Maunga Authority out on a limb over tree removal
Maunga Authority out on a limb over tree removal
Tuesday 12 July, 2022
How much must a decision-maker tell the public about its plans when it goes out to public consultation? Some Auckland residents were shocked to discover that approximately half of the mature trees on Mt Albert were to be felled. A group called Honour the Maunga took the matter to Court.
The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (the TMA) is responsible for fourteen maunga in Auckland, including Mt Albert/Ōwairaka. It consulted the public on its Integrated Management Plan for these maunga. The consultation documents didn’t mention that TMA planned to remove all of the 345 exotic trees on Ōwairaka as part of a proposed restoration of indigenous biodiversity. The relevant TMA Annual Operational Plan didn’t make this plain either.
The Court of Appeal looked at the Collective Redress Act (which created the TMA) and the Reserves Act. It said that these statutes envisaged that there would be consultation on important aspects of the IMP affecting the future use, management and maintenance of the 14 maunga.
The Court considered that the exotic trees were of considerable significance for Mt Albert and that the TMA was required to consult on their removal. The exotic trees made up approximately half of the mature trees on this maunga, and some had heritage value.
To go ahead with the removal of the exotic trees and restore indigenous species to Ōwairaka, the TMA could have spelled out the intention to remove all of the exotic trees in the Integrated Management Plan. Equally it could have waited and consulted on the removal of the exotic trees as part of the individual management plan for Ōwairaka.
This case demonstrates the importance of putting enough information about what’s proposed in consultation documents so that the public can understand what’s planned and provide their view on it.
This case is also noteworthy for the Court’s refusal to accept that the interests of non-Māori were at odds with the interests of Māori, commenting that everyone benefits from the implementation of legislation designed to provide redress for Treaty breaches.
The Court also determined that:
- The Reserves Act didn’t oblige the TMA to maintain the exotic trees on the maunga.
- Auckland Council was wrong to treat the associated resource consent application as non-notified.
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles
Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023
Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 2023
When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022
Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021
Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021
Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021
Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021
Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021
Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020
Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020
Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020
Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019
How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019
Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019
Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 2019
Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019
Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019
Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018
Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018
High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018
Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018
Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
Tendering pitfalls: the importance of "no process contract" clauses
Friday 15 September, 2017
