Northland councils blind to economic benefits of Northport expansion proposal, port company argues

Northport wants a dedicated container terminal to contribute more to the North Island supply chain. Photo / Tania Whyte

Northland local authorities rejected a Northport bid for expansion despite accepting the project would result in more than $1 billion of wider economic activity annually and sustain up to 16,000 jobs, the port said in an Environment Court case.

The Marsden Point deepwater port is appealing the decision of commissioners appointed by the Northland Regional Council and Whangārei District Council denying resource consents for the project.

The port, jointly owned by NZX-listed Port of Tauranga and Marsden Maritime Holdings, is challenging the councils’ findings on cultural values and effects and recreational/public access value and effects.

The port had sought resource management consent to expand its role in the North Island container shipping supply chain but a hearing panel for the councils cited the scale and extent of the 11.7ha reclamation proposed.

The appeal said the decision identified that granting the application would have “important and significant positive” effects nationally, including significant social and economic benefits to Northland and New Zealand.

The decision accepted that granting the port’s application would result in benefits to Northland valued at $34 million a year in direct value added and $1.194b a year in wider economic activity, says the appeal.

The decision also accepted the project would directly sustain the equivalent of 320 to 480 jobs a year and between 14,800 and 16,000 jobs from wider economic activity, it says.

Also accepted was that a dedicated container terminal at Whangārei would “support Northland unlocking its potential and thereby improving the socio-economic well-being across the region” and that the project would form part of an integral and efficient network of safe ports, the appeal says.

Despite these findings, the decision concluded “the magnitude of adverse cultural effects will be significantly adverse, and that cultural impacts will not be sufficiently mitigated by the conditions imposed by Northport”.

The decision said the loss of recreational values and public access would not be sufficiently mitigated by the proposed conditions of consent.

Northport in its appeal said among other results, the decision will mean none of the important regional and national significant positive benefits identified in the findings will eventuate.

It also argued the decision did not promote sustainable management of resources and was contrary to or inconsistent with provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

And it said the decision did not represent efficient use and development of natural and physical resources or manage those resources to provide for the community’s social and economic wellbeing.

It challenged the decision’s findings on cultural values and effects, the application of relevant planning provisions relating to those values and effects, and the findings on recreational and public access values and the application of provisions to those.

Northport said the hearing panel inappropriately applied relevant planning provisions and failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigation and offsets proposed by the port through consent conditions.

Andrea Fox joined the Herald as a senior business journalist in 2018 and specialises in writing about the $26 billion dairy industry, agribusiness, exporting and the logistics sector and supply chains.