Urban Auckland has challenged the lawfulness of the resource consents issued by Auckland Council to build two wharves into the Waitemata Harbour without giving the public a say. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Urban Auckland has challenged the lawfulness of the resource consents issued by Auckland Council to build two wharves into the Waitemata Harbour without giving the public a say. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Aucklanders should learn the outcome of a legal challenge to the controversial wharf extensions at Ports of Auckland in the next two weeks.
Justice Geoffrey Venning said he hoped to release a decision toward the end of next week or the following week when a two-day case at the HighCourt at Auckland wrapped up yesterday.
"I'm aware of the significance and real importance to the parties and to others," the judge said.
Urban Auckland, a society of architects and planning professionals, has challenged the lawfulness of the resource consents issued by Auckland Council to build two finger wharves about 100m long and 33m wide into the Waitemata Harbour without giving the public a say.
The extensions, revealed by the Herald on February 12, caused a public outcry, two public rallies and the formation of a protest group, backed by a number of prominent Aucklanders. The lawyer for Urban Auckland, Dr Matthew Palmer QC, argued the council's internal guidelines and the Resource Management Act allowed for public participation in the consent process. The applications met the "significant or contentious" guidelines under the council's hearings process and the "special circumstances" provisions under the act, he said.
The council's lawyer, Alan Galbraith, QC, said the resource consents were not determined by public opinion.
Council staff, Mr Galbraith said, did not consider the applications by Ports of Auckland met the threshold of being "significant and contentious" and allocated them to duty commissioners for a decision.
He said this was an orthodox and reasonable application of council policy, taking into account they were for a controlled activity, which could not be declined.
Jim Farmer QC, for Ports of Auckland, said the judicial review of the consent decisions was not the right forum to address broader planning, environmental, social and political issues claimed by Urban Auckland.
Mr Farmer said construction of the wharf extensions was subject to controlled activity status in the coastal plan which meant they were approved without public notification unless there were special circumstances, which there are not, he said. The port company's submission talks about real and significant costs and capacity constraints if the extensions cannot be built or are delayed. The costs of any delays are redacted from the public copy of the submission, but the company suggests shipping companies going to other ports could wipe $86 million off the value of the company.
