Damland plan heads to court
Three landowners who have part of their properties earmarked for the proposed Waimea dam project are heading to court.
Tasman District Council chief executive Lindsay McKenzie said objections to the council’s compulsory acquisition of land under the Public Works Act had been lodged with the Environment Court on behalf of three landowners.
A TDC application to the Environment Court for a priority fixture had been granted with a likely hearing date of October 9, McKenzie said.
Land in the Lee Valley owned by several parties is earmarked by the council for acquisition under the Public Works Act for the $82.5 million dam project.
The objections come after TDC in May served notices of intention to take the land to the three landowners.
In a report, McKenzie says the grounds for objections are:
The taking is for a private purpose and for a purpose the council does not have control over; the council did not give adequate consideration of other methods of achieving its goals; the taking is not fair, sound and reasonably necessary; and the terms of the temporary lease for construction purposes are inadequate.
Lawyer Nigel McFadden, who is representing two of the landowners, said there were other methods the council could have looked at.
In his report, McKenzie says the objection period had expired for other parties served similar notices ‘‘without an objection being lodged’’.
Compensation for the land required for the project is unlikely to exceed $2.5m on current valuation advice, he says.
News of likely court proceedings comes after work to secure Department of Conser- vation land for the proposed dam was put on hold pending advice on a Supreme Court ruling.
In a 3-2 decision released this month, the Supreme Court ruled the department’s director-general was not entitled to revoke the special conservation status of a section of Ruahine Forest Park land earmarked for the proposed Ruataniwha irrigation scheme in central Hawke’s Bay.
McKenzie said he believed TDC’s approach was different. However, the council would be asking its advisers to examine the Supreme Court decision ‘‘to determine the robustness of our approach’’.