From: Roimata Harmon <roimata.harmon@gmail.com>Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2020 2:35 PMTo: info@waitomo.govt.nz; Whyte, DuncanSubject: [EXTERNAL] Te Kauae Marae Supporting DocumentsAttachments: Te Kauae Marae - Supporting Documents .pdf Kia Ora, Please accept this as the Te Kauae Marae - Supporting Documents for our submission to oppose the Sky Garden Development. This will be to replace the previous documents handed in on Thursday 9thApril, 2020. This submission has been sent to whanau members of Te Kauae Marae and they are able to obtain a copy through our Facebook page if they request. Can you please confirm that you will accept our supporting documents handed in today. Thank you, Roimata

TE KAUAE MARAE Submission to Oppose the Sky Garden Development

April, 2020

‘Me i kite au i te pae tawhiti, i kite ake nō te tua o taku maunga whakahiī’

If I was to see the horizon, the future for our people, its because I have stood on the fertile land, our Paa, the mountain, of my people.

!1

We would like it to be noted that this submission was made during the the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown period. Under the circumstances it was not possible for:

• Hui with kaumatua and other whanau members to discuss this submission or their own submissions due to social distancing and technical/internet challenges.

• Representation and further discussion of this development at the Maniapoto Trust Board Hui A Tau on March 14th which was cancelled

• Visits to view archives, obtain titles, order files and access further land information from Waitomo District Council, The Maori Land Court, LINZ, National Libraries in Wellington and Auckland which were closed as they were not deemed to be essential services.

• Heritage NZ to register the site with the Heritage Council as planned due to a cancellation of the scheduled meeting on March 16.

• Scheduled mau rakau and wellbeing wananga at Te Kauae where we discuss tikanga, learn waiata and share stories.

• Regular contact with whanau due to the transition of whanau to homeschooling and working from home.

We contacted the WDC to seek an extension of the deadline and were told that the deadline would continue to be Thursday 9th April, 2020, 5pm but that under the circumstance, the council would consider accepting late submissions.

Ngāti Tama were granted a two-week extension to the closing date of submissions following the disruption caused by ex-tropical cyclone Gita on the Nelson and Tasman regions when making submissions to protect their springs, Te Waikoropupū. Considering Covid-19 has been more disruptive and restricting, 2 weeks would be a minimum expectation for an extension on submissions to be made on the Sky Garden development.

There are possible further submissions or letters of support from whanau members who do not have access to the internet. These will be conducted and submitted after level 4 and its restrictions are lifted. Please consider

your policies to allow for these extra documents

!2

He mihi aroha: Tena hoki tatou i te matenga o to tatou poutokomanawa o Te Kauae, a Uncle Sonny.  E kore rawa e mimiti te aroha ki a Uncle Sonny. 

Moe mai ra, kia au te moe.

Introduction

Hei tiimatanga ake, hei maatua whakatuwhera mai i te takenga mai o teenei koorero, kia moohio mai naa koutou noo hea, ko wai raa hoki teenei e tuu atu nei!  Kia patere ake i konei;   E noho ana au i te tihi o Rangitoto I tooku mana o Ngaati Huiao Ka titiro ki Kakepuku Ka maatiro ki Pirongia Taunahanaha kau ana i tooku paa tuuwatawata ko Pukeroa Taangata Rau! Ka tau ko te riri o Maniapoto e!   I uia ake raa te paatai; noo wai te mana tohu hei a wai te mana whakahaere i te paa o Pukeroa!  E...hei ahau o Maniapoto, hei ahau nahe o Ngaati Huiao e! E kore a Maniapoto e noho puku!  Kaahore a Ngaati Kinohaku e noho i raro i te mana o iwi kee, o tangata kee, aa ko wai hoki te korokee nei e hiahia ana ki te whakatuu i te mahi tirikohu waehere ki too maatou papa kaainga?!   Ko Pukeroa too maatou paa tuuwatawata! Ko Pukeroa too maatou ihi! Ko Pukeroa too maatou mana! Noo oo maatou tuupuna!  Heke iho mai ki a maatou! Nei taa maatou tuu, he rite ki te kawau maaroo o Maniapoto! Whanake ake!  Whanake ake!

Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the relevance of our bloodline and our history to our Paa, Pukeroa through this chant.

From the Rangitoto range in the Pureora forest park, We look to another of our mountains, Kakepuku, We survey the eminence which is Pirongia. We are priviledged to be the caregivers of Pukeroa, known as Pukeroa of many people! We are Kinohaku, We are Huiao, We are Maniapoto! 

If you asked us the question; Who are the custodian's of Pukeroa?  We would humbly say it is Maniapoto. It is Kinohaku. It is Huiao.

!3

Our whaanau, our Hapuu are a gentle people, brought up to care for others, to look after our visitors.  But, surely you can't expect us to stand by and do nothing when visitors want to put a commercial venture on our Paa site and desecrate our land?

(There is a song we sing that welcomes everyone to Maniapoto.  Our tamariki sing this waiata, our mokopuna sing this waiata.)  We are from Maniapoto, Kinohaku and others from the bed stool of Pukeroa!  Do you now expect us to sing we are from the hill that has a bungy jump and ziplines?

These are gifts, genealogy, land, our paradise that is from our tupuna, we are the care-givers.  This is who we are!

(When our tupuna Maniapoto, 15 generations back from now, was on his deathbed, he went to Pukeroa at Hangatiki, where he called the people before him. He left instructions for us;)

Stick to that, the straight-flying cormorant! He was referring to a fighting force that, like the cormorant, darts forward in the charge, unyielding. Stand together united in spirit, mind and purpose. These words have been adopted by Ngaati Maniapoto as our tribal motto.

Now, 15 generations on, it's our time to make a stand. 

Anaru Keogh,

Ngaati Huiao, Ngaati Kinohaku,

Ngaati Maniapoto

!4

Specific parts of the application that our submissionn refers to are:

The overarching view of this application for resource consent is that the developers have a blatant disregard and limited respect for the heritage and the essence of this site and its resources, namely the puna wai and Pukeroa, the pa site, in its entirety. This is highlighted repeatedly in the statements to protect only the tihi, that the existing spring will not be touched despite the plan to drill two bores into the water table below, and suggesting that the impacts on the archaeological structure of the site will be less than minor.

The Sky Garden team were originally planning to set up their development in Waitomo, but for various reasons, the venture failed. As a result, there is a lone cafe building standing on a construction site, he mau mau, it’s a waste. They have relocated their venture and sought out land in Hangatiki with the aim of exploiting the Waitomo connections to operate a Bungy Jump/Zipline operation. It is clearly evident from the diagrams and photos of the proposed development, that the sheer scale and size of the towers and supporting infrastructure will have major impacts on the environment, its resources, its heritage as well as visual impacts on the rural setting.

As kaitiaki of Pukeroa, this is unacceptable.

Compromises have been listed by the developers but these are all of ‘benefit’ to us only if this development goes ahead. Unfortunately, the said compromises are far outweighed by the negative tourism impacts on the environment and its resources, the uncertainty of the travel/tourism industry in NZ in the wake of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the potential adverse effects on the archeaological nature of this site and the culture of our people.

As kaitiaki of Pukeroa, we oppose this development.

Specific parts of the application that we object to are categorized into the headings below. They are presented in no particular order.

1.) Archeology and History

2.) The Size, Scale and Visual Impacts,

3.) The Rural Setting of Hangatiki

4.) The Impacts of Tourism on the Environment

5.) The spiritual essence of Pukeroa

6.) Waiora

7.) Correspondence with Iwi

8.) Cultural Impact Assessment.

!5

We refer to the AEE-Final document, unless stated otherwise, which are indicated in green. The italic black sections are supporting evidence from other reports referenced or quotes, which will be listed in the Appendix for further reference. For the purpose of this report, ‘developer’ and ‘applicant’ will be used in reference to the Sky Garden decision makers. ‘Iwi’, ‘tangata whenua' and ‘representative’ will be used to explain the views of Te Kauae Marae.

1.) ARCHEOLOGY and HISTORY

2.3.1 Heritage Site. This section is included in the report but has no information. However, here is a passage from the Cultural Values Assessment draft by Roimata Harmon (Sources included in Appendix A) on Te Kauae - Hanga-a-tiki: A brief history of the area and its people.

3.1 Te Kauae - Hanga-a-tiki: A brief history of the land and its people

3.1.1 The people of Maniapoto descend from one of the eight children of Rereahu and Hineaupounamu. There is a long list of hapuu and iwi who exercise kaitiakitanga within Maniapoto and others who have a shared interest with other iwi.

!

3.1.2 Maniapoto was first son of Rereahu and Hineaupounamu who spent his later years residing in the area now known as Hanga-a-tiki. Kinohaku was a daughter who, along with her husband Tuirirangi, and Father in law, Huiao, resided at Pukeroa Pa and Ngakuraho.

3.1.3 Te Kauae was the original name of the area in Hangatiki The whare of Maniapoto at Pukeroa was called Te Kauae. However, when Maniapoto passed away, a tiki was carved by Pohoroa and erected to commemorate his death, the name of the area was then changed to Hangatiki.

!6

3.1.4 Prior to European settlement, the people of Maniapoto had well-established social structures, tikanga and kawa; distinct belief systems that ordered the exercise of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga for the land, water, the ocean, the sky and all natural resources within those realms. These systems extended to include family relationships, customary land rights and interests, conflict resolution and protection and the use of the environment through the application of tikanga and maatauranga Maori.

The history of this site reaches back more than 15 generations and yet, apart from the the archaeological assessment which is compulsory in order to carry out works on this land, there is very little acknowledgement in this proposal of Pukeroa and its history. The developers have their own agenda for this site and they simply do not care about the history.

2.3.2 Archaeological Site

P11 Figure 5 showing archaelogical highest risk areas….. p52,53 - 6.10 Fig 35

All archealogical information is clearly highlighted in Figure 5 in red. Figure 35 shows the overlay. The developer, through communications via email and in person, has only ever focused on protecting the tihi. This has been listed as a ‘compromise’ in the proposal. The developer has even suggested to turn the tihi into a reserve to protect it for the future. One way to illustrate this sentiment is to imagine your house catching on fire. Protecting the tihi is like saving the roof of your house from burning, but not your actual house. When your house burns to the ground, the roof falls down too.

I refer to the whakatauki used on the cover page of our submission.

‘Me i kite au i te pae tawhiti, i kite ake nō te tua o taku maunga whakahii’

If I was to see the horizon, the future for our people, its because I have stood on the fertile land, our Paa, the mountain (in its entirety), of my people.

When we speak about our maunga, we do not just speak of the top, it is the maunga in its entirety. Through face to face communication and emails with Te Kauae representatives, the developers have been told that the whole of Pukeroa needs to be protected.

Considering the developer has never recognised the significance of the site as a whole, we cannot agree to them being granted resource consent for this development. They have their own agenda for this site and they simply do not care that it is a site of significance.

!7

Members of the whanau from Te Kauae, namely Chris Koroheke, Bob Koroheke, Rona Cockle, Alan Cockle, Nikki Koroheke and Roimata Harmon have been successful in their application to register Pukeroa as a site of significance with Heritage NZ.

Other members of the whanau, namely Les Koroheke, Chris Koroheke, Nikki Koroheke and grandaughter Taurikura, Ron Takarei and daughter Miri, Roimata Harmon and daughters Karamea and Amokura, gathered with the Barnes’, current owners of the land, when the staff from Heritage NZ visited the site. Despite being notified, there was no representative from Sky Garden Development in attendance.

A final draft copy of the report written by Heritage NZ was made available to the applicants. It contains information about the history and whakapapa of Pukeroa and its significance to the people of Ngāti Kinohaku, Ngāti Huiao and Ngāti Peehi. A final report will be made available at a later date. It is understood that Heritage NZ are concerned about the impacts of this development on Pukeroa and have been in contact with the Waitomo District Council with their own recommendations. Heritage NZ will proceed with their plans to register Pukeroa as a wāhi tapu with the Māori Heritage Council. An excerpt from the final draft report written by Heritage NZ is as follows:

Te Kauae marae is the current tūrangawaewae of Ngāti Kinohaku and Ngāti Huiao. As noted earlier, the whare of Maniapoto at Pukeroa was also called Te Kauae and in the 1850s the name was given again to a new house. The wharenui and marae of Te Kauae has been moved at least three times over the generations to its present site to the east of the main highway. In the 1940s, the wharenui Kaputuhi (of Ngāti Kaputuhi) was moved from Waikeria, to Te Kawa and then onto whanau owned land on the north western side of Pukeroa

and is still standing at Kaputuhi marae.45

The hapū of Ngāti Kinohaku, Ngāti Huiao and Ngāti Te Peehi and the wider iwi of Ngāti Maniapoto demonstrate a continual occupation and connection to Pukeroa Hangatiki that stretches back generations. This hill pā is an important heritage legacy for all of Ngāti Maniapoto. Ngāti Maniapoto is currently going through the Waitangi Tribunal process for the Te Rohe Potae WAI898 inquiry. Granting Wāhi Tapu status to Pukeroa Pā by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga will demonstrate a continued commitment to work with Ngāti Kinohaku and Ngāti Maniapoto to recognise sites of ancestral importance.

This supports our stance as kaitiaki of Pukeroa and we are grateful to the mahi and support we have received from the team at Heritage NZ to protect our taonga.

6.7 Geotechnical Effects

A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report has been prepared by BCD Group attached as Appendix G for the proposal. Please refer to section 6 of this report for the geotechnical summary. In summary; the report confirms the ground conditions are suitable for the proposed development subject to further testing and detailed design.

!8

Uncle Bob Koroheke and Ronald Takarei were present during the geo technical testing as part of the process. This was to ensure the protection of the site and the people conducting the tests in case of any findings/disturbances of archaeological deposits created through the testing.

Overall, it is considered that any actual or potential adverse geotechnical effects of the proposal is considered to be less than minor subject to further testing and detailed design.

We would like to see the final investigation report of the geotechnical testing. Whilst the geotechnical preliminary testing of the site appeared to have little effect on the site, we disagree with the statement highlighted above.

At the time of the Archeological assessment, none of the plans which effect the archeological aspects of the site, have been prepared. Therefore, to say ‘that any actual or potential adverse geotechnical effects of the proposal is considered to be less than minor’, illustrates the disregard that the developers have for this site and its heritage.

Excerpts from the Archeological Assessment, Appendix I of the proposal repeatedly outline that there could be damage to previously unrecorded archaeological deposits. These are outlined and hightlighted below.

5.2 Proposed works areas

Based on the current proposed works areas, these are mostly the grassy rural flats and the internal portion of the gully where the waterway runs. There are other works proposed on the ele- vated ridgelines, such as structures and poles for the zipline.

The large-scale portions of the project mostly avoid known or high-risk areas of archaeological deposits, but it cannot be ruled out that the works will have an impact on archaeology.

Those areas which have the highest risk of having either known or potential archaeological deposits are mapped in Figure 19.

It is important to recognise the high-risk areas do not mean other areas will not contain archaeological deposits.

5.2.1 Pine removal

The removal of pine within the project footprint could have an adverse impact on previously unrecorded archaeological deposits from trees falling onto ground features, compaction from the weight of the fall, and stump grinding.

!9

The felling of the trees and machinery access for felling will likely damage potential unrecorded archaeological deposits, but none of these plans have been prepared. Eventual replanting of the area also poses a risk to potential unrecorded archaeological deposits.

5.2.2 Cut and fill works

The proposed works could destroy previously unrecorded archaeological deposits by removing them during earthworks.

5.2.3 Low native planting

The low native planting could damage previously unrecorded archaeological deposits.

It is likely that potential unrecorded archaeological deposits will be damaged. It is also likely that the increase of visitors will present a long-term risk to surrounding sites, mainly Pukeroa Pā.

5.2.4 Zipline towers

There are seven zipline towers proposed to be installed over different parts of the property. Three of the towers fall within or immediately next to high-risk areas (Figure 21).

These works cannot be assessed for the impact they will have on potential archaeological deposits. However, it seems likely the zipline towers could damage previously unrecorded archaeological deposits.

5.2.5 Service trenches

The footprint of these trenches has not been designed yet and it is not possible to assess the impact they will have on archaeological deposits. However, it seems likely any service trenches which do not fall within the cut and fill works could damage previously unrecorded archaeological deposits.

5.2.6 Construction phase ground disturbance

These have not been designed yet and it is not possible to assess the impact they may have on archaeological deposits. However, it seems likely any construction phase ground disturbance which does not fall within the cut and fill works could damage previously unrecorded archaeological deposits.

5.2.7 Visitor impacts

It is likely that potential unrecorded deposits maybe impacted by the increased number of visitors to the area once the Sky Garden is built.

5.2.8 Summary

There is reasonable cause to suspect potential unrecorded archaeological deposits are at risk of damage and/or removal in the project.

!10

It is evident from this report that it is likely that unrecorded archaeological deposits are at risk of damage and that there are certain areas of this development putting this site at risk. Until the actual plans have been disclosed, we are unable to comment further. Any other archaeological assessment would be welcome also.

Therefore, based on the information from the archaeological assessment and the lack of acknowledgement by the developer of the possible adverse effects that puts this site at risk, we must object to this resource consent application.

We would like to add here the article published in regard to the ‘Waitomo Sky Garden’ dated April 10th, one day after the submission deadline. This was shared amongst our whanau whānui to highlight the contrast of the developers views from ours. It must also be reinforced that Hangatiki is not Waitomo. The fact that tourism operators situated in Hangatiki are able to use ‘Waitomo’ as part of their name is no longer acceptable.

The developer continues to dishonor the ‘compromise’ made to use Hangatiki instead of Waitomo. If this is taking place before the development is even off the ground, then we highly doubt it will be honored if the development should take place. We choose not to comment further on the contents of this article right now, the link is shown as Appendix O and it speaks for itself.

2.) THE SIZE, SCALE and VISUAL IMPACTS

There are a number of contradictions in this section around the visual impact of the development. We understand that the developers are seeking a change from Rural zone to Tourism zone, however, we are are opposed to:

Section 4 ALL of this section besides restoration planting

6.2 Landscape and Visual Effects This assessment recognises that the proposed attraction will be visually prominent within the receiving environment which has the potential to affect the existing rural character and amenity values associated with the site and Hangatiki. As result of this; a design strategy has been adopted which acknowledges a shift within the site from a rural character to tourism character.

We object to having such a visually prominent structure on our pa site. The size and scale of the tower alone is sickening within this landscape. Elsewhere it could prove an amazing architectural structure. But on a significant site such as Pukeroa, it is unacceptable. The compromise from the developer is to place the tower below the tihi. This does not detach from the size and scale of the whole development on Pukeroa as a whole.

!11

Section 6.2 pg 47 a. The design and location of the proposed development within the site will help it to

integrate into the existing rural landscape, reducing potential effects on landscape character and visual amenity. ……….While this will reflect a change, it is not likely to affect the key attributes of the surrounding landscape or detract from the existing characteristics of the surrounding rural landscape to a significant degree.

This statement is a contradiction to the statement listed previously in 6.2 above. The design and location of the development will not integrate into the existing rural landscape, reducing potential effects on the landscape character and visual amenity. Even if the zone was tourism, the visual impact of this development would prove to be overpowering. This is evident in all diagrams and visuals provided of the towers, the platform and all the infrastructure to create this development. The key attributes of this site is that it is a site of significance. It is Pukeroa. The tower will detract from the existing characteristics of the surrounding rural landscape to a significant degree.

Section 6.2 pg 47 e. The proposed restoration planting will have a positive effect on the rural character. The stream and planting restoration in compensation restores the landscape surrounding the tower to its more natural state.

The restoration planting of this land is welcome and will have a positive effect on the landscape. However, the stream and planting restoration do not compensate for the sheer size and scale of this development as a whole, particularly the tower.

Overall, the proposed development will affect existing landscape and visual amenity of the site and its surroundings by introducing a scale of development not currently experienced within the Hangatiki area. This change however will only affect the landscape immediately around the site and is consistent with expectation around the presence of adventure tourism in the wider landscape and is likely to reinforce this aspect of Waitomo District’s character, and the district as an adventure/tourism destination.

Whanau from Te Kauae reside in Hangatiki. The changes proposed “will only affect the landscape immediately around the site”. These changes are not welcome by the whanau living there. Te Kauae support any submission that is made by whanau living in Hangatiki. Again, it must be noted that Pukeroa is not one site on many titles, it is an entity that connects to the whole area of Hangatiki, just as the tihi is not the only part worth protecting on this site.

In regard to the size and scale of this development. Currently, the plans do not meet the required rules according to the Waitomo District Plan. Our concern for the size and scale is of this development is highlighted in the proposal in the 5.1.2 passage below.

!12

5.1.2 Waitomo District Plan Rules Assessment

A thorough assessment of the proposal against the relevant rules of the ODP has been completed and attached to this report as Appendix C. In summary, this proposal triggers resource consent under the following rules: • Rule 11.5.4.1 (e) – Maximum Building Height - The proposal involves construction of a tower including a viewing deck with a maximum height of approximately 63.8m. A circular balustrade will be located around the viewing deck and a lightning rod and a navigational light are to be located on top of the tower providing a further 4.7m of height. The zip line will start from on top of the tower. The maximum total height of the building including attachments above the existing ground will be no more than 68.5m that will exceed the permitted maximum building height of 10m under this rule by 58.5m (above the existing ground level). The proposed zip line towers will have a maximum height of 15m that will exceed the permitted maximum building height of 10m under this rule by 5m (above the existing ground level). • Rule 11.5.4.1(f) - Maximum Building Area – The proposal involves constructing a tower structure which will occupy approximately 254m2 of building area aswell as an accessory building (main building and cafe) with a maximum building area of no more than 900m2 that will exceed the permitted maximum building area of 200m2 under this rule by 254m2 and 700m2 respectfully. Rule 11.5.4.3(a) - Scale of activity – The proposal will employ approximately 59 FTE persons as calculated in the Economic Impact Assessment attached Appendix R that will exceed the permitted threshold scale of 5 persons. For flexibility, consent is sought to employ up to 65 persons.

On the basis that the expected development does not meet the requirements under the Waitomo District Plan Rules Assessment, we ask the WDC not to grant resource consent.

Whilst employment may be a positive impact of this development, the impacts of the current crises that we are facing would cause instability in employment. In the wake of the pandemic, tourism numbers both domestically and internationally have been ground to a halt. This is an exceptional circumstance that we have found ourselves in with COVID-19 but these facts need to be considered in the long term.

Having a large scale development such as this in an uncertain climate is a risky business. If the development were to go ahead and travel patterns were to drastically change as anticipated, and numbers were to decline, there would be no requirement for another large scale development or another zipline in the Waitomo region. As with the case in Waitomo where Sky Garden initially began, we could potentially be left with part or all of a development on a cleared construction site.

!13

It is unknown what the future has in store, but global travel patterns will undergo massive changes and this will pose threats to tourism attractions in NZ. Air New Zealand in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced its flights both domestically and globally by over 95%. They will be reducing the size of their overall operations by 30% with a change of focus to becoming a domestic airline. CEO, Greg Foran announced in an email to Air New Zealand customers that the global reduction in air travel has hit Air New Zealand hard and we are earning less than $500 million revenue annually based on the current booking patterns. This means we are dealing with a significant reduction of over $5 billion in revenue per year. Ka aroha hoki. We feel for them. The trickle down effect of this will be seen over time and it is a sad and uncertain time for our national airline and its employees.

Considering the size and scale of the Sky Garden Development and the uncertainty of the tourism climate, we would not welcome a development of this nature on this land.

3.) The RURAL SETTING of HANGATIKI

There are quite a number of contradictions in the proposal around the Rural zoning and the visual impact of this development on the rural setting of Hangatiki. The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant objectives and policies referred to in Chapter 11. Chapter 11 of the proposal is entitled Rural Zone, it lists all the objectives to protect the rural zone. However all these objectives will be impacted by this development including rural character, protection of water quality, protecting outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate use, the discharge of effluent activities, to name a few. There is no longer any regard for the rural zone if it is to be turned into a tourism zone.

Comment: In terms of objective 11.3.1 and policy 14.1.1; while the proposal is not generally anticipated in the Rural Zone; the proposal will result in employment.

There are many statements like this dotted throughout the proposal. The proposal doesn’t fit into a rural zone so the suggested remedy for that here is employment.

In terms of objective 11.3.3; archaeological features that exist onsite will be protected retained from adverse effects arising from the proposal. The location of the proposed ziplines, tower, main building including café, walkway and carpark are located away somewhat considerable distance from the identified archaeological site and visible archaeological feature which run along the ridge as seen in Figure 4 of this report.

These generic comments are consistent throughout the report. Even though this has been discussed in detail under section 1 of this submission ‘Archaeology and History’, it will also be noted here also as part of the policies and objectives.

!14

The whole site of Pukeroa deserves to be protected. It is also stated in the archaeological assessment that some zip line towers are being situated near high risk areas. It is not possible to know the adverse effects on unknown archaeological features on this site. However, there is reasonable cause to suspect potential unrecorded archaeological deposits are at risk of damage and/or removal in the project.

The Sky Garden developer continues to deny the negative implications that their development will have on many of these factors outlined in this submission.

In terms of objective 11.3.8 and 11.3.9 relating to landscape and visual effects including rural character; a landscape visual assessment has been provided with the application which has reached the following conclusion. Overall, the proposed development will affect existing landscape and visual amenity of the site and its surroundings by introducing a scale of development not currently experienced within the Hangatiki area.

In terms of objective 11.3.11, 11.3.12 and policy 11.4.17 relating to not adversely affecting rural activities and lawfully established industrial activities and ensuring adverse effects of large non-farm buildings are avoided, remedied or mitigated; it is considered the proposal including its proposed mitigation (in particular; proposed mitigation planting) will not adversely affect any rural activities and lawfully established industrial activities that exist in the surrounding rural area and mitigate any adverse effects as result of the proposed buildings.

In terms of objectives 11.3.5, 11.3.10 and policy 11.4.4; the proposal will not result in increased erosion and the proposed restoration of an existing open farm drain to a stream will ensure water quality is not degraded.

A gigantic bungy tower and 7 other large zipline towers in the current Rural Zone would come under the classification as large non-farm building and the sheer size and scale of these non-farm buildings alone will have adverse effects which will not be avoided and which are unlikely to be mitigated or remedied by planting. Just like creating 2 bores for water will not be remedied by the restoration of a farm drain to ensure water quality is not degraded.

Turning this area into a Tourism Zone will not change the negative adverse effects that this development will have on the overall site.

!15

4.) THE IMPACT OF TOURISM on the ENVIRONMENT

For Maniapoto, land use and management of natural resources needs to be guided by a commitment to sustainability, both in the present and for the generations to come, which means maintaining diverse and abundant ecosystems in perpetuity while providing for diverse cultural, social and economic activities that support a balanced, healthy, secure and sustainable quality of life. In accordance with kaitiakitanga and cultural imperatives, Maniapoto seek to protect and enhance the mauri of taona (whether a resource, species or place) and includes the ongoing ability to protect and use natural resources and to associate with wāhi tapu and taonga. (Ko Tā Maniapoto Mahere Taiao, Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan)

pg 67 8.1 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (Section 104(1) (a)) In Section 5 of this report any actual or potential adverse effects on the environment of allowing the proposal have been discussed at length. We consider that the granting of consent to allow this proposal is consistent with promoting the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.

The only hint of sustainable management practices applied by the applicant are the restoration of a farm drain and the restoration planting of native species.

In particular, the proposal will enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while the potential for adverse effects on the environment will be minimised by undertaking the works in compliance with appropriate conditions of consent.

This is another generic example of statements dotted throughout the proposal. This statements suggests that the adverse environmental effects will be outweighed by the social, economic and cultural well being of the people and the community. In reality, it is the care of the environment and its resources, not the destruction through development that will have a positive impact on the cultural well being of the people and the community moving forward.

p43 - working 7 days a week 7-7 p35 - hours of operation….11pm 7 days a week, 950 visitors a day.

The operation hours of 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, combined with the expected number of nearly 1,000 visitors per day is an obvious concern. The pressure on the existing water table and the unknown effects of the water quality and quantity are unknown. The number of visitors to the site is also a concern raised in the archaeological report. This proposal is lacking in sustainable management practices and is focussing on a concept on a grand scale that projects the idea that ‘bigger is better’. However, The Parliamentary Commissioner for

!16

the Environment (PCE) Simon Upton in his report, Appendix B warns that increasing numbers of tourists are eroding the very attributes that make New Zealand such an attractive country to visit.

The Commissioner has released a report on the environmental consequences of projected tourism growth in New Zealand. He says tourism is often seen as an environmentally benign form of economic development, but it does place a number of strains on the environment, including:

• visitor density and loss of natural quiet; • water quality degradation; • solid waste generation and management; • infrastructure development and landscape modification; • biodiversity loss and biosecurity risk; • greenhouse gas emissions.

We have whanau who are living in the vicinity and the effects of the long operating hours along with taking of water, construction, increase in traffic, light and noise and visual impacts on their quality of life will have detrimental effects if this development were to go ahead. We support any submission the whanau make in regard to opposing this development.

The ministry of the environment in NZ, in their environmental reporting series, “Aotearoa Environment 2019” Appendix C, makes the following statement (pg 6)

The relationship and connection we have with the environment goes well beyond the goods and services we receive from it, like food, fuel, and clean water. Our environment is where we stand, our tūrangawaewae – where we live, learn, work and earn a living, play, and socialise. It is our home and our identity, and the foundation of our national culture and tradition.

The statement goes on to recognize the importance of tangata whenua when considering the environment.

As tangata whenua – people of the land – Māori have a distinct and special connection to the land. Māori identity, well-being, knowledge, and language systems, and the ways the culture is nourished, are indivisible from the health of Papatūānuku, the Earth Mother.

The whakapapa Māori have with the environment embeds humans in the environment. It ensures the unique connection of tangata whenua is respected and brings a way of thinking that helps us all see ourselves as a part of, not apart from, the environment…………..How we go forward from here is up to all of us.

The report covers various themes but we would like to highlight Theme’s 2, 4 and 5.

!17

Theme 2: How we use our land The way we use our land and what happens when we change from one land use to another can have significant effects on the health of our ecosystems, and the benefits we get from them. Effects can be on the land itself but also extend to connected streams, estuaries, and seas.

Even though the current land use is not the most ideal with pine and farming, the change of zones from rural to tourism will effect the ecosystems and the puna below.

This theme focuses on two major changes that have been made to the land: 1. What we have removed: Cutting down native forests, draining wetlands, and clearing land for farming and

development have accelerated our naturally high rates of soil loss. This has also degraded a range of ecosystem services provided by native vegetation.

Drastic changes have already taken place over the years with the clearing of the land for a township and again for farming purposes.

2. What we have built: Human-made structures and hard surfaces affect the natural systems we rely on. There is a particular focus in this issue on the spread of urban areas over versatile land (which can be used for many purposes, including farming) and scarce high-class soils.

It is clear that another change on this land, including boring into the water table, filling the land with carparks and drilling into the land for tower placements, will have huge detrimental impacts on the environment and its ecosystems.

Theme 4: How we use our freshwater and marine resources Our rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans are valued for their ecosystems and the services and resources they provide. The way we interact with these resources (taking water for irrigation, fishing for example) can compromise the health of the ecosystems and their ability to provide the cultural and socio-economic benefits we depend on.

Drilling 2 bore holes into the land to draw water with the future plan of subdividing and drilling further bores is not consistent with the care needed to protect our water systems. More about water will be covered later.

Theme 5: Our changing climate Climate, and changes in climate, are affecting every ecosystem and some of the things we value. Here, our role as both influencers and recipients of climate is explored. Placing climate change as the final theme is also a chance to show how this unprecedented global disruption will affect every other issue.

!18

This report is included as Appendix C and as you would expect, it is a very useful guiding document to safe-guard the environment for future generations. I am sure the WDC are aware of this report and can use it as a reference in their decision making processes.

The environment and its resources are integral to the wellbeing of Te Kauae Marae and its people. We are looking at ways to improve our position with the environment and the systems that have been introduced at Te Kauae Marae over the years. We have been successful in our application to receive funding from Waikato Regional Authority. Here are some of the objectives we see as kaitiaki of the whenua.

Te Kauae Marae have received funding from the Waikato Regional Authoristy in 2019 to develop the role of kaitiaki for the people of Te Kauae Marae by reinvigorating their relationship with their land and indigenous flora and fauna through the restoration of wetland and the increase of abundance and diversity of indigenous flora and fauna on the land surrounding Te Kauae Marae.

Te Kauae Marae proposes to restore the mauri of two sites, over five years, on land adjacent to their marae to fulfil their obligations as kaitiakitanga. These include two wetland sites covering approximately 0.61 ha. This initiative is Phase 1 of a larger vision to restore te mauri o te Mangapu, Mangarapa and Waipā Rivers.

The two sites are currently highly degraded, dominated by exotic plants, and accessed by stock with no animal or plant pest control is currently being undertaken in the area. Te Kauae Marae will restore the ecological value of these two sites along with their cultural practices by achieving the project’s three key goals:

1 Increasing the abundance and diversity of indigenous flora and fauna on the land surrounding Te Kauae Marae.

2 Restoring and protecting the relationship and our cultural practices of the people of Te Kauae Marae with the land surrounding the marae.

3 Increasing the water filtering services of the wetland habitats adjacent to the Te Kauae Marae.

Successful implementation of this restoration project will result in benefits to the local community of Hangatiki by developing the role of the members of Te Kauae as kaitiaki and the indigenous biodiversity of New Zealand by recreating high quality, indigenous dominated habitat. As a sub-catchment with documented and active aquifers the hydrological activity of this area is well recorded through occupation of the site and daily use of the sacred water available. Unfortunately, land use practices of farming and forestry have severely degraded the water availability and quality. Restoration of the wetland and regeneration of the local biodiversity would be a clear outcome for the hapū.

With our clear commitment to the whenua highlighted above, we can not agree to this development going ahead on the whenua at Pukeroa.

!19

Appendix P : KO TA MANIAPOTO MAHERE TAIAO: MANIAPOTO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (2016)

A number of sections are included in this appendix, however, we will use Part 26 as an example of the generic nature of the applicants comments in response to the detailed guiding framework of Maniapoto iwi and their environment.

Part 26: Tourism and Recreation Objective 26.3.1: Tourism activities To ensure tourism activities are sustainable and provides for environmental, social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Maniapoto while protecting Maniapoto sites and culture Policy 26.3.1.1 - Tourism in the Maniapoto rohe is operated in a manner that provides for environmental, social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Maniapoto while protecting Maniapoto sites and culture

Objective 26.3.2: Recreation Activities To ensure recreation use and activities do not adversely affect the environment and facilities are available to provide for the reasonable needs of users, including supporting Maniapoto to restore and maintain their relationships with the environment. Policy 26.3.2.1 - Recreation and associated facilities are managed to ensure that the environment is protected, that human health and safety is maintained and that Maniapoto can restore and maintain their relationships with the environment through recreation.

It is not clear from these statements above, how human health and safety is relevant nor how Maniapoto can restore and maintain their relationships with the environment through recreation.

Comment: The proposed tourism attraction will be established on a portion of a site within the village of Hangatiki. It is desired to operate the tourism attraction in a manner that provides for environmental, social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Maniapoto while protecting Maniapoto sites and culture. Based on the actions to be undertaken by Maniapoto in respect of the above Objectives and Policies, it is considered facilities are to be available to provide for the reasonable needs of users, including supporting Maniapoto to restore and maintain their relationships with the environment.

These generic comments are regurgitated throughout Appendix P in response to the relevant sections. It is not evident anywhere in this proposal how this tourism attraction provides for the environmental, social, cultural and economic well being of Maniapoto nor is it clear how this tourism development aims to protect Maniapoto sites and culture nor does it support Maniapoto to restore and maintain their relationship with the environment.

!20

Summary:

Overall it is considered that the proposal will be adequately aligning with the relevant provisions of Ko Ta Maniapoto Mahere Taiao: the Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan 2016, provided the works are carried out in the manner detailed in the application and in accordance with conditions imposed in regard to any resource consent granted.

This is the summary. This summary clearly highlights that the considered proposal is inadequate and does not align with the provisions of Ko Tā Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan, 2016. Appendix D. Therefore, we do not want the WDC to grant resource consent.

It must also be noted that the following sections in Ko Tā Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan have not been deemed ‘relevant’ to the developer when considering this proposal. We have listed these below with a brief description of each:

7.0 Kaitiakitanga and Rangatiratanga pg 42 The ability to practice kaitiakitanga and contribute tikanga, kawā and mātauranga Māori to decision making and management processes is important to the people of Maniapoto.

There has been no reference in this proposal or relationship established between the developer and tangata whenua or ‘iwi’ based on kaitiakitanga and rangatiriatanga. They have not consulted with ‘iwi’ using the processes outlined in this plan.

9.0 Customary Activities pg 48 The lack of access to traditional places and sites of significance due to private land restrictions and land use activities has impacted on the ability of the people of Maniapoto to exercise customary activities and practices.

There is no mention in the proposal that iwi will have access to this site of significance.

The pollution, damage and destruction to natural resources due to land use activities have limited the ability of the people of Maniapoto to access making kai areas and taonga species.

This has taken place in our back yard in Mangarapa where the damage and destructions to our streams have seen a decrease in species such as fresh water crayfish and tuna.

24.0 Waste Water pg 100 The protection and enhancement of Papatūānuku from harmful and hazardous waste is important to Maniapoto. Waste disposal practices and methods and the release of pollutants into the environment have the potential to impact on the relationship of the people of Maniapoto with the natural resources, customary activities and mahi kainga areas.

!21

This development wishes to cater for 950 tourists per day. It is a concern in regard to wastewater. Although Waste Water is mentioned in the proposal, it is not deemed relevant in accordance to the Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan. The lack of information and design regarding waste water raises red flags and if this development were to somehow go ahead, we would like to see detailed plans of the system and the practices that the Sky Garden will incorporate to deal with their waste and waste water.

We support any submission that our whanaunga from Kapatuhi Marae and their residents put forward in regard to opposing this development. And based on the inadequacies in the proposal in regard to Ko Tā Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan, we object to this development.

5.) SPIRITUAL ESSENCE of PUKEROA There is no mention of the spiritual essence of the land in this proposal. As a living, breathing entity, the whenua has its own mauri, life force. It is well known that Maniapoto gathered his people here before he died. Kaputuhi Marae lies at the base of Pukeroa, the home to Ngāti Kaputuhi and Ngāti Taiwa. Te Kauae through its connections with Ngāti Huiao and Ngāti Kinohaku, have a connection to this land.

Even the Waikato Regional Council recognizes that Maori have strong spiritual bonds to the land, Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother. She provides unity and identity to her people and sustains them. It is important that we protect our land and water from erosion, deforestation and inappropriate land use. Maori consider that Papatuanuku sustains all life, and that they are spiritually connected to her. This connection is shown when a baby is born and the whenua (after birth) is buried in a sacred site. Māori regard land, soil and water as taonga (treasures). Māori are the kaitiaki (guardians) of these taonga, which provide a source of unity and identity for tangata whenua (local people). The loss of ancestral lands is a key issue for Māori. Māori want to use their own land management systems to protect and enhance the land.

There is no mention of the other significant sites of the area, Kākāmorea, Ngakuraho, Paratui, to name a few, and their connection to Pukeroa. Pukeroa is not just one site extending over a number of titles, it is interconnected with the whole whenua of Hangatiki through time, whakapapa and history. As with Ngakuraho and Pukeroa, Te Kauae Marae will be submitting an application to Heritage NZ to list Kākāmorea as a site of significance. Pukeroa has been listed with Heritage NZ as a wahi tapu, a sacred place.

Heritage NZ in their report include a section below.

!22

Statement of Wāhi Tapu Area Values

Pukeroa Pā is considered sacred by Ngāti Kinohaku, Ngāti Huiao and the other affiliated hapū of Ngāti Maniapoto in the traditional and ritual sense as a dwelling place of Maniapoto, Kinohaku, Tūirirangi and the other descendants of the tūpuna Rereahu, and there is an urupā there. It is also has associated punawai and considered to be sacred by the hapū. The importance of Pukeroa to the tribal narrative of Ngāti Maniapoto was re- flected in the Native Land Court judgement of the block being titled ‘Pukeroa Hangatiki’. The hapū of Pukeroa, as descendants of Kinohaku, Tūirirangi and Maniapoto have maintained their connection to this place, albeit the land is in private ownership.

An urupa exists on this site, but little is known about its location. Therefore, we do not support any works that could have possible detrimental effects to our sacred sites on the land.

5.) WAIORA

In Māori tradition the Springs are waiora, the purest form of water which is the wairua (spiritual) and the physical source of life. The Springs provide water for healing, and in the past were a place of ceremonial blessings at times of birth and death and the leaving and returning of travellers.

The MMTB have been doing trojan mahi to protect our environment and in particular, our waters and their waterways and systems. They have achieved so much since the Whanake Taiao board was establised in 2013. Their commitment to the whenua and the wai is helping us to reconnect with the land and its resources. We are gaining important knowledge from our water systems. We are grateful to all the mahi that the MMTB have been doing for our iwi in regard to our environment. Te Kauae Marae have been a part of this mahi through the RMC Hauauru Ki Uta.

Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012 was an achievement to protect our awa. The relationship with the land is outlined from the short passage below. The whole document supports our request to protect Pukeroa and its resources based on the significance of this site, its heritage and its water systems, to our people.

Te Mana o te Awa o Waipa

(8) The Waipa River is of deep, cultural significance to Maniapoto. It is a taonga to Maniapoto and respect for it lies at the heart of their spiritual and physical wellbeing and their tribal identity and culture.

(9) To Maniapoto, the essence and wellbeing of the Waipa is Waiwaia, a spiritual guardian of all things that are the Waipa River. Its importance to Maniapoto is boundless.

(10) To Maniapoto, the Waipa River is a single indivisible entity that flows from Pekepeke to its confluence with the Waikato River and includes its waters, banks, bed (and all minerals under it) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, fisheries, vegetation, floodplains, wetlands, islands,

!23

springs, geothermal springs, water column, airspace and substratum as well as its metaphysical elements with its own mauri.

(11) Maniapoto have a deep felt obligation to restore, maintain, and protect the quality and integrity of the waters that flow into and form part of the Waipa River for present and future generations and to the care and protection of the mana tuku iho o Waiwaia.

(12) To Maniapoto, their relationship with the Waipa River, and their respect for it, gives rise to their responsibilities to protect Te Mana o Te Wai and to exercise their kaitiakitanga in accordance with their long established tikanga.

The legislation in 2017 regarding Te Mana o te Wai is pertinent to our situation and we would like to highlight aspects of this kōrero below.

Te Mana o te Wai

(13) Te Mana o Te Wai is paramount to Maniapoto. Historically, Te Mana o Te Wai was such that it would provide all manner of sustenance to Maniapoto including physical and spiritual nourishment that has over generations maintained the quality and integrity of Maniapoto marae, whanau, hapu and iwi.

(14) The obligations are intergenerational and extend to Nga Wai o Maniapoto – all waters within the Maniapoto rohe – whether the waters are above, on, or underground.

It is said there are many puna underground at Pukeroa. It is said that one of the puna wai on this site was used for blessings at the time of death. There is verbal evidence from whanau members that other spring existed on the land, however, through development of other tourism ventures in the area, the demand exceeded the supply, and they dried up. The springs are connected to the systems that MMTB are looking to learn more about and protect.

Here is a section from the CVA written by Roimata, around Te Mana o te Wai.

6.1 Te Mana O Te Wai

He puna wai, he puna kai, he puna reo, he puna ora, ita-a-ita

A water spring, a bountiful spring, a language spring, a life spring, hold fast.

6.1.1 All water sources have played an important role in traditional Māori society. They are a source of food, a source of textiles or other materials, used traditionally in travel or trade, a place for performing rituals central to the spiritual life of the hapū.

6.1.2 Water is included in lyrics for waiata, and whakatauki of our people. Many iwi have identified taniwha as the kaitiaki, guardians of their water sources and whakapapa identifies a deeper connection to all natural things, including water. Ngāti Maniapoto is no exception.

6.1.3 All water has mauri (a living energy). It is this mauri which provides for all living things and every place with a unique disposition. It is therefore imperative that nothing adversely impacts upon its integrity. Such

!24

an action detrimentally affects the mauri of the resource and consequently the mana, wellbeing and health of the people.

6.1.4 Water is a fundamental component for all dimensions of life. Water not only sustains life, but also serves an economic, social, cultural, spiritual, and political purpose. Regardless of the significance of water, the increase in water contamination by cities, industries, and agriculture/horticulture has led to the deterioration of the mauri of water.

This reinforces the importance of our water sources to our people. Thus our need to protect them from such developers and the Sky Garden development.

Pg 8,9 - Water Right 11522 6.8 pg 51 Water Two new bores are proposed to provide the required supply (30m3); one bore on separate titles (2 new lots proposed as part of a future subdivision consent to be created to match the extent of land subject to the proposal) – exact location in each title to be confirmed. This is a permitted activity under the Waikato Regional Plan. This will provide an adequate supply of water to the proposal. In summary; no adverse water effects are expected to occur as result of the proposal.

This legal interest is private and not enforced by Council therefore does not restrict the proposal from proceeding. This legal interest relates to a right to utilise an existing spring onsite. This water right is subject to four properties (titles) including the subject site and the electricity substation across SH 37 near the site. The spring is not proposed to be utilised as part of this proposal. In discussions with the properties subject to this water right; the applicant has offered to upgrade the infrastructure (storage tank, water lines and pump).

Whanau fromTe Kauae are living in homes that are serviced by this spring. There is no guarantee that this private interest will continue. There needs to be a long term solution for residents in regard to creating access to water. Even though the existing spring will not be utilized, the creation of two bores is highly likely to have an impact on the existing spring, its water levels and the quality of the water.

Water shortages have already taken place over the years with the need for water for farming and animals. The developer has offered to upgrade the infrastructure but the concerns around the impacts of the 2 bores outweigh the benefits of new infrastructure.

The Department of Conservation state that Springs and their biota face significant threats from unsustainable use of groundwaters and the destruction of spring habitats. Management of springs, particularly on lowland alluvial plains, should be intimately linked with groundwater management so that spring flows and groundwater quality are maintained at the aquifer scale. Protection and

!25

rehabilitation of springs may also be required at the local scale, especially on private land, so that representative habitats are maintained within the landscape. The rest of this report can be found as Appendix F

Pg 40 AEE-Final 15,000 litres of water extracted per bore per day.

The National Environmental Standard (NES) is an important step in managing New Zealand’s water resources and has been adopted by a number of regional councils. In some cases, resource consents to take and use groundwater will not be processed until an aquifer capacity study/through-flow analysis has been completed.

The final geotechnical report to follow on from the preliminary report is not contained in this proposal. Considering 15,000 litres per day will be drawn from the bores, it would be useful to know the capacity of the bores. However, we object to the water being used in such a large scale without understanding the impacts of drawing water on the water levels and quality of the water.

p52 - Wastewater

There is insufficient detail in this proposal about sustainable management of waste water. This will effect the whanau at Kapatuhi Marae, therefore we support any submission from the whanau of Kapatuhi marae in regard to opposing this development.

Te Kauae Marae recognizes that the quality of water determines the relationship that the tribe has with it waters. Environmental degradation, at a national level, has occurred at a large coast and the physical, chemical and biological quality of water has deteriorated as a result of both point source pollution (discharges into a body of water at a single location), and non-point source pollution (contamination from diffuse sources).

The waters of the Waikato region have been greatly modified to support economic gains, and the impacts of poor management practices are increasingly been seen. As a result, human impacts from farming, agriculture, wastewater treatment, damming, horticulture, urban development, stormwater and forestry conversions have modified natural water flows and the degree of contaminants that a water body receives, resulting in a decrease in water quality in rivers, streams, aquifer and harbours.

Therefore, we must object to this development.

Ko te mauri, ko te waiora o te Waipa ko Waiwaia. Ko Waipa te toto o te tangata! Ko Waipa te toto o te whenua, koia hoki he wai Manawa whenua! Ko Waipa tetehi o nga taonga o Maniapoto whanui.

!26

6.) CORRESPONDENCE WITH IWI

Appendix L Correspondence with Iwi

It is clear from the email communications between the developer and ‘iwi' over time, that ‘iwi’ are people who have full time jobs, are experts in their fields, have their own whanau and situations or are members of various other boards and committees. Uncle Pat Stafford is a good example of a family and an iwi man committed to both his iwi. ’Iwi’, when required to, are expected to meet or respond to emails, review documents, find solutions for CIA’s, provide information, conduct karakia, attend site visits (the list continues) in their own time. Mostly, they are not paid but must hold their position voluntarily.

Once connection with the land was established, Roimata, in consultation with Ron Takarei stepped in to be the representative for Te Kauea Marae with the developer, John Heskett. Since Novmber 4th, Roimata has had consistent communication with the developer, meeting in person twice in November, communicating via email and text, and meeting deadlines despite the holiday season and tangihanga of her Uncle. See Appendix L for correspondence up until November 27th. Communication continued until January when the developer ceased his communications with the representative.

It must be noted that the Engagement and Consultation Process as outlined in part 3.4, pg 33 of Ko tā Maniapoto Mahere Taiao, was not used by the developers when engaging with ‘iwi’.

3.3 Iwi The applicant has consulted with Iwi regarding the proposal. After initially contacting Hauauru Ki Uta Regional Management Committee within the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board; the applicant was directed to Te Kauae Marae located at 954 Mangarino Road, Hangatiki who have interest in the local area.

Te Kauae Marae has been Ronald Takerei until recently (November 4, 2019) with Roimata Harmon

We agree with the statement above, Ron Takarei and Roimata Harmon have been the representatives of ‘iwi’ through Te Kauae Marae and with the support of the Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee, oppose this development. The letter of support is included on the following page. Under the circumstances, it has not been officially signed by Uncle Pat, but was endorsed at the last RMC Hauauru ki Uta meeting.

!27

09/03/20

C/O - 68 Hill Street TE KUITI 3910   Mobil: 0275766253

Re: Sky Garden proposal at Hangatiki Applicant – John Heskett.

Tena koe John,

Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee (RMC) is one of seven forums established to represent marae in a specific geographical area within Maniapoto and are a branch of the Mandated Iwi Authority named, The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board (MMTB).

The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board (MMTB) must comply with two Acts:

• Section 56 of the Maori Trust Board Act 1955 provides for representation of specific sections or divisions of stakeholders/beneficiaries (i.e. marae)

• The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act 1988 under Section 5-7 provides for membership of the Board and Section 8 makes specific mention to RMC and how they comprise of people elected to represent the interests of marae in the Maniapoto area.

This letter is re-confirmation that the Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee supported the letter dated 11.11.19. The intent of the original letter dated the 11.11.19 has been misinterpreted in a way that it appears the Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee supports this development.

The Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee supported the decision made by the Mana Whenua who associate with Te Kauae pa at a meeting in late 2019, with a majority vote opposing the development and desecration of this historic site.

Our Representative to Te Kauae pa has raised the letter dated 11.11.19 as a concern for tonight’s meeting and has requested clarification.

The Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee supports the decision made by the Mana Whenua in opposing this proposed development.

Naku iti nei,

Rore Stafford, Chairperson of Hauauru ki Uta Regional Management Committee

!28

7.) CULTURAL IMPACT/VALUES ASSESSMENT AKA TANGATA WHENUA EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Quality Planning (what is a cultural impact assessment) Appendix J, states that A CIA is a report documenting Māori cultural values, interests and associations with an area or a resource, and the potential impacts of a proposed activity on these. CIAs are a tool to facilitate meaningful and effective participation of Māori in impact assessment. A CIA should be regarded as technical advice, much like any other technical report such as ecological or hydrological assessments. There is no statutory requirement for applicants or a territorial/regional council to prepare or commission a CIA. However, an assessment of impacts on cultural values and interests can assist both applicants and the council to meet statutory obligations.

CIAs are often prepared to articulate the effects of a proposal or activity and are framed in response to Part 2 matters under the RMA, usually as part of a consent or requirement for a designation process. In particular, CIAs address: • Recognising and providing for the relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands, waters, forests, wāhi tapu and other taonga • Having particular regard for Kaitiakitanga • Having particular regard for historic heritage; and • Taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Antoine Coffin,Te Onewa Consultants Limited, 2016.

There are numerous titles used for a Cultural Impact Assessment these days. Whichever title you use, does not change the fact that there is no Cultural Impact Assessment included in this application. A development of this size and scale situated on such a significant site, should require a CIA. The applicant sought guidance from the whanau to come up with a CIA plan.

It was eventually agreed between parties that Roimata Harmon would write the CIA for the Sky Garden. A deadline was set by the applicant to have the scope and cost of the CIA in by Christmas 2019. The scope and cost of a Cultural Impact Statement was sent via email on 23rd December, 2019. Appendix K. Roimata began research and started to write a CIS in anticipation. This was communicated with the developer. However, the developer failed to communicate any further on this issue, so the report has been created as a Cultural Values Assessment and is still in draft form.

Based on the lack of regard for the Cultural value and significance of Pukeroa in this proposal and no genuine efforts to make safe-guarding the cultural landscape a prioroty, we object to the Sky Garden Development.

!29

Conclusion

Landscapes are of particular value to Te Kauae Marae as they are part of who we are and define our history. Many sites and activities of cultural significance have been destroyed and changed ownership and management over time. Once these sites are altered or lost, they cannot be replaced and there is no mitigation that can restore its original significance. Therefore, Pukeroa Pa waahi tapu and waahi tupuna must be protected for the benefit of future generations and to acknowledge the sacrifices of tūpuna.

It is vital for the people of Te Kauae Marae that three key considerations are provided for regarding any development.

• That the mana of our people is upheld, acknowledged and respected

• That our people have rangatiratanga (opportunity to participate, be involved and contribute to decision making) over our ancestral Taonga

• That as kaitiaki we fulfil our obligation and responsibility to our environment in accordance with our customs passed down and to be accountable to the people (current and future generations) in these roles as custodians.

The Sky Garden Development have not considered or honored our position as kaitiaki of this land. They have taken the view that Pukeroa is no longer in our hands and therefore, we have no authority over the land and its use. However, it is through the application to Heritage NZ to register Pukeroa as a site of significance that we sought to protect Pukeroa in its entirety.

We would like the Waitomo District Council not to grant resource consent based on the significance of Pukeroa in its entirety to our Marae, Te Kauae and the various hapū of Ngāti Maniapoto. We would like the WDC to consider all points in the supporting documents of our submission in their decision making. We would like the WDC to honor the partnership formed between the WDC and MMTB to provide the best outcomes for the environment and its people. We would like to safe-guard Pukeroa so that we can use the time to learn our stories, share our stories and make meaningful connections to the land moving forward and restore the mana of the land and its people.

"Kia mau ki tena, Kai mau ki te kawau maro"

!30

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CULTURAL VALUES ASSESSMENT - This document is in draft form, parts included in this submission.

APPENDIX B: https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/pristine-popular-imperilled-the-environmental-consequences-of-projected-tourism-growth   Pristine, popular... imperilled?The environmental consequences of projected tourism growth Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, December 2019 Page 7

APPENDIX C: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Environmental%20reporting/environment-aotearoa-2019.pdf Environment Aotearoa, Ministry for the Environment, April 2019 page 6   APPENDIX D: https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/Community/Iwi/Maniapoto-Environmental-Management-Plan.pdf Ko Ta Maniapoto Mahere Taiao – Maniapoto Environmental Management Plan Maniapoto Māori Trust Board, JULY 2016     APPENDIX F: https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/sfc278entire.pdf New Zealand coldwater springs and their biodiversity, Department of Conservation 2007   APPENDIX G: https://nzier.org.nz/static/media/filer_public/d2/ce/d2cef6fa-3b58-4f11-bb0b-7b2a684ac181/nzier_public_discussion_paper_2014-01_-_water_management_in_nz.pdf Water management in New Zealand A road map for understanding water value, NZIER public discussion paper Working paper 2014/01, March 2014   APPENDIX H: https://www.orc.govt.nz/media/4194/options-background-report-december-2017.pdf Arrow catchment and Wakatipu Basin Aquifers Background Report for Options Consultation Otago Regional Council, December 2017   APPENDIX I: https://www.waternz.org.nz/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=1059 AQUIFER CAPACITY STUDIES – PROTECTION OR PREVENTION, M.T. Mills and A.W. Williams, March 2008   APPENDIX J: https://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/node/991 QUALITY PLANNING ORG

APPENDIX O: ARTICLE about the SKY GARDEN DEVELOPMENT https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/120955663/coronavirus-skygarden-could-tower-as-international-tourism-beacon-post-covid19

!31

!32