The Waikato Regional Council’s (WRC) response is defensive, disappointing and factually incorrect; it suggests internal communication remains a major issue for the WRC. It also seems intended to head off a possible claim for compensation, which has not been considered by the trust.
Rather, the trust’s objective in supplying information for the article was to draw on its experience of the conversion and to make constructive suggestions as to how processes could be improved without compromise to environmental and other standards.
All the information in the article can be substantiated.
The thrust of the WRC response is that the trust did not proceed in a professional manner. Some of the more inaccurate assertions are;
• “The project did not proactively contact the council”
As reported, the trust met onfarm with representatives of both regional and district councils in July and August 2012 to establish planning requirements. The information and assurances provided the trust with confidence to proceed.
• “Did not seek appropriate professional advice”
Council correspondence would show this is not so, and the cost of consultants in such areas as hydrology, pasture development, machinery and equipment, and engineering was included in the cost of $100,000 for consents.
• “Iwi contacts being out of date was unfortunate and this would have been sorted if we had been approached”
There is on file a lengthy correspondence with Natasha Hayward, programme manager, seeking a review of both the process and instructions as it had become clear that the agents nominated were not appropriate. Her continued reliance on a contractor to advise in this area proved flawed and expensive.
These are just a few examples. We would welcome an opportunity in any forum to address the proposals for improvement as presented in the article.
Chris Horton, chairman, C. Alma Baker Trust (NZ).
(Abridged)
