Auckland port: Court battle begins over wharf

The Ports of Auckland. Photo / Brett Phibbs

The temperature of Auckland local politics was not taken when two wharf extensions at Ports of Auckland were granted, the High Court at Auckland heard yesterday.

Alan Galbraith, QC, told the court that planning rules for the port were of public and political interest, but resource consents were not determined by public opinion, but under provisions of the relevant plans "and no more".

He was representing Auckland Council, whose decision not to notify the consents and to approve them has been challenged by Urban Auckland, a society of architects and planning professionals.

The case was sparked after the council approved two wharf extensions at the end of last year without giving the public a say.

The extensions to Bledisloe Wharf have led to a public outcry, two public rallies and the formation of a protest group, backed by a number of prominent Aucklanders.

Much of yesterday was spent arguing whether the consents were "significant or contentious" under the council's guidelines.

Dr Matthew Palmer, QC, acting for Urban Auckland, said the council's lead planner, Jennifer Valentine, decided the applications were not significant or contentious.

She knew further reclamation by Ports of Auckland was controversial, he said, but failed to grasp the issue of controversy in the case of the wharf extensions.

Dr Palmer said a 116m-long, 4290sq m concrete wharf extending into the harbour had the same effect as reclamation, adding that the "subsequent public outcry and protest amply demonstrate that".

Mr Galbraith said the case was not a political decision, but an administrative decision.

"In this case, council staff did not consider the POAL applications met a threshold of being 'significant and contentious' and allocated them to duty commissioners for decision.

"This was an orthodox and reasonable application of the council's policy, taking into account that the consents to construct the wharf were for a controlled activity, which could not be declined," he said.

Dr Palmer contrasted the decision to give the public a say over the Michael Parekowhai sculpture on Queens Wharf with the decision not to give the public a say on the wharf extensions.

The sculpture was referred to the hearings committee, "presumably on the basis it would be significant and/or controversial", he said.

Dr Palmer said one commissioner, Rebecca Macky, apparently had some issues with the notification decision being recommended to her.

This was based on an email by council planner Sally-Anne Halpin to Ms Valentine after Ms Halpin spoke to Ms Macky on the morning the commissioner was finalising her decisions.

"I have spoken with Rebecca and she is really good. She really appreciated being able to talk through the application with me as she was having a wee bit of concern around notification! She is feeling much more comfortable now - Phew!" Ms Halpin's email said.

The Urban Auckland submission said Ms Macky said the conversation with Ms Halpin was whether there was any basis to notify on the grounds of "special circumstances" and we "both concluded there was not".

The case, before Justice Geoffrey Venning, continues today.