A year-long investigation by the Waikato Regional Council has ended in court action for the clearance of a Significant Natural Area in the Coromandel, but wetland advocates say the damage has already been done
The Waikato Regional Council is taking court action after a coastal wetland was cleared as part of a housing development in the Coromandel last year.
The land sits at 151 Matarangi Drive, a 36-hectare plot within the beach settlement, situated between the Thames-Coromandel District Council’s wastewater treatment plant and the refuse centre. READ MORE: * Wetland rule changes imminent under freshwater policy * Flipping a $4b coin: Flooding Lake Onslow wetlands v restoring great Waiau River
Just over half of the plot is considered by the Waikato Regional Council to be a Significant Natural Area (SNA) which is required to be protected under the Resource Management Act.
The land is not being built on.
The council began an investigation into the clearance in July 2022, after concerns were raised by Forest & Bird.
Freshwater advocate Tom Kay said the local council could have stopped the clearance because it was warned by Winton, the developer, it planned to clear the area.
“The purpose of this letter is just to give you a heads-up on some vegetation clearance that Beaches development is about to undertake on their rural land that sits east of the shopping centre,” the August 2021 letter from Winton's contractor said.
“Whilst there are a couple of nice trees in this area (retained), there is an awful lot of scrub and pine/gum which Winton want to get under control. They are going to get a contractor in to shred the foliage.
“The other land in the middle will be cleared. The land will be mulched and the mulch left on the ground as groundcover.”
Kay said the council had enabled the clearance to be undertaken with very little assessment despite the known presence of a wetland and SNA.
The regional council was alerted to the clearance in May last year and began an investigation into possible breaches of the regional plan rules or Resource Management Act.
Kay said court action against two companies connected to the development next month was the “third best thing” that could have happened.
“The best thing would be that the wetland was never cleaned in the first place … the next best thing maybe would have been the developer’s realised that they've done wrong, and there's remediation that's put in place.
“So the third best thing is that court action has been taken to maybe signal remediation to be done or to seek damages, so that people are held responsible for those actions and that other people understand that this is something you can't do.”
He said there were still questions about the local council’s role in preventing the works in the first place.
“There are some questions that are still on our mind and we'd be really interested in seeing the investigation report and whatever was found that went wrong.
"But obviously, there is also a huge responsibility on the developers to know what they're doing and know what the rules are.”
The case is scheduled for June 20 in Thames District Court.
