MANGAWHAI'S NO.1 NEWSPAPER
|
|
Wharf project: Appeal not an option says Trust chairFollowing the decision by the Northland Regional Council (NRC) appointed commissioners to refuse the resource consent for the historic wharf rebuild, the Mangawhai Historic Wharf Trust (MHWT) has looked closely at the option of appealing the decision to the Environment Court. The appeal would be expensive says Trust chair Colin Leach, and should only be pursued if there is a reasonable chance of success. “We have had some preliminary legal advice and also spoken to a number of people who have some expertise in the process and the feedback is that our chance of success is very low,” laments Leach. “This is because the grounds on which the consent was refused and the way in which the decision was written would require us to do the impossible. “We would have to prove that the use of the yet-to-be-built wharf by the community would have absolutely no impact at all on the fairy tern. This would be very expensive to do and impossible to get any meaningful results, and perhaps explains why Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird, Fairy Tern Trust, or anyone else has never done any studies on the impact of human activity on the foraging of the fairy tern in the harbour.” Such a study, if undertaken and conducted to the level of scientific rigour required, would take several years and cost around $100,000. The cost of the appeal to the Environment Court would also cost in the vicinity of $100,000, meaning the MHWT would need to fund $200,000 with only a slim chance of succeeding. “As a result of the resource consent decision we have lost the grant of $600,000 for the build itself, that we worked hard to secure,” says Leach. “Consequently, while our heart says to keep fighting, our heads say it is time to stop.” Leach adds the team, who had worked hard for a number of years, were very disappointed and totally frustrated that they had not been able to deliver on the project. “The community generously donated $80,000 dollars to fund a resource consent for an amenity they really believe is needed.” Encouraged by NRC and others, the Trust, acting on their behalf, went ahead with the consent application. The Trust spent this money, as required, on a planning report, a landscape and visual assessment, a cultural assessment, an archaeological survey, a marine archaeological survey, a benthic seabed study, environmental and bird studies, legal advice, expert witnesses, engineering plans and NRC consent fees and charges. All of these were provided, except the latter, at reduced rates in recognition of a volunteer community driven project. “The NRC has invoiced the Trust for nearly the entire $80,000 the community raised,” says Leach. “It put the community through an unnecessary three-day process and further subsequent costs when the decision appears to have already been determined.” The Trust has already paid a significant amount above the standard fee for a public consent hearing says leach. It is not asking for a refund of the amount paid above the standard fee but believes the best outcome is to not make any further payments to the NRC and give back what little money the Trust has left to a local cause or project on behalf the community who donated it in good faith. “Once again we thank you, the community, for your generous donations and immense support.” § See the NRC Hearing Committee Decision online at nrc.govt.nz/consents and go to Resource Consent Decisions. “We have lost the grant of $600,000 for the build itself, that we worked hard to secure.” - Colin Leach |