|
|
 |
MANGAWHAI'S NO.1 NEWSPAPER
|
|
|
Commissioners deliver sand mining verdictKEN RAYWARD Save Our Sands (SOS)
7 Nov, 2022
The far-shore hearing was conducted by a different team of commissioners.
Off to the Environment Court McCallum Bros have already commenced proceedings to take their declined far-shore application to the Environment Court [EC], having advised the commissioners they did not have the experience to conduct and rule at these meetings. Scheduled for February 2023, this action will be strongly fought by all opposing submitters at the first hearing. It is expected the results from the recent near and mid-shore hearing will cause parties to challenge these in the EC, and this creates some new concerns. Legal requirements demand opposing parties to register their confirmation of opposing the commissioner’s decisions within days of the announcement and this is well underway, led by the Friends of Pakiri with support from the Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Society [MHRS] and other SOS - Save Our Sands groups, ensuring McCallum Bros can expect some very serious opposition at the EC. With the first environment hearing set for February, it makes good sense for all three applications to be heard together. Submitters, both for and against, will be providing the same evidence across all three hearings, introducing the same expert witnesses and scientific data to support each application. The court will also be able to gain a better understanding of the cumulative impact the three mining consents would generate if approved.
What mid-shore consent approval means Firstly, over the years this result has been building, no one ever expressed the opinion that it was possible that the mid-shore consent would be granted, while the near and far shore applications, which run parallel along the mid, be declined. For this to happen, and reasoning behind this, consideration needs to be focused on the commissioner’s report from their last hearing, and how it aligns with the different set of commissioners officiating at the first hearing.
Far-shore hearing Consent refused on the grounds McCallum did not recognise, respect or acknowledge the customary cultural values and traditions of local Maori or Maori in general. The McCallum mining activities provided threats to coastal erosion, resident sea birds, including the endangered fairy tern, and marine life.
What has changed? What has changed to cause a new set of commissioners to override the first mid-shore consent application? Firstly, there are conditions to be applied. The requested 35 year term is reduced to ten with five yearly renewals. The volume of sand to be taken annually is reduced and a community group to be formed to meet once a year to review mining activities, along with more robust mining plans that are designed to stop overmining of areas, which has been a past issue. McCallum Bros has agreed to recognise these conditions, however as they have not adequately been able to deny the many challenges made against them for consistent operational breaches of current consents, their ability to honour new restraints must be questioned. The restraining operating conditions can have only needed to be introduced because of doubts over the operational integrity of the mining operator. The understanding of the cultural values of Maori is clearly where most changes occur in the approved mid-shore application when compared to the refused far-shore. Recognition to address the concerns and seek solutions must be accorded to the commissioners, and in turn to McCallum Bros who, while this may be new territory for them, did endeavour to establish meaningful communication with the local iwi.
Some important factors
Under the new conditions all mining would be conducted north from Te Arai, making Mangawhai the next full-on target of devastation for the sand miners. They won’t mind moving their sand-taking activity northwards as they have already cleaned out the Pakiri end.
While well-intended, the commissioners placing conditional hurdles to enable continued cement industry supply at reduced environmental impact, shows little knowledge of the historical operational practices of McCallum Bros over the years.
What happens now? The fight to get the two EC hearings adjoined is our priority – we are committed to this. One hearing for all three applications. Mangawhai, over the years our beaches have been at the northern extremity of the main mining operations, if this new application is approved, all mining activity will be on our beach fronts. As we know our sand is not replaceable, once taken it can only be replaced with erosion from the beaches. Every barge-full taken is a barge-full that is replaced from our beaches. Couple beach erosion caused by mining with heightened ocean levels, our Mangawhai as we know it will be a community under threat, both environmentally and economically. Fighting these natural and commercial challenges is nothing new for the people of Mangawhai, it is the reason the MHRS was formed.
Couple beach erosion caused by mining with heightened ocean levels and Mangawhai as we know it will be a community under threat, both environmentally and economically. PHOTO/JULIA WADE |
The commissioners hearing results were made known on October 31 and, at this stage it’s a 2-to-1 advantage for those opposing sand mining, with the biggest surprise being the approval of the mid-shore mining consent application by McCallum Bros. The verdict by commissioners was: Far shore at 35m depth (Declined), Mid-shore at 10m depth (Approved with conditions), Near-shore at 5m depth (Declined).
|
FOLLOW US  
|
CONTACT US
|