A noho whenua (land occupation or assertion of a relationship with ancestral land) at Lake Whakamaru Reserve may be in immediate response to a proposed adjacent development but some involved say their concerns have deeper roots.
The occupation began around the time of hearings for the South Waikato District Council into a proposed plan change by J and T Quigley Ltd which would re-zone almost 32 hectares of neighbouring land, between Lake Whakamaru Reserve and State Highway 30, from rural to rural-residential and facilitate a 66-lot subdivision application.
A decision from those two days of hearings before independent commissioners in early November is due later this year or early next. (Initial submissions were made in May and further submissions in August.)
Council acknowledges protest
In a release on November 14 the SWDC said it was aware of the occupation at the council-managed area, and that the council's cultural advisor had visited the site to hear the reasons behind the kaupapa.
It would not comment further on these or the ongoing plan change process, though SWDC chief executive Susan Law noted a right to peaceful protest and to access the reserve.
"We understand this is a highly sensitive and layered issue for the group. We are committed to working with the group on these things and engaging in respectful and proactive kōrero," she said.
Historical grievances surface
Ngāti Te Kohera hapu representative Craig Ahipene who is at the noho whenua also called the issue "multilayered."
His group's concerns – he acknowledged there were other affected hapu he did not speak for – related to the proposed development, but also the historical issue of how the land left Māori hands.
"We've got a deep history in that part of the river," he said.
In the late 1930s land was taken under the Public Works Act by the Crown for hydro development, he said, culminating in the creation of Lake Whakamaru in the 1950s.
"When it was flooded, the Crown didn't allow the hapu enough time to move their burials and so many of the burials are actually underwater now."
Land deemed surplus to requirement for the hydro scheme was then not returned to hapu but sold to private interests, he said.
"It's finally ended in the current property owner's hands."
Cultural concerns about wastewater
Ahipene acknowledged the Hamilton-based developer legally was doing nothing wrong and that he got on well with Jonathan Quigley, though he felt 66 adjacent lots equated to a village rather than rural residential.
"The primary issue we have is based on tikanga and that is if any accidental human waste discharge goes into the lake because there are burials quite proximate to the area… then that's a direct cultural harm upon the mana, mauri and tapu of our ancestors and ourselves as the living descendants."
He appreciated the developer would try to mitigate this "but the thing is that there's no guarantees, one drop, one drop is enough to enact grievous cultural harm."
He felt the issue had united the community.
"We are using this place to start reaffirming our cultural obligations of protecting the environment and protecting our sacred places."
Other hapu were also likely to get involved as were other stakeholders – residents and farmers – opposed to the development.
"It's not just Maori that are involved in this..."
"Ideally, we don't want to see development at all there, but we understand the developer has legal rights, he has plans. But in recent conversation, he's open to hear what we have to say and negotiate."
He was also concerned the development, if granted, would create a precedent.
"What's going to stop a developer from doing the same thing next door? Next thing you know all along the banks of the Waikato River you'll have basically a metropolis."
He criticised an overall consent process that kept allowing 'small' developments.
"The argument from the developers is that 'oh it's minimal, it's minimal' but every incremental, small nominal additional determination adds to what are already the current levels of pollution in that river."
Developer defends design approach
Developer Jonathan Quigley said he respected Ahipene and had been consulting with him on the development for over two years.
"We also have had Raukawa involved in conversation now for about three and a half years."
He said his company had engaged top experts and spent hundreds of thousands to plan the development "so that it would be a betterment in all aspects."
"Culturally we've been in really good dialogue with multiple iwi parties through the process and that's actually helped inform the direction and the design. Some of those key kinds of things are around the ecological planting and the extent of that planting… the inclusion of secondary wastewater systems even though the land could utilise primary treated, because one of the major, if not the major concern, for iwi is the potential for human wastewater to enter the water, so the systems we've designed give a zero possibility of that ever happening."
Potential land return solution explored
Both Quigley and Ahipene mentioned a weekend discussion with kaumatua from different hapu that raised the possibility of a solution where nobody lost out.
Quigley: "They get their land back potentially, well you know I say their land back, and we get reconciled for any cost to date or potential loss of profits. How that's funded he didn't go into that. Is that something I am interested in? I have committed to him to be open to that conversation."
One suggestion, also mentioned by Ahipene, was that the Crown might need to be involved providing funds in redress for past actions.
"The issue I would have with that is those proceedings can take decades and I'm just probably not in a position to wait decades for some potential resolution… but… I'm committed to hearing that conversation if, and when, it comes up," said Quigley.
He understood there was no claim over the land parcel he owned.
"There might be a claim over the Crown land that we abut which is the camping reserve and we are not developing that, but we are extending and gifting about a hectare and a half of new camping ground to the community and building a new road through to give permanent access."
Local councillor voices opposition
Quigley criticised the tenor of some discussion around the development saying information was getting slanted and acknowledging no love lost between him and Hope Woodward.
Woodward, now a Taupō District Councillor, has been involved in advocating against the development since before she was elected in October, and stressed she was acting in her role as a Mangakino resident, not her capacity as a Taupō District Council representative.
She called the development 'controversial'.
"I oppose it because I don't see the community benefits and they certainly don't outweigh the negatives."
Her concerns included potential impacts on long-tailed bat habitat, the amount of community consultation, increased traffic and an oversupply of houses in the area already.
The plan change sought would lead to over intensification, she said.
"That's because he wants to get as much value out of the development he can because it's going to be a massive project and he's already put quite a lot of money into it which I can understand. I think personally the development's a great idea – it's just the wrong place. And it's all eco- friendly, catch their own rainwater, solar powered… those are all really great ideas, but when you're going to destroy a habitat and an ecosystem to do that, it doesn't really add up."
She felt a lot of the 40 or so submissions in support were from out-of-town potential purchasers of the sections while the around 50 who submitted against were "people who directly live here, work here, raise their kids, who it's directly affecting."
Water quality concerns raised
The area had "massive issues with the water quality" she said, with dead fish, tuna (eel) and algal bloom.
"It's just another thing that's going to add to the pressure that we've already got on our waters."
She also questioned the economic benefit quoted by the applicant in his submission.
"I'm a business owner. I'd love more business but not for the sake of what it's going to do to that space. It's going to be a construction site for the next 20ish years. Who wants to camp next to a construction site? Who wants to camp next to a housing development? It's going to be an urban sprawl. People go away from that stuff to go camping… Not to camp next to it. The lighting pollution that it's going to cause is just going to significantly change that area, there's so many things…"
She believed the developer was genuine in his belief his concept had merit.
"I really value the work that's been done on it but he's just completely ignoring community's voice on it and cultural voice and the environmental voice."
Parties await commissioners' decision
For his part Quigley was adamant that his application involved evidence-based, peer reviewed (by SWDC) findings, while Ahipene was hopeful a group of representatives from different stakeholders could be brought together – including the Crown – and come up with a solution.
"We don't want to be averse to people's legal rights, but unfortunately these aspirations are upon layers of historic grievance and… he obviously wasn't aware that as hapu we could come back and challenge the acquisition of the land in the first place."
Meanwhile, both sides await the decision of the independent commissioners, with Ahipene saying a denial would de-escalate the hapu protest while approval might lead to other action including exploring legal options.
