Turoa chairlift decision awaited

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 11, Issue 526, 8 March 1994, Page 2

Turoa chairlift decision awaited

to parts of the skifield for ski patrol to attend accidents; alleviate congestion on the slopes. Urgency Turoa Ski Resort pointed out that a decision was urgent because construction had to be completed by May to avoid the ice and the construction period would take about two months depending on weather conditions. They said that the proposed chairlift was vital to the continued viability of the Ski Resort following three poor snow seasons from which they were still recovering. They told the hearing that they had compiled with all the conditions of the Resource Management Act and those set down for National Parks and the Treaty of Waitangi. This included meeting with the local iwi (Ngati Rangi) to discuss the proposed chairlift and this they had done with the Tamaupoko and Ngati Rangi trasts on 20 December 1993 and again at a hui on Maungarongo Marae on 29 January 1994. Planner's opinion The council' s planning consultant, John Olliver, covered many aspects of the application in a report presented at the hearing. He said in his view it was beyond the Council' s power to zone the Tongariro National Park as Rural C (Ski facilities are not listed as permitted activities in Rural C zones in the district plan). He said the application should be dealt with as a "discretionary activity" and thus consider "the actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity." "In this case the additional facility in an important recreational area will help provide for people' s well being through increased recreational opportunities," he said in relation to the second part of the Act. He added that the lift would need to be carefully sited to avoid adverse ef-

fects on the sensiti ve mountain environment. Parts of the Act he said the council must consider were: "The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development" and "The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waakitapu and other taonga." Appropriate Mr Olliver said development in the park was eonfined to "appropriate areas of the Park". "As the chairlift is within the Amenity area for the skifield it is my view that it is an appropriate development." On the Ngati Rangi submission, Mr Ollliver said it indicated that the land was significant in terms of culture and traditions. "The concern expressed in the submission however, is that the application could be prejudicial to present or future claims to the legal title of the ancestral lands," he stated. "It is difficult to see how construeting the additional chairlift would affect the ownership issue which must follow a separate procedure and be resolved outside the process of the Resource Management Act. He cited an Auckland case, which indicated that ownership was not on issue under the RMA. Mr Olliver said it appeared that Turoa Ski Resort Limited had fulfilled the requirement to consult with the local iwi. The main environmental effect of the lift would be visual, said Mr Olliver. He said that with the lift towers painted to blend into the background in summer, they would only be highly visible in winter, against the snow background. He said it would be in a valley and in keeping with the context of the development in the ski area.

"During winter it will be an integral and expected part of the skifield development," he said. Turoa submitted that this was not an land ownership issue at this stage under the Resourse Management Act which is about sustainable management of resourses. An aplicant is entitles to apply for resourse consent for land whether the applicant owns it or not according to the act. Opposed The Ngati Rangi Trust objected to the consent being granted on the grounds that it would "compromised the korero of nga tupuna and compromise the mana of Ngati Rangi and its generations yet to be born." Stated in their letter of objection was the following: "The question of 'legal title' to the land upon which the proposed development is to take place is in dispute. Ngati Rangi consider that consent to this application could be prejudicial to its present and future claims to the legal title of their ancestoral lands." 'The (trust) notes that Turoa Ski Resort Ltd have

stated that as concessionaires, they are prepared to deal with all 'interested parties' including 'new landlords'.... The Trust accepts this as a statement of good faith. However the ... Trust believe that the cultural and environmental imperatives they have inherited can only be assured through guarantee of their tangata whenua status. And that guarantee can only be secured through Ngati Rangi having legal title to the land in question." Support Submissions in support of the application came from David Jack and Elizabeth Thomas, and from the Ruapehu South Business Association.

The first submitters siaid they supported the plan because it would provide additional access to the upper ski slopes; it would result in less congestion on the higher slopes; it would ensure adequate chairlift capacity in lean snow years; and would provide better ski access for young and inexperienced skiers. The RSB A supported the application for similar reasons plus: the further development of the skifield has a "huge influence" on the financial stability of business in the area; an additional lift would increase skier patronage which would have beneficial flowon effects for the area. At the time of goint to press, no final decision had been made.