Rudman's city: Quigley not a member of pool protest group

By BRIAN RUDMAN

Last Friday, I wrongly named two of the leading Judges Bay protesters, lawyers Derek Quigley and Bernard Clark, as members of the Judges Bay Residents Action Group which has gone to the Environment Court to try to delay the $3.84 million renovations of the nearby Parnell Baths.

I have since noted that Mr Clark is not a member of the group or party to the action. Mr Quigley says he is not a member of the group either.

"I have, however," he writes, "worked with members of that group in the preparation of an alternative proposal for Judges Bay Rd and support its appeal against the pools resource consent decision granted on 20 August 2001.

"I have not yet appealed against the decision to grant a resource consent ... but will do so in either [my] own name or by joining the appeal lodged by the Judges Bay Action Group if the case finally goes to an Environment Court hearing."

Mr Quigley acknowledges in his letter that he presented submissions in his own name and on behalf of 250 petitioners at the August 6 resource consent hearing expressing opposition to plans for 28 extra car parks as part of the upgrade.

His submission said elements of the proposed work "will add to existing problems being experienced by local residents" and listed among those, "night-time partying, loud vehicles and general vandalism".

By way of explanation, you can see from Mr Quigley's comments how close the links between the aggrieved neighbours are. Residents of Judges Bay Rd say that for years they have been plagued by hoons and boy-racers using their street as pit stop for their nocturnal sorties onto Quay St and the Domain.

Residents used the resource consent process for renovations of the public baths at the end of their street as leverage to try to persuade the city council to install anti-hoon devices in the street.

Mr Quigley, Mr Clark and Michael Reed, QC, the man behind the "action group", have signed petitions and made similar submissions on the matter. Mr Quigley and Mr Reed have at times met city council officials as joint representatives of the residents.

A report to the parks and reserves committee in September refers to meetings with representatives of the action group. On checking within the council, I was told the reference was to Mr Quigley and Mr Reed. Hence my misunderstanding.

Mr Quigley is also upset at my describing a clause in a submission he made to the council as "a threatening promise". The document had listed a catalogue of demands and said that "local residents are adamant that [these] landscaping/engineering proposals are an essential part of the pool upgrade". It concluded that accepting these proposals would "enable the pool upgrade to proceed without protracted appeals".

Threat or promise, it has now come to pass. The council refused to do all the remedial work proposed in Mr Quigley's letter and now the action group is appealing to the Environment Court.

I referred to architect Simon Carnachan as a friend of Mr Quigley. I accept the relationship is only professional.

Mr Quigley says I implied he had used his position as Mayoral Complaints Commissioner for personal benefit to arrange a meeting with then mayor Christine Fletcher and officials to push his case. I did not think it or suggest it. I just observed it was ironic that his appointment to the position on August 21 coincided with his own battles with the council over the baths. Mr Quigley's Judges Bay Rd involvement began long before the complaints role came into play.

Meanwhile, next Monday we might just discover who does formally belong to the action group.

So far we know of only two: Mr Reed and his wife, District Court judge Nicola Mathers. We know this because it was raised at the October 29 Environment Court call-over.

Mr Reed resisted requests to reveal further names because of threats received. Judge Bollard reserved the decision on this matter for further consideration next Monday morning. On Monday, Mr Reed has also been ordered to detail his specific grounds of appeal.

Mr Reed has not got off to a very good start before Judge Bollard. First was his non-appearance on October 29 and the judge ordering him to participate by cellphone from Auckland Airport.

From Judge Bollard's minutes of this hearing, it is plain this was not the only thing that upset him about Mr Reed's performance. In the minutes there is a reference to Mr Reed's wife, who, writes Judge Bollard, Mr Reed "considered it relevant to state is a District Court judge".

Concludes Judge Bollard: "No influence will be placed upon its [the court's] eventual judgment on the merits of the appeal on account of the professional calling of counsel's spouse."

I think the word I'm looking for is Ouch!