# Speldhurst Country Estate — PiP Pitch Research

Research cut-off: 10 August 2026. This is a village-level brief suitable for any relevant member of Speldhurst management. It includes verified manager context without making the dossier person-dependent.

## Executive read

Speldhurst is a large, family-owned, resident-led independent-living village with an authenticated resident intranet already in place. Its disclosed long-term buildout includes new villas, serviced apartments and a conditional future care facility. PiP must therefore find one measurable gap between the existing intranet, resident committees, noticeboards, phone, paper and face-to-face support—not pitch another generic portal.

The best first hypothesis is one resident-run activity or change-notification workflow, with resident-assisted van coordination as a possible alternative. Maintenance status is worth testing only if management confirms recurring chasing or duplication.

## Verified village and management context

- Operator: Speldhurst Country Estate Limited, a private company that owns and operates the registered village. Speldhurst Country Estate Holdings Limited owns the operator; the November 2025 disclosure identifies Wayne Bishop as ultimate owner, while the current site presents Wayne and Bridget Bishop as owner-operators.
- Address: legal street address 70 Kimberley Road, Levin; public office/directory address commonly 100 Speldhurst Parade.
- Current public leadership: Bart Slabbert, Village & Property Services Manager; Debra Bishop, Sales Manager; Sandra Dustin, Administration Assistant; Wayne and Bridget Bishop, owner-operators. The disclosure names Shaun Tyson as COO, but he is absent from the current public team page and should be confirmed before use.
- Bart's disclosed duties include day-to-day village affairs, services, repairs and maintenance. A resident committee actively represents residents to the operator.
- Current marketing says the village is for people aged 65+ and occupies roughly 48 hectares on the former Kimberley site south of Levin.

## Scale and evidence warning

- Stages 1 and 2: 372 one-, two- and three-bedroom dwellings, complete.
- Stage 3: disclosed as under construction, comprising 103 villas plus approximately 144 serviced apartments, another community centre and facilities, with a published target of 31 December 2027.
- Stage 4: a planned 100-bed care facility, subject to resource consent and demand.
- Proposed end state: 619 units—475 independent units and 144 serviced apartments—plus the care facility.
- The disclosure's schedule is dated 5 June 2025 and is internally inconsistent: it lists 464 villas but 426 occupied + 16 unoccupied + 3 to complete totals 445. Do not state a current occupancy or resident count. Confirm the live portfolio before pricing or cohort design.
- The same schedule reports six disposals and an average 129 days for previously occupied units in the prior period. The small, historical denominator does not prove a sales problem or a PiP effect.

## Resident model, amenities and current channels

Speldhurst has a rich resident-led environment: The George, café, lounges, library, pool/spa, gym, bowls, petanque, workshops/Creative Resource Centre, community hall, chapel, The Dell, aviary, dog area, motorhome parking, miniature railway and onsite croquet. Current official stories say residents organise more than 38 regular activities, with residents', social and other committees, street ambassadors and a new-resident meet-and-greet role.

A village van operates by arrangement and a current story identifies resident coordinators/drivers. This proves a shared volunteer workflow, not a burden.

Verified digital channels are an authenticated resident intranet, one published room-booking use, public contact/tour/newsletter forms and social channels. The intranet's vendor, full functions, adoption, integrations and satisfaction are not public. It is PiP's first incumbent and first discovery subject.

Speldhurst does not currently contain a rest home or hospital. The Cottage hosts visiting practitioners, but phase one should not collect clinical data or represent those visits as aged-care services.

## Pain hypotheses to validate

1. Resident-run events may require repeated entry or leave phone/paper residents outside timely changes.
2. Intranet, noticeboard, reception, email and paper may not share one source of truth.
3. New-resident ambassadors may lack a measurable 30/60/90-day orientation and first-participation view.
4. Volunteer van requests, capacity and change notices may be hard to reconcile across channels.
5. Stage 3 growth may increase targeted construction/change communication and questions.
6. Residents may chase non-urgent maintenance status, but no public evidence proves this.

Every item is a hypothesis. Allow management to say the current process works and there is no PiP fit.

## Tailored PiP wedge

Lead with: “You already have a strong resident-led community and an intranet. We would first map one workflow where residents or volunteers still bridge intranet, noticeboard, phone and paper. If there is no measurable gap, we should not add another platform.”

Preferred first workflow:

- one resident-led activity cluster;
- publish/change once, RSVP/capacity/waitlist and attendance;
- assisted phone/paper entries in the same workflow;
- a display/print output for non-digital access;
- explicit owner/approval route and measurement of volunteer/staff effort.

Alternative: one van trip-request/capacity/change workflow. A maintenance-status pilot should be separate and must preserve the existing source of truth and emergency route.

Do not lead with replacement of the intranet, clinical functions, occupancy or loneliness claims, a family portal, staff rostering, ORA/sales records or whole-village transformation.

## Pilot design

- Four-week baseline followed by eight weeks live.
- One workflow, one accountable manager, one resident-committee or volunteer partner.
- A deliberately mixed cohort of independent digital users, assisted users and residents who prefer non-digital routes.
- For a village of this scale, a free ten-person preview can test fit and accessibility but cannot demonstrate village-wide adoption or value.
- Measure channel reach, completed bookings, waitlist/capacity outcomes, repeat participation, changes received, assisted entries, no-shows/reasons, duplicate entry, staff/volunteer minutes, support contacts, errors, complaints, privacy events and short dignity/usability feedback.
- Continue only if the workflow is easier without adding total burden or excluding offline residents.

## Buyer and approval questions

Owner-operators Wayne and Bridget hold the economic decision. Bart is the likely operational sponsor; Sandra, Debra and relevant resident/volunteer leaders may own workflow pieces. Private ownership may shorten the path, but no public approval threshold, technology budget or procurement process was found.

Confirm whether a pilot is operator OPEX, development/change-management spend or part of village outgoings; whether resident consultation is needed; and what constraints the existing intranet imposes.

## Core meeting questions

1. What does the current intranet do well, and what deliberately sits outside it?
2. Walk one real event from idea and approval through publication, change, RSVP and attendance.
3. Who owns event truth when resident groups run most activities?
4. How are residents who do not use the intranet included and reconciled?
5. Which process generates the most repeat calls or re-keying: events, van, maintenance or onboarding?
6. How do meet-and-greet and street ambassadors know a new resident has found relevant people and activities?
7. What will Stage 3 require from resident communication in the next 90 days?
8. Is there one measurable workflow worth baselining, or is there no current gap?
9. Who approves a pilot, owns resident data, reviews security and involves the residents' committee?
10. What would make management and resident leaders stop, continue or expand the pilot?

## Evidence boundary

Verified: ownership/operator, public team, disclosed development, facilities, resident-led committees/activities, van and intranet existence, current non-clinical boundary. Unverified: current occupancy/resident count, intranet scope/adoption/vendor, process burden, budget and procurement rules, live construction timing and whether any manager wants PiP.

## Sources

- November 2025 Disclosure Statement: https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/sites/default/files/pdf/SCE%20Disclosure%20Statement%20%28Nov%202025%29%20.pdf
- Current team/hosts: https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/our-hosts
- Resident model: https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/village-shaped-its-people
- Activities: https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/get-social
- Amenities: https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/the-george and https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/experience
- The Cottage: https://www.speldhurstcountryestate.co.nz/the-clinic
- Current Eldernet listing: https://www.eldernet.co.nz/provider/speldhurst-country-estate/retirement-village
- Horowhenua District Council, Community Connection issue 234: https://www.horowhenua.govt.nz/files/assets/public/v/1/publications/communityconnection/2026/horowhenua-district-council-community-connection-issue-234-5-march-2026.pdf