BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991

IN THE MATTER OF the hearing of submissions on the Proposed New Plymouth District Plan

AND IN THE MATTER OF Hearing 1 – Strategic Directions

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF SARAH KATARINA MAKO ON BEHALF OF TE KOTAHITANGA O TE ATIAWA TRUST

PLANNING

Dated the 20th day of June 2021

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE

1. My name is Sarah Katarina Mako.

2. I am of Ngāruahinerangi, Ngāti Rangitihi, Te Arawa and Ngāti Whitikaupeka descent.

3. I am Pou Taiao/ Environmental Policy Advisor for Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa1 Trust (‘Te Kotahitanga’). I have held this position for two years.

4. I hold a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (Hons.) from Massey University, Palmerston North.

5. I have over nine years’ experience as a planner working in local authorities within New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Over this time, I have processed a variety of resource consent and planning applications, monitored resource consent conditions for compliance and taken enforcement action where necessary.

6. At Te Kotahitanga I prepare submissions to resource management and other legislative processes at national, regional and territorial level; provide resource management support and advice to ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa; as well as engage with local authorities and applicants on resource consent pre-applications and applications. I am currently on an Our Land and Water Science Challenge working group developing mechanisms and tools needed to ensure that Te Mana o te Wai is given effect to, through mātauranga Māori. I understand a similar concept is being considered through the resource management reforms – Te Mana o te Taiao.

7. During my time at Te Kotahitanga I have seen the impacts of effects-based planning ideologies on the ability for ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa and our whanaunga iwi and hapū within the District to engage, advise and influence resource management processes to recognise and provide for their relationship with this District.

8. Under the Operative District Plan and several plan changes, ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa have considered the impact of a broad range of activities (including urban development/ growth, infrastructure, transport, earthworks, subdivision, energy development, network utilities, infrastructure) on their relationship with their

1 Te Atiawa and Te Ati Awa are used throughout this Statement of Evidence. Te Atiawa is used in official names such as Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa. Te Ati Awa is used when referring to the iwi grouping including hapū and uri.

ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga; the protection of historic heritage; the ability of ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa to implement their role as Kaitiaki; and more broadly the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

9. As a result of these experiences, I understand the impact of poor engagement (through plan making, resource consent and enforcement processes), poor integration between regional and local authority functions, insufficient scope to consider the full effects of an activity, and how cultural values are provided for, through different resource management processes.

10. The Te Ati Awa iwi environmental management plan Tai Whenua, Tai Tangata, Tai Ao2 was finalised in 2019 and lodged with the New Plymouth District Council in January 2020. This plan articulates the resource management issues in Te Ati Awa rohe as ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa understand them, through a Te Ati Awa worldview. The Plan articulates objectives and policies and in some instances methods, with respect to addressing those issues.

11. My specific experience with the Proposed New Plymouth District Plan (‘Proposed District Plan’ or ‘the Plan’ or ‘Plan’) includes attending hui as part of Ngā Kaitiaki – a reference group that has provided strategic advice to Council officers through the development of the Proposed District Plan being considered by the Hearings Panel; the drafting of the submission and further submissions for Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa; providing resource management support to ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa with their submissions and further submissions; working with New Plymouth District Council (‘NPDC’ or ‘Council’) officers to resolve particular submission points of Te Kotahitanga; and providing resource management support to ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa to resolve particular submission points with NPDC officers; and application of those parts of the Proposed District Plan with legal effect in the plan change3 and resource consent context.

TE KOTAHITANGA O TE ATIAWA TRUST

12. Te Ati Awa Iwi are tangata whenua over the whenua, waters, sites, taonga species, waahi tapu/ waahi taonga, urupā, sites and areas of significance to Māori (‘SASM’), landscapes and other taonga within the Te Ati Awa rohe. The Te Ati Awa rohe

2 Tai Whenua, Tai Tangata, Tai Ao, https://teatiawa.iwi.nz/tai-whenua-tai-tangata-tai-ao/ 3 Private Plan Change PPC18-00049: Johnston Street, Waitara

extends from Te Rau o Te Huia along the coast to the Herekawe Stream, inland to Tahuna-a-Tūtawa, east to Whakangerengere, northeast to Taramoukou, north back to Te Rau o Te Huia and offshore out to 200 nautical miles. Te Ati Awa rohe encompasses much of the New Plymouth district.

13. Despite the wrongful, legal confiscation of Te Ati Awa ancestral lands in 1865, Te Ati Awa has always maintained a living relationship and connection with the ancestral lands within this rohe. According to the Te Ati Awa worldview, the environment is a fundamental part of who Te Atia Awa are as tangata whenua. In return, Te Ati Awa as kaitiaki, have the responsibility and obligation of ensuring the mauri of these environmental and cultural resources are protected and enhanced for future generations.

14. Today our Te Ati Awa hapū from north to south are: • Ngāti Rahiri • Otaraua • Manukorihi • Pukerangiora • Puketapu • Ngāti Tawhirikura • Ngāti Tuparikino • Ngāti Te Whiti

15. Te Kotahitanga is the mandated voice and representative entity for the collective interests of Te Ati Awa Iwi; established on 31 March 2014 as the tribal Post Settlement Governance Entity (‘PSGE’) by a Deed of Trust. Following this the Te Ati Awa Deed of Settlement was signed on 9 August 2014 and the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Act (2016) enacted on 5 December 2016. Te Kotahitanga has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of Te Ati Awa are safe-guarded. This includes considering the extent to which proposed developments and uses may impact on the interests of Te Ati Awa within their rohe and those areas under statutory acknowledgement and/ or Te Atiawa Iwi Claims Settlement Act 2016.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS EVIDENCE

16. The purpose of this evidence is to address:

a. Strategic Direction – Tangata Whenua; and b. Strategic Direction – Historic and Cultural; and c. Strategic Direction – Natural Environment; and d. Strategic Direction – Urban Form and Development

17. In preparing this evidence I have reviewed: a. The relevant Tangata Whenua, Historic and Cultural, Natural Environment and Urban Form and Development sections of the Proposed District Plan; b. The summary of submissions received for these sections; c. Tai Whenua, Tai Tangata, Tai Ao, the Te Ati Awa iwi environmental management plan.

18. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses set out in the Environment Court’s Practice Note 2014. I have complied with the Code of Conduct in preparing this evidence and I agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence before the Hearings Panel. Except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence.

STRATEGIC INTENT OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN

Engagement in resource management processes including District Plan review

19. Before addressing the specific submission points and Officer recommendations for the sections of the Proposed District Plan subject to Hearing 1, I would like to address the engagement process of tangata whenua undertaken for the development of the Proposed District Plan to this point. This, I believe, is key context for how the Proposed District Plan has been developed, the intent behind provisions and expectations for how those provisions may be actualised through the resource management and other approval processes over the life of this Plan to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’ or ‘the Act’).

20. Tangata whenua were engaged at any early stage in the District Plan review through Ngā Kaitiaki - a reference group that has provided strategic advice to Council officers through the development of the Proposed District Plan being considered by the Hearings Panel. The plan making process engagement has been good which has,

in my view, contributed to a positive relationship between tangata whenua and the District Planning team. This is one way in which the principles of participation and partnership can be realised in policy development processes. Many of the recommendations of Ngā Kaitiaki have flowed through into the proposed provisions; however, the implementation of these provisions must match the level of tangata whenua engagement to ensure the integrity of the Plan once operative and to ensure Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles (in accordance with section 8 of the Act) do not become diluted.

21. Concurrent to the District Plan review process and Ngā Kaitiaki, ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa and Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa have continued to be engaged to inform other resource management processes via the preparation of cultural values statements (‘CVS’), cultural impact assessments (‘CIA’), private plan change provisions and consent conditions. There have been examples of good outcomes through this formal engagement process following cultural advice being articulated through those different mechanisms including: • The CIA and resultant consent conditions for the Brougham Street development celebrating Māwhera Pā, on which the development will be located, and the Huatoki Stream, on which the development will adjoin4; • The CIA which informed the Private Plan Change 49: Johnston Street, Waitara rezoning5 plan provisions including (but not limited to) recognition of the area within the Pekapeka Block, co-design of the reserve areas and restoration of the health of the Mangaiti Stream using mātauranga Māori. • Puketapu Hapū co-designed ‘Te Hono’, the New Plymouth Airport terminal redevelopment, located on the hapū tupuna pā, Puketapu. The redevelopment engaged the expertise and narrative of Puketapu Hapū, woven through the redevelopment6.

22. These recent examples have demonstrated terrific outcomes for the entire community and support the intention and implementation of the Strategic Directions – Tangata Whenua, particularly TW-8, as a mana enhancing objective for how

4 Resource consent application LUC20-47704 – Cultural Impact Assessment for the Brougham St/ Huatoki proposals, prepared by Ngāti Te Whiti Hapū, dated 4.9.2020. 5 Private Plan Change PPC18-00049 – Cultural Impact Assessment for PPC18-00049 Johnston Street, Waitara, prepared by Manukorihi and Otaraua Hapū, dated 17.11.2020. 6 New Plymouth Airport Terminal, https://www.nplairport.co.nz/terminal/terminal/

tangata whenua will participate in and inform resource management processes in the future.

23. Notwithstanding those good outcomes which are encouraging in terms of the intent and implementation of some of the proposed Strategic Directions, their implementation will always be reliant on willing applicants and innovative planning staff who are prepared to give voice to Te Ati Awa perspectives within the current limitations of planning regulations. Other examples where CIAs and CVSs have been prepared and given lack of scope within the Operative District Plan and/or impetus, highlight the need for Strategic Direction. Examples include:

• Tapuirau Pā and Papakāinga is the location for the Summerset Village development at Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block. The development was informed by a CIA7 which made many recommendations including identifying potential artefact hotspots and advised that further burial sites (in addition to those already known across the area) could not be discounted. These identified areas were outside of the ‘mapped’ extent of Tapuirau; however, was known mātauranga (knowledge) held by the hapū. Kōiwi (human bones) and other discoveries within the identified areas occurred during earthworks within the application site. This highlights the need for appropriate earthworks provisions, particularly in relation to SASM and historic heritage; and direction in Strategic Objectives HC2 and HC3 where the ‘full’ extent of sites and areas of significance to Māori and other historic heritage is not known. • Port Taranaki is located within an area of cultural significance to Ngāti Te Whiti Hapū. A CVS8 and CIA9 were prepared for Port Taranaki Limited to inform resource consents in relation to discharge of stormwater and washdown water into Tangaroa. Both documents and the articulation of cultural values associated with that area should be utilised to inform resource management processes more generally for both regional and territorial authorities. These documents are yet to be utilised to inform resource management processes. This example highlights the requirement for cultural values to be reflected in all urban form and development and should be directed through the Strategic Direction for Urban Form and Development

7 Resource consent applications LUC19-47493 and LUC19-47494 – Cultural Impact Assessment for Summerset New Plymouth, Pohutukawa Place prepared by Ngāti Tawhirikura and Puketapu Hapū, dated July 2019 8 Cultural Values Statement for Port Taranaki Limited, prepared by Ngāti Te Whiti Hapū, dated 22.2.2021. 9 Resource consents 20-00197-3.0 and 20-00198-3.0 – Cultural Impact Assessment for Port Taranaki Limited, prepared by Ngāti Te Whiti Hapū, dated 22.2.2021

including Strategic Objectives UFD13 – UFD24 and in any special zone planning.

24. To ensure Plan provisions are implemented consistently, all Plan users must consistently engage cultural expertise in all resource management processes. Only tangata whenua have the expertise to advise on effects on them, their relationship with te taiao and their culture and traditions, as detailed in Strategic Objective TW- 9.

Strategic Direction/TW – Tangata Whenua

25. Strategic Objective TW-8, in my opinion, provides a mana enhancing direction for how tangata whenua will participate and be engaged in resource management processes in the future. For Te Ati Awa, this is consistent with the provisions of Tai Whenua, Tai Tangata, Tai Ao. TW-8, as drafted, takes into account Te Tiriti o Waitangi principle of ‘partnership’ (section 8 of the RMA) and the responsibility for shared decision-making10.

26. I acknowledge the reporting Officer states the revised objective wording recommended by Te Kotahitanga and our whanaunga iwi PSGEs in their respective submissions11 to TW-8 that ‘the wording submitted by iwi and hapū provides direction as to the methods through which the objectives should be achieved, as opposed to stating an outcome’12. I acknowledge the intent to streamline the objective wording recommended is clear. However, as previously mentioned, it is considered that clear direction around methods of engagement is necessary as a directive measure to ensure the Plan is implemented consistently. It is also considered appropriate for reference to tangata whenua being kaitiaki being made in this objective. For this reason and the examples of concurrent engagement, we do not agree with the Officer recommendation with respect to TW-8.

27. I support the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective TW-913.

10 Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa is currently exploring the potential for a Mana Whakahono a Rohe Agreement with local authorities 11 Submissions by Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust (submission point 459.19), Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga (520.19), Te Kāhui o Ngāti Maru (533.62) and Te Kāhui o Taranaki (534.53) 12 Section 42A Report, Strategic Direction – Tangata Whenua, para. 79 13 Consistent with Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust submission point no. 459.21.

28. I support the Officer’s statement in paragraph 97 and 98 regarding the use and development of Treaty Settlement Land14. The majority of land returned (under the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Act 2016) or forming part of the Deferred Selection Properties scheduled in the Te Atiawa (Taranaki) Deed of Settlement (2014)15 is not ‘Māori Land’ as defined under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, it is general land. There is a concern the current wording of TW-10 could limit development of Treaty Settlement Land in different tenure for papakāinga. I acknowledge the Officer recommendation with respect to the addition of the wording ‘and Treaty Settlement Land’ to Strategic Objective TW-10, as well as the exact definition to be considered in the Definitions hearing.

29. The Special Māori Purpose Zone is a key method of implementing Strategic Objective TW-10 appropriately. The use of the zone is not limited to ‘Māori Land’. Case law has determined that ‘ancestral lands’ do not have to be in Māori ownership for it to be deemed ancestral lands. I neither agree nor disagree with Strategic Objective TW-10 – the relief sought is to ensure that tangata whenua are able to develop Māori land, irrespective of tenure, in a way that works for Māori.

30. I support the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective TW-1116.

31. I support the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective TW-1217.

Strategic Direction/ HC – Historic and Cultural

32. I support in part the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective HC- 1. The relief sought is the addition (underlined) of the following wording to the objective ‘..cultural values and sites and areas contribute to..’. This accords with the definition of Historic Heritage in section 2 of the RMA. It ensures that sites are considered in the context of the wider area/ landscape they are located within.

33. I support in part the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective HC- 2, subject to the addition (underlined) of the following wording to the objective

14 Section 42A Report, Strategic Direction – Tangata Whenua 15 Te Atiawa and the Trustees of Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa and The Crown (August 2014). Te Atiawa (Taranaki) Deed of Settlement, Deed of Settlement Schedule: Property Redress 16 Consistent with Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust submission point no. 459.24. 17 Consistent with Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust submission point no. 459.10.

‘..historic values and sites and areas associated with historic heritage..’. This accords with the reasoning given above.

34. I support in part the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective HC- 3. The relief sought is the removal (strikethrough) of the following wording from the objective ‘..relationships, interests, kaitiakitanga practices and associations..’. The word ‘practices’ is considered unnecessary because kaitiakitanga is an expression of rangatiratanga, and is the practice of managing the environment, based on Te Ao Māori.

35. Strategic Objectives HC-1, HC-2 and HC-3 are important as these objectives apply irrespective of whether sites and areas of significance and/or historic heritage are mapped and/or scheduled in the Plan. These objectives would be required to inform any resource management processes under the plan and the Act.

Overarching comments Strategic Directions/ NE and UFD – Natural Environment and Urban Form and Development

36. Before addressing the specific objectives in these sections there is important context I believe must be considered in respect to the overall strategic direction the Proposed District Plan makes with respect to the natural environment and the urban form and development objectives, noting the discussion in the Officers Reports18, 19 on this matter.

37. Ngā hapū o Te Ati Awa have consistently advised that the restoration of the natural environment must be prioritised in this Plan given the current state of degradation of our natural environment. Climate change, degradation of water quality and the loss of biodiversity, including taonga species, are how some of these issues are articulated today. There is nowhere in this District where simply sustaining the natural environment in a state of status quo is sufficient to address these challenges to a natural world.

38. This advice aligns with the national direction on these issues with respect to the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management (2020) (‘NPS-FM’), the proposed National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity (‘NPS-IB’) and the New

18 Section 42A Report, Strategic Direction – Natural Environment 19 Section 42A Report, Strategic Direction – Urban Form and Development

Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) (‘NZCPS’). It is also consistent with the provisions of Tai Whenua, Tai Tangata, Tai Ao. Of significance is the NPS-FM which introduces a clear hierarchy with respect to priorities for freshwater management that must be given effect to.

39. It is important to note that with respect to these issues, mana whenua are inherently connected with the environment through whakapapa; and the continued degradation of natural environments directly impacts on the identity and well-being of tangata whenua and the relationship tangata whenua are able to have with their ancestral lands, waters, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

40. The local response to these challenges includes a number of projects actively working towards the remediation of the environment across the District. These form part of the existing environment across our landscape. Projects like Taranaki Taku Tūranga – Towards a Predator Free Taranaki20; Te Kohanga Ahuru in north Taranaki21; and the Taranaki Mounga Project22, are all landscape scale projects addressing the loss of biodiversity in our District. Similarly, the Taranaki Regional Council riparian management programme23, Ka Whakaaraara te tangata, ka whakaora te wai, ka whakahoki te taonga on the Waiwhakaiho River24 and the Tangaroa and Waiari catchment restoration programmes25, are all freshwater remediation projects both in the rural and urban landscapes of the District.

41. It is reasonable to anticipate that other restoration projects will be established within the lifetime of this Plan, including in the Waitara/Te Awaroa catchment26.

42. In my view the strategic objectives of this Plan, and the provisions which will implement them must recognise this context to be effective and efficient.

20 Including landscape scale mustelid control across 700,000ha of the Taranaki Region. 21 A kiwi protection programme being delivered through a partnership of Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Maru. 22 A project across Te Papakura o Taranaki removing predators and reintroducing lost species being delivered in partnership including the Taranaki Iwi Chairs Forum. 23 Taranaki Regional Council Riparian Management Programme, https://www.trc.govt.nz/environment/freshwater/riparian-management-2/ 24 A project across the Waiwhakaiho catchment restoring mahinga kai being delivered by Ngāti Tawhirikura Hapū. 25 A project restoring catchments in Whaitara being delivered through a partnership including Manukorihi, Ngāti Rahiri, Otaraua and Pukerangiora Hapū, Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa and NPDC 26 New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Act 2018 and function

Strategic Direction / NE – Natural Environment

43. In respect to the specific NE Strategic Objectives, I consider some small yet significant changes to some of the wording is required to align with the context outlined above, and to give effect to higher order planning documents.

44. I disagree with the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective NE- 4 and consider that additional wording (underlined) should be included as follows – ‘The district’s natural environment makes a critical and unique contribution to our district’s sense of place and identity and is recognised and provided for’. This is consistent with our original submission27.

45. I disagree with the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective NE- 5. However, would note that, in line with the context above, the use of sustain and restore are in conflict with one another. Te Kotahitanga recommended restore, enhance, protect and then sustain as wording of the objective that should be utilised in NE-5, this accords with the provisions of Tai Whenua, Tai Tangata, Tai Ao. The proposed Objective wording is inconsistent with our original submission28. Further, the hierarchy required in the NPS-FM in relation to Te Mana o te Wai must be explicitly set out to give effect to that higher order policy document.

46. I support the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective NE-6.

47. I support the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective NE-729; however, note that the intent of this strategic objective could be added to TW-8 with provisions in specific zones giving effect to the national direction with respect to each topic area they cover. This would be more efficient and effective in my view.

48. My understanding for why a new objective is proposed is in response to our submission with respect to Te Mana o te Wai. Te Mana o te Wai is a concept that is required to be given effect to across the Plan; reducing this concept to one objective does not achieve this requirement; rather this should be reflected across the Plan, including the Strategic Objectives across the Urban Form and Development provisions, as well as the Natural Environment section.

27 Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust submission point no. 459.15 28 Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust submission point no. 459.16 29 Consistent with Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust submission point no. 459.18

49. Some guidance regarding how this can be achieved can be seen in the provisions of the recently issued Private Plan Change PPC18/00049 decision.

Strategic objectives/ UFD – Urban Form and Development

50. I disagree with the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective UFD- 13 with respect to our submissions. Whilst elements of the submission are addressed, the fundamental intent that urban form and development occurs within the context of action to restore the environment is not reflected in the changes and has the potential effect of minimising the effectiveness of the other strategic objectives of this Plan. Specifically UFD-13(3) which as currently worded has a limiting effect on other strategic objectives and the outcomes sought in implementing those policies. We recommend that this clause is removed in its entirety.

51. I support the Officer recommendation with respect to Strategic Objective UFD-19, noting the drafting error in Appendix 1 of the section 42A report where additional wording has been struck through.

CONCLUSIONS

52. Overall, I support the general direction the Strategic Objectives set for this Plan subject to those changes recommended above. I note that many of our recommended changes are consistent with the discussion in the section 42A reports, and the recommendations set out above would result in more effective and efficient provisions that implement higher order planning documents.

53. It is important to reiterate that the processes set through these provisions regarding resource management in the District are as important as the physical outcomes that are achieved in the implementation of this Plan. At a fundamental level these regulations and processes set a platform for human relationships which give expression to physical developments – which in themselves tell a narrative for who we are as a community. Our recent experiences where projects have benefitted from cultural expertise, I believe demonstrate the strength of genuine engagement and the implementation of a partnership approach to managing the resources of the District.

Sarah Mako 20th day of June 2021