Aerial view of the Port of Tauranga. Photo / Mead Norton
Aerial view of the Port of Tauranga. Photo / Mead Norton
A key witness for the Port of Tauranga, which is seeking consent for a multi-million dollar wharf extension, says there is clear evidence the proposed work will not cause significant cumulative effects on the marine environment in the long term.
The principal planning consultant also says any cultural effects canbe addressed and managed through consent conditions, and the review clause under the Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Management Plan.
However, legal counsel for iwi and hapū have challenged those findings, saying they were based on incomplete information and the Port did not obtain a comprehensive cultural impacts report.
Port of Tauranga Limited (POTL) has applied for resource consent for a 385m wharf extension and 1.8ha land reclamation at Sulphur Point, as well as wharf extensions of 530m north and 388m south of the tanker berth, and a 2.9ha reclamation for the Mount Maunganui wharves.
The associated extension to the shipping channel covers 14.4 ha and would involve dredging up to 1.5 million cubic metres of the sea floor.
The applicant says the proposed $88.5m extension was an urgent national priority due to severe capacity constraints on exports within a few years.
Eleven iwi and hapū groups from Tauranga Moana raised unresolved concerns about the plans.
Chief Environment Court Judge David Kirkpatrick and three independent commissioners, Jim Hodge, Anne Leijnen and Glenice Paine, began hearing evidence at Tauranga on February 27.
During her evidence yesterday, the port’s planning consultant Cushla Loomb said her opinion and findings in support of the consent were based on evidence including evidence from Tauranga marine ecologist Professor Chris Battershill.
Loomb said she was satisfied the bio-physical and physical effects of the proposed work could be contained within the port zone, and would not result in significant cumulative effects or added effects from past dredging.
Loomb also said any potential effects could be adequately managed by way of policies and rules contained in the Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan and the proposed consent conditions.
Des Heke for Ngāti Hē- a sub-tribe of Ngāi Te Rangi - put it to Loomb that there was the option for her to have recommended that the port not to proceed with this application given the “significant cultural impacts” identified by iwi and hapū.
A drawing outlining the Port of Tauranga's expansion proposal. Image / Supplied
Or alternatively, Loomb could have recommended the port looked to address the impacts of previous dredging and “pursue remedies before driving ahead to try and get consent to expand its operations”, he suggested.
Loomb said she remained convinced that any cultural effects could be addressed and managed within the resource consent conditions and the provisions of a consent review clause linked to future cultural monitoring.
She said these conditions included the port making financial contributions to assist in mitigating any potential effects, including funding for the establishment of a Marae Infrastructure Fund and a Tauranga Moana Iwi Cultural Effects Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
“These mechanisms are very similar to what was used in response to the Rena oil spill and other oil spills to help offset effects and restore the environment when there is an effect,” she said.
However, legal counsel Lara Burkhardt for the Ngāti Ranginui Fisheries Trust, argued that it was a “little unsafe” to have modelled the proposed consent conditions on those contained in previous consents.
Particularly when some of the earlier conditions had not been met, which included annual monitoring surveys as part of the Kaimoana Restoration Programme, she said.
Burkhardt also challenged Loomb on the need for a 35-year consent.
Loomb said despite the absence of this data, there was clear evidence from Battershill and Dr Willem de Lange that there would be “negligible” impacts on the marine environment in the long term.
She also said the 35-year term would mean the port would have the “surety” needed for this significant investment.
She said under the review clause there was also the ability for the regional council to address any future cultural effects not already considered through this consent process.
