IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act Application by Paul Williams, Murray Mexted and Servaas Van Breda Malherbe at Judges Parade Mahanga

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 A N D IN THE MATTER Application by Paul Williams, Murray Mexted and Servaas Van Breda Malherbe at Judges Parade Mahanga BETWEEN AND Wairoa District Council Hawkes Bay Regional Council Re: Application Numbers and Type: DP060714L, To discharge domestic effluent from five domestic wastewater DP090456L, systems DP090457L, DP090458L, DP090459L LU080519C To construct and maintain a coastal protection structure within Coastal Hazard Zones 1 and 2 LU080593C, To construct two buildings and wastewater systems within Coastal LU090460C Hazard Zone 2 LU080520C To undertake works in the bed of a river (associated with a stream realignment) WP080522D To divert a stream LU080601C To undertake earthworks within Coastal Hazard Zone 1 (associated with construction of coastal protection structure) Activity Type: Non-complying1 Notification: Publicly Notified Property Address: North end of Judges Parade, Mahanga (Lots 1 & 2 DP 28759) Page 1 of 8

2 1. RESPONSE TO CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT Kia Ora to the Hearing Committee Kia Ora to the Applicant Kia Ora Koutou MIHIMIHI 2. Te Ngaru Roa aa Maui is a surfing organisation situated in Whaingaroa Raglan based on Tangata Whenua values. The environmental unit was established to address issues pertaining to adverse affects in coastal waters and potential effects on coastal processes which affect surf breaks. 3. Lost Waves is a similar organisation in that its core values are to protect surf breaks from adverse effects of inappropriate subdivision and development plus adverse effects of discharges to the ocean environments. Part of its values is the natural character of the coastlines plus amenity values and the wellbeing of coastal communities. 4. Both groups campaign for clean, safe recreational waters, free from adverse effects of sewage effluents, toxic chemicals and promote a solution based argument of viable and sustainable alternatives. 5. Lost Waves and its members have a long association with Mahia dating back to the early sixties and have close relationships with the Mahia Boardriders and residents; therefore regard the Mahia coastline in high regard. 6. INTRODUCTION 7. My name is Malibu Michael Hamilton. I have a Bachelor Degree in Iwi Environmental Management and I am a tangata whenua environmental researcher and have participated in the resource management arena for several years. I undertake resource consent processing for Te Kotuku Whenua, one of the environmental groups of the Ngati Wairere Hapu and on occasions for Tainui Awhiro Ngunguru Te Po Ngunguru Te Ao Management Committee. 8. Today I appear as a representative for Te Ngaru Roa aa Maui and Lost Waves. While our organisations may be dealing with tangata whenua issues and values; we do not speak for, or represent Mana Whenua or Tangata Whenua in this area. 9. To assist the Hearing panel all reference to both groups will be based on THE GROUP. Page 2 of 8

3 10. GENERAL COMMENT 11. THE GROUP wish to thank the Hearing Committee for taking into consideration our evidence in para 54 and para 91 for an adjournment. Also for the consideration of the evidence by Tangata Whenua and the Community for an adjournment to bring more clarity on the issues that arose at the hearing. 12. RESPONSE TO CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 13. Consultation 14. THE GROUP agrees that more effort could have gone into the consultation process but are puzzled by the comments that B. Mikaere has spoken to opposing submitters. This is an implied statement that he has spoken to all opposing submitters which is factually incorrect. 15. B. Mikaere notes that many submitters where unfamiliar and misunderstood the application and that the submissions are misconceived plus there was a strong pro forma approach. It is unclear if he has read all the statements of evidence placed before the hearing committee which produced a more substantive approach than the original submissions. 16. In general if consultation has NOT been undertaken effectively, many of the community submitters are placed within a time frame to respond which places some in a disadvantage. During the submission process many just produce blanket submissions to get into the process. The RMA 91 does NOT require a more substantive approach in the beginning. 17. In addition a pre hearing took place and not all submitters attended. B Mikaere also noted that subsequent changes to the original proposal have been made and it is difficult to understand why he appears to belittle those submitters. 18. B. Mikaere not only side swipes submitters but also reserves the right to be critical of local authorities. While THE GROUP agrees with his assertion, it is a timely reminder that either a maori committee be set in place or a more vigilant approach take place to update the data base of BOTH councils. Many applicants rely on an updated data base to undertake their activities and tangata whenua cannot undertake their kaitiakitanga responsibilities effectively. 19. Lastly B. Mikaere appears to state that due to tensions within the Mahanga Marae Committee it somehow affects the bona fides of some submitters. 20. Case law has ascertained that it is not up to Councils and Hearing Committees to make judgment but the Maori Land Court. The Hearing Committee has a Page 3 of 8

4 clear responsibility to take into consideration all submitters including those who B. Mikaere clearly seems to isolate. The Hearing Committee will have to apply caution on this point and the decision will have to clearly state how they have considered the matters of Maori. 21. B. Mikaere also notes that there is no confusion as to who is tangata whenua as the submitters themselves have made it clear and that there is no challenge to the status of who is manawhenua. 22. Cultural issues 23. While The Group correctly leaves comment on the urupa to manawhenua, the comments by B. Mikare on the subject need responding to. 24. THE GROUP agrees that it is the responsibility of the District & Regional Council to take into consideration the urupa and the Wairoa District Council must also take responsibility for the creation of the Happy Jacks crossing height and road reserve with a toilet and picnic area on a wahi tapu site. 25. What are more surprising are the comments that there was no objection over the construction of the public toilets in THE GROUP challenges the comment and argues that insertion of a comment of this nature without evidence is mischievous and unprofessional and should be totally ignored. 26. It is clear that council s processes have a lot to be desired as above when it comes to the issue of consultation. District councils in the main are reluctant to undertake archaeological surveys unless directed to by strong community opposition. 27. B. Mikaere also notes that those opposing only see factors such as natural character and the local surfbreak as more important than taking a sensible position in respect to the urupa. 28. THE GROUP take great offence at that statement and will state that Lost Waves and its members have been involved with the Mahia community for decades and that Te Ngaru Roa aa Maui has been involved with the Opoutama manawhenua community for the last five years. 29. In fact; I was personally at Ruawharo Marae as a Te Ngaru Roa aa Maui representative when manawhenua left the marae along with the archaeologist to meet the District Council on the site visit to discuss the issue of koiwi remains. Subsequent to that site visit the urupa was registered. 30. In addition THE GROUP provided a power point presentation at the hearing for an alternative soft engineering solution based on a maori kaupapa which is accepted by authorities in preference to hard wall techniques. Page 4 of 8

5 31. Plus a member of the manawhenua hapu at Ruawharo Marae and Mahia has been attending our Sewage Action Network Hui for the last five years including just recently at the Kotare Trust in Wellsford. 32. Furthermore, THE GROUP maintain that it has been more than responsible its approach to protect the values of manawhenua and the urupa and that the surfing groups have acted with those values from the outset and not acted out of an altruistic manner. 33. Lastly THE GROUP maintains that a hard wall placed on seaward or on the subject land will result in adverse effects and that Regional, District Council, the applicant plus the community should initiate the soft engineering solution as quickly as possible to avoid any further damage to the urupa and Mahanga beach. 34. Hine Rauira awa and the wetlands 35. The discussion highlights two issues and provides a classic neo colonisation approach. First, the staffs report from council states that because it cannot be found in the National Geographic Boards list it is to remain as a drain. Secondly, B. Mikaere with a superficial glance seeks information from differing sources to no avail then promptly names it from now on as Papaka Creek. That has the appearance of some form of self elevation or guru aspect. The trouble with the neo colonisation approach is that all parties seem to discount the manawhenua view. 36. More alarmingly is the comment that B. Mikaere has set aside the issue of the effects of the application on the wetlands that manawhenua and the community has raised in their evidence. Any tampering with the wetland will need to be undertaken with caution and sound advice particularly as the awa dries up in the summer. 37. THE GROUP agrees with the B. Mikaere statements that the awa has suffered modifications in the past. It is the human modification that has created a lot of the issues. As stated above it is always difficult for maori to achieve a level of kaitiakitanga that is desired and many of the modifications have resulted in a degraded awa and wetland that has severely impacted on the customary rights of maori. 38. Over the years the awa has suffered as a consequence of human intervention and rush to assert property rights resulting in a slow death by a thousand cuts in the process. It may appear that very little regard has been taken and that potentially there has been very little water monitoring done. Page 5 of 8

6 39. Perhaps the recent report under taken by Murray Palmer titled Hine Rauira Stream Ecosystem and Hydrology Survey August 2009 is the only baseline to be assessed in this situation. What is clear in the report is that the awa does display distinct ecological values and that the wetland and awa depend on each other. 40. What is also clear is that both maori and the community have grave concerns about the applicants proposal to modify the awa despite B.Mikaere statements that the modifications are potentially going to improve the awa and that there will be no more than a minor effect. 41. The B. Mikaere report highlighted that due to the modifications the awa cannot be assessed as being in its natural state. Case law has established that the environment has to be read as it currently stands today and the Murray Palmer report states that distinct ecological values are present and that the wetland and awa depend on each other. 42. On that basis, the mauri of the awa does have meaning and THE GROUP strongly disagrees with B. Mikaere that restoration to a pristine condition is the only way of assessing the values of the awa and any attempt of maintaining that and enhancing the mauri is tantamount to the fact it has previously been degraded and modified. Mana Whenua have raised the issue of mauri in the hearing and have stated they have concerns that it can be further impacted upon. 43. The likely impacts on the awa by the applicant for stream modification with its subsequent sedimentation effects and the building of a fortified timber wall do have effects. While the applicant and the Council has downgraded the activity of stream modification, THE GROUP strongly disagrees with that assessment and maintain that down grading the likely effects to no more than minor is not supported and nor does the community support that view. 44. What is clear is that the applicant needs to realign the awa and shore up its sides to allow for extra distance due to section size to cater for the bund system and to lift the feet from a hazardous flood prone site. 45. The issue of the neighbour s waste water systems has been mentioned in the B. Mikaere report and is suggestive that they are bigger contributors to the pollution. It is noted that was also mentioned in the staff report and THE GROUP argue that it is intended to offset the potential of the applicants systems to pollute the awa and is somehow laying the claim that as it is effected by their systems it is OK to add more. 46. There has not been any evidence put forward by the applicant or the councils to substantiate those claims. The neighbours systems are not part of the resource consent being applied for. Page 6 of 8

7 47. The applicants wastewater consents are not only reliant on a good power source but on available land for the disposal fields. The application as it stands is for six houses on lot sizes that appear to be too small to cater for the distances quoted and has high potential to cause adverse effects. 48. Furthermore the B. Mikaere report is deficient in the fact there is no statement to maori landscapes or the sense of place that maori has in their environment. In addition to maori landscapes is the concepts of oranga the dimensions of taha wairua, taha tinana, taha hinengaro and taha whanau. 49. Maori have put forward the issue of cultural health in their concerns for customary fishing and harvesting along with how they feel the activity will have on their sense of place. It is clear their taha hinengaro has been effected by the clear opposition to this project and the way this application has created divisions in their community which affects their taha whanau values. 50. Lastly, it is the sheer size and scale of the six buildings that interrupts their sense of place. Time and time again, maori are subject to activities that impact on their landscapes. 51. While the B. Mikaere report gives an overview of the statutory responsibilities that the Hearing Committee has, THE GROUP wishes to redirect its mind to the evidence presented in para 87 to para 94 at the hearing and remind the Hearing Committee that it has within their scope the right to decline this application. 52. In summary of the report generated by B. Mikaere, THE GROUP argues that the report is of a general nature in many places and is outside the scope of the writer. In addition it appears to be slanted and therefore could lead the Hearing Committee to totally discount the Cultural Impact Assessment in its totality. 53. RESPONSE TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT 54. The report by C. Barr has provided the Hearing Committee with useful information and has added more clarification to the issues. It identified that authority has to be obtained by the Historic Places Trust prior to any earthworks proceeding and that any earthworks in the area of the rock revetment also has that obligation as a legal requirement due to the works physical impact on the site. It also confirmed maori evidence at the hearing that the historic site extends onto the Mexted - Williams property. 55. Furthermore, C. Barr noted that the Resource Management Act 1991 in its amendments in 2003 elevated historic heritage as a matter of national importance and that provisions of sec 6(f) does offer protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. THE GROUP will argue that in Page 7 of 8

8 this instance that what is being applied for is inappropriate subdivision and development. 56. Lastly the C. Barr report did not venture into any speculation or statements as to significance of the sites to maori and it is clearly identified in her limitations comments that is left to tangata whenua only. 57. CONCLUSION 58. THE GROUP will argue that the B. Mikaere report is not particularly helpful and did not add any relevant information which was not advanced by the maori submitters and appeared to biased and unprofessional and could be totally discounted by the Hearing Committee. 59. In contrast the report produced by C. Barr appeared professional and added more information which is useful to the Hearing Committee. 60. THE GROUP also maintain that this application is inappropriate and should be declined. 61. THE GROUP states that the applicant has the right to adjourn to change the proposal and to an application that is more fitting in the environment and surrounding landscape and without the impacts to wahi tapu. 62. THE GROUP wish that this response is read in conjunction with the evidence provided at the hearing. 63. THE GROUP thanks the Hearing Committee for this opportunity to comment on the two reports. Ko te moana i te wai kau No Tangaroa ke tenei marae He maha ona hua e ora ai nga manu o te rangi Te iwi ki te whenua The sea is not any water It is the marae of Tangaroa It yields life for many things The birds in the sky The people on the land Page 8 of 8