About 30 Te Puna residents gathered to protest the Te Puna industrial park on Wednesday morning. Photo / Alisha Evans
About 30 Te Puna residents gathered to protest the Te Puna industrial park on Wednesday morning. Photo / Alisha Evans
“Wrong business, wrong place.”
That was the catchcry of a roadside protest opposing an industrial park in a rural Western Bay of Plenty community yesterday morning.
About 30 people gathered on the corner of State Highway 2 and Te Puna Rd during rush hour to raise awareness around the TePuna Business Park development.
Resource consents were granted for the industrial park by an independent commission in July.
Te Puna Industrial Ltd bought 12ha of industrial-zoned land at 297 Te Puna Station Rd for $4.7 million in 2021 and applied for consents from the Western Bay of Plenty District and Bay of Plenty Regional councils in 2022.
Plans for the site included refrigeration, engineering and workshop activities including container washing.
Te Puna Industrial Ltd is half-owned by shipping container company ContainerCo, which would hold a “small supply” of up to 300 containers at the site.
Te Puna Industrial Ltd denied it would be a “container terminal”, as protest signs claimed.
Te Puna residents have been rallying against the development since 2021, as they say the culturally significant, flood-prone wetland is an inappropriate place for the operation.
Protest organiser Brooke Mullooly said the wider community needed to know the project had been consented.
“We as a community actually need to stand up and show that we don’t want it here.”
Brooke Mullooly organised the protest against the Te Puna industrial park to make the wider community aware of the issue. Photo / Alisha Evans
Mullooly and others were worried about the safety of children, pedestrians and cyclists using Te Puna Rd with the increased traffic from trucks accessing the site.
She feared the road wouldn’t cope with the extra traffic.
Mullooly lives in Minden, on the other side of Te Puna, but drives into Te Puna daily to check on the stock she farms there.
The trip could take up to an hour at 6.30am because of traffic and this would only get worse, she said.
Another two protests were planned for August 21 and 26.
Doug and Leslie Kirk live on Armstrong Rd and shared the concerns about traffic and safety.
Leslie said Te Puna Rd was a rural road and not fit for trucks.
Doug’s family had lived in the area since 1872. He said he wasn’t against a container terminal but believed the propsed site was the wrong place for it.
The development would have no benefit to the community, Doug said.
Doug and Leslie Kirk say the Te Puna industrial park won't benefit the community. Photo / Alisha Evans
All the current businesses in Te Puna added to its amenity, he said.
“This [industrial park] will drive a knife through all the developments and the benefits that are already here.”
Pirirakau kaumātua Neville Bidois said the land in the Te Hakao valley where the development will be was a wetland where his people gathered food, materials for clothing and stored their taonga.
The Pukewhanake Pā at the headland was occupied by Pirirakau and was also a meeting place for iwi, he said.
The area was wāhi tapu (sacred) and there were a lot of archaeological sites throughout the valley, Bidois said.
In the 1940s, extensive earthworks occurred in the valley and Minden Stream was diverted to creat pastoral land, draining the wetland that meets the Wairoa River.
“You’ve got European colonisation, we’re just getting over that. And what happens now? You’ve got corporate colonisation.”
“This is a facility that will fit into the community and be good for the region.”
Te Puna Industrial Ltd had no intention of building a container terminal or a container park of any scale, he said.
The consent process was “very thorough and rigorous”.
The traffic plans were “carefully considered” by experts and if people were concerned, they could call the company, he said.
“If traffic causes a problem, people should talk to us and we will listen carefully and adjust plans as required.”
Once fully developed, the site would generate 774 vehicle movements per day, with a peak of 125 vehicles an hour, according to the commission’s decision report.
