Coromandel gold mining challengers line up

Environmentalists are being offered contributions from Auckland ratepayers, and possibly other North Island regions, to keep goldminers off the Coromandel Peninsula.

Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee confirmed yesterday that his organisation was pledging financial support for an appeal against a High Court decision potentially allowing miners another slice of the peninsula's gold reserves.

His acknowledgement to the Weekend Herald came as Environmental Defence Society lawyers lodged papers seeking leave for the anti-mining group Coromandel Watchdog to challenge the decision in the Court of Appeal.

Mr Lee said efforts were also being made to build an alliance of other North Island councils to support the appeal, given the wide ramifications the decision had on their ability to prohibit unacceptable activities within their boundaries "as a last resort".

"This isn't about gold, it's about the right to choose in extreme cases to ban an activity outright. It could have been a nuclear power plant or any other grossly harmful activity."

He said he was confident ratepayers would support the council's use of their money given the decision's potential to weaken environmental protections.

Council strategic policy committee chairman Paul Walbran said at least four other councils were considering contributing to the case, which should cost each one well under $10,000.

He said their fears were not hypothetical, as he was aware of developers already using the decision to challenge a prohibited activity near Auckland, which he was not yet at liberty to disclose.

Other examples of prohibited activities include marine farming in many Auckland coastal zones, and subdivisions in the Waitakeres.

The High Court decision issued three weeks ago confirmed an Environment Court ruling against a prohibition imposed by the Thames Coromandel District Council in 1998 on mining in coastal and conservation zones, and in all recreation and open space policy areas.

That ruling held that the prohibition was too broad, and could be justified only if it could be said definitively that in no circumstances should an activity such as mining be ever allowed on a given piece of land.

A prohibited status was otherwise an inappropriate planning tool, the Environment Court said in its finding in favour of the Minerals Industry Association and the Ministry of Economic Development, which challenged the ban.

Environmental Defence Society chairman Gary Taylor said his organisation had gained a clear view from four lawyers who had examined the High Court decision that it may have been wrong in law.

"We are concerned that the court decision seems to limit the powers of councils to use that approach [prohibited activity status] at a time when many are doing so, especially to control adverse cumulative effects across whole landscapes."

Thames Coromandel mayor Philippa Barriball could not be reached for comment but district council spokesman Peter Hazael said she had indicated strongly that money for another appeal would be better spent developing a more robust district plan.

This would begin with a landscape assessment survey to be distributed to residents in coming weeks, inviting them to identify particular sites they believed must be protected for future generations.

Mining remains banned by law from areas in DoC control