The council at work after learning a legal challenge was taking place last year, with Acting Mayor Faye White in the chair. Photo / File
The council at work after learning a legal challenge was taking place last year, with Acting Mayor Faye White in the chair. Photo / File
A legal challenge to the way the Napier City Council dealt with its aquatic centre proposals and settled on a new site on the fringes of the city has failed with the High Court ruling the correct processes were followed.
But the future of the project, which would have seena new complex built on the corner of Prebensen and Tamatea drives displacing the centrally-located Onekawa Aquatic Centre, is still in the balance, with the Napier City Council reconsidering major projects in light of the Covid-19 crisis and Mayor Kirsten Wise keen to see it debated in a better process.
The ultimate decision had been made with a casting vote from Acting Mayor and long-time councillor Faye White, who retired at the local elections. She had stepped into the mayoral role amid the illness of elected Mayor Bill Dalton, who later did not seek re-election.
The decision of Justice Karen Clark comes seven months after hearings at the High Court in Wellington, sparked by an application for an injunction lodged by new opposition group Friends of the Onekawa Aquatic Centre.
Wise stood for the mayoralty in October on a platform of better council decision-making, alongside genuine engagement and consultation with the community, and said: "I know that many of the current councillors feel the same way and we have been working in partnership with staff to develop our engagement strategy for future consultations."
But she said it is time to put the divisiveness surrounding the past council's decision aside and instead ensure the immediate focus is on Covid-19 recovery.
She believes the judgment is well-reasoned and confirms the council met its obligations within the framework of the Local Government Act.
"Equally," she said, "the fact that citizens were prepared to take the council to court over the decision shows that there is still very strong community opposition to proceeding with the aquatic centre redevelopment other than at the Onekawa site.
"We all know that there is considerable angst and opposition around the Onekawa Pool issue still, but it is crucial that we find a way to 'move on' from the matter in a way that builds consensus and heals some of the rifts caused."
It is likely council will decide to revisit the project "in due course and using a more inclusive process", she said.
A statement from Friends of Onekawa Aquatic Centre Society Inc said it was "disappointed" with the decision.
"But we are proud of the resolve we had to mount this challenge. You need a lot of courage and stamina to take on City Hall. While the law did not fall our way, it needed to be tested for such a significant decision that was so out of step with what ratepayers wanted in aquatic facilities, namely for them to remain at Onekawa which is more accessible to the communities that use, enjoy and depend on them to learn how to swim."
Council will be reviewing its capital programme in light of the impacts of Covid-19, and will need to consider next steps in relation to the Aquatic Project.
