Last month, the EPA recommended Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds call in the application. However, it didn’t make a recommendation regarding whether the application should be heard by the Environment Court or a board of inquiry.
The EPA said there was no clear advantage for either option.
Now, Simmonds has requested the EPA “provide an addendum” to its advice from April to supply a recommendation on where to refer the matters if she decided to call them in.
In a letter to Simmonds dated to last week and signed by EPA chief executive Dr Allan Freeth, the EPA reiterated its earlier advice that there was no clear advantage in referring the matters to the Environment Court or a board of inquiry.
“On the basis of the statutory provisions applicable for a board of inquiry in the context of relevant Treaty settlements, and the strong preferences of the local authorities and iwi interests for the Waikato River Authority to be able to nominate a board member(s), we recommend that you refer the matters to a board of inquiry if you make a decision to call in the matters.”
The EPA said the Waikato River Settlement Act 2010 and the Ngā Wai o Maniapoto (Waipā River) Act 2012 were relevant to the proposed plant, as the site was located next to the Mangapiko Stream, which is a tributary to the Waipā River and beyond.
These Treaty Settlement Acts resulted in unique RMA arrangements, including arrangements for applications that are called in as proposals of national significance.
Global Contracting Solutions intends to build the plant on 401 Racecourse Rd.
“These Acts do not require you to refer a matter to a board of inquiry if you do call it in. However, if you call in the matters and refer them to a board of inquiry for decision ... [you are required] to request the Waikato River Authority ... for names of persons for appointment to the board (one person if the board is to have three members and two persons if the board is to have five members),” the EPA said in the letter.
“These arrangements relating to the appointment of board members do not apply if you make a referral to the Environment Court.”
Several local iwi, including Raukawa, Maniapoto and Waikato-Tainui, supported the board of inquiry process.
“Essentially, the relevant iwi consider that this option [a board of inquiry] will uphold the integrity of their Treaty settlements,” the EPA said.
The EPA is a Government agency responsible for regulating activities that affect New Zealand’s environment.
Both councils have requested a board of inquiry process.
In a letter to the minister in February, Waipā District Council group manager of district growth and regulatory services, Wayne Allan, said: “A board of inquiry process is less confronting than the Environment Court for our lay-community submitters and is less likely to require lawyers - and their additional cost - for our submitters.
“Most importantly, it could be held locally - Te Awamutu being our preference, given 575 submitters advise they wish to be heard. This is a position strongly supported by Waipā's elected members.”
Meanwhile, GCS supports the request for a call-in of the application. However, the company said they preferred for the matters to be referred to the Environment Court, to be consistent with the call-in of the Waimate consent application.
Regarding this, the EPA said it acknowledged the Waimate and Te Awamutu applications were in different Environment Court registries and the matters would not necessarily be considered by the same environment judge or commissioners.
