The proposal was included in the district plan after the land was identified as wāhi taonga by the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, a representative body for a collective of hāpu in Hawke’s Bay, covering about 6000 people.
In opposing the proposal in the Environment Court, the Raikes said that the evidence about the site “included unsubstantiated cultural beliefs and myths which do not accord with their own religious beliefs”, court documents show.
The Raikes’ opposition to the district plan proposal, which they say will restrict them using their land as they wish, has had a chequered history in the Environment Court and High Court stretching back to 2018.
The couple tried to bring it before the Court of Appeal this year after a High Court decision went against them.
The Raikes have argued that the Environment Court had made a number of errors, including relying on “cultural evidence” about tītī (mutton bird) hunting and a historical trail in the area of the Titiokura Saddle.
They said tītī were hunted in a defined area mainly along the present State Highway 5 – the Napier-Taupō Rd.
Any evidence related to a larger area was based on “myth and legend which could not be properly substantiated”, the Raikes argued.
In one submission, Peter Raikes critiqued matters put forward by the trust about the significance of the Maungaharuru mountain range to Māori as being “suspect and false in entirety”.
He said Māori lore and related stories and traditions, for instance about Ranginui (the Sky Father) and Papatuanuku (the Earth Mother), were contrary to the Bible, which he believed to be divinely inspired and incontestably true, and as coming from God’s own word.
A High Court judge who heard the case at an earlier stage, Justice Christine Grice, described the opposing submissions as a direct cultural clash of religious views.
The Court of Appeal decision said it accepted the view of the council and the trust that identifying the site as a wāhi taonga in the proposed plan did not prevent future development of the site, contrary to the Raikes’ claim.
Other criticisms of Environment Court and High Court decisions did not raise any issues of public or general importance, as they were specific to this case.
The Court of Appeal declined the Raikes’ application for leave to appeal.
The appeal court decision said the Raikes’ Christian views were to be respected, and the Environment Court had noted this.
“However, in the context of the statutory framework here, they were simply not a factor to be taken into account in the determination required of the Environment Court when considering cultural issues under [the Resource Management Act].
“These requirements under the RMA recognise in this context, the ‘special regard to Māori interests and values’,” the Court of Appeal said.
Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of front-line experience as a probation officer.
