New questions about Tūpuna Maunga Authority’s integrity
There are significant questions being asked around the felling of these trees at Ōtāhuhu Mt Richmond in late October 2024.
We were shocked to learn that Tūpuna Maunga Authority (TMA) recently felled nine fan palms at Ōtāhuhu Mt Richmond, despite them being included in the resource consent set aside by the High Court earlier this year.
It turns out that almost as soon as Shirley Waru initiated judicial review proceedings last year against a resource consent allowing for 278 trees to be felled at the maunga, the Authority applied for - and was given - a new resource consent that included felling nine of the ten fan palms listed in the resource consent being contested in the judicial review.
Shirley and others in the local Ōtāhuhu community only learned about this new resource consent when visitors to the maunga saw TMA’s contractors cutting these trees down last week
This yet again raises questions about the Authority’s integrity, especially in relation to it:
* Keeping the new resource consent secret from Shirley Waru, the public and the High Court even though the Court was considering some of the same trees’ inclusion in another resource consent.
* Keeping last week’s tree felling plans secret from TMA board members and the public despite two judicial reviews having set aside resource consents due to inadequate public consultation.
We believe the Authority is playing very dirty and acting in a calculating, cynical and underhanded way that is unbecoming of a publicly-funded statutory body – one whose values include “Tread Gently”.
This development also has serious implications for tree saving efforts at Ōwairaka Mt Albert and other maunga. See below for questions we would like answers to.
Timeline
July 2023: Tūpuna Maunga Authority fells around 60 trees at Ōtāhuhu Mt Richmond out of 278 permitted in a resource consent.
27 July 2023: Shirley Waru initiates judicial review proceedings in relation to that resource consent
28 August 2023: Tūpuna Maunga Authority lodges a resource consent application to Auckland Council, for felling 12 trees, including nine of the fan palms listed in the abovementioned contested resource consent.
11 October 2023: Auckland Council approves the resource consent that includes felling the nine palms that were in the previous resource consent about to be considered by the High Court.
5 December 2023: High Court hearing for the judicial review. Tūpuna Maunga Authority did not make the Shirley Waru or the Court aware of overlap with trees included new resource consent.
Friday 31 May 2024: High Court decision is delivered, which sets aside the non-notified resource consent for felling the 278 trees (which included the trees in the subsequent resource consent).
7 June 2024 (only 5 working days after High Court judgment): TMA applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which declined their application on 28 September and awarded costs to Shirley Waru.
21 June 2024: TMA files appeal with Court of Appeal. The appeal is yet to be heard.
Week beginning 28 October 2024: TMA contractors fell the nine fan palms included in the resource consent approved in October last year.
11 November 2024: TMA members still have not voted to approve the decision to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court has yet to set a hearing date.
Some of the doomed fan palms before they were felled at Ōtāhuhu Mt Richmond. In all, nine Mexican fan palm trees (Washingtonia filifera), an olive tree, a Morton Bay fig tree and a bougainvillea were felled on the old bowling club site at the maunga,
Questions we would like answers to
- Is it ethical for TMA to be applying for and Auckland Council to be approving a resource consent that includes the felling of trees that are included in a prior resource consent that is currently before the courts – especially when that court case is centred on tree felling?
- Was the Auckland Council official who authorised the second resource consent aware that it included trees that were in an earlier resource consent that was before the court?
- How is allowing such behaviour serving Aucklanders and/or ratepayers well?
- Is it becoming behaviour for a ratepayer funded statutory body not to make either Shirley Waru or the Court aware of the 12 trees’ inclusion in this new application given its relevance to the judicial review?
- Is it ethical to be felling trees that were included in a resource consent that was set aside by the High Court while also keeping Shirley Waru and the Court in the dark about the new resource consent application?
- How is allowing this to happen an example of good governance - much less good co-governance?
- Over the past five years, local communities have made it abundantly clear they don’t want the maunga trees to be felled as borne out in various “consultations”, judicial action, occupations, etc. Is it ethical for the TMA to continue trampling over the community’s wishes?
- Given all of the above and the issues raised in our previous blog, what purpose is the TMA - particularly its Auckland Council members - actually serving?
And here’s the proof
While the felling was underway, a TMA staff member was challenged about the legality of their actions. He allegedly claimed the felled trees were not included in the judicial review resource consent. Here’s proof that they were:
The TMA’s original list of all species on the maunga, including 10 fan palms listed at the bottom.
The list of trees to be removed in the resource consent that was set aside by Justice Tahana in her 2023 judicial review decision (which is currently under appeal by the TMA). Note the palms listed five rows from the bottom.
Source: Table 4 in the Authority’s document “Ōtāhuhu/Mt Richmond - Vegetation restoration and exotic vegetation removal works - ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND STATUTORY ASSESSMENT”. August 2019
Source: A document prepared for the Authority “Assessment of Ecological Effects - Ōtāhuhu/Mount Richmond Restoration”. June 2021