There were issues relating to woody debris (including felled trees, windthrow trees, slash, and harvesting debris) or sediment, and those elements could enter waterways.
The respondents, either as the landowner (Samnic directors) or the occupier (Duncan Woodhouse/Woodlett), were responsible for the adverse effect because of non-compliance with resource consents, the council submitted.
The forest was harvested between 2015 and 2022.
The court heard that compliance issues were first identified in March 2017 and concerns were raised about the standard of certain infrastructure and the harvesting practices.
Prosecutions started towards the end of 2022.
A summary of the abatement notes and inspections referred to roads, landings/skids, erosion and sediment control, and poor harvesting practices.
Woodlett owns the land and commenced replanting compartments of land from 2018, and from late 2022 the company was in sole charge of the forest.
Samnic was the manager of the forest and had overall responsibility for the commercial harvesting of pine trees.
Samnic told the court it had completed the required remedial work and its resource consent responsibilities ended when it left the forest in 2022.
Judge Dickey said there was a significant issue between Woodlett, Woodhouse, and Samnic and its directors.
“Each points the finger at the other in terms of responsibility for addressing the state of the forest.”
Woodlett told the court it had provided the land as a passive landowner for annual rent while Samnic, as the resource consent holder, was responsible for ensuring compliance and still held responsibilities to address environmental issues.
Woodlett submitted that it had never been subject to prior enforcement action and was not made aware of Samnic’s non-compliance until 2022, when Duncan Woodhouse was asked to attend an interview with the council.
Woodlett submitted that enforcement orders sought by the council against Samnic and its directors should be granted and that there was no legal basis for enforcement orders against Woodlett or Woodhouse.
Samnic submitted that, over the four years it was harvesting the forest, it transferred the resource consents and/or handed back compartments in the forest to Woodlett, meaning the land and infrastructure within those compartments became Woodlett’s responsibility to maintain.
Woodlett, having benefited from passive income, had carried out almost no maintenance, according to Samnic.
Judge Dickey said Woodlett knew or should have known of compliance issues and should have taken steps to rectify them.
When it was in sole charge of the forest in late 2022, Woodlett had at least maintenance responsibilities, including ensuring that woody debris and sediment did not enter waterways.
Woodhouse, as the sole director of Woodlett, “was aware, or should have been aware, of what was happening at the forest”.
“Woodlett as landowner and Mr Woodhouse as director should be subject to enforcement orders,” Judge Dickey wrote in her decision.
“They had responsibilities in the forest prior to and following Samnic’s departure.”
The judge said Samnic complied with aspects of directions and notices from Gisborne District Council, but certain problems kept arising.
Samnic did not completely remediate the forest in 2022 before leaving it.
The company’s directors were all aware of, or took part in, decisions concerning the forest.
“It was appropriate that any orders we make include all directors,” said Judge Dickey.
The council had actively involved itself in trying to ensure compliance with the Resource Management Act and the resource consents.
“It has not sat on its hands and any suggestion that it should have done more is without foundation.”
The council was directed to advise the court on any amendments to the proposed orders that would require a risk assessment report and map, accompanied by the names of experts to be involved in the work.
Local advocacy group Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti, a party to the court proceedings under section 274 of the Resource Management Act, welcomed the decision around enforcement orders, but the group believes the process to enforce forest compliance was still flawed.
“Despite clear and repeated breaches – unauthorised earthworks, lack of erosion and sediment control, and unsafe practices on highly erodible land – it took nearly 18 months and a court order to force compliance," Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti spokesman Manu Caddie said.
“Meanwhile, communities downstream continue to live with the consequences: degraded waterways, damaged roads and increased risk during heavy rain events.
“Too often, enforcement is under-resourced, delayed or undermined by legal loopholes and industry pressure.”
