Trail plans trample culture, say iwi and hapu¯

Iwi and hapu¯ say cultural values are being trampled in plans for two cycle and walking trails in the New Plymouth district.

One trail would connect Te Papakura o Taranaki national park with the coast through the Kaitake range southwest of New Plymouth, while the other would extend the city’s coastal walkway east to Waitara.

Nga¯ Ma¯ hanga a Ta¯ iri, a grouping of two hapu¯ , had gifted a tupuna name to the proposed Kaitake trail – Te Ara a Ruhihiweratini.

But spokesperson, Ta¯ ne Manu, said Nga¯ Ma¯hanga a Ta¯iri now oppose the trail plans.

Taranaki Regional Council has pledged $3.5 million to Te Ara a Ruhihiweratini, and New Plymouth District Council is considering a $2.1m contribution.

Manu told a hearing of submissions to New Plymouth District Council’s Long Term Plan there was no budget to deal with concerns uncovered in a cultural impact assessment by the hapu¯ .

‘‘It will result in significant adverse effects on the cultural landscape we are part of and our ongoing relationship with our tupuna mounga.’’

Manu said the hapu¯ were worried about crossings affecting 26 streams, vague remediation plans, and the impact on restoration work including predator control and returning native species such kiwi and whio (blue duck).

He said the hapu¯ feared their relationship with the district council would suffer, and also questioned the use of an undeveloped paper road for the trail.

‘‘Will the uplifting of this paper road mean a modern-day raupatu?’’

Taranaki iwi and Te A¯ ti Awa iwi have also backed Nga¯ Ma¯ hanga a¯ Ta¯ iri in opposing the current trail plans.

Te A¯ ti Awa also objected to an extension of the coastal walkway on the other side of the city.

The $26m project would see the walking and cycle path extended to Waitara, with half of the cost coming from Waka Kotahi.

But Te Ko¯ tahitanga o Te A¯ ti Awa, pouwhakahaere, Dion Tu¯ ta said there was no budget in the long-term plan to deal with cultural impacts of the walkway.

‘‘The extension traverses through significant areas for Puketapu Hapu¯ , Manukorihi Hapu¯ , Otaraua Hapu¯ and Pukerangiora Hapu¯ . Without having had the opportunity to identify critical issues, provision of recommendations, and understanding how these requirements have been factored into the costing of the project we do not support this proposal.’’

Tu¯ ta said the views of iwi, hapu¯ , wha¯ nau and marae had not been well reflected in the longterm plan process and the council needed better engagement.

‘‘We look forward to … a future where Te A¯ ti Awa are not just a consultative input towards the end of a process but can be truly viewed as a strategic partner that adds value to NPDC and the community it serves through a co-development and co-design approach from the outset.’’