Iwi wins partial victory in haunted houses case

By ANNE GIBSON

An iwi authority has won a partial victory in the Environment Court over a Thames housing development alleged to have been haunted.

Justice John Laurenson ruled against allowing Ngati Maru Iwi Authority the orders it sought.

But he said the iwi had been vindicated and the Thames Coromandel District Council had wrongly handled resource consents for development of the property.

Ngati Maru won the right to have its voice heard if any more development was to take place on the land, but the court denied the iwi its application to have previous council decisions overturned.

The case was over a housing development at 506-508 Rolleston St in the centre of Thames on land owned by developer Cornelis Kruithof.

Two houses of a planned five-house development have been built there, but Ngati Maru claim the land is sacred.

This year, Justice David Baragwanath sitting in the High Court at Hamilton referred to strange goings-on in the area.

Evidence was given to him of odd noises, lights flicking on and off and water running without explanation in houses in the area.

This was claimed to be the result of a breach of tapu that required karakia (prayer) to achieve good wairua (spirit).

In the latest round in the dispute - which started in 1996 - the Environment Court ruled that the council had deprived Ngati Maru of the right to be heard on a matter of cultural significance when it granted Mr Kruithof the right to build.

Justice Laurenson found that the council should have publicly notified the resource consent for the development, which would have enabled Ngati Maru to object.

In his judgment, he wrote the case illustrated "in stark relief the reality involved in endeavouring to give practical effect to the partnership envisaged and sought by the Treaty of Waitangi".

Ngati Maru produced evidence that the land was next to a sacred waterway, the Hape Stream, and was in an area where their ancestors had buried their dead, afterbirth, umbilical cords, hair and nail clippings.

Mr Kruithof disputed that his land was in this sacred area, but said that even if it was, events over the years had extinguished any elements of waahi tapu.

"Mr Kruithof has been unable to proceed with his development of the properties for some nine years, a situation which he submits is not of his making and which has caused him significant stress and financial cost," Justice Laurenson wrote.

The developer claimed he was entitled to continue developing the land, and the council submitted that it had taken into account the competing interests of Mr Kruithof and Ngati Maru.

But Justice Laurenson ruled that the council had acted "irregularly".

If further houses were to be built on the land, Ngati Maru should be notified and its concerns taken into account.