An aerial view of the Port of Tauranga.
An $88-million wharf extension the Port of Tauranga is an “urgent national priority” with severe capacity constraints on exports expected within a few years, an Environment Court hearing has been told.
Consent for the expansion plans is the subject of a three-week Environment Court resource consent hearing which began at the Trinity Conference and Event Centre in Tauranga yesterday, with Chief Environment Court Judge David Kirkpatrick and three commissioners, Jim Hodge, Anne Leijnen and Glenice Paine, hearing evidence.
Port of Tauranga Limited (POTL) had applied for consent for a 385-metre wharf extension and 1.8-hectare land reclamation at Sulphur Point, as well as wharf extensions of 530m north and 388m south of the tanker berth and a 2.9ha reclamation on its Mount Maunganui wharves.
The associated proposed extension to the shipping channel would cover 14.4ha and involved dredging more than one million cubic metres of the sea floor.
The port had submitted a decision on the proposed extension as an “urgent national priority with severe” capacity constraints on exports within a few years and sought a 35-year consent term subject to conditions, as the expansion works would be done in stages.
The project was estimated to cost at least $88 million, up from the original estimate of $68.5m.
Eleven iwi and hapū parties had raised unresolved issues over the expansion plans, which included Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi Iwi Trust, Whareroa Marae Trust, Ngāti Ranginui Iwi Incorporated Society and Fisheries Trust.
Yesterday, the port’s lawyer Vanessa Hamm read her submission on behalf of the port outlining why the resource consent should be granted and what steps the company had taken and proposed to try to mitigate any potential environmental and cultural impacts from the expansion plans.
Hamm said modifications had been made to the original consent proposal, which included restricting the depth of the dredging south of the existing tanker berth at Mount Maunganui.
Following ongoing engagement with parties opposed to the consent, the port had “materially amended” its proposal in respect of the southern part of the Mount Maunganui wharves, she said.
She said the resource consent sought did not include the berth and dredged channel to the north of Sulphur Point near the Te Paritaha pipi bed, and the proposed area to be dredged in the eastern Stella Passage would not extend as far south as Tauranga Bridge Marina.
Activities to the south of the existing tanker berth at Mount Maunganui were now proposed to be “limited significantly” by restricting the dredging depth to 6m, and only having minor structures which would not be capable of berthing larger cargo ships calling at the port.
“Much of the area was already 6m deep, so the amount of material to be dredged in this area had reduced to less than 15,000 cubic metres.”
And the amount of the associated dredging of the sea floor had now reduced from up to 1.8 million cubic metres to 1.5cu m, of which 800,000cu m was already consented.
“POTL recognises the relationship of Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga with Te Awanui [Tauranga Harbour] ... and seeks an outcome which recognises the mana and rangatiratanga of Tauranga Moana iwi, whilst accommodating the long-established plans for development of the port,” she said.
The reclamation and proposed wharf structures in the consent application were within the port’s coastal occupation permit, she said.
Hamm said the key issue raised in this case was whether the proposal would have adverse cumulative effects.
She said the applicant proposed limiting the method of dredging so no trailer suction dredging would happen adjacent to Butters Landing and in a direct line out to a point halfway across the Stella Passage (on the Mount Maunganui side) on a flood tide.
A “strong theme” of the iwi evidence was that there should be a “more comprehensive mātauranga Māori study of Te Awanui”, and POTL proposed making a payment of $25,000 a year to enable a Tauranga Moana iwi Cultural Effects Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to be developed, Hamm said.
And the port was also “keen to explore: whether there was a better way of supporting cultural monitoring so that iwi aspirations can be achieved”.
The port acknowledged that Ngāti Kuku and Whareroa Marae in particular had borne “a heavy burden of urbanisation” over a long period of time, including the fertiliser works, the wider industrial precinct and the port, Tauranga Airport and the harbour bridge, Hamm said.
“POTL had amended its proposal to avoid and minimise adverse effects on the marae.”
Hamm said in terms of ecological effects, the port’s expert witness Professor Chris Battershill said Te Awanui was in good health and he had not identified any effect on Te Paritaha as a result of this proposal.
Acknowledging that iwi witnesses may have a different view of how dredging, reclamation and construction activities affect Te Awanui, the evidence of Dr Willem de Lange was also clear that there were “negligible to no impacts” of the proposed activities at Te Paritaha and other locations within Te Awanui, she said.
“Given that POTL’s activities are anticipated within the Regional Coastal Environment Plan and the urgent need for the first stage of the works at Sulphur Point, with the Mount Maunganui works needed in the next three to five years, the company sought a decision as soon as possible,” Hamm said.
Hamm said from the applicant’s perspective, the modifications made to the consent proposal and the significant mitigation package was “POTL putting its best foot forward to mitigate any effects” of the proposed activities.
During cross-examination by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s lawyer Mary Hill, the port’s general manager of properties and infrastructure David Kneebone was asked to explain how the applicant had arrived at the compensation mitigation funding package of $25,000 per annum.
Kneebone said funding being offered by the port was “more significant” compared to other similar projects.
“We obviously listened to tangata whenua and tried to develop a mitigation package that was appropriate to the effects, and also referenced mitigation packages for the previous port dredging campaigns and other dredging development projects for other ports on the east coast of New Zealand.”
An independent economist estimated the project could create 368 jobs in the construction phase and more than 81 permanent jobs after completion.
The hearing continues today.
The jury's marathon deliberations ran for two weeks.