Another alternative, suggested by Elbury, had been discounted without a site visit.
The proposed route would follow boundaries on every property except Elbury's and one other, Elbury's particular concern being the loss of flexibility over its use of productive land. The property was used for a variety of purposes, including dairy farming, cropping and a proposed avocado orchard, the route travelling through the middle of the latter.
If the pipeline had to be five metres from a shelter belt, that would leave a more than 10m strip of unusable land through the property.
It would also necessitate "outsiders" accessing the property to inspect, maintain or repair the pipe, creating a security risk and an unnecessary, significant adverse impact on the farm.
The company believed it was being disadvantaged by a flawed process dominated by the council's perceived need to proceed with construction on private land without delay, at the expense of seeking agreement in advance and open, transparent communication with land owners.
"The rush to proceed with this pipeline proposal is the result of failed FNDC policy and practice with respect to Sweetwater," it said.
"FNDC now expects Elbury to pay the price of its past failures, rather than routing the pipeline along property boundaries or roads.
"Agreement on the pipeline route and the necessary land and easement acquisition should have come first. Instead the pipeline route was proposed and plans drawn up before any communication with the affected land owners.
"The engineering and design plans were completed remotely. No engineers walked the route before submitting the plan, and have still not done so."
Elbury had had its first meeting with the council on May 20 last year, almost two months after pipeline plans were produced. Shortly after that the council invited expressions of interest in the pipe laying contract, based on a proposal that had not been agreed with the affected land owners.
At that time the council did not own the land where the bores were sited, and as of December 14 still not do so, the company added. Elbury understood that it had not signed access agreements with any of the other land owners.
Meanwhile there were three preferred routes for the pipeline, the first of which, following the property's western boundaries, would not involve any claim for compensation.
"It is not correct for the council to assert that there is no reasonable alternative to the crossing of private land. There are in fact three reasonable alternatives, and possibly more," the company said.
No one from the council had expressed a desire to walk the proposed routes, which involved the same land owners and which Elbury believed could cost less than the proposed route.
The council had clearly pre-determined the preferred route without prior consultation with affected land owners or any adequate assessment of the alternatives, as shown by the preparation of detailed plans before contact was made with land owners.
Hopes for an early hearing date
Elbury Holdings Ltd has lodged an appeal against last month's Far North District Council decision to access its land for a water supply pipeline from the Sweetwater aquifer to Kaitaia. The Kaitaia District Court will initially consider the appeal on February 26, when it will set a date for a hearing, Mayor John Carter saying he was confident that given the urgency of Kaitaia's water supply project, the court will set date as early as possible.
"We will do all we can to avoid any delays, and anticipate the court will likely reach a final decision on the appeal within three to four months," he said.
In the meantime the council would continue to progress other aspects of the water supply project. He did not believe the appeal would prevent it from delivering water to Kaitaia by next summer.
The council would also continue to seek agreement with Elbury Holdings so both parties could avoid a court case.
