 homes had received their CCCs. More than 60 homes were built across the Lakes, and 20 more around Tauranga. To the public eye — and in the Council’s own documentation — Bella Vista was a major contributor to the city’s housing supply.

The cracks in the relationship between BVHL and Council, however, widened. Inspectors started arriving two at a time, only for Bella Vista sites. Requests for information became constant. Consent timeframes blew out beyond the statutory 20-day window. Inspections were failed for reasons not stated in the consented plans. Cancian’s team, including his trusted engineer Bruce Cameron, began to suspect they were being deliberately stonewalled.

More emails flew back and forth. Meetings escalated. Council’s tone became more combative. Bella Vista was accused of doing work that deviated from approved plans — but the plans themselves were inconsistent, in some cases signed off by TCC with errors that inspectors refused to acknowledge.

It was, as Cancian later described, like walking into a trap. Council's internal emails would later show staff discussing Bella Vista as a problem to be managed — not a partner to be worked with. The Building Inspector (DD) would eventually require two staff at every Bella Vista inspection. Team Manager, (BB) made sure that note appeared on every front screen of their building consents. Behind closed doors, it was becoming clear: Bella Vista was being targeted.

By late 2016, financial strain had intensified. Cancian wrote to TCC’s CEO, Garry Poole, warning that without resolution, Bella Vista might have to close its doors. He cited a culture of obstruction from Council staff, ongoing delays, and the personal attacks from CC and DD. These concerns, Cancian said, were not just about his company — but about first-home buyers caught in the crossfire.

In response, Poole dismissed the idea of misconduct. But in internal letters, he confirmed that Council had indeed Council approved plans that did not comply with the Building Code — meaning BVHL was being accused of breaching rules that were embedded in the very consents issued by the Council itself. The issues were a design iissue from professional designers.

On 9 December 2016, Garry Poole suspended all inspection bookings for Bella Vista. No inspections could occur. No homes could progress. Behind the scenes, BVHL was being frozen out.

The Lakes dream was becoming a nightmare. But the worst was yet to come harming dozens of people.

As 2017 dawned, the battle between Bella Vista Homes and Tauranga City Council entered a new phase — one defined not by disputes over plans or inspections, but by an invisible blockade. The Council had closed its doors.

No inspections were allowed. No bookings could be made. No homes could progress.

This wasn’t a minor administrative hiccup — it was a business death sentence.

Builders were idle. Buyers were frantic. And within Bella Vista’s offices, panic was setting in. The freeze-out came shortly after CEO Garry Poole sent a decisive letter: all inspection bookings were suspended until BVHL complied with new demands — demands that were often unclear, inconsistent, or outside the scope of the Building Code. If Bella Vista challenged the demands, inspections were denied. If they complied, the rules changed again. Council insisted that a single point of contact would now oversee all Bella Vista matters — a senior building inspector named Mark Bell. Bella Vista had no say in the appointment. Though Bell was respected by some, he also had a Bella Vista home under construction, raising immediate concerns about conflict of interest. CEO instructed Bell to hold this position and Council dismissed any concerns. Yet later media and the gossip machine made great mileage out of it.

Mark Bell’s role, according to a summary by Poole, was to “advise Bella Vista of any current outstanding issues and the steps required to be taken.” But the guidance was vague. Many of the supposed breaches traced back to plans approved — and stamped — by TCC. Others were based on subjective interpretations, not clear violations of Code.

Bella Vista tried to push forward. They booked inspections. They answered RFIs. They arranged engineering reports. But TCC inspectors showed up in pairs, raised new issues on site, and referred matters back to Bell. The process became a loop. Each loop cost time. Time cost money. Cashflow began to collapse.

Behind the scenes, Council staff were candid. Internal emails referred to Bella Vista as “a problem to contain.” Onsite meetings turned confrontational. When Cancian raised the issue of the two-inspector policy being uniquely applied to BVHL, he was ignored. Worse, serious technical inconsistencies were emerging.

Some of the most controversial accusations — especially those surrounding 5 Aneta Way and 297 Lakes Boulevard — revolved around building elements that met the Code as per the BRANZ guide but were later judged against a standard that didn’t exist at the time.

In the case of 5 Aneta Way, Council prosecutors would later present a technical manual from Claymark — a weatherboard manufacturer — as evidence. The manual detailed how weatherboard corners should include a drainage gap. But that document was written 14 months after the home was finished. The house had been completed in March 2017. It was impossible to comply with a standard that didn’t yet exist. THE QUESTION IS WHO PUT THE MANUAL IN THE PROSECUTORS FILE?

Meanwhile, the specifications stamped by Council had conflicting instructions: some said to install vertical weatherboards, others said horizontal. If a builder followed one, they breached the other. It was a catch-22 — and Bella Vista was caught in it.

These contradictions didn’t just emerge in hindsight. Cancian and his legal team raised them in real-time, requesting clarification and accountability. But TCC remained firm: comply, or we won’t inspect. Fix problems, even if they stem from plans we approved. And accept our judgment, even when it’s based on documents that didn’t exist at the time of construction. It was a bureaucratic stranglehold — and it worked.

By March 2017, Bella Vista’s project manager was gone. Their homes were stalled. Council had control and the financial pressure mounted, Cancian knew: they were being pushed out.

This wasn’t oversight. This was elimination. We all could wonder why Danny Cancian was the only builder that was ruined by Council?

#evidenceonfile

Bella Vista is not just Tauranga’s story. It is a warning for every city, every council, every person who believes the system will protect them simply because it should.

Bella Vista exposed the fault lines in our local governance. The cracks weren’t in the walls of the houses — they were in the walls of accountability.

Sadly nothing has changed in Council. The place didn't adjust its performance, it just carried on with the new CEO in 2018.

As ususal Tauranga City Council, all but gave away the Bella Vista 17 SECTIONS AND 5 HOUSES.

Aneta Way - 5 houses + 1 section

Lakes Boulevard 16 sections. Council purchased the 22 properties 21 houses +1 section. For around $14m. Insurance paid around $10.5Million. Leaving a debt of $3.5m.

TCC demolished 16 homes and on sold the 22 properies to the classic group for under $4m

(Aneta Way - 5 houses + 1 section

Lakes Boulevard 16 sections)

Average of $666,666 per - house.

This equates to the Purchaser paying just under $3.5m for 5 completed houses at Aneta Way, basically giving away 17 sections.

Houses that were worth at least $1m each.

The sections would have had a minumin value of $300,000 in 2020.

Looks like we gave a local developer $5m as a present.

In a meeting in March 2019 council held a special agenda item after a public disclosure by us of the minor remediation needed for all 21 homes.

Council started the meeting with the following claims against us.

1) Several accusations have been levelled at Council from concerned members of the public alleging (both directly and through social media) that:

a) The Bella Vista buildings were not dangerous;

b) The remediation project is in some way designed to hide this fact, or otherwise destroy evidence.

2) In summary:

a) The suggestion Council was incorrect to issue dangerous building notices is rejected - this was a decision taken following considerable information provided by a range of experts that the properties were dangerous; and Aecom, BCD Group, Rose Mclaughlin.

WELL OF COURSE WE ARE RIGHT ON ALL THE ABOVE !!!

A FEW NEED AN ANKLE BRACET FOR SUMMER.

COUNCILLORS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE TRUTH!

Dear Marty,

When we met in September 2018 and again with Mayor Tenby Powell in December 2019, I was

assured there was a commitment to work with me (and others) to resolve the Bella Vista issues.

Tenby Powell campaigned on it. In fact, he sat at my dining room table with Danny Cancian, asking

Danny to stand down for running for Mayor in exchange for a full review, with us, over the Bella

Vista Scam.

In October 2018, you authorised a private criminal prosecution against Danny Cancian and Bruce

Cameron. Bruce was cleared of all charges, and the two remaining against Danny are now with the

Criminal Cases Review Commission. The case relied on false and incomplete evidence, including

material relating to 5 Aneta Way that was proven inaccurate, and critical evidence was destroyed

before the defence could access it.

The Council’s purchase of affected properties, at the end of October 2018, was an “all or nothing”

requirement in a meeting of extreme pressure. The council would only consider purchasing all

properties. As you are fully aware, this put the twenty homeowners under unreasonable and unfair

pressure that night. Despite my request to halt demolitions until unresolved issues were addressed,

the process continued. To me, us not being heard and allowed to show evidence of the Council's

wrongdoing was underhanded.

I have since received partial Privacy Act disclosures, which confirm concerning behind-the-scenes

conduct, including derogatory internal commentary about me from 2020 to the present. This

undermines confidence in the Council’s leadership and transparency.

Given the impact on affected residents and ratepayers in general, these actions warrant serious

reflection.

Yours sincerely,

Suzie Edmonds

Response from Chief Executive Marty Grenfell (14 August 2025)

Dear Suzie,

Thanks for your email of 12 August reiterating your concerns relating to the Bella Vista subdivision.

All aspects of this matter have been extensively reviewed and reported on and/or tested via court

action and findings. While the convictions against Mr Cameron were overturned by the High Court,

the Court of Appeal subsequently found that the High Court was incorrect in its findings in relation

to Mr Cameron’s charges. We will await the outcome of Mr Cancian’s application to the Criminal

Case Review Commission.

As far as Council is concerned, this matter is closed and in the absence of any new information, I

do

not intend to review and or relitigate the matter further.

Regards,

Marty Grenfell

Chief Executive

Tauranga City Council

Dear Mayor Drysdale and Elected members

Introduction

Please see attached my letter to the Chief Executive and his reply.

I recently received a response from the Chief Executive, Marty Grenfell (12 August 2025), to my letter of 12

August 2025. His letter asserts that the matter is “closed” and that all issues have been “extensively reviewed

and reported on and/or tested via court action.” This is not correct. Below I set out his claims alongside my

responses today, followed by additional matters that councillors must now consider.

CEO’s Statements and My Responses

Marty’s Statement: “All aspects of this matter have been extensively reviewed

and reported on and/or tested via court action and findings.”

My Response: Reviews and court actions have occurred, but they did not result in full and transparent

accountability. Critical evidence was destroyed before the defence could access it. Misleading documents were

relied upon. These matters were never fully and fairly tested.

Marty’s Statement: “While the convictions against Mr Cameron were overturned

by the High Court, the Court of Appeal subsequently found that the High Court

was incorrect in its findings in relation to Mr Cameron’s charges.”

My Response: This is factually incomplete. The convictions against Bruce Cameron were ultimately quashed,

and he was cleared. Selectively citing the Court of Appeal ruling without acknowledging the final outcome

misrepresents the situation.

Marty’s Statement: “We will await the outcome of Mr Cancian’s application to

the Criminal Case Review Commission.”

My Response: The referral to the CCRC itself demonstrates that serious concerns exist. Council’s reliance on

flawed prosecutions – authorised under the CE’s leadership – has already caused enormous cost and harm.

Suzie Edmonds

17 August 2025

2

Marty’s Statement: “As far as Council is concerned, this matter is closed and in

the absence of any new information, I do not intend to review and or relitigate

the matter further.”

My Response: New information has emerged through the Privacy Act, LGOIMAs, victims/associates,

disclosures (incomplete though they are). This includes internal commentary inconsistent with public

statements. In addition, Danny Cancian confirmed in open court on Friday that crucial evidence from Council’s

own prosecution file was never disclosed to the defence. These are not minor issues. They are new and

material information.

Additional Matters Councillors Must Address

Incomplete Disclosure of Evidence

Danny Cancian has not been given full access to relevant material. Failure to disclose undermines both

fairness and accountability.

Homeowner Settlement Agreements

Homeowners were required to sign confidential agreements under the “all sign or no deal” condition. This

condition was not only oppressive and inequitable but arguably unconscionable. Denying homeowners

genuine choice, through a rushed process and undermining the principles of fairness and transparency was

simply wrong. Also what was terribly wrong was that the homeowner believed their homes were dangerous

building. Council is bound to uphold the principles of fairness and transparency, however failed dismally.

As the agreements were based on misleading and/or false/untrue information, such agreements may be

legally challenged by homeowners.

Non-Disclosure in Court Proceedings

At the strike-out hearing on Friday, the barrister for TCC told the Judge he had not seen some with crucial

evidence for the Strikeout case. This evidence was in Danny Cancian case submissions but also held in

Council’s own prosecution file. This serious error casts doubt on the integrity of the Council’s actions. The TCC

barrister made a number of glaring mistakes, which will be apparent in the official court transcript. Given the

significance of the proceedings, one would have expected absolute accuracy in his submissions to the Judge,

as misstatements could materially prejudice the current court proceedings – strikeout application

Councillors have a duty of care to ask whether the CE’s role is being used primarily to shield Council from legal

risk, rather than to ensure lawful conduct and accountability. Protecting “Council risk” cannot override

statutory duties under the Local Government Act. It’s simply crazy that Council have denied us presenting

evidence Council don’t have or worse still have ignored.

Insurance Risk Pool and Governance Conflict

Suzie Edmonds

17 August 2025

3

The Chief Executive also chairs the Local Government Risk Pool, which carries exposure to Bella Vista claims.

This creates a conflict of interest: protecting the insurer’s position versus ensuring accountability within TCC.

Councillors must determine whether this conflict is being properly managed, and whether Bella Vista decisions

were influenced by insurance considerations.

Chief Executive’s Statutory Duties

Under the Local Government Act 2002, section 42, the Chief Executive must: ensure compliance with law;

provide impartial advice; and maintain accountability systems. Councillors must ensure these duties are met as

we firmly believe they haven’t been. Staff involved in the initial case left employment or been excited. That

doesn’t fix it for the victims. It just fixes some of the issues for Council.

Conclusion

The Chief Executive asserts that Bella Vista is “closed.” It is not! That is not the truth. New evidence,

disclosure failures, questionable homeowner agreements, and conflicts of interest demonstrate that

accountability has not been met. Councillors cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by deferring to staff.

Governance requires oversight, and section 42 of the Local Government Act places a clear duty on both the

Chief executive and elected members.

I believe it is imperative that Elected members read the Colgan Report, the Heath Report, the 2018 MBIE

reportand the 2024 MBIE determination that Council held up for 5 years that is meant to take 60 days.

This is not a case of moving forward; it’s a case of dealing with issues afoot as this is. Be aware: under the

Local Government Act 2002 and the Council’s own Code of Conduct, councillors have statutory and ethical

obligations. Section 44 of the LGA confirms that elected members may be personally liable for losses caused

by unlawful actions, negligence, or breaches of duty if they knowingly allow them to continue. If councillors

knowingly ignore these matters, you may be personally liable. Should this occur, further action will be taken to

ensure accountability and adherence to statutory obligations..

Sincerely,

Suzie Edmonds