Updates on Marina Hearing in Tairua

Counsel Matt Casey's submission on our behalf that he gave Thursday, 24th March. html doc or word.doc (155kb)

Last Day of the Hearing - Weds 13th April
Many people who could not attend the Court in person have been following progress via the regular email updates that Bruce and Pat sent every few days. The Court sat for just an hour on the last day, for Trevor Gould (appellant’s solicitor) to present his closing remarks. He delivered a 28 page submission, the main arguments of which were –
The Environment Court has already approved the area as an appropriate location for a marina, due to the provision of Marina Zones I and II.
Siltation effects on Paku Bay could be mitigated by the proposal put forward last week.
Mr Mikare’s evidence in relation to Maori issues is to be preferred to that of Reremoana Jones.
Dr Larcombe’s evidence on the effect on birds is to be preferred to that of other ornithologists called, as he provided comparisons of the use of the marina area and Paku Bay, with the wider Tairua Harbour, and his study was for a longer period.
There is a need for another reserve, and for additional parking, as the southern reclamation will be built on and unavailable. He also offered extra carparks between the dinghy ramp and the trailer parking area if the ramp is moved to the new location.
He defended Mary Buckland’s evidence and dismissed that of all other landscape architects.
Esplanade Beach will not be compromised because any conflict between harbour users could be managed, controls would be placed on the marina operation to manage pollution and the channel will be moved further away from the beach, so there is more room for swimming.
He defended the financial viability of the project and said the consent conditions would ensure that a bond would provide sufficient funds for restoration of the area if necessary.
Your committee regard this reply as somewhat selective of the evidence!

Dear supporters - the last day of evidence by PBPS - the "Guardians Group" !!
Tomorrow ( Wed 13)at 10.30am the Environment Court reconvenes to hear the "address in reply" by the Applicant's lawyer, Trevor Gould (TG). this might take up to 1.5 hours. Then we wait for a decision of the Court 1-2 months perhaps.
Tomorrow's input by TG will be summarised in the next Newsletter, coming out early next week, along with details of the AGM which is in the Tairua Community Hall, 10am Saturday 7 May.

Day 20 Tuesday 12 April

* James McPetrie was cross examined by TG. He replied that he was bringing important points about safety and navigation that will need attention if the marina goes ahead. Inexperienced skippers of large boats could come to grief. JMcP is not a regular visitor to Tairua, but his research shows that for one third of the year boats should not operate out over the Tairua bar.
Confirmed by both Wayne Pryce (Tairua Harbourmaster), and NIWA.
* Val Gordon gave her evidence, describing in poetic terms the visual aspects of the Bay - reflections, and changing scenes.
She says the marina, parking reclamation, and new reserve (diggings dumping areas really) are not necessary. She compared this with the necessary reclamation in St. Mary's Bay Ponsonby, to get the Harbour Bridge approaches in place, for the benefit of all Aucklanders, and NZ. "Paku Bay does not belong to us, we belong to it". No TG XXM.
* Barry Welch, former professor of engineering at Auckland University then had his evidence taken as read (The Court adjourned to do this). BW explained he spoke as an expert in some areas (eg fluid flow and mix, chemical engineering,design of complex plants) and a person with local concerns. He recognised he was not an expert in coastal engineering (is there such?) but some of his expertise is relevant to that. (As has often been in TG XXM, he has sought to discredit the witness - often unsuccessfully). BW emphasised that the normal base data had not been provided by the applicant's engineers. Virtually no samples had been taken. If better data had been provided, more informed comments could have been made.
BW explained that his calculations had been the same as the applicant's engineer, off a desk top, and BW's are supported by overseas guidelines. He had not generated own research and calculations - he has used applicant's own rather scanty data. BW had to keep reminding TG that he applies his general and specific engineering expertises to the marina issues.
* James Archibald, Director of Tourism Coromandel then gave his evidence. He has been Director for 9 years. He explained the purposes of Tourism Coromandel, and the wide community consultation that TC had done to see what Coromandel people wanted and didn't want from tourism. Finding: Coromandel people wanted to develop the visitor industry in a way that economically benefits the region, with minimum impact on values of natural character. This was reviewed in 2004, and the view was still the same. Coromandel is "Natural, Rustic, Relaxed".
One of the greatest threats is the removal of points of difference. Tairua and Paku Bay is one of these "points of difference". 30% of visitors in 2003 to the Coromandel were international. They spent $103m. University of Waikato survey showed most visitors do not want modification. NZ and OS visitors want the Coromandel "as is".
Tairua is an important "accommodation hub", especially for German tourists. TG then XXMd JA. As we came to expect, TG asked by what authority JA was speaking - answer: Board meeting approved. Chair consulted also. TG mentioned some opposition to this. JA replied: Tourism Coromandel is behind developments that promote tourism. A marina in Paku Bay of the kind proposed isn't one of them. The marina proposal compromises natural character, and a point of difference. Other XXM Q's seemed not to have impact.
* Tony Wilson read his evidence. - birdlife in Paku Bay, including a 12 minute video which showed 8 species of birds, some rare, in and beside the marina footprint. Tony has been observing Birds in Tairua for 11 years, has a B.Sc. and experience in ornithology, and runs a birdwatching company, across NZ. He disagreed with Michael Larcombe, the applicant's bird man, on some points. TW explained the 8 roosting and feeding sites in the Harbour, and how the Paku Bay site is critical either side of high tide for feeding and roosting for several species.It is very important for Godwits body building prior to their 9 day non- stop flight to Alaska, and on their return. Paku Bay's 5% area of the whole Tairua estuary is far more significant than most other areas. NZ Dotterels, have roosted successfully on the reclamation. There are only 1400 of them in the world. Enough in Tairua Harbour to apply for RAMSAR, international body protection. (c50 - ie greater than 1% of species) There are too many probable disturbing and unknown outcomes for birds if the marina proceeds.
XXM: Again TG probes authenticity and relevance of TW qualifications and experience. TW replied he is a professional ornithologist, who keeps up to date.
TG remarks on 6 days of observation, compared with Applicant's more (18+) days of observation. TW replies that Bruce Gilberd frequent observations are added (attached to evidence) as well as unrecorded observations of 11 years.
TW believes it will be of little use enhancing the Paku Bay roost - construction, with increase of noise and people will probably drive the birds away.
* Danny Boeglin - resident, Paku Bay and Natural character appreciator, musician, etc.then read his evidence. DB explained why he and his family came to live here. If this marina is built, it would change that.We need sanctuaries for people (not only birds!). Sewerage and refuelling pollution, resulting is seafood pollution, unreasonable noise, especially at night ((temperature inversion effect on noise travel) are some reasons for opposition. Further, German Tourist companies (one personally known to him) would stop coming here. No XXM
* Mike Tilyard, HM of Tairua Primary School also gave evidence. He emphasised that the marina structures, walls and dredging will threaten the school waterwise programme, which involves learning to paddle kayaks and sail small boats.
Pollution from the marina will also compromise the programme.
TG XXM (as expected!) Does MT have the authority of the school Board to appear Yes. Same evidence as at Council hearing. TG said he knew 2 people who didn't agree with MT giving evidence. Also asked why the Court should prefer MT evidence to that of Gary Lambert (letter only) who initiated the sailing programme, and said it would not be effected by the marina.
* Fiona Mc Nabb - chemist, Tairua resident since 1986, and adult and child kayak instructor then gave telling evidence.In all 31 adults and 273 children have gone through the programme 1999 - 2004 under her leadership.
The Tairua School has taken a highly responsible role in assisting children face fear and deep water, and enabling them to achieve in this, and thereby other areas. The best of all places for kayak teaching is in the area immediately north of the reclamation, which would be in the marina footprint - it is sheltered, has beach on 3 sides, sufficient depth of water 2 hours each side of high tide. Especially is this so for the beginners - year 5 ie 10 year olds. After kayaking, confidence is built to take on the more complex sailing.
Adults use the same venue at weekends. The marina wall, craft, and pollution would make this activity cease. The whole progamme has a voluntary leadership, and there are real and positive outcomes for Tairua children if the venue stays.
XXM was by TG's assistant, Asher Davidson - she asked FMcN to comment on Gary Lambert's letter. She did so respectfully differing in opinion. Further GL was only a sailing instructor, not a kayak instructor. She has been since the inception of the programme. This turned out to be very telling evidence.
* Hannah Peggs read her evidence - a 17 year old with real courage and insight. HP and her contemporaries don't want to have to clean up in 30 years what present adults create - a polluting and visually unattractive marina. She learnt water skills at Tairua School, and now is an instructor. She was asked by TG if she wrote her evidence herself. HP: Yes!
* Brian Line gave his evidence - he has had a property here for 11 years, lived here 7. He named the many amenities he and others enjoy here, and stated his evidence related to personal, historical and future issues. Long term effects are unpredictable both in the Bay and beyond, therefore the application should be declined.
Most visitors are not attracted by a marina.Tairua as it is attracts the world weary traveller. We are constantly told how precious the Coromandel natural character is, yet have to defend it, over years, with our time, energy and money. Further, un -notified resource condition changes, meaning developers can unilaterally act entirely differently, (as in Oceania) make it unlikely they will be enforced, should the proposal proceed. Strong evidence. No XXM.
* Mark Chrisp, our planner, then gave our final evidence. It was Taken as Read - the Judge and 2 commissioners retiring to read it. TG XXM: Is your evidence presented to support the Guardians case ? MC: I am not an advocate for them.
TG reviewed all evidence? why agree only with 3 opposing Landscape Architects and not applicant's? MC: I agreed with their conclusions.
There was discussion as to whether a small pole marina would be accepted by MC. Possible, but some Guardians oppose that too. So not all my evidence is in cinque with all Guardians members.
MC pointed out that in his research of the planning history of the area, there were criticisms of the applicant (PPL) in these that he reported. He was not the author of the criticisms. The research also revealed two matters that could not be fulfilled if the marina went ahead, that were conditional on the approval of certain requests of the then Minister of Lands.
TG then questioned on further housing possibilities - as of other witneses, implying that this would in future modify the environment, therefore making the marina more OK. MC indicated that covenants should ensure continuity of tree coverage.
TG was able to convince MC that the data from opposing experts on the whole said the marina would not have a significant effect, but a greater than minor effect, in several areas of concern. Mark stood up well.
We finished about 4.30pm. Just TG's "Address in Reply" to come.....we'll see what he can do!
So, signing off for a while - here endeth 20 days of hearing !!
Thanks again for all your wonderful interest and support.

Day 19 Monday 11 April

After a week's adjournment we started 1 hour late at 12.15pm Monday 11 April - Day 19.
Some of you will know that last week, on 5 April, the applicant/appellant put forward a new plan to purportedly solve the increased silting in Paku Bay. It changed the Bay even more. So to the events of Day 19.
* The first item was whether the court should allow this new adjusted proposal into the proceedings as evidence.
Trevor Gould (TG) applicant's lawyer wanted it in, but did not speak tellingly. Jim Milne, EW lawyer opposed it strongly, indicating 5 more resource consents would be required for the new plan, TCDC mildly opposed it, and Matt Casey, for PBPS did a very powerful convincing 10 point speech opposing its introduction ( your committee and others had given their views to resource Matt). TG replied, surprised by the opposition.
The judge then raised the issues of :delaying the Hearing for some time, as the new proposal would require evidence already given to be revisited, the role of RH - the author of the adjusted proposal, and when the decision re admittance of the new proposal should be made. TG then asked for an immediate adjourment - consulted with the applicant, and when the Court reconvened 10 minutes later, WITHDREW the application for the new adjusted proposal to be admitted as evidence.
A very interesting two hours!
We regard this as a telling "win", in that it leaves the acknowledged silting problem in Paku Bay unresolved.
* Matt Casey then presented material from case law to the court, as promised, indicating his preference for the view that possible future development, in a local environment, likely to modify natural character, should not influence decisions now on an adjacent development. This is relevant to the applicant saying many more sections will be developed on the northern face of Paku, therefore the marina will be more acceptable.
* Evidence then resumed with Devan Rowe, promoter of the "Wakeboard" event in Paku Bay, and surf club committee member giving very telling evidence for us. Loss of amenity (eg surfing the bar) and loss of income to Taiirua were his themes, and he responded well to the questions (from Asher Davidson, TG's assistant). The Tairua surf board committee is unanimously opposed to the marina. It was great to have a younger member on the stand.
* Graeme MacDonald, accountant and specialist in liquidation issues, then gave telling evidence as to the paucity of financial information in the proposal. He stressed that the annual costs to berth owners will be significantly higher than the applicant predicts, outlining 25 sources of cost, and making comparisons with other marinas. Dredging costs will be very high. It will be the most expensive marina in the Auckland Region. TG strongly question GM on: Watts being a successful business man, was his evidence relevant and had he been told so by counsel, and was he aware of the draft conditions and bond arrangements.
* James McPetrie then gave evidence. James was a naval commander in the Royal Navy, and past Harbourmaster of Auckland. (1996-2004). His focus was the nature of the bar (uncertain depths), and the boat traffic (especially along the channel and in front of the Paku Esplanade Beach). ie safety and navigation were they key issues. JMcP emphasised that for large boats it will be a part-time marina. At peak periods there will be congestion over high tide when it is most safe for them to exit and enter the bar and chanel, and when most other craft and swimmers are there. Tidal and wind pressures for large boats going at the required 5kmph will also be a problem. Refuelling where bow waves affect the stability vessels will cause spillage, and inevitably the sewerage regulations will be breached.
As per Harbourmaster, the bar is unusable one third of the year, there will be a coflict of interest with present users, and higher levels of management will be required.
The Court then rose at 5pm, and resumes Tuesday 9.30am.At this stage we think we will finish, with TG's address in reply, at about lunch time Wednesday 13.

Day 18 Friday 1 April

Ruth Lee, former school teacher and resident artist, strongly stressed natural character in her evidence, and the need for artists, resident and visiting artists to be able to paint what they see now - at all times and tides. Uninterrupted views across water and the bay are essential. She uncovered two tapestries she had done - the mountains to the sea, and the bay, indicating how the views would change with a wall across the bay. Reflections - not something Ms Buckland addressed properly, are a significant factor. Bird presence, child learning, tourist attraction, were also emphasised. Her passion had given her the courage to speak.
TG did not XXM
Geoff Read - a keen boatie (as is Jim Jackson above) then gave evidence on safety and navigation, quoting his many years of observation and experience as the basis of his submission. This was challenged by TG, saying the Harbourmaster has a different view, and is an expert.They agreed to differ! Geoff's point was that marina traffic, especially large boats, will threaten safety and recreation on the Paku Esplanade Beach.Visual explanation assisted in understanding how this could be so.
Geoff acknowledged that he had been interested in a marina berth earlier.
Patrick Maenulein, from Paris and now living in Tairua told us why, of all places, he is here: attractive natural character.
He illustrated how the wider nation and world have been informed of this through artists, postage stamps, tourist brochures, and postcards, featuring Tairua. People will not come here to see what they want to leave behind: exploited natural character and its diminishment.Keep Tairua "naturally exciting"! We only value things after we have lost them.
Patrick also emphasised this marina is only part of a jigsaw of a much larger development plan on land and sea. The developer hopes each part will be individually acceptable - and then we will all find the whole and final form very unacceptable.
Paku Bay is an example of why people come to NZ. TG did not XXM.
John Drummond then gave evidence for the Tairua Environment Society. He outlined the history of developments on the reclamation, and seabed, as undertaken by Pacific Paradise Ltd.The different proposals, and their partial fulfilment, change or failure. He illustrated how hard it is for the public to be included in the planning process.He also emphasized the rich, varied and rare birdlife, the loss of public space and access, loss of amenity values, degrading of water quality, increased noise, and loss of natural character and habitat.John then outlined an "option 7" that was sensitive to the various issues, and approved by the Tairua environment society. The largley unknown outcomes, if the application proceeded, necessitates a precautionary
approach. TG XXMd John. He challenged the need for bird assessment (expert to come), his authority to speak for TES, his claims that the public had been excluded from several planning process involving Pacific Paradise Ltd. and his involvement in the production of the Tairua Town Plan (1998). John was chair of this Community Board sub-committee.(It was apparrent, for some reason, that TG (and the Judge) were a little impatient with John. Perhaps it was him finding the legal process biased towards excluding public participation in the past.) There was a discussion between John and Judge Sheppard as to whether the insertion of Zone I and Zone II amounted to a privatising of Paku Bay.
John Taylor, a former school teacher (M.Sc. Hons in Geography) then gave evidence. John and his wife Jocelyn have also run "Sailor's" restaurant in retirement - from which he observed the Bay 12 hours a day. His main objection to the marina is that public assets would be privatised for personal gain.Access, dredging (odour), ongoing management, contruction issues also concerned him. TG did not XXM.
We will report after the next 2 or 3 days (11 - 13 April).

Day 17 Thursday 31 March

TG continued to cross examine Chris Ison, who has many qualifications relevant to the application, but whose expertise was questioned in some areas. His most relevant qualification was a long period of establishing expertise in analysis of complex documentation. TG questioned Chris on his severe criticism of Ms Buckland's visual impact maths and reporting. Both scored points! Chris also indicated on USA guidelines for marina construction, this proposal fails on all 5.
Brian Snell then gave evidence, as he and his family live at the seaward end of the Paku Esplanade, and have seen much over many years. From his observation he gave many reasons for opposing the application and appeal. TG chose not to XXM.
Colin Sinton gave evidence, focussing on the probable incapacity of TCDC and EW to monitor any consent conditions, and the adverse affect the marina would have on trailer boating, because of channel changes.TG chose not to XXM.
Jim Jackson, who put up the profiles because EW and the applicant wouldn't, then gave evidence, using computor and screen to give visual impact to his points.The key points he made were:
- A small pole marina, one boat length depth, with no wall, probably OK
- WhenGuardians/ PBPS put up a bamboo outline of the proposal bay 3 years ago, he began to change his mind about O3
then O5 - having previously supported them.
- He criticised the lack of detail in the applicants' plans, and how the public needs full and accurate facts.
- He gave visual presentation of the differences in Buckland's, his, and actual outlines of the perimeter of the marina.
- Over-topping of the present walls in strong westerleys - may mean walls are made higher later.
- He pointed out his research showed that 74% of those who want a marina in Tairua want it up the river
- He explained conflicts of interest in the use of Paku Esplanade Beach and access channel to the marina.
- he had figures (from video cameras) of those using the Esplanade Beach, and walking along the Manaia Rd.coastal walkway, with the wall intruding into views. (12,000 used this walkway in December/January).
TG, as expected, XXMd.! He sought to discredit Jim's alternative site initiative, but Jim carefully explained, that if he pursued it it would be a Trust, with no personal profit, and if it were to be in an ASCV, DOC has been asked to review that.
TG pressed so hard on Ms Buckland's evidence, that Jim in the end said she had deliberately mislead the Court.
Les Sinton gave evidence, outlining his family's long association with Tairua and the Bay. The family bach is at 73 Manaia Rd.
He spoke with transparent sincerity on behalf of the extended family. Issues are: The rock wall intruding, walkway users views obscured, wall dominating at low tide, silting in Paku Bay. TG did not XXM.
Ginny Stainton gave pictorial (70 or so photos) and verbal evidence re use, access to, appreciation of, bird use of, the Bay. It was a stunning and impressive visual presentation, with at times specific and poetic language. TG chose not to XXM.
David Rushforth then gave evidence - he is a retired planner, and scientist. He stated he did not oppose development, but it needs to be in the right place, and the right scale. A very small marina clustered around the present reclamation might be OK - but not this. David then applied 5 criteria (from an Athens international finding) and applied them to this proposal and design - indicating it doesn't measure up. He emphasised the need for a longterm vision for the Coromandel, and Tairua, emphasising tourism as the main income earner, because this place is as it is. He quoted University of Waikato research to support his case. Tairua information Centre had 20,000 visitors from 50 countires in 2004. In the 5 years 1997 - 2002, there was a 77% increase in Tourism on the Coromandel. 1 in 10 NZers are employed in the tourist industry.TG did not XXM!
Joyce Birdsall then gave her evidence - pointing out that the carpark and reserve intended by the applicant are really a low cost way of getting rid of diggings. We would also have to look at a largely unused carpark for most of the year.Lack of detail of ancillory buildings was noted, and the present pleasant experience of driving along beside that water in the lee of Paku would be deleted.This is a place where the elderly and disabed can pull in and view the Bay with immediacy. Joyce told the Court that the applicant had already changed the course of Graham's Creek without consent for his own benefit, and now wants rigid channelling - thus removing natural character. Who will control the bay? We have 364 financial members.TG chose not to XXM.
Dave Heritage, who has come to live here this year, and is a building project manager,said the applicant had shown his true
colours when the gates were locked, and only those who were for the marina could park on the areas on the reclamation.There is a disregard for residents. The wall is unacceptable - shown by the very fact the applicant recognises the need for beautification. Dave then focussed on the erroneus amount of maintenance dredging that will be required, its inconvenience, affects on water quality, and cost to berth owners. His estimate was 125 working days per year. He said "digging holes in sand is not an exact science" (!)
At $14per cm to dig and transport dredgings, and set up costs, it will be a bill of $800,000 per year to shift 2 0,000cm per year - ie $5,333 per berth. TG did not XXM
Bob Birdsall emphasised the lack of evidence of need for a marina. He pointed out that 3 or 4 boats had been moored in the present marina of 30 poles in recent years.If, as applicant indicates, there are 10-20% berths to be taken up of the 150, by local people,then 30, as currently provided is enough.There will be more congestion with trailer boat launching, and longer waits launching and retrieving. A 3 lane boat ramp in the marina as signalled, will worsen the traffic. Present arrangements work because of respect.He has experienced siltation on the launching beach at Paku for some time after dredging, making it difficult for two wheel drive vehicles.(June 2003). Should the marina proceed, trailer boat launching will be regulated and swimmimg curtailed.
TG did not XXM

Day 16. Wednesday 30 March

It began with Trevor Gould, applicant's lawyer, continuing to cross examine David Mansergh, our Landscape architect.
Trevor tried to get David to say that further significant housing development on Paku, overlooking the marina, would mean it is OK to have the marina, because Paku would be even more modified.He refused to agree, insisting that undeveloped land and seascape become even more valuable as amenity and asset, when surrounded by increasing development. It is vital the primary drawing power is not lost by putting a marina in the space.
Laurie Franks (Jnr) then gave his evidence, focussing on pollution - he is an expert in this area, and works for the Manukau city council. He emphasised:
- applicant has not done proper tests on Paku Bay water
- swimming near or in a marina not pleasant or advisable due to many types of pollutants
- hydrological modelling not done
- inadequate assessment of effects on fauna, flora
- applicant using wrong assessment instrument
-chemical effects in and around the marina could be severe
- no risk assessment
- a precautionary approach required.
Trevor Gould then cross examined. He sought to show Laurie had a bias because he is registered as a 274 party opposing the marina. Laurie explained the basis of his opposition is his professional understanding of the issues above.
Under questioning Laurie also showed that the conditions that might be imposed, if the marina was approved, were inadequate.
He was later invited to be part of tightening the condition design.
Mrs Reremoana Jones, Tangata Whenua, then had her evidence read by her daughter Nyvonne Kraus.It was similar to that which was so movingly presented at the Council Hearing, but updated. She opposed the marina on several fronts, and gave the Maori history of the area, as one whose tribe Ngati Rautao of Ngati Maru, had been here since the 16th century.
Trevor treated Moana with courtesy, and asked questions about the nature of consultation the applicant had, and didn't have with her. She was asked (as many of us have been) what size marina would be acceptable in Paku bay.
Colin Christian, a specialist in sedimentation and coastal engineering then gave evidence for us.
He emphasised that far more detailed study and research are necessary than that done to date by the applicant.
This involves modelling. At present the sediment transport systems are not understood, and a focus of any study needs to be the highly dynamic area at the entrance of the channel into the marina. He said the erosion of Paku Esplanade beach is quite possible.The marina design would also increase the rate of sedimentation in the remainder of Paku Bay.
A mixing of marina/river water study needs to be done. The spill/sill level (with deeper marina basin) will work against the clearing of the deepest polluted water. The applicant has failed to produce sufficient data, therefore the precautionary approach needs to apply, and the project declined.
Trevor then cross examined. However Dr. Christian re-emphasised the above.
Ric and Jill Dawick's evidence was then presented by Ric. They had visited several marinas, videoing pollution in the water, and visual pollution through signage and other factors. The video was shown, and then Ric read the remainder of telling evidence, which also included great loss of visual amenity. The themes were pollution, natural character, views, bird life, safe playing in unpolluted water, space......Trevor chose not to cross examine.
Dr. Chris Ison then gave his evidence. Chris has a doctorate in fluid management, and has spent many years in computors and assessing multi disiplined contracts for this employer.He therefore has great analytical skills, which he has devastatingly employed in analysing the applicant's material. Issues he addressed were:
wrong place and construction, flawed data, pollution, fails on 5 points of international best practice, visual impact, omission of key walking areas, confused calculations by applicant's landscape architect, lack of hydrological analysis, no modelling, loss of amenity. He will be cross examined tomorrow (Thursday - Day 17).
Atr the end of the day Bruce Stainton our case lawyer asked that the members of PBPS below have their evidence "Taken as Read". Two reasons are that the issues they cover are covered by others, and it may save the Court time. All agreed with this.
The Judge assured all that their evidence would be read carefully, and taken into account. Enid Bennett, Gillian Galloway, Pat Gilberd, Carolyne Jackson, Paul Lee, John Lomas, Gordon Martin, Judy Raymond-Penny, Stephen Tee will have their evidence taken as read.

DAY 15 - Tuesday 29 March
The Court reconvened at 11.30 am
Bruce Gilberd completed reading his evidence, and then was cross examined by Trevor Gould for an hour. Trevor did not raise issues around pollution, safety, the use of the esplanade beach, views from the Manaia Rd. esplanade walkway, passive appreciation of the Bay, or adverse cumulative effects - some of our strong points. He did raise quesions about:
- would not the marina have the same proportion of boats as the Pauanaui waterways? (reply :no)
- would not the current uses of the bay be able to be continued with a marina in place? (reply: Yes, but severely restricted)
- Why have I (Bruce) not mentioned any upsides of the marina? (Reply: perhaps a job or two)
- In what sense am I an expert? (my reply was that I am well qualified in applying scientific method acrioss several disciplines)
- What size marina would be acceptable? (Reply: some members would accept a small pole marina of say 30 boats around
the southern reclamation, with parking on applicants land).
- what did I base my opinion on that Tourism would decline? (reply: Tourism Coromandel evidence, and own conversations with overseas visitors).
Of course this is only a summary.I think we did OK overall.There was great support from our members, the Court was full.
Then our landscape architect, David Mansergh gave evidence, indicating that the visual effects of the marina would be more than minor, and therefore unacceptable. He disagreed with Ms Buckland (applicants LA) on several key points.
Gould started to cross examine David ....which continues Wed morning 30.

DAY 14 - Thursday 24 March.

We worked nearly 4 hours, then everyone departed for the holiday.
Matt Casey completed his splendid summary of our case - which was 46 pages in all. He referred to what the applicant had offered, the relevant law, and asked that MS Buckland's evidence be discounted it was so flawed. There is no cross examination of legal counsel. We were delighted with his work.
Then followed a half hour between the applicant's lawyer, Trevor Gould, Matt, and Judge Sheppard as to whether the Court should admit further evidence from Jim Jackson and Chris Ison, two of our key witnesses. The judge decided in our favour. This was followed by Bruce Gilberd reading his evidence - we were half way through - an hour into it, when the Court adjourned for the Easter break. Bruce gave an overview, supported by data where appropriate. It was both his personal evidence, and as Chair of PBPs and GPBA.
Before we broke, there was discussion as to when extra time could be found so the whole of our case could be heard. It looks like there can be 2 or 3 further days allotted 11 - 13 April, here in Tairua.

Day 13, Wed March 23

1. Bruce Stainton examined DOC rare bird expert Dr. Dowding, to help explain further how the rare dotterels would be affected by the marina, and how any bird roost established on the outer breakwater would have flaws.
Applicant's lawyer Trevor Gould then cross examined Dr. Dowding - seeking to discredit the 3 days put in by him, compared with longer periods of observation by applicant's bird man, Dr. Larcombe. Dr. Dowding has a long history of involvement, and stood up well to questioning, indicating he was researching different issues to Dr. Larcombe. There was discussion of the international RAMSAR agreement.
2.Vicki Caruthers, planner for DOC then read her evidence. Very precise and thorough. Trevor Gould's cross examiniation was persistent, but evoked an important point in our favour: The Environment Court hearing and decision on the zoning in Tairua harbour for a marina, did not have the benefit of input from a broad spectrum of experts. (Lawyers and planners only).
3. The TCDCD lawyer, Mr. Bownhill then gave his (lengthy) submissions, which had several telling points, but were at times circuitous - a point also made by the judge! Mr Brownhill outlined the TCDC case, covering many points of opposition to the marina we agree with. He recommends the proposal be declined.
4. Then Mr. Burgess, traffic expert for TCDC had his evidence taken as read, and was cross examined by Bruce Stainton for us.
The point was drawn out that people park nearest to where they want to be - so the reclaimed carpark will only fill up when other parks along the Esplanade and Paku Drive have filled up. Also Mr. Burgess said that at peak periods, there would be no room for public parking on the Esplanade. In other respects, this expert agreed with the applicant's traffic expert.
5. Mr Browne, Landscape Architect for TCDC then had his evidence taken as read, and was questioned by Bruce Stainton.
Mr Browne declared of all the towns on the Peninsula, Tairua has the highest positive visual impact. He was strong on his difference from the applicant's landscape architect's assessment - focussing on the space of the harbour needing to be retained. A very small marina clustered around the reclamation in zone 1 might be OK visually.
Mr Gould then cross examined Mr Brown - but moved him very little from the several key points he has made in opposing the marina, due to its visual impact on the harbour landscape.
6. Mr De Luca, planner for the TCDC then had his evidence taken as read, and Matt Casey examined him, drawing out points such as Hegley (applicant's expert) making no assessment of noise of maintenance dredging, the foreshore and seabed are not compromised at present but would be if the marina proceeded, that swimmers would have to give way to marina boats if there was continuing conflict, etc
Mr Gould then cross examined Mr De Luca - underlining he agreed with Mr. Bhana (applicant planner) on many points - and trying to entice him to say what size marina would be acceptable. He declined to be caught in that discussion !
7. Alan Bell, of Hemi Place, representing himself, then gave a host of reasons why he opposed the application, in a very direct manner. Mr Gould cross examined him without much effect.
8. AT LAST IT WAS OUR TURN
Matt Casey began his submissions on our behalf, summarising our case.He has worked very hard on these in conjunction with Bruce Stainton, and they are comprehensive yet concise and thorough. We are about a quarter way through a 46 page document.

Tomorrow (Day 14) the Court sits from 9.30am to 1.15pm. Matt will complete his submissions, then Bruce Gilberd will give his evidence and be cross examined. There may be time for 1 or 2 more witnesses before the 1.15pm adjournment.
After Easter the Court resumes at 11.30amm on Tuesday, running for 20 or so hours to 1.15pm or so the Friday after Easter, into which time we may fit our case - we'll see. We have 7 experts and 35 lay witnesses, some of whom will have their evidence taken as read. Mr Gould has indicated he wishes to cross examine about 10 lay witnesses, in addition to experts.
We are trying, with the advice of Bruce Stainton, to line up people as is most effective for the case and convenient to them.
If you can possibly come to support, next week is the week to do it!

Day 11 & 12 ( March 21 & 22 )

After a 2 week break we reconvened yesterday at the Rugby Club. Tairua has been on TV1 last night and tonight - so we're feeling the issue is being recognised as important for NZers.
The PBPS committee is hugely encouraged by the response of our membership to the appeal for extra funds for our legal leadership - we are nearly there !!
You will see from the summary below that a number of issues were covered in the last 2 days. We think that Mr. Gould (applicant's lawyer) is doing his best to be courteous, and is incisive - but most evidence against the marina is standing up well to date. (In our opinion!)
Tomorrow DOC completes evidence and cross examination by Mr. Gould, (2 speakers), then TCDC lawyer, planner and traffic expert speak, the last two to be cross examined by Mr. Gould. It is possible that we could start giving evidence late tomorrow afternoon, or begin on Thursday morning - 9.30am. We'll see. Some evidence is being "taken as read" - which can be slightly quicker - but there is still sometimes cross examination of that evidence.

Here is our summary of Monday 21 and Tuesday 22.
Jim Milne, lawyer for EW, presented some fine submissions, to summarise the EW case opposing the appeal and application. He summarised why the earlier Council Hearing decision had declined the application entirely:
Scale of the construction - Natural character - Affects on rare birds - Reclamation of coastal edge - Reduction of public access - Opposed by local Maori - Loss of recreational space.
He then indicated that the potential adverse affects of this application outway the benefits and the application does not meet the requirements of the law. Mr Jim Dham (coastal processes expert ) -an enthusiast for his subject - gave his evidence as to why the present application should not proceed. The Heart of his evidence was that all the diggings should be retained in the coastal system. ie be deposited off Pauanui beach. This means that he is strongly opposed to the building of the carpark and reserve from diggings. (about 140,000 cubic metres.)
He also confirmed that siltation in Paku Bay would increase if the marina proceeded. This has all sorts of consequences for birds & mangrove growth.
Stephen Brown (landscape architect ) then said that the cumulitive affects of the marina on natural character cause him to recommend it be declined. He said Paku Bay would be degraded by the marina and that it was an intrusion into the Bay and the ambience of the Bay would be permanently changed. Our lawyer, Matt Casey, drew out of Mr Brown that 450 metres of coastal edge would be lost.He also said that if the reserve and carpark were deleted from the proposal then there would be 200 more metres of sea wall exposed. (580 metres already)
Trevor Gould in cross examining Mr Brown drew out that the system he had used for deciding the degree of adverse affect earlier when a director of LA4 - the applicants landscape architects- he now regards as redundant. This method was used by Ms Buckland for the developer and was found wanting when she was cross examined. Perhaps Mr Gould regrets he asked the question!
Dr Lohrer ( ecology ) had critiqued the applicant's expert - Dr Coffey's work, and was criticised by Mr Gould for not doing sufficient reserch of his own.
Dr Pierce, an ecologist specialising in birds, gave detailed, focused evidence in an interesting way describing his observations by day and night. He was surprized by the level of bird activity and feeding in Paku Bay at night. He referred to the endangered species ( 8-10 ) that use the Bay for feeding and roosting. He regards Paku Bay as highly significant for feeding , in that it is one of the first places to be exposed as the tide ebbs - it has varied and abundant food sources.
A marina would adversely affect the feeding habitat and the roosting space and dIsturb the birds. Some perhaps leaving permanently. Trevor Gould sought to undermine Dr Pierce's evidence by suggesting his period of observation was too short. Dr Pierce defended well.
Mr Pearks (EW planner ) had his evidence taken as read and was then asked a question by Matt Casey which resulted in the statement by Mr Pearks "carparking in marine coastal area is not consistent with Regional Coastal Policy"
Mr Gould sought to undermine Mr Pearks evidence by saying he quoted the opinions of others but had little of his own considered opinion in his evidence. Mr Pearks handled ths quite well.
Mrs Houghton (Lawyer for DOC ) gave an excellent submission on behalf of the Director General oposing the application on several grounds and was followed by Dr Dowding ( dotterel specialist ) This again was a most informative presentation ( 15 pages ) and indicated that the lower part of the Tairua harbour is a site of international significanance for nationally vulnarable Northern NZ dotterel under criteria 2 and 6 of the Ramsar Convention. He emphasised the importance of the Harbour and Bay for 3 endangered species ( NZ & Banded dotterel & Variable Oystercatcher.)
Dr Dowding will be cross examined tomorrow - Wednesday.

Hearings break...
We are now half way through the Hearing.
In the first 2 weeks the "developer" and his team presented their case with 12 expert witnesses and just 3 lay witnesses.Our lawyers cross examined them and were able to highlight weaknesses in the proposal. We were very pleased and impressed with the way they worked for us. This process took the whole of the 10 working days.

 

Thank you all for your commitment and support

Environment Court Hearing - day 9 & 10

The first fortnight of the Environment court Hearing completed yesterday, and now all the evidence has been heard from those promoting the marina. When the Hearing resumes on March 21 at 11.30am the order of evidence of those opposing the marina is EW ( 6 speakers) TCDC ( 3 Speakers) DOC ( 3 speakers) - all of which will be cross examined by Trevor Gould, the applicants lawyer.
After this we give our evidence and will be cross examined - more on that as the hearing procedes.

Day 9 began ( Thursday ) with Richard Reinen-Hamill ( coastal science) being cross examined by Jim Milne (EW lawyer )
A key point esablished was that since about 2003 EW had not granted any licenses for developers to take material out of the coastal processes. Matt Casey then cross examined at length.
Key points were -
* sedimentation flowing down Graham's stream, could, on an incoming tide, be diverted into the marina basin.
* Beca -Carter recommendations on necessary research were not followed.
* there was no sampling of effects in Grahams stream or the Pepe stream.
* the difficulty of establishing the exchange rate of water from the marina and from the ocean - there was an assumption that the same rate will apply to the marina basin as to the whole harbour.
* not all marina water will leave it by tidal flow - some will be residual and some will be brought back into the marina on the next high tide.
* the establishment of the Esplanade beach as popular for swimming, which could be curtailed by either people's reluctance to swim in a marina effluent area, or by actual pollution levels being prohibitive.
* establishment that marinas lead to a high risk pollution category.
* the confirmation that grey water ( from washing boats, dishes etc. ) will flow into the marina basin as well as automatic bilge water.
* confirmation from Craig Watt's evidence that it is acceptable for people to do maintenance eg. scrub their boats in the marina.
* acceptance that all marinas have some oil slicks from fuel spillage.
* no analysis of the effect contaminants will have on the vulnerable sea grass in the harbour.
* the comparison of pollution levels between the Pauanui waterways and the proposed marina is not valid. ( average of 18 boats in the waterway over the year )
* that the breakwater base width has been retained incase it is necessary to build it higher later.

Mr Neville Hegley ( noise ) presented his evidence and then these points were made under cross-examination.
* Mr Hegley has put the accetable noise level at twice the level that is required by the District Plan.
* He took no measurements after 10pm.
* He made no estimates regarding the intrusive noise of maintenance dredging for up to 100 days a year.
The judge was clear that the disturbance of people's sleep must be a prime factor.

Positively Tairua had 3 witnesses.
Dave Earley gave evidence and the following came up in cross-examination by Bruce Stainton.
* Craig Watts was a founding member of Positively Tairua, and therefore Dave Earley was speaking on his behalf.
* Dave Earley leases his business ( Dive Shop ) from Jim Mason of Pacific Paradise Ltd - the appellant/applicant.
* the inadequacy of his bird observations.
* his confirmation that people swim across the channel at high tide and walk across it at low tide.
* his acceptance that tourists come to Tairua because it is natural and don't want it changed.
* his avoidence of answering the question that only marina supporters could use certain parking areas.
The TCDC lawyer ( Stephen Brownhill ) raised the question as to whether the coastal environment is unique, both outside and inside the harbour. Mr Earley said yes.
The EW lawyer established that Mr Earley was away from the Dive Shop frequently, so his observations lacked continuity.

Brian Franklin gave his evidence. Points that emerged through Bruce Stainton examining were -
* the inaccuracy of his figures regarding business support for the marina.
* his non involvement in the preparation and administration of Roger Turner's business survey
* the ambivilence of the question regarding marina support in the survey.
* the acceptance by 96% of business people who replied that Tairua's best asset is the beauty of the area.
* his unawareness of Mr Watt's evidence that there will be no hard stand in the marina.
* the highlighting that there is probably sufficient trades people in the town now to service the marina boats.
* that Whitianga's marina related occupations primarily are connected to the haul out facilities
* TCDC projections of the population increase of Tairua underlining that the draft Tairua Plan logo is Tairua Naturally.
Mr Brownhill established that the sewage moritorium will apply for some time to come as TCDC has made no real progress on a new system.

Judith Elliott gave evidence and was cross examined by Bruce Stainton.
It was esablished that -
* Judith's key parking photo was taken on one of the peak holidays ( 3 Jan 2005 )
* that people park as near as possible to where they want to go, and therefore trailer boat owners will still park as near to the beach as possible before they will use a carpark (as intended by the developer ) at some distance from the beach.
*.the new ramp will be higher on the sea floor than the present Hemi Place one.
* there will be increased siltation of the Bay.
*some of the debris in the bay is the result of the applicant trying to complete the present marina.
Judith thought that as Paku Bay is not a primary natural feature of Tairua it is more appropriate to have a marina wall here than elsewhere.

A discussion in the court then followed about procedure around hearing of opposing evidence and the time frame if we were to complete in the allotted time, given that there are only 8 of the 18 days left for the marina opposition case to be put.( in all 60 statements of evidence)
EW & TCDC offered to have some of their evidence taken as read so there would only be cross-examination of those witnesses.
Trevor Gould ( the applicants lawyer ) suggested that he would provide a list of our witnesses that he wishes to cross-examine and suggested the remaining witnesses have their evidence taken as read. The judge indicated he wished to be as patient with those opposed to the marina as he has been to those promoting it. He also acknowledged the time constraint and has made a tentative inquiry as to whether the court might be able to reconvene after the next 2 weeks of hearing which completes on April 1st.
Our committee is considering what our strategies will be in relation to these issues. The key point for us is what will make the most impact on the court.
TWO MORE POINTS
1. As the hearing has proceeded we have become more aware of the critical role of Matt Casey ( Senior Counsel ) and Bruce Stainton. This will mean we want Matt and Bruce to give the time needed for greatest impact. We also may need other experts to give more time. Therefore we will be inviting the membership to contribute towards an estimated $15,000 further costs.

The Hearing resumes on Monday, 21 March at 11.30 am to Thursday 24th March at 1.30pm
Then Tuesday 29 March 11.30am till Friday 1 April.

Thanks for all your continuing support and messages. We are in good heart.

Day 7 & 8 Tairua Environment Court Hearing

The whole of Day 7 ( Tues, March 1 ) was spent on Mary Buckland giving evidence-in-chief and rebuttal evidence on visual effects and natural character and then being cross-examined by Jim Milne from EW, Syephen Brownhill from TCDC and Matt Casey from PBPS.
Mary Buckland has presented 7 photo montages from different vantage points with the marina super-imposed on them.
The accuracy of these was challenged and also the methodology used to get the rating effects.
It was noted that no fences, lights, planting or waste disposal was shown on them.
The point was made that crown land and shoreline will be taken away from the public for the marina and reserve.
It seemed the amenity values of the bay were not assessed in her evidence.
People viewing the bay from the Manaia Road esplanade walkway - Ms Buckland said in her view a relatively small number of people used this esplanade. Matt Casey quoted around 600 people a day used it over the Christmas holiday period and the reason people use it is to appreciate the view otherwise they would walk along Manaia Road.

On Wednesday first thing ( Day 8 ) Matt Casey continued effective questioning of Ms Buckland and the judge and the 2 commissioners indicated they had real difficulty in understanding her visual imact measurement methods.
Mr. Buddy Mikaere, Iwi issues then gave evidence and was cross examined by Matt Casey. Questions focussed on the use of the coastal edge by Maori for various purposes, and therefore is of cultural and historical significance to both Tangata Whenua and others who care for Maori values and spirituality. Mr. Mikaere acknowledged a considerable portion of this area would be filled in, but pleaded modification had already taken place. Matt Casey quoted Mrs Reremoana Jones' evidence in a way that prepared the court for that to be heard.
Four Hauraki Iwi are opposed to this application and appeal - but were reluctant to have significant consultation with Mr Mikaere.
There was discussion on the difference between "Mauri" - life force, and Wairua"- spirit, and the asscoiation of both with particular places, and to persons.
Mr. Mikaere agreed that 44% of Paku Bay would be irreversably changed.
Then Mr. Reinen-Hamill gave his evidence on Coastal science issues. We expect him to be strongly questioned by Jim Milne for EW, and Matt Casey for us, today.

Day 6 Tairua Environment Court Hearing

Mr Rod Clough returned today to finish being cross examined by Bruce Stainton who raised several important questions regarding archaeology such as - had he probed the seabed for artefacts; had he consulted local tangata whenua; did he know human bones had recently been found in Hemi Place; did he have authorisation from the Historic Places Trust for works to begin adjacent to a highly valued archaeological site.
Mr Clough answered no to all these questions and admitted ' there is archaeology scattered all around the Tairua harbour'.
We were disappointed no other party questioned Mr Clough.
Mr Mark Apeldoorn then gave his traffic and parking evidence which was very thorough although Matt Casey raised a few key points on availability of parking spaces on the reclaimed carpark for the public at busy times.
Wayne Price, harbourmaster, then gave evidence and answered excellent questions put to him by Bruce Stainton in a very direct way and helpful to our case.
some examples are:
1. He acknowledged he had not given consideration to kayaks, jetskis and windsurfers.
2.He said there were no other marinas in NZ that open onto a bar.
3.He admitted that he omitted to include in his evidence that the bar was only 0.7m deep at lowtide in October 2004.
4. He acknowledged that the marina would mean that boat traffic in the channel would nearly double.
5. He recognized that it could be difficult for large boats to pass each other in the channel in windy conditions.
6. He didn't know of any other marinas in NZ that passed a swimming beach.
7.Channel dredging leaves destabilizing sediment on the launching beach for up to 2 months.
8. If it came to a choice between boats and swimmers, the swimmers would have to withdraw from the beach.

Mary Buckland, visual effects and natural character is presenting her evidence and will be questioned by TCDC, EW & DOC as well as our lawyer.
Mr Neville Hagley has been moved down the list.

We felt we had a good day with key points being raised and a good number of people listening in.

Days 4 & 5 Tairua E. Court Hearing

Over the last 2 days we have heard from 4 more of Craig Watt's experts, who have also been cross examined.
Mr Aidan Nelson on geotechnical issues, Dr Brian Coffey on ecology, Dr Mike Larcombe on avifauna (birds) & Mr Rod Clough on Heritage.
On Friday the Judge decided to stop at 1.15pm, so Mr Clough will have to take the stand again on Monday at 11.30am to finish off the cross examination by Bruce Stainton.
The normal hours each day are 9.30am to 5pm, with breaks.
There are still 6 more of the Appellants' experts to be heard which could take the best part of next week.

Our case is being represented very well indeed by our lawyers Matt Casey and Bruce Stainton.

It seems at this stage that the Court has under-estimated the time this Hearing would take.

We appreciate those who come and sit and listen and would like more of you to do so - even if only for an hour.

The house kindly lent to us by John and Betty Oudney opposite the rugby rooms is just great for our people to retreat to at breaks and for our lawyers to consult at. We have a roster of people as minders and offering hospitality - if you can help with this please let me know.

The media (NZ Herald, Waikato Times, Hauraki Herald, Coastal News) are taking an increasing interest.

The opening day karakia by the Bay, and your messages of support and encouragement continue to strengthen and inspire us.

Day 3 Tairua Environment Court Hearing

Most of yesterday & today was spent on the applicants experts - Harry Bhana (planner) Aiden Nelson (geotechnics) & Craig Watts giving evidence and being cross-examined by Matt Casey for us, Jim Milne for EW, Stephen Brownhill for TCDC and Glen Houghton for DOC.
The most effective cross-examination has been by our lawyer, Matt and as a result the court is being appraised of the essential issues early in the case.
There are still 9 more applicant expert witnesses to present evidence and be cross examined.
They will be followed by 3 speakers for Positively Tairua who support the marina.
Then EW has 5 expert witnesses, TCDC has 2 or 3 expert witnesses and DOC has 2 expert witnesses who will present evidence and be cross examined.
PBPS expect to be on in the week beginning March 21st at the earliest.