Planning Evidence L Faithful - Environment Court€¦ · Evidence of Luke Christopher James Faithfull 28 August 2018 Page 3 of 31 2.6. In preparing my evidence I have reviewed the

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO AOTEAROA

ENV-2018-AKL-000078

IN THE MATTER OF of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER OF of direct referral of applications for resource consent

for the necessary infrastructure and related activities

associated with holding the America’s Cup in Auckland

BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND

Applicant

AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Regulatory Authority

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY LUKE CHRISTOPHER JAMES FAITHFULL ON BEHALF OF MANA WHENUA IN OPPOSITION

28 AUGUST 2018

2517

Evidence of Luke Christopher James Faithfull 28 August 2018 Page 1 of 31

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. My name is Luke Christopher James Faithfull.

1.2. I hold a Bachelors’ degree in Geography and Environmental Science from

the University of Auckland.

1.3. I have practiced in the field of resource management for the past 11 years

and am currently employed as an Associate by Mitchell Daysh Limited, an

environmental consultancy practice with offices in Auckland, Hamilton,

Tauranga, Taupo, Napier, Wellington and Dunedin, which was

established in October 2016. Previously, I was a Senior Consultant at

Mitchell Partnerships Limited and was a Senior Consents Officer at both

the Greater Wellington and Bay of Plenty Regional Councils.

1.4. My primary areas of work are the preparation and assessment of

resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act 1991

(RMA) and the preparation of marine consent applications under the

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects)

Act 2012 (EEZ Act). This work includes providing strategic resource

management advice and the preparation of due diligence reports,

environmental effects assessments, consent conditions, and planning

evidence to a wide range of public and private sector clients.

1.5. I have previously been engaged by the Environmental Protection

Authority to provide expert planning advice on marine consent

applications under the EEZ Act.

1.6. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses

contained in the 1 December 2014 Environment Court Practice Note. I

agree to comply with this Code. This evidence is within my area of

expertise, except where I state that I am relying upon the specified

evidence of another person. I have not omitted to consider material facts

known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

2518


2. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS

2.1. Mitchell Daysh Limited was engaged in January 2018 by Panuku

Development Auckland (Panuku or the Applicant) on behalf of mana

whenua represented in the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum.

The purpose of the engagement was to provide technical planning

advice to mana whenua on the various Panuku projects within the City

Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Master Plan areas of which the

America’s Cup event and associated activities (the Project) is one.

2.2. I have attended the post - lodgment workshops that Panuku has held for

mana whenua on the application and I also assisted in drafting the

submission template which was used by some mana whenua who made

submissions on the Project.

2.3. My engagement has continued following the close of submissions for the

mana whenua identified below (mana whenua in opposition):

➢ Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society;

➢ Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust;

➢ Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Trust;

➢ Ngāti Tamaoho Trust;

➢ Ngāti Tamaterā;

➢ Ngāti Te Ata Claims Support Whanau;

➢ Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Inc; and

➢ Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust.

2.4. I attended the three Environment Court facilitated mediation sessions

held on the 19th, 20th and 30th July 2018, and the two Joint Witness

Conferencing (Planning) sessions held on the 27th and 31st July 2018.

2.5. I have prepared this statement of evidence at the request of mana

whenua in opposition.

2519


2.6. In preparing my evidence I have reviewed the cultural evidence prepared

by the representatives of mana whenua in opposition and the following

with a focus on planning and statutory matters as they relate to mana

whenua matters:

2.6.1. The Project Application and supporting technical information;

2.6.2. The Joint Witness Statements of the various technical experts;

2.6.3. The Applicant’s evidence briefs; and

2.6.4. The updated Proposed Conditions of Consent dated 7 August

2018.

3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

3.1. In my evidence I will:

3.1.1. Provide an overview of the statutory framework that applies to

mana whenua and cultural values / interests, and discuss how I

consider this influences the Proposed Conditions;

3.1.2. Discuss the remaining matters in contention as they relate to the

mana whenua in opposition, including the Proposed Conditions

and any amendments I consider appropriate; and

3.1.3. Provide a conclusion.

3.2. Mana whenua in opposition’s cultural associations with Freemans Bay,

including the Hobson, Halsey and Wynyard Wharves (the Project Area),

and the wider Waitematā have been described in the cultural evidence of

the mana whenua representatives. I have not repeated this here.

4. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

4.1. The relevant statutory documents insofar as they relate to mana whenua

issues have been identified in paragraph 4.10 of the planning evidence of

Mr Vijay Lala and Mr Karl Cook on behalf of Panuku. I agree that the

statutory documents are those which apply.

2520


4.2. My evidence focuses on the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan

Operative in Part 17 November 2018 (AUP), comprising the Regional

Policy Statement (RPS), and the regional and district plans. Those of

particular relevance to the mana whenua matters have been provided full

in Attachment 1 to my evidence and are summarised below.

4.3. The statutory framework identifies the process, directives and outcomes

that are relevant when making a resource consent application for any

activity within the Auckland region. The mana whenua provisions under

the AUP relate to cultural engagement and how mana whenua matters

are to be addressed in the decision-making process. The cultural

evidence on behalf of mana whenua in opposition addresses their

concerns on the engagement process. My comments are focused on the

outcomes the statutory documents seek to achieve.

4.4. In my opinion, the key mana whenua provisions in the RPS are:

4.4.1. The need to provide for active participation and appropriate

recognition of the role of mana whenua in the consent process

as being the appropriate party to convey their relationship –

Policy B.6.2.2(1)(a), (e), (h) and Policy B6.3.2(2) and (4);

4.4.2. The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki should be appropriately

recognised and provided for, enabling mana whenua to

effectively implement kaitiakitanga over its land and waters –

Policy B6.2.2(1)(a);

4.4.3. Provision for timely, effective and meaningful engagement –

Policy B6.2.2(1)(c);

4.4.4. Acknowledge the historical circumstances that are present and

the impacts on resources - Policy B6.2.2(1)(f);

4.4.5. Provide mana whenua with the opportunity to identify cultural

values (tangible and intangible) and identify how any such values

should be recognised, protected and enhanced – Policy

B6.3.2(1) and Objective B6.5.1(1);

2521


4.4.6. The need that resource management decisions need to have

particular regard to impacts on cultural values and interests –

Policy B6.3.2(6);

4.4.7. The need for any application to appropriately assess adverse

cultural effects – Policy B6.3.2(3);

4.4.8. Enable mana whenua to be involved in the management of

natural and physical resources in a manner that recognises that

Maori world view and enhances the mauri of an environment –

Policy B6.3.2(4);

4.4.9. That mana whenua values are appropriately reflected and given

appropriate weighting in resource consent decision making and

that any decision had particular regard to the impacts on the

holistic nature of the Maori world view, the exercise of

kaitiakitanga and mauri – Objective B6.3.1(1) and Policy

B6.3.2(6); and

4.4.10. Ensure that the relationship of mana whenua with their cultural

heritage has been provided for – Objective B6.5.1(2).

4.5. The relevant provisions under the regional and district plan sections of

the AUP as they relate to activities for which consent is sought include:

4.5.1. Land disturbance activities should be managed in a way that

maintains mana whenua values of both the land and water –

Policy E11.3(3)(d) and Policy E12.3(2)(c);

4.5.2. Mana whenua values should not be adversely impacted by

inappropriate activities within the coastal environment –

Objective F2.2.2(3) and Objective F2.3.2(4);

4.5.3. Where coastal activities have long-term effects on mana whenua

values, these effects need to be avoided, remedied or mitigated

– Objective F2.5.2(2);

2522


4.5.4. Disturbance of the seabed and foreshore shall be limited to the

extent practicable and undertaken in a manner that avoids,

remedies or mitigates any impacts on cultural values - Policy

F2.5.3(4)(f);

4.5.5. Where infrastructure is to be located within the coastal area that

its use and occupation avoids, remedies or mitigates any

adverse effect on mana whenua values - Policy F2.14.3(5)(h); and

4.5.6. Structures within the coastal area are provided for in a manner

which minimise any adverse effects on mana whenua values –

Objective F2.16.2(3).

4.6. In terms of the cultural effects, the submissions and cultural evidence of

mana whenua in opposition indicate to me that:

4.6.1. The Waitematā (which includes the Project Area) is of significant

cultural value, both tangible and intangible, and that the Project

will adversely affect these values;

4.6.2. The progressive development of the Waitematā has significantly

eroded the cultural values and interests associated with the

coastal area and this degradation (cumulative cultural effect) has

never been appropriately acknowledged or adequately

mitigated;

4.6.3. The mauri of the Waitematā has been significantly degraded by

extensive historical reclamations and port developments and

any further modification are considered by mana whenua to

have a significant adverse effect on the mauri of the Waitematā;

4.6.4. Despite the continuous Pākehā development that has altered

the coastal landscape, the coastal area (including the Project

Area) still holds significant value to mana whenua; and

4.6.5. The Applicant’s cumulative effects considerations focuses

largely on the ‘physical’ effects of the Project and fails to

2523


consider in any meaningful way the ‘intangible’ effects which are

significant to mana whenua.

4.7. My opinion is that the best approach to manage the Project’s impacts on

mana whenua values is through the provision of robust, mana whenua

focused consent conditions.

4.8. Further to the above, in drafting my evidence I have taken the approach

that an absence of physical effects does not necessarily equate to a lack

of cultural effects and that cultural effects, which include intangible

effects, need to be appropriately addressed through the provision of

targeted consent conditions1.

Section 104D

4.9. The overall activity status of the Application is non-complying, meaning

that it must satisfy one of s104D ‘gateway’ tests namely:

a) That the adverse effects will be minor (s104D(1)(a)); or

b) The activity is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the

relevant planning documents (s104D(1)(b)).

4.10. The planning evidence of Mr Vijay Lala and Mr Karl Cook on behalf of

Panuku2 has concluded that the proposal meets ‘both limbs’ of the s104D

test. Based on the cultural evidence of mana whenua in opposition, I am

not convinced that either limb is satisfied in respect of mana whenua

issues because:

a) The cultural effects of the proposal have not been adequately

identified or mitigated to a point where they can be said to be minor;

and

1 Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board v Waikato Regional Council, NZEnvC 093 [2018], Paragraph 120

and 121 2 Evidence of Vijay Nagen Lala and Karl Peter Cook on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland

(Planning) 7 August 2018, paragraph 13.19

2524


b) The proposal is contrary to the mana whenua related objectives and

policies of the AUP in that effects on mana whenua values have not

been adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

4.11. Nevertheless, I consider that the proposal can meet both of the s104D

gateway tests with the inclusion of appropriate consent conditions. The

Proposed Conditions proposed do not go far enough.

Proposed Conditions Framework

4.12. Overall, in my opinion, the Proposed Conditions provide a reasonable

framework for addressing mana whenua matters. However, the

conditions require further refinement, as set out below.

5. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS

5.1. Paragraph 11.17 of the evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook identifies the

following matters as those which are still in contention with mana whenua

in opposition:

a) Oppose the use of the existing Auckland Council forum and request a separate forum for this application;

b) In evidence exchange on 21 August 2018, mana whenua opposed to the application will be able to advise whether any changes to conditions 5 to 5F are required if something arises from the CVA under preparation; and

c) That a review condition be included to require the Council to review any conditions of this consent to reflect any changes that may arise from any declaration of customary title over coastal areas as a result of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACAA) process.

5.2. I agree that these are the matters still in contention and discuss them

further below.

Use of the Existing Auckland Council Forum

5.3. The Proposed Conditions which were included with the Application did

not provide a mechanism through which the requirements of the then

titled Mana Whenua Engagement Plan would be enacted.

5.4. Following mana whenua mediation on 20 July 2018, Panuku provided an

updated set of Proposed Conditions (dated 26 July 2018) which included

a condition (proposed Condition 5) providing for the establishment of a

2525


mana whenua forum that would work with Panuku to prepare the

engagement plan and assist in fulfilling the requirements of that plan.

Condition 5, as proposed by Panuku, reads as follows:

Condition 5

Within 20 days of the Commencement of Consent or prior, the consent holder shall invite the existing Panuku Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (PMWKF) to:

a) Assist the consent holder in the preparation of a Mana Whenua Engagement Plan (Conditions 5A-5F) consistent with relevant customary practices and in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), especially the principles of consultation, active participation and partnership; and

b) Fulfil the obligations set out in the Mana Whenua Engagement Plan on behalf of mana whenua.

The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the additional resourcing of the PMWKF and meet all fair and reasonable costs associated with any work streams required for the PMWKF to fulfil its role.

Advice note: The Consent Holder records its commitment to implementing this condition.

5.5. My understanding is that mana whenua in opposition do not support the

use of the existing Panuku Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum and consider

that a specific forum should be established for the Project.

5.6. Legal counsel for mana whenua in opposition provided an amended

version of proposed Condition 5 on a ‘without prejudice’ basis on 1

August 2018 which provided for:

a) The use of a specific forum for the Project;

b) The need for a new name for the forum (yet to be determined); and

c) Additional wording to describe the whakapapa of the principles of Te

Tiriti o Waitangi.

5.7. In the Proposed Conditions, provided as Attachment 1 to the evidence of

Mr Lala and Mr Cook, Condition 5 has adopted some of the 1 August 2018

amendments including the provision of an advice note on the whakapapa

of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the change to the name of the engagement

plan to America’s Cup Mana Whenua Engagement Plan (the Engagement

Plan). However, the use of the existing Panuku Mana Whenua Kaitiaki

Forum was retained.

2526


5.8. The evidence of Ms Fiona Knox on behalf of Panuku3 justifies this

approach and states [emphasis added]:

6.7 Panuku is proposing a condition (Condition 5) that the existing Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum assist Panuku to prepare an America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan … and to fulfil the obligations set out in the America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan on behalf of mana whenua.

6.8 … This Forum is an inclusive body that extends the invitation to all 19 iwi. The Forum has an express purpose to support Mana Whenua entities to give effect to their responsibilities as Kaitiaki in an efficient and effective manner with a focus on significant issues and opportunities affective people in Tamaki Makarau. Panuku considers the Forum to be an appropriate body to assist Panuku to prepare the America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan.

5.9. I understand that mana whenua in opposition do not accept this position

and they consider that the iwi and hapū identified in section 9 of the Ngā

Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 (the

Collective Act) are those which should form the Project’s forum. This

position is supported by the clear wording in the Ngā Mana Whenua o

Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Deed about the significance of the

Waitematā to the mana whenua identified in the Collective Act:

10.1 Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the Crown acknowledge and agree that -

10.1.1 the Waitematā and Manukau harbours are of extremely high spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical importance to Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau’ and

10.1.2. this deed does not –

(a) provide for cultural redress in relation to those harbours, as that is to be developed in separate negotiations between the Crown and Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau; nor

(b) prevent the development of cultural redress in relation to these harbours in those negotiations.

5.10. I note that the AUP identifies:

a) The need to recognise the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki (Policy

B6.2.2(1)(a));

b) That mana whenua are specialist in tikanga and are best placed

to convey their relationships (Policy B6.2.2(1)(e)); and

3 Evidence of Fiona Knox on behalf of Panuku Development Auckland (Corporate – Options Analysis and Engagement) 7 August 2018, paragraph 6.7 – 6.8

2527


c) The role and right of mana whenua to speak on their behalf for

matters that affect them (Policy B6.2.2(1)(h)).

5.11. Therefore, I support a specific mana whenua forum consisting of iwi and

hapū as per the Collective Act being established for the Project. With

regard to the naming of the forum, it is my opinion that this should fall to

mana whenua parties who choose to participate in the forum.

5.12. I consider that further amendments to Condition 5 are also required to

improve the effectiveness of the condition as follows (additions

underlined and deletions struck through):

Condition 5

a) Prior to the Commencement of Consent, the consent holder shall invite the existing Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (ACMWKF) to: , in partnership with members of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau who choose to participate, establish the [name to be confirmed by parties].

b) The [name to be confirmed by parties] will comprise:

(i) Two members appointed by the consent holder; and

(ii) One member from each of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau parties.

c) The purpose of the [name to be confirmed by parties] is to A assist the consent holder in the preparation of an America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (ACKEP) (Conditions 5A-5F) consistent with relevant customary practices and in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), especially the principles of consultation, active participation and partnership; and

d) The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the resourcing of the [name to be confirmed by parties] and meet all fair and reasonable costs associated with any work streams required for the [name to be confirmed by parties] to fulfil its role. Fulfil the obligations set out in the America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan on behalf of mana whenua.

The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the additional resourcing of the ACMWKF to meet all its fair and reasonable costs associated with any work streams required for the ACMWKF to fulfil its role in respect of this condition.

Advice Note 1: It is acknowledged that Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi underpins the relationship between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the Crown. Inherent in this are (amongst other things) the principles of partnership, reciprocity, active protection and equity. Importantly, the principle of partnership is endorsed by the concept of good faith. Those principles are acknowledged in the Local Government Act 2002. Advice Note 2: The Consent Holder acknowledges that the Waitematā is of extremely high spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical importance to Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau. In accordance with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, the Consent Holder must recognise that significance in all aspects of this Project.

2528


Advice Note 3: The Consent Holder records its commitment to implementing this condition in good faith, and to using the services of an independent mediator, as necessary. Advice Note 4: For the purpose of this consent, the parties of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau are those 13 iwi and hapū groups identified in section 9 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.

5.13. As the above condition (proposed Condition5(a)) requires action by a

third party, i.e. mana whenua, the condition would need to be offered by

Panuku under the Augier4 principle.

5.14. While Panuku may be opposed to this approach for technical compliance

reasons, I consider that accepting the condition in this format would

demonstrate the Applicant’s commitment to include mana whenua (both

in support and opposition) in a meaningful way and as partners in the

Project. In my opinion, this approach would assist in addressing some of

mana whenua in opposition’s concerns regarding provision for ongoing

and meaningful involvement in the Project.

Conditions 5 to 5F – Mana Whenua Engagement Plan

5.15. As a result of mediation and joint witness conferencing outcomes,

proposed Conditions 5A – 5F have changed significantly from those

which was originally proposed as Condition 22 in the Application.

5.16. I generally support the changes to the conditions, as summarised in the

evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook5, as the conditions now define an

explicit purpose for the Engagement Plan, as well as provide a specific

set of objectives, minimum requirements and outcomes that are to be

achieved. However, I note that mana whenua in opposition had always

reserved their position on the Conditions.

5.17. The cultural evidence of mana whenua in opposition reiterates the

significance of the Waitematā, which includes the Project Area, to mana

4 The Augier principle (derived from the case Augier v Secretary of State for the Environment

(1978) 38 P & CR 219) provides that, if an otherwise ultra vires (not legal) condition is volunteered by a resource consent applicant and a consent is granted with that condition, then that condition is enforceable.

5 Evidence of Vijay Nagen Lala and Karl Peter Cook on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland (Planning) 7 August 2018, paragraph 11.14

2529


whenua, and identifies the actual and potential effects of the Project on

mana whenua values and interest. These matters have not been

repeated here for sake of duplication.

5.18. When considering the above matters, and noting my previous

amendments in paragraph 5.11, I consider that Condition 5A – 5F should

be amended as follows (additions underlined and deletions struck

through):

5A. The consent holder shall prepare an America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (ACKEP) for the Project in partnership with the assistance of the [name to be confirmed by parties] ACMWKF. Within ten (10) working days of the Commencement of Consent or prior, the consent holder shall provide a copy of the ACKEP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

5B. The purpose of the ACKEP is to assist the consent holder in fulfilling its obligations in engaging with Mana Whenua and assist mana whenua to express tikanga, fulfil their role as kaitiaki, and establish the engagement process before, during and after the completion of construction activities for implementation throughout the project. It shall be formulated through:

a) Providing the framework for a collaborative approach between the consent holder and mana whenua to address the matters which impact cultural values / interest, before, during and after the completion of the construction activities; and

b) Identifying how the consent holder and the [name to be confirmed by parties] ACMWKF will ensure that effective relationships are provided for throughout the Event.

5C. The objectives of the ACKEP are to:

a) Acknowledge the cultural and spiritual importance of the Waitemata and its surrounds to mana whenua;

b) Acknowledge mana whenua as kaitiaki;

c) Recognise the importance of engagement and identification of key mana whenua values, areas of interest and matters concern in relation to the Project;

d) Provide for mana whenua with an opportunity to be actively involved with the formulation and implementation of the ACKEP; and

e) Facilitate engagement between the consent holder and mana whenua in relation to the activities authorised by this consent, and to assist enable mana whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki.

5D. As a minimum, the ACKEP shall include details of the following matters:

a) How the [name to be confirmed by parties] mana whenua who have historic associations with the Project area and its surrounding waters have been involved in the formulation of the ACKEP and are to be involved in its implementation;

b) The process for involvement of the [name to be confirmed by parties] ACMWKF mana whenua in the preparation and implementation of the engineering design, construction management, and operational plans as they relate to:

2530


i. Managing water quality during the construction and operation of the Infrastructure;

ii. Managing underwater noise during construction so as to protect marine animals;

iii. Protecting the waters of the area from biosecurity risks;

iv. Managing the Project effects to minimise adverse effects on the mauri and mana of the Waitematā, and areas of tapu and tapu practices within the Waitematā;

v. Providing cultural markers within the Infrastructure to recognise the historic associations of mana whenua with the area and the significance of the land and seascapes of Waitematā to mana whenua; and

vi. Enabling use of the Infrastructure for cultural activities.

c) In giving effect to Condition 5Db), involvement by the [name to be confirmed by parties] mana whenua in preparation and implementation of the following management plans:

i. Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA (MPDPM);

ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP);

iii. Remediation Action Plan (RAP);

iv. Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP);

v. Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP);

vi. Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP);

vii. Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP);

viii. Industrial and Trade Activities Hazardous Substances and Environmental Management Plans (ITA HSEMPs);

ix. Industrial and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response Plans (ITA ESRPs); and

x. Event Management Plan (EMP).

d) Accidental discovery protocols;

e) Procedures for manaakitanga, site blessings, the cultural induction of construction workers and Event staff, and any other cultural ceremonies;

f) Timing, frequency, location and methods of cultural monitoring procedures and protocols during construction activities to demonstrate achievement of the objective(s) for the ACKEP;

g) Ongoing mana whenua engagement procedures following the completion of construction; and

h) The process by which amendments can be made to the ACKEP.

5E. The Consent Holder shall fulfil the requirements of, and operate in accordance with, the ACKEP.

5F. The role of the [name to be confirmed by parties] Forum in terms of this consent shall continue for the duration of the 10- year period of the consent, and until the requirements of Conditions of 6 to 7C have been complied with.

2531


5.19. I consider these amendments are consistent with the direction provided

by the AUP and the higher order statutory documents as they provide the

appropriate mechanism by which:

5.19.1. The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki is recognised and there is

provision for mana whenua to actively participate in the Project

(Policy B.6.2.2(1)(a), (e), (h));

5.19.2. Mana whenua can identify their cultural values (tangible and

intangible) and how the Project impacts these values (Objective

B6.5.1(1) and Policy B6.3.2(1));

5.19.3. The effects on cultural values are minimise and / or avoided,

remedied or mitigated (Objective F2.5.2(2) and Objective

F2.16.2(3)); and

5.19.4. Mana whenua are involved in the management of the Project in

a manner that recognises the Maori world view (Policy B6.3.2(4)).

5.20. Further, I consider that the proposed wording of the condition is broad

enough to capture any Project related effects on the cultural values, both

tangible and intangible, when considered against the purpose (proposed

Condition 5B) and the objectives (proposed Condition 5C).

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Review Condition

5.21. Regarding the inclusion of a specific condition to provide for a consent

review where a Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

(MACAA) application that relates to the Project Area is successful, the

evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook6 states:

… In terms of subsection c) it is our understanding that under MACA Act process Panuku would remain the owner of any structures in the CMA regardless of the outcomes the MACA Act applications. In addition, it would be unreasonable to require a Council to review the conditions, as it would be uncertain as to what adverse effects/conditions would need to be reviewed.

5.22. While MACAA is a separate statute, it cannot be discounted that the

granting of a MACAA application may raise resource management issues.

6 Evidence of Vijay Nagen Lala and Karl Peter Cook on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland

(Planning) 7 August 2018, paragraph 11.18

2532


5.23. Whilst it is not common to defer to other statutes in the implementation of

the RMA, the interrelationship is already recognised in MACAA specially

in s62(2) and (3) of MACAA which states [emphasis added]:

(2) Subsection (3) applies if a person applies for a resource consent, a permit, or an approval in relation to a part of the common marine and coastal area in respect of which—

(a) no customary marine title order or agreement applies; but

(b) either—

(i) an applicant group has applied to the Court under section 100 for recognition of customary marine title and notice has been given in accordance with section 103; or

(ii) an applicant group has applied to enter negotiations under section 95.

(3) Before a person may lodge an application that relates to a right conferred by a customary marine title order or agreement, that person must—

(a) notify the applicant group about the application; and

(b) seek the views of the group on the application

5.24. As such, it seems to me that the two statutes may well overlap and each

needs to be mindful of the other. Therefore, I consider that it is

appropriate to provide for a review condition in accordance with s128 of

the RMA.

5.25. Noting that I have specifically referenced only those MACAA outcomes

that have resource management implications, I propose that the following

condition be included as proposed Condition 12(d):

Pursuant to sections 128 to 131 of the RMA, the Consent Authority may serve notice on the consent holder of its intention to review any, or all, of the conditions of the consent within 12 months following:

(i) the granting of a customary marine title or protected customary rights or the vesting of ownership over any part of the foreshore or seabed encompassing the Project or Event Area.

(ii) any agreement between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the Crown as a result of Treaty negotiations involving the Waitematā Harbour as provided for in Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Deed.

The purpose of the review is to address any specific Resource Management Act 1991 matters that arise from the granting of the title or right.

2533


Cultural Legacy

5.26 While not identified as matter of contention in the evidence of Mr Lala

and Mr Cook, I understand that this is a matter of concern to mana

whenua in opposition.

5.27 I note the evidence of Mr Marler 7 identifies the ‘significant legacy

benefits’ as a result of the Project are:

a) The early exit of the tankers on Wynyard Point;

b) New public open space are a result of the Hobson Wharf extension;

c) Improved public access to the waterspace;

d) Upgrade to Wynyard Wharf and the seawall; and

e) Expansion of ‘sheltered waterspace’ for future events.

5.28 I note that in response to the submission from Ngāti Whatua Orakei

Whaia Maia Ltd (Ngāti Whatua Orakei), the evidence of Mr Craig Jones8

on behalf of Panuku states:

Ngati Whatua Orakei Whaia Maia states in 8 of its submission that the “Proposed consent conditions should include (in particular) establishment of a mana whenua Maori/Polynesian cultural centre within the footprint of the proposed extension to Hobson Wharf and / or its waterfront surrounds as a legacy project to recognise and celebrate Ngati Whatua Orakei's, and Nga Iwi o Tamaki’s mana whenua relationships, with the Waitemata and the wider Pacific. I consider with respect to the Hobson Wharf extension a space of this shape and circa 7,000m2 is sufficient to establish such a cultural centre if it was found to be a favoured development site.

5.29 Although, the provision of the cultural centre is acknowledged as ‘cultural

offsetting’ in the evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook9, there is no specific

condition in the Proposed Conditions which provides for this. I note that

the evidence of Mr Lala and Mr Cook10 identifies that provision for such a

7 Evidence of Roderick Maitland Marler on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland (Corporate), 7

August 2018, paragraph 4.23 8 Evidence of Craig Gareth Jones on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland (Event Legacy), 7

August 2018, paragraph 4.23 9 Evidence of Vijay Nagen Lala and Karl Peter Cook on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland

(Planning) 7 August 2018, paragraph 11.15 10 Evidence of Vijay Nagen Lala and Karl Peter Cook on Behalf of Panuku Development Auckland

(Planning) 7 August 2018, paragraph 12.10(a)

2534


centre would be ‘provided for as a restricted discretionary activity (with,

however, wideranging assessment criteria).’ I agree with this planning

interpretation for the construction of any such centre.

5.30 Acknowledging that the above recommendation is specific to Ngāti

Whatua Orakei, based on my understanding of mana whenua in

opposition’s stance on cultural legacy the provision of a cultural centre is

generally supported however, for it to constitute a meaningful cultural

legacy it needs to:

a) Appropriately acknowledge and provide for the relationship of all iwi

and hapū subject to the Collective Act given Part 10 of the Collective

Deed acknowledging the spiritual, ancestral, customary and historical

significance of the Waitematā to these mana whenua 11; and

b) It needs to be provided for as a consent condition to confirm

Panuku’s commitment to provision of the cultural centre.

5.31 I have no attempted to draft a condition, pending further discussions with

the Applicant.

Summary of Points in Contention

5.32. I consider that the amendments to the Proposed Conditions are

appropriate and have regard to the policy direction in the AUP and

relevant higher order statutory documents.

5.33. The proposed amendments will also assist in providing a mechanism for

ensuring mana whenua values / interests are appropriately recognised

and provided for throughout the Project term.

5.34. To assist the Court, I have provided a track changed version of the

specific amendments to the Proposed Conditions identified above as

Attachment 2 to this evidence.

11 Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Deed (5 December 2012), Cl.10.

2535


6. CONCLUSION

6.1 I consider that the additional amendments outlined in my evidence are

necessary to ensure that mana whenua values, as they are relevant to the

Project area, are adequately acknowledged, recognised and provided

for, in accordance with the AUP requirements.

6.2 Further, I consider that the amendments to the Proposed Conditions will

appropriately recognise mana whenua as a partner in the Project and

ensure that the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki will be appropriately

provided for throughout the Project and beyond.

2536


ATTACHMENT 1 - RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

NEW ZEALAND COASTAL POLICY STATEMENT

Objective 3

To take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise the

role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki and provide for tangata whenua

involvement in management of the coastal environment by:

• recognising the ongoing and enduring relationship of tangata whenua

over their lands, rohe and resources;

• promoting meaningful relationships and interactions between tangata

whenua and persons exercising functions and powers under the Act;

• incorporating mātauranga Māori into sustainable management

practices; and

• recognising and protecting characteristics of the coastal environment

that are of special value to tangata whenua.

Policy 2 The Treaty of Waitangi, tangata whenua and Māori heritage

In taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o

Waitangi), and kaitiakitanga, in relation to the coastal environment:

a) recognise that tangata whenua have traditional and continuing

cultural relationships with areas of the coastal environment,

including places where they have lived and fished for generations;

b) involve iwi authorities or hapū on behalf of tangata whenua in the

preparation of regional policy statements, and plans, by

undertaking effective consultation with tangata whenua; with such

consultation to be early, meaningful, and as far as practicable in

accordance with tikanga Māori;

c) with the consent of tangata whenua and as far as practicable in

accordance with tikanga Māori, incorporate mātauranga Māori in

regional policy statements, in plans, and in the consideration of

applications for resource consents, notices of requirement for

designation and private plan changes;

d) provide opportunities in appropriate circumstances for Māori

involvement in decision making, for example when a consent

application or notice of requirement is dealing with cultural

localities or issues of cultural significance, and Māori experts,

including pūkenga, may have knowledge not otherwise available;

e) take into account any relevant iwi resource management plan and

any other relevant planning document recognised by the

appropriate iwi authority or hapū and lodged with the council, to

2537


the extent that its content has a bearing on resource management

issues in the region or district; and

i. where appropriate incorporate references to, or material

from, iwi resource management plans in regional policy

statements and in plans; and

ii. consider providing practical assistance to iwi or hapū who

have indicated a wish to develop iwi resource management

plans;

f) provide for opportunities for tangata whenua to exercise

kaitiakitanga over waters, forests, lands, and fisheries in the

coastal environment through such measures as:

i. bringing cultural understanding to monitoring of natural

resources;

ii. providing appropriate methods for the management,

maintenance and protection of the taonga of tangata

whenua;

iii. having regard to regulations, rules or bylaws relating to

ensuring sustainability of fisheries resources such as

taiāpure, mahinga mātaitai or other non-commercial Māori

customary fishing; and

g) in consultation and collaboration with tangata whenua, working as

far as practicable in accordance with tikanga Māori, and

recognising that tangata whenua have the right to choose not to

identify places or values of historic, cultural or spiritual significance

or special value:

i. recognise the importance of Māori cultural and heritage

values through such methods as historic heritage, landscape

and cultural impact assessments; and

ii. provide for the identification, assessment, protection and

management of areas or sites of significance or special

value to Māori, including by historic analysis and

archaeological survey and the development of methods such

as alert layers and predictive methodologies for identifying

areas of high potential for undiscovered Māori heritage, for

example coastal pā or fishing villages.

2538


AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN

Section B6 - Mana Whenua of the AUP in particular [emphasis added]:

B6.2. Recognition of Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnerships

and Participation

B6.2.1 Objectives

(2) The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi are

recognised through Mana Whenua participation in resource

management processes.

B6.2.2 Policies

(1) Provide opportunities for Mana Whenua to actively participate in the

sustainable management of natural and physical resources including

ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga in a way that

does all of the following:

(a) recognises the role of Mana Whenua as kaitiaki and provides for

the practical expression of kaitiakitanga; …

(c) provides for timely, effective and meaningful engagement with

Mana Whenua at appropriate stages in the resource

management process, including development of resource

management policies and plans; …

(e) recognises Mana Whenua as specialists in the tikanga of their

hapū or iwi and as being best placed to convey their relationship

with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other

taonga;

(f) acknowledges historical circumstances and impacts on resource

needs;

(g) recognises and provides for mātauranga and tikanga; and

(h) recognises the role and rights of whānau and hapū to speak and

act on matters that affect them.

B6.3. Recognising Mana Whenua values

B6.3.1. Objectives

(1) Mana Whenua values, mātauranga and tikanga are properly

reflected and accorded sufficient weight in resource management

decision-making.

2539


(2) The mauri of, and the relationship of Mana Whenua with, natural and

physical resources including freshwater, geothermal resources, land,

air and coastal resources are enhanced overall.

B6.3.2 Policies

(1) Enable Mana Whenua to identify their values associated with all of

the following:

(a) ancestral lands, water, air, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga; …

(d) historic heritage places and areas; and

(e) air, geothermal and coastal resources.

(2) Integrate Mana Whenua values, mātauranga and tikanga:

(a) in the management of natural and physical resources within the

ancestral rohe of Mana Whenua, including:

(i) ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga; …

(ii) historic heritage places and areas.

(b) in the management of freshwater and coastal resources, such as

the use of rāhui to enhance ecosystem health;

(c) in the development of innovative solutions to remedy the long-

term adverse effects on historical, cultural and spiritual values

from discharges to freshwater and coastal water; and

(d) in resource management processes and decisions relating to

freshwater, geothermal, land, air and coastal resources.

(3) Ensure that any assessment of environmental effects for an activity

that may affect Mana Whenua values includes an appropriate

assessment of adverse effects on those values.

(4) Provide opportunities for Mana Whenua to be involved in the

integrated management of natural and physical resources in ways that

do all of the following:

(a) recognise the holistic nature of the Mana Whenua world view;

(b) recognise any protected customary right in accordance with the

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011; and

(c) restore or enhance the mauri of freshwater and coastal

ecosystems.

…

(6) Require resource management decisions to have particular regard to

potential impacts on all of the following:

2540


(a) the holistic nature of the Mana Whenua world view;

(b) the exercise of kaitiakitanga;

(c) mauri, particularly in relation to freshwater and coastal

resources;

(d) customary activities, including mahinga kai;

(e) sites and areas with significant spiritual or cultural heritage value

to Mana Whenua; and

(f) any protected customary right in accordance with the Marine and

Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

B6.5. Protection of Mana Whenua cultural heritage

B6.5.1. Objectives

(1) The tangible and intangible values of Mana Whenua cultural heritage

are identified, protected and enhanced.

(2) The relationship of Mana Whenua with their cultural heritage is

provided for.

(3) The association of Mana Whenua cultural, spiritual and historical

values with local history and whakapapa is recognised, protected and

enhanced.

B6.5.2. Policies

(1) Protect Mana Whenua cultural and historic heritage sites and areas

which are of significance to Mana Whenua.

(2) Identify and evaluate Mana Whenua cultural and historic heritage

sites, places and areas considering the following factors:

(a) Mauri: …;

(b) Wāhi tapu: …;

(c) Kōrero Tūturu/historical: …;

(d) Rawa Tūturu/customary resources: …;

(e) Hiahiatanga Tūturu/customary needs: …; and

(f) Whakaaronui o te Wa/contemporary esteem: ….

(8) Encourage appropriate design, materials and techniques for

infrastructure in areas of known historic settlement and occupation by

the tūpuna of Mana Whenua.

2541


Section E11 – Land Disturbance – Regional, of the AUP in particular

[emphasis added]:

E11.3. Policy [rp]

…

(3) Manage land disturbance to:

…

(d) maintain the cultural and spiritual values of Mana Whenua in

terms of land and water quality, preservation of wāhi tapu, and

kaimoana gathering.

Section E12 – Land Disturbance – District, of the AUP in particular

[emphasis added]:

E12.3. Policy

…

(2) Manage the amount of land being disturbed at any one time, to:

…

(c) maintain the cultural and spiritual values of Mana Whenua in

terms of land and water quality, preservation of wāhi tapu, and

kaimoana gathering.

Section F2 – Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone of the AUP in

particular [emphasis added]:

F2.2.2. Objectives [rcp]

…

(3) Public access, amenity and Mana Whenua values are not adversely

affected by inappropriate reclamation, drainage or declamation.


…

2542


(4) The depositing or disposal of material in the coastal marine area

must not have significant adverse effects on the ecological,

recreational, cultural, and amenity values of the Hauraki Gulf.


…

(2) Activities that have long-term impacts or involve more than a minor

level of disturbance avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on

natural character, ecological values, coastal processes, historic

heritage and Mana Whenua values.

F2.5.3. Policies [rcp]

…

(4) Limit the area of foreshore and seabed disturbance to the extent

practicable and for the works to be done at a time of day or year, that

will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on all of the following:

…

(f) historic heritage and Mana Whenua values.

F2.14.3. Policies [rcp]

…

(5) Provide for use and occupation of the common marine and coastal

area by infrastructure, where it does not have a functional need to

locate in the common marine and coastal area but has an operational

need, and only where it cannot be practicably located on land and

avoids, remedies, or mitigates other adverse effects on:

…

(h) Mana Whenua or historic values.


…

(3) Structures are appropriately located and designed to minimise

adverse effects on the ecological, natural character, landscape, natural

features, historic heritage and Mana Whenua values of the coastal

marine area, and avoid to the extent practicable the risk of being

adversely affected by coastal hazards.

2543


ATTACHMENT 2 – MANA WHENUA IN OPPOSITION’S AMENDMENTS TO

THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS

1. Amendments to Condition 5

Condition 5

a) Prior to the Commencement of Consent, the consent holder shall

invite the existing Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

(ACMWKF) to: , in partnership with members of Ngā Mana Whenua

o Tāmaki Makaurau who choose to participate, establish the [name

to be confirmed by parties].

b) The [name to be confirmed by parties] will comprise:

(i) Two members appointed by the consent holder; and

(ii) One member from each of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki

Makaurau parties.

c) The purpose of the [name to be confirmed by parties] is to A assist

the consent holder in the preparation of an America’s Cup Kaitiaki

Engagement Plan (ACKEP) (Conditions 5A-5F) consistent with

relevant customary practices and in accordance with the principles

of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), especially the

principles of consultation, active participation and partnership; and

d) The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the resourcing of the

[name to be confirmed by parties] and meet all fair and reasonable

costs associated with any work streams required for the [name to

be confirmed by parties] to fulfil its role. Fulfil the obligations set out

in the America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan on behalf of mana

whenua.

The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the additional resourcing of the

ACMWKF to meet all its fair and reasonable costs associated with any work

streams required for the ACMWKF to fulfil its role in respect of this condition.

Advice Note 1: It is acknowledged that Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of

Waitangi underpins the relationship between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki

Makaurau and the Crown. Inherent in this are (amongst other things) the

principles of partnership, reciprocity, active protection and equity.

Importantly, the principle of partnership is endorsed by the concept of good

faith. Those principles are acknowledged in the Local Government Act 2002.

Advice Note 2: The Consent Holder acknowledges that the Waitematā is of

extremely high spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical

importance to Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau. In accordance with

2544


the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, the Consent

Holder must recognise that significance in all aspects of this Project.

Advice Note 3: The Consent Holder records its commitment to implementing

this condition in good faith, and to using the services of an independent

mediator, as necessary.

Advice Note 4: For the purpose of this consent, the parties of Ngā Mana

Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau are those 13 iwi and hapū groups identified in

section 9 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress

Act 2014.

2. Amendments to Condition 5A – 5F:

5A. The consent holder shall prepare an America’s Cup Kaitiaki

Engagement Plan (ACKEP) for the Project in partnership with the

assistance of the [name to be confirmed by parties] ACMWKF. Within ten

(10) working days of the Commencement of Consent or prior, the

consent holder shall provide a copy of the ACKEP to the Team Leader

Compliance Monitoring – Central.

5B. The purpose of the ACKEP is to assist the consent holder in fulfilling its

obligations in engaging with Mana Whenua and assist mana whenua to

express tikanga, fulfil their role as kaitiaki, and establish the

engagement process before, during and after the completion of

construction activities for implementation throughout the project. It shall

be formulated through:

a) Providing the framework for a collaborative approach between the

consent holder and mana whenua to address the matters which

impact cultural values / interest, before, during and after the

completion of the construction activities; and

b) Identifying how the consent holder and the [name to be confirmed

by parties] ACMWKF will ensure that effective relationships are

provided for throughout the Event.

5C. The objectives of the ACKEP are to:

a) Acknowledge the cultural and spiritual importance of the Waitemata

and its surrounds to mana whenua;

b) Acknowledge mana whenua as kaitiaki;

c) Recognise the importance of engagement and identification of key

mana whenua values, areas of interest and matters concern in

relation to the Project;

2545


d) Provide for mana whenua with an opportunity to be actively

involved with the formulation and implementation of the ACKEP;

and

e) Facilitate engagement between the consent holder and mana

whenua in relation to the activities authorised by this consent, and

to assist enable mana whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki.

5D. As a minimum, the ACKEP shall include details of the following matters:

a) How the [name to be confirmed by parties] mana whenua who have

historic associations with the Project area and its surrounding waters

have been involved in the formulation of the ACKEP and are to be

involved in its implementation;

b) The process for involvement of the [name to be confirmed by

parties] ACMWKF mana whenua in the preparation and

implementation of the engineering design, construction

management, and operational plans as they relate to:

i. Managing water quality during the construction and

operation of the Infrastructure;

ii. Managing underwater noise during construction so as to

protect marine animals;

iii. Protecting the waters of the area from biosecurity risks;

iv. Managing the Project effects to minimise adverse effects on

the mauri and mana of the Waitematā, and areas of tapu

and tapu practices within the Waitematā;

v. Providing cultural markers within the Infrastructure to

recognise the historic associations of mana whenua with the

area and the significance of the land and seascapes of

Waitematā to mana whenua; and

vi. Enabling use of the Infrastructure for cultural activities.

c) In giving effect to Condition 5Db), involvement by the [name to be

confirmed by parties] mana whenua in preparation and

implementation of the following management plans:

i. Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete

in the CMA (MPDPM);

ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP);

iii. Remediation Action Plan (RAP);

iv. Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP);

2546


v. Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

(CNVMP);

vi. Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP);

vii. Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan

(IVHEMP);

viii. Industrial and Trade Activities Hazardous Substances and

Environmental Management Plans (ITA HSEMPs);

ix. Industrial and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response

Plans (ITA ESRPs); and

x. Event Management Plan (EMP).

d) Accidental discovery protocols;

e) Procedures for manaakitanga, site blessings, the cultural induction

of construction workers and Event staff, and any other cultural

ceremonies;

f) Timing, frequency, location and methods of cultural monitoring

procedures and protocols during construction activities to

demonstrate achievement of the objective(s) for the ACKEP;

g) Ongoing mana whenua engagement procedures following the

completion of construction; and

h) The process by which amendments can be made to the ACKEP.

5E. The Consent Holder shall fulfil the requirements of, and operate in

accordance with, the ACKEP.

5F. The role of the [name to be confirmed by parties] Forum in terms of this

consent shall continue for the duration of the 10- year period of the

consent, and until the requirements of Conditions of 6 to 7C have been

complied with.

3. Add new Condition 12d:

Pursuant to sections 128 to 131 of the RMA, the Consent Authority may serve

notice on the consent holder of its intention to review any, or all, of the

conditions of the consent within 12 months following:

a) the granting of a customary marine title or protected customary

rights or the vesting of ownership over any part of the foreshore or

seabed encompassing the Project or Event Area.

b) any agreement between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau

and the Crown as a result of Treaty negotiations involving the

2547


Waitematā Harbour as provided for in Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki

Makaurau Collective Deed.

The purpose of the review is to address any specific Resource Management

Act 1991 matters that arise from the granting of the title or right.

2548

Documents

Planning Evidence L Faithful - Environment Court€¦ · Evidence of Luke Christopher James Faithfull 28 August 2018 Page 3 of 31 2.6. In preparing my evidence I have reviewed the