"The board's expectation is that the hearing schedule will be condensed," submitters were told in last week's email.
With a large number of expert witnesses appearing before the board, it has asked lawyers at the hearing to save time by working together to ensure "unnecessary repetition is avoided" when witnesses are cross-examined by more than one lawyer. The board has a statutory requirement to report back to the Government by April next year and a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Authority, the agency overseeing the process, said that timing remained in place.
Last week, the board also turned down a request from environmental groups to engage an independent expert to assess an environmental impact model, TRIM, put forward on behalf of the council.
Peter McIntosh, regional manager for Hawkes' Bay Fish and Game, one of the environmental groups involved in the application, said he suspected the tight timeframe was behind the board's decision not to engage its own expert.
In the board's written decision, its chairman, Justice Lester Chisholm, said: "Both sides rely on numerous expert witnesses to support or discredit the TRIM model (as the case may be). Undoubtedly, this evidence will be carefully tested by cross-examination at the hearing."
Gary Taylor, of the Environmental Defence Society, another submitter questioning the TRIM model, said even though it would be hearing cross-examination, the board "may need technical advice in order to understand the evidence".
Mr Taylor has previously said he has serious concerns about the fairness of the inquiry process because of the demands placed on submitters and the tight time-frames.
"The process is one where there is a great deal of pressure. I think that pressure generally favours the applicant rather than the submitters," he said.
"It's not the board's problem, it's a problem with the framework and the timing. This is a very difficult process to engage meaningfully in for a submitter."
