Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1. Purpose
1.A decision is sought from the Minister of Conservation under section 49 of the National
Parks Act 1980 (NPA) and Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 (the Conservation Act)
for a concession (lease and licence) by Pure Tūroa Limited to operate the Tūroa Ski Area.
2.Unless otherwise indicated, references to sections within legislation are intended to refer to
sections within the Conservation Act.
2. Background and context
Act
3.Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Limited (in liquidation and receivership) (RAL) currently holds
concessions for two ski fields in Tongariro National Park (the Park) under concessions:
one at Whakapapa and one at Tūroa. The Tūroa concession was granted in 2017 for a
term of twenty-five years, with up to an additional seven rights of renewal of five years.
4.RAL entered voluntary administration on 11 October 2022, liquidation on 21 June 2023 and
subsequently receivership from 27 October 2023. RAL currently has receivers and
liquidators appointed to conduct its affairs.
Information
5. RAL’s operations at Tūroa Ski Area are currently authorised by concession 48601-SKI.
RAL’s activities are presently being managed by the receivers. If you decide to grant a
concession to PTL, and PTL accepts the terms of that concession, RAL wil surrender its
concession before PTL’s concession takes ef ect.
Official
6.Pure Tūroa Limited (PTL or the Applicant, depending on the context) was incorporated on
13 March 2023 and has two directors – Gregory Hickman and Cameron Robertson.
the
7.In 2023 RAL’s liquidators led a process seeking bids to acquire RAL’s assets. Al bidders
requested some form of Crown financial support. MBIE (Kānoa – Regional Economic
Development & Investment Unit) assessed bidders’ requests for Crown financial support.
8.In February 2024 PTL and RAL entered a conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement to
purchase Tūroa ski field assets. The agreement involves $3.05 mil ion of funding from the
under
Crown to PTL, and equity in PTL for the Crown. Crown funding would come from the
Regional Strategic Partnership Fund, managed by MBIE. Pure Tūroa Holdings Limited,
being the other shareholder in PTL, wil contribute Sec 9(2)(b)(ii) of equity capital to PTL.
9.PTL cannot operate the Tūroa ski field without a concession under the Conservation Act.
Accordingly, the Sale and Purchase Agreement (and the Crown’s agreement to fund PTL)
is conditional on PTL obtaining a concession. PTL lodged its application with the
Department on 7 December 2023. In essence, PTL is seeking to continue RAL’s activities
Released
on the Tūroa ski field. At this stage, and for reasons explained in this report, PTL is only
applying for a 10-year concession term, which is significantly shorter than RAL’s current
concession for Tūroa. PTL has signalled its intent to apply for a longer term in future.
10.PTL wishes to operate the Tūroa ski field for the 2024 ski season. In order to do so
effectively, PTL considers that it needs to know by early April whether it has a concession
or not, so that it has sufficient lead-in time to prepare for the season, sell tickets and so
2
forth. That timeframe is also reflected in the arrangements that PTL has made with RAL.
The Sale and Purchase Agreement, as original y entered, was conditional upon PTL
obtaining a concession from you to operate Tūroa Ski Area by 31 March 2024. PTL and
the other parties to the Sale and Purchase Agreement recently agreed to extend this date
to 5 April 2024.
11.The Department agrees that it is important, not only for PTL but also for the Department
and other stakeholders, that there is certainty one way or another regarding PTL’s
application, sufficiently prior to the 2024 ski season. If PTL does not acquire a concession,
RAL’s concession wil continue, and the receivers could potentially operate Tūroa for the
2024 season. MBIE would need to urgently seek Cabinet approval for additional funding
Act
for the receivers to operate Tūroa for the 2024 season (Cabinet may or may not agree to
that). Further, the receivers would need to know as soon as possible whether they wil be
operating Tūroa in 2024 in order to make the necessary preparations.
12.Accordingly, the Department has processed this application in a shortened timeframe. The
Department has been engaging with Treaty partners both before and after the formal
submissions and hearings process. The application has been processed in less than four
months, where a notified concession process wil usually take between 6 – 12+ months.
13.The nucleus of the Park was a tuku (gift) to the people of New Zealand by Te Heuheu
Information
Tūkino IV, paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, in 1887. The mountain peaks were set
aside to be protected for and enjoyed by all of the people of New Zealand. From the initial
tuku, the Park has now grown to an area of 79,598 hectares. Mounga Ruapehu remains
sacred to all iwi and hapū of the region. The Park was granted World Heritage status for
its outstanding natural (1990) and cultural values (1993). This dual status recognises the
Park’s outstanding natural values and its important Māori cultural and spiritual
Official
associations. Ohakune township is located on the edge of the Park and at the bottom of
the ski area access road, the Ohakune Mountain Road.
the
3. The statutory framework for your decision:
14.The Tūroa ski field is located in the Park, and the NPA applies to this decision. Section 4
of the NPA (which is reproduced in full in the body of the report) provides that a key
purpose of the NPA is to preserve national parks in perpetuity, for their intrinsic worth and
under
for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public (s 4(1)). The NPA further declares that
national parks are to be preserved as far as possible in their natural state, and subject to
certain matters, the public shal have freedom of entry and access to the parks so that
they may receive “in full measure the inspiration, enjoyment recreation and other benefits”
that may be derived from mountains and other natural features (s 4(2)).
15.The NPA recognises that pockets of intense development within national parks might be
necessary to enable the public to access and enjoy them. The NPA empowers the
Minister to set apart certain areas of national parks as “amenities areas” (s 15). Apart
Released
from the top of one T-Bar, all of the Tūroa Ski Area infrastructure falls within an amenities
area. Within amenities areas, the development and operation of recreational and public
amenities and related services appropriate for the public use and enjoyment of the park
may be authorised in accordance with the NPA and the applicable management plan (i.e.
in this case the Tongariro National Park Management Plan) (s 15(2)). Furthermore, the
principles applicable to national parks apply to amenities areas “only so far as they are
compatible with the development and operation of such amenities and services” (s 15(3)).
3
16.A number of statutory planning documents are relevant to this application, including the
General Policy for National Parks, the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Management
Strategy 2002, and the Tongariro National Park Management Plan 2007 (TNPMP). The
TNPMP recognises that skiing is a recreational activity through which visitors enjoy the
natural values of Tongariro National Park. The TNPMP further acknowledges that
significant infrastructure is required for ski area operations. The TNPMP includes a
number of objectives and policies relating to the management of existing ski areas.
17.Pursuant to section 49 of the NPA, you may grant a concession in respect of a national
Act
park in accordance with Part 3B of the Conservation Act. Part 3B sets out procedural and
substantive requirements in relation to the grant of a concession. These are discussed in
the body of this report.
18.Section 4 of the Conservation Act applies to this decision. Section 4 provides that the
Conservation Act “shal be so interpreted and administered as to give effect to the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” This direction extends to the enactments listed in the
schedule to the Conservation Act, which includes the NPA.
4. The Application
Information
19.PTL lodged its concession application on 7 December 2023. This application (if granted)
would, in essence, enable PTL to conduct the activities currently performed by RAL in the
Tūroa Ski Area. Due to this, the Applicant elected to use some material from the 2017
application submit ed by RAL when it sought consent to continue its operations. One
dif erence is that PTL has applied for a lease and licence. This combination more
accurately reflects the need for a ski field operator to have rights of exclusive possession
Official
over certain structures and buildings and is consistent with the Department’s approach to
other recent ski field concessions.
the
20.The application includes a request for a lease for the buildings and their footprints together
with a lease of the base plaza area (which is approximately 2,700m2). The total lease
area sought by PTL is approximately 11,000m2 (1.1 hectares). The application seeks a
licence to operate in the remainder of the ski area (approximately 495 hectares).
under
21.A copy of the application is included as has previously been provided you on 28 March
2024.
22.The Tūroa ski area has been extensively developed and comprises a base area with
buildings to service visitor’s needs. These include a cafe, retail store, equipment rental
facilities, ticketing facilities, ski instruction, medical facilities, management facilities and so
forth. The ski area includes beginner slopes, intermediate and advanced terrain. The
public has a right of access to the skiing terrain free of charge. However, lift facilities can
Released
only be used by people who have purchased tickets. Other facilities include reticulation of
sewage, which is treated and disposed of outside the Park, water storage for snow making,
plus the terminus of the access road and car parking. A full description of the facilities and
activities that are the subject of PTL’s application is discussed below and included in
Schedule 3 of the draft concession.
23.The Application is for the continuation of the ski related activities (including use of facilities)
currently operated by RAL (in liquidation and receivership). The exception to this is the
4
removal of the Nga Wai Heke chairlift which is not part of the new application. It is the
Department’s expectation that the Department wil remove the Nga Wai Heke chairlift over
the next three years. PTL has also sought minor changes to the operations as compared
with RAL’s current concession. For instance, PTL has requested that it be able to use the
existing retail spaces to sell food, beverages and retail during the summer months.
24.The application is not for summer use of the ski area (with the exception of retail spaces
and maintenance work). Any additional summer activity would require separate
authorisations. The Department does not encourage the use of the ski area for
recreational summer use nor the development of new tracks for walking.
Act
25.A map of the ski area boundary is included in Appendix 1. Chairlifts and all known
structures are listed included as Appendix 2.
26.Aircraft use (helicopters and drones) has also been applied for to support the operation of
the Tūroa Ski Area. The application states that drones wil be used as a preference to
helicopters when this is suitable. These drones and helicopters have been requested for
use on a daily basis year-round to support activities such as construction and
maintenance, transporting personnel and equipment, search and rescue and snow safety
activities.
Information
27.Retail activities have been included. These involve the sale of food and beverages,
equipment rentals, ski and ride school, and sale of sporting accessories.
28.Filming permission is also being sought to enable filming for PTL’s promotional purposes.
29.PTL is seeking a term of ten years for both the lease and licence. Included in the term is
Official
a review at three years which is discussed later in this report.
30.The application included a draft Indicative Development Plan (IDP) which outlined future
the
works for the ski field. These include a snow-making farm, replacement of chairlifts but
overall reduction in number of chairlifts. Many submitters commented on proposed works
outlined in the draft IDP. However, it should be noted these facilities and activities are not
part of the application being considered and that any IDP wil need to be signed off by the
Department following the grant of a concession, if successful. Any new works wil be
under
subject to separate permissions, including any public notification requirements.
31.The development and maintenance of an IDP is a requirement of Tongariro National Park
Management Plan (TNPMP) and is intended to provide the Department and the
concessionaire with a means to charting a long-term plan for ski areas within the Park.
The TNPMP requires the concessionaire to provide and update its IDP as a condition of
any ski field concession. The IDP must be consistent with the provisions of the TNPMP
and be agreed to by the Department, While the IDP provides a reference point for future
activities and developments, it does not, however, obviate the need for approvals from
Released
the Minister where new structures or activities are proposed. Although a draft IDP was
included in PTL’s application, the IDP remains in draft and has not been signed-off by the
Department. PTL is not by this application seeking formal permission from the Minister for
the aspirations expressed in that draft IDP.
32.Basic maintenance is intended to be part-and-parcel of any new concession. Separate
permissions from the Minister would not be required for interior maintenance or
5
modification, or the exterior maintenance of ant building or structure where it does not
alter the external appearance of the structure. It also includes clearing gravel from drains,
or carpark maintenance that doesn’t require excavation. A definition of basic maintenance
has been included in the proposed concession special conditions to address this matter,
should you decide to grant the concession.
5. Public notification and hearing
33.Public notification was required for this application under section 17SC(1), as any lease
application must be publicly notified. The Permissions Delivery Manager determined the
application was ready for public notification on 12 December 2023 (See appendix 6). The
Act
application was notified as per section 17T(2) and the Department followed the steps set
out in section 49 of the Act regarding public submissions, the holding of a hearing and the
production of a report summarising the submissions and recommendations as to the
extent to which they should be allowed or accepted.
34.The application was publicly notified on 20 December 2023. The period during which the
public was able to provide submissions closed on 9 February 2024. Section 49(2)(b)(ii)
requires that the public have at least 20 working days after public notification to provide
their feedback on the application. The dates between 20 December and 10th January are
not considered working days under the Conservation Act and were therefore excluded
Information
from the calculation. The application was advertised in national and local newspapers and
on the Department’s website.
35.A total of 483 submissions were received, including 8 which were received after
submissions closed, on either the 9th or 10th February 2024. There were also two late
submissions which were not initially received due to the submitters mistaking the
Official
submission email address. The 10 late submissions were all considered.
36.Of these submissions, 148 were opposed, 14 were neutral and 319 supported the
the
application. Hearings were held on 22 and 23 February 2024 in Ohakune and 26 and 27
February 2024 in Turangi. The Hearing Chair was Connie Norgate (Kaihautu Nga Whenua
Rahui), who was supported at the hearing by Stephanie Bowman (Permissions Delivery
Manager) and Clint Green (Deputy Chair of the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board).
under
37.One notable submitter (other than Treaty Partners) is the Ruapehu Skifields Stakeholders
Association (RSSA), which is a stakeholder group made up of RAL life pass holders, RAL
shareholders, and passionate snow sports users. Their membership is made up of over
1000 people.
38.83 submit ers requested to speak to their submission, however many of these withdrew
their request or requested to be heard via proxy as part of the RSSA. A total of 27
submit ers spoke to the hearing panel over the four days.
Released
39.The Objections and Submissions Summary Report can be found at (report proactively
released separately). That report summarises the main themes and provides
recommendations, to the extent the Director-General's delegate was able to, on the
extent to which they should be allowed.
40.Where relevant they are incorporated and discussed further in this Report. The main
themes are:
a. Statutory planning
6
b. Applicant
c. Term
d. Process
e. Nature and effects of the activity
f. Treaty relationships
g. Future operations
h. Stakeholders
i. Economic effects
j. Miscellaneous
41.Some of the submissions raised themes which are not relevant to the statutory
Act
considerations of this application. Submissions on the future operations of the activity are
not allowed (which includes the draft IDP), as these wil be assessed in future applications.
Submission points not allowed also include those relating to the timing of the notification
of this application, alternative ownership models, or comments relating to RAL and
economic effects (where they do not touch on the purposes of the NPA).
6. Conservation Board comments
42.The Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board is a statutory body. Its functions provide it with
a role in the review and creation of a national park management plan. The Board is also
Information
capable of providing advice to the Minister and the Director-General on matters such as
concession applications. In this instance the Board did not provide official feedback on
this application. The Conservation Board met to discuss their preferred pathway forward
for this application on 26 January 2024. At that time, they debated whether to make a
submission or make the call to take a seat on the hearing panel. They decided not to
make a submission and Clint Green would represent the Conservation Board on the
hearing panel. In addition, Damian Cout s (Operations D
Official irector, Central North Island)
discussed the proposed application at the Board meeting on 22 February 2024. Clint
Green, Deputy-Chair of the Board attended the hearings and provided support to Ms
Norgate. Mr Green reported back to the Board at the end of the hearing. In early March
the
the Board discussed whether to provide specific feedback on the application. It confirmed
on 12 March 2024 that many of its concerns have been raised in other submissions to the
decision maker, therefore the Board has decided not to submit feedback for the Decision
Makers report.
under
7. Treaty settlements
43.In 1887 Te Heuheu Tūkino IV (Horonuku), the paramount chief of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, gifted
on behalf of his tribe the summits of Tongariro, Ngauruhoe and part of Ruapehu to the
people of New Zealand, so they might be protected for all time. This was the initiation of
the process that led to the creation of the Park, New Zealand’s first national park.
44.The Crown has acknowledged that through his tuku (gift) in 1887, Horonuku Te Heuheu
Released
Tūkino IV sought to create a shared responsibility with the Crown to protect and preserve
the mountains for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, for other iwi, and for all New Zealanders.1
45.Mounga Ruapehu remains sacred to all iwi and hapū of the region. The Tūroa ski field is
located on the western slopes of Ruapehu, where Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Hāua, Te Korowai o
1 Ngāti Tūwharetoa Deed of Settlement at para 3.17
7
Wainuiārua, Patutokotoko, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Pou Tupua and Ngā
Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui each have cultural interests and responsibilities.
46.In 2013, the Waitangi Tribunal released its Report on the National Park District Inquiry. The
Tribunal recommended the Crown honour its obligations and restore the partnership
intended by the 1887 tuku of the mountains. These recommendations and findings of the
Tribunal are not binding on the Crown but can assist the parties in their Treaty settlement
negotiations. As discussed below, negotiations in relation to the Park in light of these
recommendations are at an early stage.
Treaty settlements
Act
47.Relevant Treaty settlement legislation and Deeds of Settlement must be considered. This
is additional to but can help the section 4 analysis. The concluded iwi Treaty set lements
have deliberately excluded cultural redress relating to the Park, which is to be negotiated
between the Crown and iwi and hapū of the region.
48.Treaty settlement negotiations have resulted in the settlement of claims for the Whanganui
Rivier / Te Awa Tupua (which is engaged through tributaries of Te Awa Tupua falling within
the footprint of the application area), Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and Ngāti Rangi. Negotiations
with Ngāti Hāua and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua are in the final stages of conclusion. Ngāti
Information
Hikairo claims were resolved through the Ngāti Tūwharetoa settlement and Patutokotoko
interests have been covered through collective settlements. Key settlement obligations
relating to Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (Te Pou Tupua
Act) and the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019 are discussed in further detail below.
Ngāti Rangi Settlement - Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika Official
49.Ngāti Rangi and the Crown signed a Deed of Settlement of their historical claims on 10
March 2018. Certain provisions of their settlement were given effect through the Ngāti
the
Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019. Tūroa is in the Area of Interest map attached to the
Deed of Settlement (discussed further below). However, as noted, this settlement
excludes cultural redress for the Park, and their interests in the Park wil be part of
collective negotiations with iwi and hapū of the region.
under
50.The Ngāti Rangi Deed of Settlement includes a Conservation Partnership Agreement, Te
Mana Paenga, between the Minister/the Department and Ngāti Rangi. The Agreement
generally excludes the Park from its scope. However, the Agreement does have express
provisions in relation to the catchment of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika / the Whangaehu River, which
includes tributaries occurring in the South-West quadrant around the Tūroa ski field (see
clause 12.6 - replicated in attachment).
51.In particular, Te Mana Paenga notes strategic objectives discussions with the Department
wil include actions in the business plan to collaborate on developing Departmental
Released
processes to ensure the Department meets its obligations to: recognise and provide for
Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika framework; have particular regard to Te Tahoratanga o Te Waiū-o-Te-
Ika; recognise the Governance Entity's standing with respect to the Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika in
accordance with clauses 8.21 to 8.25 of the Deed of Settlement; and engage with Nga
Wai Tota o Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika including through attendance at any biennial hui/meeting
convened under clause 8.45.2(b) of the Deed of Settlement (clauses replicated in
attachement).
8
52.In terms of consultation, and as Te Mana Paenga notes, the immediately above provisions
are relevant in regard to consultation concerning Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika.
53.The Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019 provides statutory recognition and a
framework approach to the management of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika. This framework includes a
principles and
intrinsic values approach to the management of the awa – Te Mana Tupua
and Ngā Toka Tupua (ss 107 and 108).
Te Mana Tupua
Act
54.The Ngāti Rangi settlement provides statutory recognition for Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika as a living
and indivisible whole from Te Wai ā-moe (the crater lake) to the sea, comprising physical
(including mineral) and metaphysical elements, giving life and healing to its surroundings
and communities (s 107(2)). Te Mana Tupua includes a set of five protocols (kawa) for a
healthy river: Te Kawa Ora; Te Mouri Ora; Te Manawa Ora; Te Wai Ora; and Te Waiū-o-
Te-Ika.
Ngā Toka Tupua
55.The settlement recognises a set of four intrinsic values (Ngā Toka o Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika) that
Information
represent the essence of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika:
a. Ko te Kāhui Maunga te mātāpuna o te ora: The sacred mountain clan, the
source of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika, the source of life. Hapū, iwi and all communities
draw sustenance and inspiration from Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika’s source upon
Ruapehu extending to all reaches of the catchment.
b. He wai-a-riki-rangi, he wai-ariki-nuku, tuku iho, tuku iho: An interconnected
Official
whole; a river revered and valued from generation down to generation. apū, iwi
and all communities are united in the best interests of the indivisible Te Waiū-
o-Te-Ika as a gift to the future prosperity of our mokopuna.
the
c. Ko ngā wai tiehu ki ngā wai riki, tuku iho ki tai hei waiū, hei wai tōtā e: Living,
nurturing waters, providing potency to the land and its people from source to
tributary to the ocean. Hapū, iwi and all communities benefit physically,
spiritual y, cultural y and economically where water and its inherent life
supporting capacity is valued and enhanced.
under
d. Kia hua mai ngā kōrero o ngā wai, kia hua mai te wai ora e: The latent potential
of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika, the latent potential of its hapū and iwi. Uplifting the mana
of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika in turn uplifts the mana of its hapū and iwi leading to
prosperity and growth for hapū and iwi.
56.The legal effect of Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua is that any person exercising or
performing a function, power, or duty under specified legislation, including the
Conservation Act and the NPA, if the exercise or performance of that function, power, or
duty relates to the Whangaehu River or an activity within the Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika catchment
Released
that affects the Whangaehu River, must recognise and provide for Te Mana Tupua and
Ngā Toka Tupua if, and to the extent that, Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua relate to
that function, power, or duty (ss 109(1) and (2)).
57.The Department recognises the Tūroa Ski Area is within catchment of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika
and has been engaging with Ngāti Rangi (through the Ngā Waihua o Paerangi Trust) to
understand their concerns and to uphold the kawa and intrinsic values of Te Waiū-o-Te-
9
Ika. In addition to engagement with Ngāti Rangi on this application, the application and
RAL liquidation process has been discussed generally at Te Mana Paenga meetings.
58.Ngāti Rangi is critical of the process undertaken and considers the Department should
have done more to prioritise the process by which their feedback and response was
received. Ngāti Rangi has continued to engage with the Department to ensure the values
of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika are upheld and their concerns heard. These concerns and potential
mitigations are outlined below.
Recognition and proposed conditions
Act
59.Te Mana Tupua and Nga Toka Tupua and the importance of this river and its values to iwi
are recognised and have been provided for through the conditions in the proposed
concession that protect the values of the awa and the awa itself from the activities of the
ski field. In particular, there are obligations within the concession document to protect the
environment (including not damaging any natural feature or burying any toilet waste
and/or any animal or fish products within 50 metres of any water source) and special
conditions providing further protections - including: the requirement for a Cultural Impact
Assessment (which includes identification of cultural effects and recommendations to
manage effects, and is intended to support a 3 year review of the operation of the
concession activities), a Cultural Monitoring Plan, an Ecological Assessment, and an
Information
Environmental Impact Plan; alongside conditions that directly or indirectly address
activities related to watercourses, including restricting the use of vehicles, consultation in
the preparation of interpretation materials, and obligations related to hazardous
substances, refuelling, snow making, earthworks, wastewater management and
accidental discovery protocols. In addition, the proposed special conditions include the
requirement for all water used for the snow machines to come from the Mangawhero
Official
catchment and that the snow is placed to ensure it only goes back into the same
catchment.
the
60.Further details on engagement with Treaty partners on the Cultural Monitoring Plan and
the 3-year review are discussed below.
61.Ngāti Rangi’s wider interests, concerns raised and proposed mitigation measures are
further discussed in the s 4 analysis below.
under
62.The Department is satisfied that section 109(2) has been appropriately complied with in
the circumstances of this Application and Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua can be
recognised and provided for by the use of special conditions in any decision to grant the
application.
Te Awa Tupua Act 2017
63.Te Awa Tupua Act recognises the special relationship between the Te Awa Tupua – the
Released
Whanganui River and Whanganui iwi and provides for the river’s long-term protection and
restoration. The Act recognises Te Awa Tupua as an indivisible and living whole,
comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, and all its physical and
metaphysical elements
. The purpose of the Te Awa Tupua Act includes giving effect to the
provisions of the deed of settlement that establish Te Pā Auroa nā Te Awa Tupua
. The
legal effect of the Te Pā Auroa is that it (the Te Awa Tupua framework) is a relevant
consideration in the exercise of all statutory functions, powers, and duties in relation to
10
the Whanganui River or to activities in its catchment that affect the Whanganui River. The
Act declares Te Awa Tupua to be a legal person and it has all the rights, powers, duties,
and liabilities of a legal person (s 14(1)).
Tupua te Kawa
64.Tupua te Kawa comprises the intrinsic values that represent the essence of Te Awa Tupua,
namely—
a. Ko te Awa te mātāpuna o te ora: the River is the source of spiritual and physical
sustenance:
Te Awa Tupua is a spiritual and physical entity that supports and sustains both
Act
the life and natural resources within the Whanganui River and the health and
well-being of the iwi, hapū, and other communities of the River.
b. E rere kau mai i te Awa nui mai i te Kahui Maunga ki Tangaroa: the great River
flows from the mountains to the sea:
Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole from the mountains to the sea,
incorporating the Whanganui River and all of its physical and metaphysical
elements.
c. Ko au te Awa, ko te Awa ko au: I am the River and the River is me:
The iwi and hapū of the Whanganui River have an inalienable connection with,
and responsibility to, Te Awa Tupua and its health and wel -being.
Information
d. Ngā manga iti, ngā manga nui e honohono kau ana, ka tupu hei Awa Tupua:
the small and large streams that flow into one another form one River:
Te Awa Tupua is a singular entity comprised of many elements and
communities, working collaboratively for the common purpose of the health and
well-being of Te Awa Tupua.
Official
65.The Tūroa Ski Area is within the Whanganui River catchment and a small number of
tributaries of Te Awa Tupua (e.g. the Mangaturuturu) begin on the mounga and flow
through parts of the ski field footprint.
the
66.On the settlement date, Te Pou Tupua Act vested the beds of those tributaries, streams,
and other natural watercourses of the Whanganui River that are located within the Park
(and within the Whanganui River catchment) in Te Pou Tupua, and those areas ceased
to be a national park. However, the Act simultaneously restored that former status; and
under
the functions, powers, and duties arising under the NPA continue to apply (ss 41 and 42).
The Minister of Conservation remains responsible for issuing concessions over all areas
of the Park and the ordinary NPA and Conservation Act provisions continue to apply.
67.That said, the effect of the declaration of Te Awa Tupua status is that it requires all persons
exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under the Conservation Act or the NPA
that relates to the Whanganui River (or an activity within the Whanganui River catchment
that affects the Whanganui River) to the extent that, the Te Awa Tupua status or Tupua te
Kawa relates to that function, duty, or power, must recognise and provide for Te Awa
Released
Tupua status and Tupua te Kawa (s 15(1) and (2).
68.The Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui River) Deed of Settlement (Ruruku Whakatupua) includes
obligations on the Department to enter into a relationship agreement with Te Pou Tupua
on agreed terms concerning matters of mutual interest, including the application of the
statutory process for considering and determining applications for concessions for a
lease, licence or easement in relation to land that is vested in Te Awa Tupua but is subject
11
to the conservation legislation (clause 3.38). The obligations further state that the
Director-General wil commence discussions with Te Pou Tupua for that purpose within
12 months after the commencement date. While initial conversations have begun and
are on-going, the parties have not yet entered into a relationship agreement addressing
matters of mutual interest.
69.The Department has been in contact with Te Pou Tupua and Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o
Whanganui (the post set lement governance entity representing Whanganui iwi for the
purposes of Te Awa Tupua Act) to understand how to apply, and implement Te Awa Tupua
status and Tupua te Kawa, and the extent that, Te Awa Tupua status or Tupua te Kawa
relates to the activities of the PTL application.
Act
70.The Department sent letters to the office of Te Pou Tupua and to Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o
Whanganui on 22 November 2023 advising them the PTL concession application was
expected imminently. A letter was received on 22 February 2024 from Ngā Tāngata Tiaki
o Whanganui (also on behalf of Te Pou Tupua) stating Te Awa Tupua is a relevant
consideration and the Crown process for licencing and concession had failed to meet the
due process required to meet an outcome under the Te Awa Tupua Act. The Department
responded to this and sent a letter to Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui and the Of ice of
Te Pou Tupua on 28 February 2024 requesting an urgent face to face meeting, however
there was no response to this request. A text message was received with Ngā Tāngata
Information
Tiaki o Whanganui (also on behalf of Te Pou Tupua) on 4 March 2024, re-iterating they
do not consider the Department has adequately given effect to the process but confirmed
that they were comfortable with no formal engagement with themselves, provided the
relevant and hapū were engaged, and their concerns heard. The Department has
engaged with Patutokotoko, Ngāti Hāua, Ngati Rangi and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, as
hapū of Whanganui Iwi listed in Schedule 1 of Te Pou Tupua Act, through the application
Official
process.
71.Ngāti Hāua have stated in their formal submission that in their view the application process
the
does not comply with the section 15(2) obligation to recognise and provide for Te Awa
Tupua status and Tupua te Kawa. However, they suggest Te Awa Tupua and Tupua te
Kawa could be given effect to by building a relationship between the Department and
Ngāti Hāua. Noting here that Ngāti Hāua are in Treaty settlement negotiations, and the
Agreement in Principle includes provision for a conservation partnership agreement
under
between Ngāti Hāua and the Department/Minister. In addition, Ngāti Hāua identify that
including them in the monitoring of the concession in a meaningful way wil recognise and
provide for Tupua te Kawa. The Department is proposing to create a monitoring plan on
behalf of the Applicant which wil include input from each Treaty Partner in a meaningful
way. Patutokotoko also raised Te Awa Tupua as part of their formal submission but did
not discuss this in any detail.
72.The Department recognises Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole and that the
Tūroa Ski Area is at the headwaters of Te Awa Tupua. Activities which occur at the
Released
headwaters may impact on those headwaters and have a downstream effect on the
values of Tupua te Kawa.
Recognition and proposed conditions
73.Te Pou Tupua status and Tupua te Kawa and the importance of Te Pou Tupua to
Whanganui iwi are recognised and the potential for impacts on that status and those
12
intrinsic values (to the extent that they relate to this application) are recommended as
being provided for through conditions in the proposed concession that protect the values
of the awa and the awa itself from the activities of the ski field. In particular, there are
obligations within the concession document to protect the environment and special
conditions providing further protections - including: the requirement for a Cultural Impact
Assessment (which includes identification of cultural ef ects and recommendations to
manage effects, and is intended to support a 3 year review of the operation of the
concession activities), a Cultural Monitoring Plan, an Ecological Assessment, and an
Environmental Plan; alongside conditions that directly or indirectly address activities
relating to watercourses, including restricting the use of vehicles, consultation in the
preparation of interpretation materials, and obligations related to hazardous substances,
Act
refuelling, snow making, earthworks, wastewater management and accidental discovery
protocols.
74.The proposed conditions include obligations on the Department to: engage with Treaty
partners prior to undertaking the 3 year review, to identify any areas of concern or interest
to them; and to consult with Treaty Partners on the report’s findings, and any
recommendations, prior to it being finalised.
75.In addition to these obligations, the proposed conditions include an obligation on the
Department to procure the Cultural Impact Assessment. The purpose of the Cultural
Information
Impacts Assessment is to understand: the cultural values of the Land on which the
Concession Activity is authorised; how the Concession Activity has, or may, impact on
those cultural values; any rights and interests of Treaty Partners in the Land; and how the
Concession Activity may impact on the rights and interests of Treaty Partners. The
intention is that the document should include recommendations or commentary from
Treaty Partners on how to manage effects including how to avoid, remedy or mitigate
Official
adverse ef ects.
76.The Department is satisfied that section 15(2) has been appropriately complied with in the
the
circumstances of this Application, and Te Awa Tupua and Tupua te Kawa can be
recognised and provided for by the use of special conditions in any decision to grant the
application.
8. Section 4
under
77.Section 4 of the Conservation Act requires the Minister and the Department to give effect
to the principles of the Treaty when interpreting and administering that Act (including the
legislation listed in Schedule 1 of that Act, which includes the NPA). That obligation
applies to both the process and to the substance of the decision-making on this
Application.
78. Key principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that apply to DOC’s work are:
a.
Partnership – mutual good faith and reasonableness: The Crown and Māori
Released
must act towards each other reasonably and in good faith;
b. I
nformed decision-making: Both the Crown and Māori need to be well
informed of the other’s interests and views;
c.
Active protection: The Crown must actively protect Māori interests retained
under the Treaty as part of the promises made in the Treaty for the right to
govern;
13
d.
Redress and reconciliation: The Treaty relationship should include
processes to address dif erences of view between the Crown and Māori.
79.Other principles may apply, depending on the circumstances. How these principles play
out in practice is necessarily context dependent. Treaty principles do not dictate any
particular result but require good faith and reasonable action by both Crown and Māori in
the circumstances. The proper approach to Treaty principles is that they themselves
require a balance of tangata whenua and other interests.
80.The Supreme Court considered section 4 in 2018 in the
Ngāi Tai decision and confirmed,
amongst other things, that:2
Act
a. Section 4 of the Conservation Act is a powerful provision and should not be
narrowly construed – at [52(a)].
b. Section 4 requires more than procedural steps – substantive outcomes for iwi
may be necessary – at [52(b)].
c. Enabling iwi or hapu to reconnect to their ancestral lands by taking up
opportunities on the conservation estate (whether through concessions or
otherwise) is one way that the Crown can give practical effect to Treaty
principles – at [52(c)].
d. In applying s 4 to a decision relating to a concession application, the
Information
Department must, so far as is possible, apply the relevant statutory and other
legal considerations in a manner that gives effect to the relevant principles of
the Treaty at [53]
e. Section 4 does not exist in a vacuum and must be reconciled with other values,
such as values of public access and enjoyment at issue in the case. But section
4 should not be seen as being trumped by other conservation-related
considerations like those mentioned in [54] of the judgment. Nor should section
Official
4 merely be part of an exercise in balancing it against the relevant
considerations – at [54].
f. What is required is a process under which the meeting of other statutory or
the
non-statutory objectives is achieved to the extent this can be done consistently
with section 4, in a way that best gives effect to the relevant Treaty principles –
at [54]
g. The factual context is important in terms of how section 4 and the Treaty
principles should be applied in any particular case – at [52].
under
h. How the Court’s observations are applied to a particular decision wil depend
on which Treaty principles are relevant and what other statutory and non-
statutory objectives are af ected – at [55]
i. Section 4 does not create a power of veto by an iwi or hapu over the granting
of concessions in an area which the iwi or hapu has mana whenua – at [95]
j. The Whales case (
Ngāi Tahu Maori Trust Board v Director-General of
Conservation [1995] 3 NZLR 553 (CA)) held that, in the context of a mat er
under the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations, Ngāi Tahu were entitled to
Released
a reasonable degree of preference subject to overriding conservation
considerations and the quality of service offered – at [50(d)].
2
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2018] NZSC 122 - The case involved the
judicial review of the Minister’s decisions to grant concessions to two operators to undertake
commercial guiding concessions on Motutapu and Rangitoto islands, which was opposed by Ngāi
Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust itself held their own concession for
guiding activities but with a cultural focus
14
k. Section 4 does not exist in a vacuum and the court acknowledged the
complexity of the task facing decision-makers – at [72].
81.While the context of the Ngāi Tai case is dif erent to this application, the messaging and
direction from the Court wil be relevant to the consideration of section 4 in this process,
particularly the focus on the fact that s 4 is a powerful Treaty clause. The obligation in s 4
is to give effect to the “principles” of the Treaty. These are addressed below:
Partnership and Informed Decision Making
82.Partnership – mutual good faith and reasonableness: The Crown and Māori must act
Act
towards each other reasonably, fairly and in good faith. Partnership is the foundation of
being a good treaty partner. Informed decision making is central to this relationship.
83.Making an informed decision requires the Crown to understand the interests and views of
the relevant Treaty Partner. Consultation is means to achieving informed decision making.
84.Engaging properly with iwi/hapū and undertaking Treaty due diligence enables the Crown
to properly understand the nature of the rights or interests, as well as the relevant
settlement legislation, Deeds of Settlement documents, and Relationship Instruments.
Information
Active protection
85.The Crown must actively protect Māori interests retained under the Treaty as part of the
promises made in the Treaty for the right to govern.
86.Active protection requires the Decision-Maker to properly understand the nature of the
Official
interest claimed and to weigh that material with any wider or competing rights or interests,
and to make informed decisions that are reasonable in the circumstances. The chal enge
is how to apply the obligation in specific situations.
the
87.Active protection is directly engaged here given the high significance of the maunga to
iwi/hapu.
Redress and reconciliation
under
88.The Treaty relationship should include processes to address dif erences of view between
the Crown and Māori and redress past grievances. The Crown must preserve capacity to
provide redress for agreed grievances from not upholding the promises made in the Treaty.
Māori and the Crown should demonstrate reconciliation as grievances are addressed.
89.While the respective iwi are at dif erent stages in their negotiations to settle their historic
grievances with the Crown, it is important to understand the obligations in the completed
relevant Treaty Settlements (as addressed above) and what they require in relation to this
Released
application. The TNP negotiations are also relevant as discussed.
Engagement
90.There were early informal discussions held between the Applicant, Department and Treaty
Partners during 2023 before the application was lodged. These discussions influenced the
direction of the application, which resulted in the Applicant only applying for a 10-year term
15
and also the long-term intention to reduce infrastructure. The Applicant included in their
application that they envisage Treaty Partners having a positive involvement in the future
of the ski area through commercial opportunities and other inputs.
91.The Applicant has set out their engagement in appendix 10 of their application The
Applicant’s primary engagement before the application was lodged was with Ngāti Rangi
with whom they met multiple times on a formal and informal basis, beginning in February
2023. They also engaged with Te Korowai o Wainuiārua on a more informal basis with
regular meetings and phone calls. Some engagement also occurred with Patutokotoko via
9(2)(a)
regarding a commercial arrangement with the Turoa name. After the
application was lodged the Applicant met with Ngati Haua to discuss the application and
Act
has continued some engagement with the other Treaty Partners.
92.It is noted the Application is influenced by the past application from RAL and supporting
environmental reports which are 10 years old and did not include an updated cultural
impacts assessment (or similar). Where information has not changed significantly, the
Department does allow older reports to be submitted as part of an application. The
Department has been engaging with Treaty partners to better understand the interests and
views of Treaty partners, which includes consideration of the introduction of Treaty
settlement legislation since the RAL application was granted.
Information
93.The Department’s formal engagement with Treaty Partners started before the application
was lodged. Treaty partners also had the opportunity to submit through the ordinary
consultation and submission process, and the Department has continued to engage
outside that public process. Engagement with iwi continued post the formal submissions
process to better understand and address iwi concerns. In addition, the Department
provided a copy of the draft lease/licence concession to all relevant Treaty Partners. The
Official
outcomes of this engagement are set out below. See appendix 3 for a table setting out this
engagement for both the wider Crown process and this concession application.
the
94.Treaty Partners raised common concerns with the speed of the process which has
occurred for this application. Al Treaty partners have identified what they see as
deficiencies with the consultation process, including the timing of the notification period
over Christmas, insuf icient time to review documents and prepare a submission, as well
as inadequate information to make a meaningful and informed contribution to the process.
under
Additionally, Treaty partners have raised concerns with the age of some reports, such as
the Ecological Assessment, dated 2014.
95.It is noted that Treaty partners have also been involved with the wider Crown led process
associated with the liquidation and receivership of RAL and have voiced their concerns
with that process.
96.Other concerns regarding the ski area and proposed mitigations are set out in the
paragraphs below. The outcomes are discussed further in this section of the report. Treaty
Released
Partners submissions and comments are saved to appendix 4. The Department provided
a copy of the draft lease licence agreement to all relevant Treaty Partners on 22 March
2024. Their engagement is summarised in appendix 5 of the report. This appendix shows
how the Department has responded to their concerns and if not, why not.
Submissions and engagement from Treaty Partners
16
97. The identified iwi/hapū groups of the region that the Department engaged with are:
a. Ngāti Rangi through Nga Waihua o Paerangi Trust.
b. Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust.
c. Te Korowai o Wainuiārua (Ngāti Uenuku, Tamahaki, Tamakana) and also through
Uenuku Charitable Trust).
d. Patutokotoko hapu.
e. Ngāti Tūwharetoa via the office of Ta Tumu and Te Kotahitangi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa
Trust;
f. The office of Te Pou Tupua and Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui Trust
98.Ngāti Tūwharetoa’s position is noted at the outset. Submissions were received from
Act
Patutokotoko, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Hāua and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua through the public
notification period and representatives attended the hearing to talk to their submissions.
Further engagement has occurred with the relevant Treaty partners to address their
concerns with both the process and the application.
Ngāti Tūwharetoa engagement
99.Ngāti Tūwharetoa (via Te Kotahitangi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Trust) have declined to engage
on this application and have advised their position is to leave the Tūroa Ski Area for Treaty
Partners based on the southern side of the maunga. This was discussed as part of a
Information
meeting on 24 October 2023. The Department provided letters to the Ngāti Tūwharetoa
along with other iwi (as per the engagement table in appendix 3), in case they chose to re-
engage at any point. This is outlined in the table in appendix 3.
100.While Ngāti Tūwharetoa declined to engage, the Department received a letter from Te
Ariki Tumu te Heuheu (Ngāti Tūwharetoa Chief) stating “
the application and process to
Official
participate are irreconcilable and unhelpful distractions from charting a path of wellbeing
for our Maunga” and that the applications allowed “further desecration of our Maunga.”
Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Te Kotahitangi o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Trust and Te Ariki Tumu te Heuheu)
the
have been provided copies of the draft concession if they chose to engage. Te Kotahitangi
o Ngāti Tūwharetoa Trust have confirmed they do not have any comments on the draft
document.
Ngāti Rangi submission and engagement
under
101.Ngāti Rangi have emphasised the maunga is sacred to Ngāti Rangi and the importance
of culturally significant waterways within the ski field boundaries.
102.The Ngāti Rangi original submission (received 9 February 2024) was neutral to the
application. This reflected the following position. Ngāti Rangi emphasise the scared nature
of their ancestral mountain. As a result, they remain opposed to the ski field in principle.
However, Ngāti Rangi also acknowledge the ski field has been in operation for many years
and that Ngāti Rangi remains pragmatic and future-focused and seeks to work in a mana-
Released
enhancing way where the spirit of reciprocity works for the benefit of “both our
environment and the people.” Ngāti Rangi’s submission accordingly stated their position
was neutral because they “would prefer to see no increase in the environmental footprint
on our maunga at all. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the economic contribution Ruapehu
Alpine Lifts (RAL), and now Pure Tūroa Ltd (PTL) are making to the region, and we are
prepared to work towards a resolution, provided sufficient mitigation and safeguards to
our maunga and awa are met.”. Mitigation measures are expressed as “bot om lines.”
17
103.They emphasise the activity wil impact on the Te Waiū-o-te-Ika, noting the upper reaches
of the Mangawhero, which is a major tributary of the Whangaehu river, flow through the
ski field, and the importance of the health of the wai and the awa. They are concerned
about the increase to the ecological footprint due to the IDP’s proposing new chairlifts
over the term of the concession. They note damage is continuing to the Mangawhero
ecological area (a separate but equal y ecologically important area) from water
discharging from the café, inadequate fencing, sediment from Clarry’s track and
earthworks and rubbish. Ngāti Rangi are opposed to snow making, especially a particular
form “snomax.”
Act
104.Ngāti Rangi note they do support some parts of the Application. They support the
intention to remove redundant infrastructure, reduce the carrying capacity and that the
Applicant has identified their desire to create a relationship agreement with Ngāti Rangi.
Other positive points are the intention to charge for car parking but not intend on extending
any carparks. In addition, that PTL wil not be paying dividends and wil , instead, re-invest
the funds back into the ski area. Lastly, PTL are considering all year-round activities which
wil benefit employment and income for the wider town and also their people.
105. Ngāti Rangi identify the following wil need to be addressed:
a. The applicant wil need to continue with the existing agreement to remove redundant
Information
structures (currently, a hut for rope storage and broken plastic drain near the
carparks).
b. The Applicant should employ at least one cultural monitor and guide to uphold tikanga
and kawa. In addition, the Applicant wil need to employ at least one environmental
monitor to report to Ngāti Rangi. These monitors wil identify further redundant
structures.
Official
c. The Applicant wil provide an assurance snow making wil not include snomax or
similar. The applicant wil need to identify what they mean when they state they wil
use “smart technology” when making snow.
the
d. There should be regular monitoring of vegetation, stream flows and ground
temperatures under artificial snow. The ecological assessment from 2014 should be
repeated.
e. The Applicant wil not lower any car parks or undertake any work including substantial
earthworks. under
f. The Applicant wil not develop mountain biking.
g. They Applicant wil not cover Mangawhero stream when upgrading or constructing a
new Clarry’s track. This wil affect the mouri of the awa and Te Waiū-o-te-ika.
h. The Applicant wil protect the two alpine flushes (Turoa Alpine Flush and Mangawhero
Ecological Area).
i. The Applicant must specify exactly when they are using aircraft and where drones
can be used instead.
j. The Applicant needs to provide detail on their revegetation plan, including locations
of off-site nursery’s.
Released
k. The Applicant should pay a levy to the Ruapehu District Council to upgrade their
wastewater treatment plant.
106.Ngāti Rangi considers the above are also critical to resolve because the ski area is within
a UNESCO site. Ngāti Rangi considers the dual status recognising Māori cultual values
has an economic value and that the Applicant is indirectly benefitting from Ngāti Rangi’s
presence and input.
18
107. Ngāti Rangi’s feedback dated 28 February 2024 suggest the following should be included
in the concession terms:
a. The Te Waiū-o-te-Ika principles should guide all decisions and all conditions imposed
on any concession issued.
b. By the conclusion of Year 1, Te Pae Toka or a similar relationship agreement wil be
in place between Ngāti Rangi and Pure Tūroa Limited. This agreement wil outline a
series of KPI’s that wil be regularly monitored. A full review wil be undertaken by
Ngāti Rangi at year 3 against these KPI’s with the ability for termination at this time.
Ngāti Rangi have emphasised the importance of the 3 year review for the protection
of Ruapehu given what they see as the rushed process to date.
Act
c. Concession is to include only activities / infrastructure that is already in place under
the existing RAL concession. Any new upgrades or changes wil require either a
variation to the concession or a new concession application.
d. By conclusion of year 1, a new updated Environmental Assessment wil be completed
and available for review by Ngāti Rangi. This assessment should include an
Environmental Management Plan that is agreed to by Ngāti Rangi
e. Introduction of a management fee on top of the concession fee. This management
fee wil fund 1x Environmental Monitor and 1x Cultural Monitor that wil be employed
by and report to Ngāti Rangi. These 2 positions wil undertake daily monitoring.
Additional monitors to also be provided for additional works or maintenance?
Information
f. Al waste both solid and liquid wil be removed from site and taken to a consented
facility.
g. Ngāti Rangi would like to review the final Decision Support Document that is being
provided to the Decision Maker.
108.The analysis concerning the statutory obligation to recognise and provide for Te Mana
Official
Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua for Te Waiū-o-te-Ika is discussed under the Treaty
settlement provisions above. the
109. A draft of the proposed concession was provided to Ngati Rangi on 22 March 2024 for
their feedback. This information is included in appendix 4 of this report.
Te Korowai o Wainuiārua submission and engagement
110.Te Korowai o Wainuiārua made submissions as part of the process dated 5 February 2024
under
and further matters were discussed at a meeting on 1 March 2024. They oppose the
application.
111.Their submissions emphasised what they considered to be a lack of good process. They
claim of a breach of good faith related to the notification period for this application and
with the RAL liquidation process more generally. The submission also states that there
is a lack of evidence to support the economic viability of the application and raises
concerns with this application and the ten-year term given the Tongariro National Park
Released
Enquiry is yet to occur, and the conduct of the Applicant. The submission noted “Te
Korowai o Wainuiārua supports economic development in the Region”. Although not
directly part of this application, they advocate for a joint Crown-iwi entity to oversee the
ski area and ensure iwi values and opportunities are met going forward.
112.In their feedback on 12 March (following a meeting with the Department to discuss their
concerns) they outlined while they are engaging in the spirit of cooperation and
19
providing feedback on the details in the application, they want it known they continue
to oppose the application. They suggest a way forward is for a pan-iwi collective to
ensure consistency, respect and sensitivity for all matters related to the Park.
113. They have suggested the following should be included.
a. To minimise environmental impact, concession is only for existing activities and
lease licence areas are clearly stipulated.
b. An updated Ecological impact assessment within 12 months.
c. Cultural Impact Assessment to be undertaken by local iwi.
d. The Applicant wil enter into a relationship agreement with Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua which wil include Key Performance Indicators that wil be
Act
measured at a 3-year review of the concession.
e. A fee wil be charged for monitoring undertaken between DOC, the Applicant
and iwi/hapu.
Ngāti Hāua submission and engagement
114.Ngāti Hāua submitted an interim submission on 9 February 2024, followed by a
supplementary submission on 25 February 2024. The interim submission states
engagement with the Department and the applicant are in initial stages but has been
positive. They however raise serious concerns with the process under the
Information
Conservation Act and Te Awa Tupua Act including that tikanga and kawa have been
omitted from the process and they have concerns with guidance about who the
Applicant should be engaging with. Ngāti Hāua were not engaged by the Applicant
before the application was lodged and therefore it was said the application is deficient.
Ngāti Hāua also had concerns about the Department’s decision the application was
ready to notify.
Official
115. Ngāti Hāua emphasised the strength of their relationship to the Maunga and that their
interests have not been factored into processes to date due to limited engagement.
the
The supplementary submission states Ngāti Hāua’s concern there are serious
procedural deficiencies with the application and compliance with both the Conservation
Act and Te Awa Tupua Act, which means the application should be declined or returned
under s17SA to ensure proper consideration and compliance with those statutory
frameworks. Ngāti Hāua consider the decision to publicly notify was flawed on the
under
basis of insuf icient information, including in terms of identification and assessment of
Ngāti Hāua’s interests (discussed elsewhere in this report). Ngāti Hāua indicated they
are not in a position to consider the substance of the application due to what is said to
be the deficiency of the information.
116.The supplementary submission emphasises the importance of compliance with Te Awa
Tupua Act which is discussed above. As noted, this Act includes a set of intrinsic values
(Tupua te Kawa) to guide decision making, which is engaged in this case as the Tūroa
Ski Area is within the Whanganui River catchment. Their submission states “
Tupua te
Released
Kawa directs a relational and good faith working relationship between those iwi/hapu
at place and other parties like DoC and the Applicant”. Ngāti Hāua do not believe this
occurred with this application (also discussed above).
117.Their submission also discussed section 4 of the Conservation Act and emphasised the
principles of partnership and active protection in relation to taonga. Their comment
20
was that this is especially important when the taonga (Mt Ruapehu) is experiencing
degradation.
118.Ngāti Hāua met with the Department to consider the details of the concession on 5 March
2024. Ngāti Hāua request their submission to be given as their primary position and
request the following statement be included to the decision make
r: “Ngāti Hāua are
clear that the procedural context of the Concession provides rationale to decline the
Concession Application. Had proper process and engagement occurred with Ngāti
Hāua, the below matters and key areas of the Concession could have been worked
through in greater detail and in a way that provided options for all parties. The Minister
wil need to determine whether such procedural issues (including non-compliance with
Act
settlement legislation) warrants a decline of the Concession. We say it does, but in
the alternative, we suggest that provision should be inbuilt into the Concession that
aims to rectify the deficiencies in the Application and that deters future concession
Applicants (including this Applicant) and DoC from conducting these processes in a
way that is inconsistent with the expectations of Ngāti Hāua.”.
119.At this meeting, it was discussed that a partnership should be built between Ngāti Hāua
and the Department that is consistent with Te Awa Tupua and Ngāti Hāua kawa. This
can in turn, be in-built into the concession through monitoring conditions and also
working alongside the Department to review the concession post any potential
Information
concession being granted. Ngāti Hāua have suggested an acknowledgement to Ngāti
Hāua interests on the Maunga be inbuilt into this report noting their concerns in terms
of section 4 and Tupua te Kawa.
120.Ngāti Hāua specifically request the following steps are required given what they consider
to be a lack of proper process and engagement:
Official
a. That a new environmental impacts assessment/management plan must be
discussed with Ngāti Hāua within the first 4 months and completed by 12
months. Resourcing that should be external. If not met, the concession should
the
be terminated.
b. Ngāti Hāua have suggested that it is within this process that Ngāti Hāua
establish a relationship agreement with PTL and put in place some additional
provisions for Ngāti Hāua. The relationship agreement wil ensure the
development of targets that reflect Ngāti Hāua’s values and operating
under
expectations. This includes whether the completion of a new cultural impact
assessment is appropriate.
121.Ngāti Hāua note that PTL seek 10 years with an additional 10 years after PTL pass a
proposed three-year review. Ngāti Hāua are not comfortable with that term being
specified in the concession. Ngāti Hāua consider that even agreeing to 10 years needs
to be answered at the 3-year review. The Department notes that this application does
not consider a term exceeding 10 years.
Released
122.Termination – Ngāti Hāua expects surety on what can trigger termination and that
compliance with Te Awa Tupua and Ngāti Hāua kawa are grounds to terminate. They
also state any assignment to external parties need to be discussed but shouldn’t be
an issue if the conditions are the same.
123.Visitor inductions are expected to include cultural history of the area and a management
plan that implements a new Impacts Assessment wil be able to include these matters.
21
This would be consistent with the acknowledgements of Ngāti Hāua
interests/whakapapa to/on the maunga.
124.Ngāti Hāua were clear that they expect to participate with PTL in the monitoring and
reporting of this concession. In terms of reporting, Ngāti Hāua expectations are that
the Applicant wil do regular reporting (quarterly if possible) to show progress with
conditions and highlight what issues may have arisen that require addressing.
125.To ensure that the environmental impact of this activity is minimised, any concession
granted can only include the current activities and infrastructure in the ski area or
reduce them. For any further development either a variation to the concession or a
Act
separate application wil need to be made and no major works are anticipated within
the first three years.
126.Environmental concerns – Ngāti Hāua have the same concerns other submitters have
and expects the Department to be directive on environmental issues. They requested
additional meetings are held to discuss redundant infrastructure.
Submissions received from Patutokotoko
127.The Patutokotoko submission stated their view that the timing of the notification period is
Information
unreasonable over the Christmas/government shut down period. They also re-iterate
any decision must not prejudice future settlement negotiations relating to the Park.
They state they have continued to advise the Crown since mid-2023 that they have
concerns over the trading of the Tūroa name, which they consider to be a taonga to
their whanau/hapū, as well as the term of concession, inexperience of applicant,
inadequacies of current concession and environmental effects which have not been
Official
addressed. They noted there was no pre-application engagement by the Applicant or
the Department with Patutokotoko and do not support a concession without further
direct engagement. They do not believe a like-for-like licence should be entered into
the
and expect a relationship agreement with Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and Ngāti Rangi
as a bare minimum before the Department grants a concession.
128.They note there must be an adherence to the statutory planning documents which include
sections 3.1 and 4.1.2 of the TNPMP which refer to the principle and objectives of the
under
Treaty of Waitangi and He Kaupapa Rangatira and identify principles 7, 8, and 9 as
relevant.
129.Patutokoko express concern at what they see as the cut-and-paste of the application
(from previous applications) and inaccuracies of the application due to this. They state
they find it dif icult to assess this application without a Cultural Impact Assessment and
in light of outdated information. This issue is discussed further in the application
complete component of the application. They also raise concerns that some proposals
in the draft IDP are inconsistent with the TNPMP (carrying capacity and carparking
Released
charges) and there is a lack of information included in this. Concerns were also raised
about the age of the supporting reports.
130.Other concerns that were raised include sub-licencee approval, and increased aircraft
and filming for marketing, both of which they state should be one-of concessions. As
to term, while opposition to the application is to the forefront, the submission was made
that they would be comfortable with a 10-year term as a maximum, but with a 3-year
22
review and subject to relationship agreements having been signed with Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua and Ngāti Rangi. However, a further review should also occur after the
Treaty settlement for the Park occurs. They note the applicant’s expectation of
preferential rights to renewal of the concession for an extended term and that this limits
future commercial opportunities for hapu or iwi.
131. An email was also received on 18 March 2024 to the Operations Director, Central North
Island. This email further identified concerns with the use of the Tūroa name, which they
consider to be a taonga and holds cultural values. They requested an agreement and
relationship with the applicant to protect the Tūroa name and ensure it is used positively
and that this be built into the concession terms. There has since been further engagement
Act
regarding the name between the Department, the Applicant and Patutokotoko which has
been positive.
Department response to engagement and submissions
132.As noted above, engagement with Treaty Partners began for this process prior to the
application being received in November, and this engagement has continued right
through the process. Given the shortened time frame for processing this Application,
for the reasons outlined earlier in this report, the Department has attempted to provide
early and additional opportunities for engagement rather than relying on the public
Information
notification process. This includes providing Treaty partners with the information they
need to be able to provide their comments and feedback. The Department recognises
engagement has been chal enging for Treaty Partners due to the short timeframes
associated with the application and also with notification occurring over Christmas and
January 2024. The Department has sought to mitigate these issues by contacting
Treaty Partners in advance of the application being received and sought to work with
Official
Treaty Partners in a way which works for them, as in outside the formal public process.
This is set out in the table of engagement.
the
133.The application from Pure Tūroa Limited is influenced by the past application from RAL
and supporting environmental reports which are 10 years old. Treaty Partners have
told us that this has made it dif icult for them to understand the application fully.
Submissions and further engagement undertaken by the Department has al owed the
Department to be better informed of the views of Treaty Partners, to the extent possible
under
in the timeframe, and which are incorporated into this report.
134.The Department is acutely aware of the high cultural significance of this maunga and
obligations in relation to actively protecting Treaty Partner interests, as well as
recognising kaitiaki responsibilities and statutory obligations (recognising and
providing for) in relation to Te Awa Tupua and Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika. Noting that active
protection requires informed decision-making and judgement as to what is reasonable
in the circumstances. Mitigation measures to protect iwi interests are addressed below.
Released
135.Treaty partners are seeking assurance that Treaty settlement redress over the Park wil
not be prejudiced through this concession decision. There are concerns that the term
length wil place encumbrances on the land and future use of the land in a Treaty
settlement, and commercial opportunities for the land following settlement. It is noted
that without use ski area infrastructure wil be terminal y degraded.
23
136.In addition to appropriate conditions to address and mitigate concerns and to reasonably
protect the Article I Treaty interests, there is a strong desire from our Treaty partners
to have a more active involvement in the governance of the concession activity, in the
form of a relationship framework with the Applicant, and greater levels of environmental
and cultural monitoring.
137.It is important to understand and recognise that Treaty settlement negotiations in relation
to the Park are at their very early stages. The Decision Maker needs to be cognisant
of the timing of the Park settlement and the impact of any long-term lease/licence for
the Applicant on these negotiations. In this respect, a term of 10 years is considered
appropriate to allow this settlement to occur. Settlement negotiations are expected to
Act
be resolved within the next 10 years. Any new concession application wil likely be
undertaken within a dif erent framework.
138.It is therefore important to recognise the PTL application is for 10 years only, due in part
to the Applicant’s recognition of Treaty partner concerns and aspirations. Any further
operation of the ski field would require a fresh application. The significance of this is
that the RAL concession, including extensions, has an end date of 30 April 2077. The
PTL application has a significantly shorter term, by approximately 43 years. It is
considered that such a shortened term gives a greater protection to Treaty partner
interests, including the future Park negotiations.
Information
139.PTL has shared with the Department their intent to build a relationship with Treaty
Partners and then be in a position to apply for a longer-term concession at the end of
the initial 10-year term. This is not a matter for consideration under this application,
however, as the application for consideration is for a term of 10 years. Those matters
would fall to be addressed in the event of a new application at the end of the 10-year
Official
term.
140.The Department is recommending that specific mitigation measures are included in this
the
concession where possible to address some of the concerns raised.
141.However, not all requests are either legally able to be incorporated or, in some cases, are
not recommended. For example, concession conditions on this application cannot bind
Treaty Partners who are not a party to the concession and, therefore, cannot directly
under
require or include as a term of the concession a requirement for iwi and PTL to enter
into relationship agreement. Instead, it is recommended that any approval letter wil
also include a recommendation for the Applicant to create a relationship agreement
with each of the Treaty Partners with an interest in the Tūroa Ski Area. Any existing
relationship agreements between Treaty Partners and the Applicant will be part of the
Department-led Cultural Impact Assessment (discussed below).
142.The Department is recommending special conditions in the concession that require the
preparation of a Cultural Monitoring Plan, a Cultural Impact Assessment, and a three-
Released
year review.
143.The Department is recommending a cultural monitoring plan be implemented which wil
allow for the monitoring of the concession to be contracted to third parties. Cultural
monitoring was requested by Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Hāua. The Department is
recommending the monitoring be payable by the Applicant, up until a cost Sec 9(2)(b)(ii) .
Refer to the Fees section (section 11) for more discussion on this.
24
144.The review at Year 3 wil consider the outcomes from the Cultural Impact Assessment,
ecological review, ecological plan and any adverse effects of the concession.
145.These special conditions are proposed as reasonable mechanisms to address many of
the concerns and requests from Treaty Partners.
146. There are dif erences in the expectations of Treaty Partners as to what this three-year
review should achieve. For example, Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Hāua have requested the
concession be cancelled if the review shows adverse effects on cultural values which
cannot be avoided remedied or mitigated. However, the Department has attempted to
Act
design the terms of this review to seek to address all parties’ views. The Department
is instead proposing the ability to make recommendations and suggested additional
conditions if required following the 3-year review. The mechanics of the 3-year review
are set out in the special conditions but do not include a right of termination.
147.This is not simply an adaptive approach to managing cultural concerns, as there are
obligations within the concession document to protect the environment and special
conditions providing further protections to Treaty partner interests and concerns now -
including conditions restricting the use of vehicles, consultation in the preparation of
interpretation materials, and obligations related to hazardous substances, refuelling,
Information
snow making, earthworks, wastewater management and accidental discovery
protocols.
148.The Department’s expectation is that relationship agreements wil form part of the scope
to be considered under the Cultural Impact Assessment (which wil also include KPIs
agreed between the Applicant and Treaty Partners). The review at Year 3 wil consider
Official
the outcomes from the Cultural Impact Assessment. It is also noted that Patutokotoko
requested an additional review of the concession be undertaken after treaty settlement
over the Park has been finalised. It is unknown when the settlement wil be finalised
the
as negotiations have not started and it is therefore not considered appropriate to
include such a further review in this concession.
149.Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Hāua each identified the need for this
application to have no material changes to this application from that operated by RAL
under
and no new infrastructure is proposed as part of the concession application. Ngāti
Hāua also requested the lease and licence areas to be clearly set out, which has been
recommended in the draft lease/licence document. The concession document wil
clearly identify the scope of the activities and the lease licence areas, and Treaty
Partners wil be consulted on any new works approvals or variations.
150. Patutokotoko raised concerns regarding PTL trading with the Tūroa name. RAL has a
trademarked image incorporating the name “Tūroa” although does not have a
trademark over the name itself. RAL’s trademark would transfer to the Applicant under
Released
the Sale and Purchase Agreement. We understand that discussions are ongoing
between the Applicant, Kānoa and Patutokotoko in relation to a potential transfer of
that trademark to Ngāti Patutokotoko on completion of the purchase of the Tūroa
assets by the Applicant, if successful. Questions about what happens to RAL’s
trademark are not for your decision as part of PTL’s concession application.
25
151.Aside from the specific trademark question, Patutokotoko has asked for any concession
to PTL to acknowledge the status of the Tūroa name as a taonga. Patutokotoko has
asked for an additional schedule to the concession regarding “ownership and use of
Tūroa”, covering the use of the word “Tūroa” by PTL or any other party, and assigning
the Tūroa whanau name for commercial purposes. The Department considers that the
concession could include a recital acknowledging that the Tūroa name is a taonga to
the Tūroa whanau. However, the Department does not consider it is possible or
appropriate as part of the concessions process to compel PTL to change its name or
to enter a commercial arrangement with the Tūroa whanau, or to seek control the use
of the word Tūroa by PTL or other parties.
Act
152.In terms of environmental concerns, as requested by Ngāti Rangi, Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua and Ngāti Hāua, the Department is recommending an updated
Environmental Impact Assessment and as noted, the preparation of a Cultural
Monitoring Plan by the end of year 1 of the concession. PTL would be required to
transport wastewater to a wastewater treatment plant authorised to receive it.
Particular concerns were raised regarding the Ohakune Wastewater Treatment plant.
The Ohakune plant is currently operating under “existing use rights” while its new
consent is being considered. It is not considered reasonable or appropriate to require,
as requested by Ngāti Rangi, the Applicant to transport the waste by truck to an
alternative location as the Ohakune plant is operating lawfully and there are no other
Information
wastewater treatment plants nearby. Other requests by Ngāti Rangi are to prevent the
use of snomax. The Turoa Alpine Flush and Mangawhero ecological area are
recognised as sensitive areas and should be included in the Environmental Plan. The
Department does not consider it is appropriate to use the concession process to
require PTL to pay Ruapehu District Council a levy.
Official
153.The Te Waiū-o-te-Ika principles and Te Awa Tupua and Tupua Te Kawa are considered
further up in this report. Special conditions relating to restricting the use of vehicles,
hazardous substances, refuelling, snow making, earthworks, terrain modification and
the
wastewater wil recognise and provide for these principles.
154.Other requests by Ngāti Hāua are: termination conditions which are included if concession
conditions are not met (as seen through the three-year review), visitor inductions to
occur and include the acknowledgements of Ngāti Hāua interests/whakapapa to/on
under
the maunga. The three-year review is discussed separately above. Note, standard
conditions allow the Department to suspend or terminate the concession if it is
breached, in addition to the three-year review. It is acknowledged this is dif erent to the
request by Ngāti Hāua but should result in a similar outcome. The Department wil
include a special condition requesting the Applicant to contact Treaty Partners for
Māori/iwi values of the area when providing interpretation values.
155.Other requests by Patutokotoko are involving sub-licencing, aircraft and filming concerns.
No sub-licencing is included as part of the recommended conditions as there is no
Released
specific proposal for that at this time. Aircraft and filming are allowed as part of this
concession provided they are associated with the management of the concession. The
Department considers including these activities in the overall concession conditions
wil provide better control and consistency of the use of aircraft and filming (than
individual permits would).
26
156.The concession document has been provided to Treaty Partners, however due to limited
time the Department is unable to provide the Decision Makers report (this report) until
a decision has been made. Treaty Partners have responded as set out in appendix 5
of this report. This appendix sets out the Department’s response to each point raised.
Conclusion
157.As Decision Maker, you wil need to be satisfied as to the extent to which the issues raised
by our Treaty partners are able to be reasonably addressed in the context of this
application. This includes consideration of the specific Treaty settlement obligations
and the requirement, under section 4 of the Conservation Act, to give ef ect to the
Act
principles of the Treaty when interpreting and administering that Act (including the
legislation listed in Schedule 1 of that Act, which includes the NPA).
158.As mentioned, how these principles play out in practice is necessarily context dependent.
Treaty principles do not dictate any particular result but require good faith and
reasonable action by both Crown and Māori in the circumstances. The proper
approach to Treaty principles is that they themselves require a balance of tangata
whenua and other interests.
159. The Department has engaged in good faith with its Treaty partners to make an informed
Information
decision and to actively protect Treaty interests. It is acknowledged that the urgency of
this application has resulted in Treaty Partners having concerns about the process for
this application. They consider the Department has not met the requirements of section
4 in terms of process undertaken and the Department has not given ef ect to the
principles of partnership and informed decision making. The Department notes it would
typically allow longer for Treaty Partner engagement; however, the particular
Official
circumstances here required some urgency. Further, engagement began prior to the
application being filed as discussed above. The Department considers it has engaged
with Treaty Partners reasonably and in good faith, consistently with s 4, having regard
the
to the context.
160.The iwi/hapu interest here is significant and the principle of active protection is directly
engaged. However, the principle of active protection of cultural values does not require
the Decision-Maker to find that the current absence of cultural effects information is
under
inconsistent with Treaty principles. This principle falls under the overarching principle
of partnership. Where possible adverse effects on Māori spiritual or cultural values can
be offset with mitigating measures, this may be sufficient to discharge the duty of active
protection in the circumstances of this matter. With a range of dif ering views being put
forward by Treaty partners, a concession document that contains appropriate
mitigating measures such as dealing with cultural values at Year 3 is considered
consistent with the duty of active protection and the overarching principle of
partnership.
Released
161.Declining the application is an available option which must be given serious consideration.
In this case, the Department’s recommendation is not to decline in all the
circumstances.
162.In addition to concerns raised related to cultural values and Treaty interests, it is also
noted that Treaty Partners have commented that the Turoa Ski Area provides
economic benefits due to employment of iwi/hapu members at the ski area and indirect
27
economic benefits to the local economy. In addition, some Treaty Partners have
indicated they may be interested in the ski field opportunity in the future. Patutokotoko,
for example, have offered to purchase the assets for $1. Declining this application may
not serve their future interests in this regard (noting ski lift infrastructure must be used
or de-iced annually or is likely damaged beyond repair) and it is considered that such
a shortened term (10 years) gives a greater protection to Treaty partner interests.
163.As described elsewhere, a strong theme of the regulatory regime is public use and
enjoyment of National Parks, which the operation of the ski fields contributes to. The
ski area is within the amenities area which allows for greater development than would
be accepted elsewhere in the Park. PTL’s application facilitates those activities.
Act
164.The Tūroa ski field is already subject to extensive development consistent with the
existing use by RAL. The application is in substance an application to continue existing
activities using that same infrastructure (and proposing to reduce infrastructure over
the term of the concession) but the term is notably shorter than under the existing RAL
concession (which has an end date, including extensions, of 30 April 2077) and other
ski fields nationally.
165.The concession is proposed for 10 years. While this is a significant period, it allows for
Treaty settlement negotiations to unfold and ensures that, to the extent that Treaty
Information
settlement negotiations over the Park result in any changes to the ownership,
management or governance of the Park, those changes can be given effect to with
respect to the Tūroa ski area within a reasonable period of time. A shorter term is not
considered realistic given the commitment and investment that needs to be made by
any party to operate. It is considered that a 10 year term is, in itself, a much shorter
term than the RAL concession and, alongside special conditions, gives greater
Official
protection to Treaty partner interests, including the future Park negotiations.
166.If PTL’s application is declined, there wil be considerable uncertainty for the future use
the
and enjoyment of the maunga, in particular through access and enjoyment provided
through the operation of the ski fields.
167.The Department does not recommend declining the application but rather recommends
that the concession be granted on various conditions.
under
168.The Department considers the process undertaken has been reasonable in the particular
circumstances of this application and has given ef ect to the relevant Treaty principles.
In particular, the Department has sought to actively protect the interests of each Treaty
Partner through the identified proposed mitigations to be included in the concession
document.
169.In terms of Treaty settlement obligations, the Department considers it has recognised and
Released
provided for Te Waiū-o-te-ika (Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua) and Te Awa Tupua and
Tupua te Kawa as set out above.
9. Statutory Analysis
9.1 Application complete S17S
28
170.Section 17S sets out
the requirements of what must be included in a concession
application. Further information was sought under s17SD from the Applicant regarding
aircraft and filming activities and also clarification on the term being sought. This
information was provided by the Applicant before the Department determined that the
application was “complete”.
171.It is noted that some older documents are included in the application and because of this
some submit ers considered the application to be incomplete. These include:
a. Assessment of Landscape and Visual Ef ects, dated January 2014 Landscape,
b. Ecological Assessment, dated December 2013, and
c. PWC Economic Report, dated 2014.
Act
172.While the first two identified reports are now 10 years old, they stil include information
that is relevant to the application. It is the Department’s view that only minor changes
have been made to either the landscape or ecological areas in the intervening years.
The Department considers the information included in the application is sufficient for
considering the ef ects of the application. These reports are considered adequate for
the purpose of deeming the application complete under s17S.
173.The PWC Economic Report was included by the Applicant as it highlights the benefits of
the ski areas to the local economy. Although it is 10 years old, there wil stil be
Information
economic benefit to the area. However, this report is of very limited, if any, relevance
to your decision. Off-site economic effects are not relevant considerations under the
Conservation Act and NPA except where those effects have a bearing on the purpose
for which the Park is managed. The exception to this is where economic matters are
relevant to the Crown’s obligation to give effect with the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi (section 4). This is discussed more in that part of the report.
Official
174. Submit ers and Treaty Partners identified concerns with the ‘rushed’ nature of the
processing of this application. They consider this has resulted in an inadequate
the
application and may result in full consideration of the application not being completed.
As set out in this report, the application has been fully considered, based on the
information included in the application form.
175.Al Treaty Partners have advised the Department that they believe the application to be
under
incomplete due to the age of supporting documents, lack of Cultural Impact
Assessment, and lack of meaningful iwi engagement by the Applicant. Ngāti Hāua and
Patutokotoko were not engaged by the Applicant before the application was lodged
(although have done subsequently), which they believe must occur as Treaty Partners
before an application can be considered complete. Patutokotoko advised they
considered the application needed to include information on taonga. The Treaty
Partners advised they consider the Department to return the application under section
17SA or decline it for a lack of information.
Released
176.Although beneficial and encouraged, section 17S does not require Applicants to contact
Treaty Partners. It is the Department’s obligation (not the Applicant’s obligation) to
ensure the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are given effect to. Section 4 and the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi require the Department to engage with all relevant
iwi groups when considering an application. As such, it is not considered necessary for
the Applicant to have completed engagement with the Crown’s Treaty Partners before
the application can be considered complete.
29
177.Some submitters raised concerns with the lack of financial information included in the
application. Financial information (along with personal information and details of Treaty
Partner engagement) was redacted from the public notification copy of the application
form due to commercial sensitivities and confidentiality of the Applicant. This
information was available to the Department, and it is considered adequate financial
information for consideration of the application.
178.Overall, based on the above discussion, the Department considered the application to be
complete for the purposes of s17S.
Act
9.2 Ability of the Applicant to carry out the activity
179.The Minister is required to consider any information received as part of the application
(s17U(1)(d)) which includes relevant information about the Applicant, including its
ability to perform the activities applied for.
180.The Applicant was incorporated in March 2023 and was created for the purpose of
operating the Tūroa Ski Area. The Directors, Cameron Robertson and Gregory
Hickman, are local y based and are experienced businesspeople. Mr Robertson is a
Information
professional ski trainer with ski industry experience. The Applicant’s governance
structure includes an Advisory Board which includes an industry expert, along with
finance and governance experts. PTL has assembled a management team including
people with significant experience working on Turoa, and financial and other
professionals. PTL’s proposed operations manager has worked on Turoa for 30 years
and has acted as RAL’s operations manager for Turoa. PTL has already hired its
General Manager, who has met with the Department
Official sharing his background and
instil ing confidence in his ability to run the ski field. PTL’s application notes that it has
worked with PwC (RAL’s liquidators), Calibre Partners (now receivers of RAL), and
MBIE, to emerge as the preferred bidder for RAL’s assets.
the
181.If PTL’s application is successful, it wil receive $3.05 mil ion in Crown funding. It wil also
have Sec 9(2)(b)(ii) of equity funding from Pure Turoa Holdings Limited. PTL’s
application identifies other sources of funding including a loan from PTHL Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
under
182.The Department, including the Department’s commercial team, has considered the
information provided by the Applicant about its financial position, its commercial
structure, and its key personnel. The Department is comfortable with the Applicant’s
ability to perform the abilities applied for.
183.A number of submitters raised concerns relating to PTL’s ability to operate Turoa,
including:
a. Some submitters raised concerns that the directors of PTL do not have the
Released
necessary experience to run a ski field, and in particular Turoa which some
submit ers said was a particularly challenging ski field.
b. Other submitters noted that other previous operators also have run into financial
dif iculty which outlines the importance of the Applicant to be able to operate a
successful ski area business.
c. Many submitters including the RSSA were concerned the financial information was
redacted from the public notification version of the application, which meant they
30
could not assess their financial information. They also noted the financial
information in the application form only covered one page. They note the recent
trading results indicate Turoa is financially marginal as a stand-alone operation. In
addition, the proposed reductions in carrying capacity wil result in lower sales.
d. There were concerns the Government would need to ‘bail out’ the Applicant if and
when the Tūroa Ski Area fails in the future.
e. A number of submit ers compared PTL’s application with the possibility of
restructuring RAL. For example, the liquidation commit ee’s submission contrasts
PTL’s application with the financial results that are available for RAL, and submits
that RAL is a solidly profitable entity. The RSSA submit ed that if RAL was
restructured and made solvent, because it has such a long concession term, it
Act
could put plans in place to accumulate capital to put aside to fund future make
good provisions
184. Other submit ers were supportive of the Applicant. Many submit ers consider the
Applicant wil have regard specifically to the Tūroa ski area and its environment when
operating the ski area, as opposed to RAL who had to consider the impacts of two ski
areas. They also consider the directors of PTL to be successful businessmen in other
ventures, hardworking and driven to make the business succeed. Some submitters
supported the Applicant’s financial ability to undertake the activity on the basis this
would have been considered by MBIE as part of PTL’s bid and request for government
Information
financial support.
185.Financial information was not included in the information made available to the public, as
it is commercially confidential to PTL. Some personal information was also redacted to
protect the privacy of individual people. Accordingly, the submissions noted above did
not have the benefit of the full information available to the Department.
Official
186.One of the principal concerns for the Department when considering an application for a
concession is to consider the effects of the proposed activity, and measures that can
the
reasonably and practicably be taken to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. The
Department is not interested in the financial position and qualifications of an applicant
“per se”, but only as those factors might affect the Department’s assessment of effects
and mitigations, The Department does not routinely engage in a detailed analysis of
the business case of an applicant, but wil take a closer look if, for example, an
under
applicant is proposing to instal new infrastructure and is seeking a long term
concession.
187.Here, the infrastructure already exists on the mountain. RAL is in liquidation. PTL is
seeking to take over RAL’s operations on Turoa. It is not seeking to instal new
infrastructure. The decision before you is not to choose between PTL and another
(hypothetical) operator. The decision before you is whether or not to grant a
concession to PTL. There is obviously no guarantee that PTL wil be a commercial
success, but that is not the standard. The question is whether you are comfortable, in
Released
light of known information about PTL, and having regard to the mat ers in s17U, with
PTL acquiring a concession for the Turoa ski field. It is not relevant to your assessment
of PTL’s application to consider the (extremely unlikely) possibility that RAL might have
its debt forgiven, acquire significant new funding, and be restructured.
188.The Department is satisfied that PTL is a suitable concessionaire and with its ability to
carry out the proposed activities.
31
9.3 Analysis of effects S17U(1) and (2)
189. Section 17U(1) requires you to have regard to the following matters:
a. the nature of the activity and the type of structure or facility (if any) proposed to be
constructed;
b. the effects of the activity, structure, or facility:
c. any measures that can reasonably and practicably be undertaken to avoid,
remedy, or mitigate any adverse ef ects of the activity:
d. information contained in the application, any further information from the applicant
Act
requested by the Minister, and any report or advice commissioned by the Minister;
e. any relevant environmental impact assessment, including any audit or review:
f. any relevant oral or written submissions received from the public notification
process (refer to the Objections and Submission summary report).
g. any relevant information which may be withheld from any person in accordance
with the Of icial Information Act 1982 or the Privacy Act 2020.
190.The application is for the continuation of existing activities which were previously
authorised in 2017 for a dif erent operator (RAL). The decision report at the time of the
2017 decision stated the effects in relation to terrestrial ecosystems, landscape and
Information
historic heritage (excluding cultural heritage) would be minimal. The Department has
assessed the potential ef ects and mitigation measures in light of this application for
the purposes of your decision. The full assessment of ef ects and mitigation measures
is discussed in more detail in appendix 7. PTL’s application does not seek to construct
new structures or facilities on the mountain. The infrastructure already exists.
Accordingly, to the extent that the mere presence of ski field infrastructure on the
mountain has effects, declining this application would not avoid those effects.
Official
191.Department staff note there are no significant dif erences between the anticipated effects
of the activity that is currently carried out by RAL, and what the effects would be if approved
the
as requested. However, the Department has identified a number of aspects of the activity
which may cause adverse effects on the environment. These are discussed in detail, along
with other identified effects in appendix 8. These effects include effects on infrastructure,
ecological effects, rubbish and wastewater, climate change, safety, historic and
recreational effects. It is the Department’s view that al adverse effects are able to be
under
minimised to an acceptable level by the conditions recommended in the proposed
concession. Some of the more significant effects are discussed below.
192.Ecological effects of the application were assessed by one of the Department’s ecological
advisors (Technical Advisor, Ecology). This advice is included within the Departments
Technical Advisor’s reports in Appendix 9. The advisor concludes
“the impacts wil be
largely what they are currently, and I can see no valid reason for declining their
application”. He has some concerns with the age of the Ecological Assessment and
Released
recommends this is reviewed or updated to provide a current assessment of ecological
impacts. The advisor does not expect there to be significant change from the previous
assessment but recommends a new assessment or review. He considers the assessment
provided in the application is sufficient for the application to proceed. The proposed
concession requires the concessionaire to procure a new ecological assessment within 12
months of the concession commencing. The assessment will ensure the Department has
a refreshed understanding of the ecological conditions. It wil also be used to inform an
32
Environmental Plan which is intended to protect sensitive areas and control weeds and
pests.
193.Some submitters, including the RSSA, raised concerns about redundant infrastructure
and obligations to remove and make good the mountain. They noted the potential for the
Department (and the taxpayer) being liable for the cost of removing infrastructure, and
requested the applicant be responsible for removing redundant infrastructure. This is
addressed below in the section on proposed special conditions (section 9.11). There are
potential environmental impacts of declining the application which may result in no
operator for the Turoa ski area for at least one season. This may result in many of the
structures becoming redundant on the land and falling into disrepair. This would result in
Act
safety concerns and potential environmental concerns such as leaching and corrosion.
194.The Department considers the assessment of ef ects of the proposed activity can also
include effects on safety. This is both for customers of the ski area and the general public.
There are risks from skiing activities, weather events and volcanic events. The Senior
Visitor Advisor noted there is limited information in the application on visitor safety. It is
recommended that if you grant this concession, PTL should be required to create a Health
and Safety Plan (which wil include visitor safety aspects) to explain how safety risks wil
be minimised. Conditions to this effect are contained in the proposed concession in
appendix 9.
Information
195.Recreational effects – The Senior Visitor Advisor notes the ski area has a long history of
use as a ski field, which was also noted by the majority of the submit ers. A key purpose
of the NPA is to ensure that the public can use and enjoy national parks, and benefit from
the recreational use of national parks. Skiing is a recreational activity through which
visitors can enjoy the natural values of the Park. National Parks have a strong emphasis
Official
on public use and this should be allowed to the extent possible. On the other hand, a
decision to decline PTL’s application could well result in the end of skiing on the Turoa
side of the maunga. That would have a significant detrimental impact on recreational
the
values. (In order for the receivers of RAL to operate Turoa for the 2024 season, Cabinet
would need to approve further funding. Even if approved, that would only be a short term
solution: Cabinet has made clear that if no acceptable commercial y led solution can be
found within the next year, there wil be no additional government funding. As discussed
elsewhere in this report, ski area infrastructure requires ongoing (at least annual)
under
maintenance and use in order to remain functional.
196.Economic ef ects - You wil be aware of the considerable public interest in the future of
the Mt Ruapehu ski fields following RAL’s demise. A key concern has been the
contribution of the Mt Ruapehu ski fields to the economy in the Central North Island, and
the role that RAL plays as an employer in the region. As you know, in March 2024 the
Minister for Regional Development sought and obtained Cabinet’s confirmation that
(subject to obtaining a concession from you) the government would provide PTL with
financial support to enable it to purchase RAL’s Tūroa’s assets and operate the ski field.
Released
It is important to be clear that it is not open to you to grant a concession to PTL for the
purposes of achieving employment and regional economic benefits. You must consider
the merits of PTL’s application in accordance with the matters that are relevant under the
NPA and the Conservation Act, which are discussed in this report. However, it is noted
economic matters may potentially be relevant to the extent they arise under section 4
(giving effect to Treaty principles); see above for discussion of section 4.
33
197.Section 17U(2) provides that you may decline the application if you consider either:
a. the information available is insuf icient or inadequate to enable you to assess the
effects (including the effects of any proposed methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate
the adverse ef ects) of any activity, structure, or facility; or
b. there are no adequate methods or no reasonable methods for remedying,
avoiding, or mitigating the adverse effects of the activity, structure or facility.
198.The Department considers that the information available is sufficient to assess the effects
of the activity, and there are adequate methods to remedy, avoid and mitigate the
adverse ef ects as set out in this report.
Act
9.4 Purpose for which the land is held s17U(3)
199.Section 17U(3) (as applied by s49 of the NPA) provides that you shal not grant an
application for a concession if the proposed activity is contrary to the provisions of the
Conservation Act or the purposes for which the land concerned is held.
200.The area under application is part of the land held as Tongariro National Park, managed
under the NPA. Section 4 of the NPA states:
(1) It is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act shal have effect for the purpose of
Information
preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the
benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain
scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so
beautiful, unique, or scientifical y important that their preservation is in the national
interest.
Official
(2) It is hereby further declared that, having regard to the general purposes specified in
subsection (1), national parks shal be so administered and maintained under the
provisions of this Act that—
the
(a) they shal be preserved as far as possible in their natural state:
(b) except where the Authority otherwise determines, the native plants and animals of the
parks shal as far as possible be preserved and the introduced plants and animals
shal as far as possible be exterminated:
(c) sites and objects of archaeological and historical interest shal as far as possible be
under
preserved:
(d) their value as soil, water, and forest conservation areas shal be maintained:
(e) subject to the provisions of this Act and to the imposition of such conditions and
restrictions as may be necessary for the preservation of the native plants and
animals or for the welfare in general of the parks, the public shal have freedom of
entry and access to the parks, so that they may receive in full measure the
inspiration, enjoyment, recreation, and other benefits that may be derived from
Released
mountains, forests, sounds, seacoasts, lakes, rivers, and other natural features.
201.Section 15 of the Act provides for the setting aside and use of amenities areas within
national parks. Section 15 provides as follows:
(1) The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Authority made in accordance with
the management plan, by notice in the Gazet e
, set apart any area of a park as an
amenities area, and may in like manner revoke any such setting apart.
34
(2) While any such area is set apart, the development and operation of recreational and
public amenities and related services appropriate for the public use and enjoyment
of the park may be authorised in accordance with this Act and the management
plan.
(3) The principles applicable to national parks shal , notwithstanding section 4, apply only
so far as they are compatible with the development and operation of such
amenities and services.
202.The amenities area is shown in the map in appendix 1. Note this map is not current and
the Jumbo T Bar has been removed. This map shows the top half of High Noon T Bar
Act
falls outside the amenities area boundary, but all other infrastructure associated with
the ski area is within the amenities boundary.
The applicant does not propose to install
any new structures outside the amenity’s boundary.
203.Recreational use is of high importance under the NPA. Some submitters including the
RSSA, and affiliated submitters were concerned the application is not consistent with
section 4 of the NPA as PTL has applied for a lease (and hence exclusive occupation)
over some areas, and the concern was that this may impact on public freedom and
recreation within the Park including for hikers, climbers, alpine skiers and toboggan
users. This issue is discussed more in the consideration of a lease section of this report
Information
(section 9.7). In summary, the Department’s view is that granting PTL a lease over the
small areas of land where its structures and facilities are located is appropriate and is
not inconsistent with section 4 of the NPA. Having competently operated and secure
infrastructure on the mountain facilitates recreational use and public enjoyment of the
ski field. It is also, as a matter of fact, consistent with RAL’s concession which although
described on its face as a licence permits RAL to exclude the public from the parts of
Official
the land occupied by its structures and facilities.
204.Other submitters noted the granting of a concession wil foster recreation. Section 4(2)(d)
the
of the NPA advocates for public freedom of access for enjoyment and recreation
(among other things). Two submitters noted the dark sky initiative which may impact
on the Park values. It is considered the submissions should be considered relevant to
this section of the NPA and are discussed throughout this report.
205.Section 43 NPA provides that national parks are to be managed in accordance with
under
provisions of the relevant general policy, conservation management strategy and
management plan (here, the TNPMP). These documents are discussed in this report.
In summary, the proposed activity (operation of a ski field) is not inconsistent with the
purposes for which this land is held.
9.5 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World
Heritage status
Released
206.The Park was granted World Heritage status for both its outstanding natural (1990) and
cultural values (1993). In 1993 it was the first property to be inscribed under the revised
criteria describing cultural landscapes. This cultural status recognises the Park’s
important Māori cultural and spiritual associations. Having World Heritage Status
requires the Park to be managed in a manner consistent with the articles against which
the application was approved and consistent with the respective statutes and
management plan for the Park. Managers have a duty to identify, protect and conserve
35
natural and cultural heritage of outstanding value universal value for future
generations. The cultural landscapes status supports the strength of iwi rights and
interests on Mount Ruapehu. Some submit ers were concerned the application wil risk
losing its status due to the current cultural landscape. See the Section 4 discussion
(section 8) for more detail on this.
207.The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) technical evaluation
recommended granting of World Heritage status for natural values because of its
exceptional natural beauty and for ongoing geological processes. It noted that the
Māori cultural aspects add further to its significance and reinforce its natural values.
Concerns raised in the IUCN evaluation were:
Act
a. The extent of ski development plans at the time for expansion, the impact of those
developments on cultural values and image of the Park. It was suggested that the ski
fields would be very susceptible to effects of global warming which would require
upward movement of skiing activity.
b. The extent to which the cultural values of the Park are given prominence and the level
of involvement by the local Māori people.
208.Ski field infrastructure was present on the mountain when World Heritage Status was
conferred in 1993; however, both IUCN and the International Council on Monuments
and Sites raised concerns at that time about the possible expansion of infrastructure
Information
into the most sensitive summit areas of Mount Ruapehu. The IUCN believed these
issues were resolved by the then new management plan (that management plan has
now been superseded by the current TNPMP (2006 – 2016)) which they viewed as
protecting the natural values of the Park and enhancing the cultural and spiritual
values. Ski field development was constrained within specific zones and limits placed
on their expansion and operation. The current TNPMP also bet er promotes cultural
Official
values. In general, the pristine areas are to be managed to avoid development and to
conserve natural, cultural and historic values according to the TNPMP.
the
209.The Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention (Para 172) expect State
parties to inform the World Heritage Commit ee of “
major restorations or new
constructions which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property”. It is
the Department's view that the application, if granted, would not trigger the requirement
to inform the World Heritage Centre. The application is essential y like for like
under
replacement it wil allow the Applicant to continue the existing skiing and recreational
operations at Tūroa Ski Area, the only exception being the removal of the Ngā Wai
Heke lift.
9.6 Structures within the Tongariro National Park s17U4
210.Section 17U(4) (as applied by s49 of the NPA) states the Minister shal not grant an
application for a concession to build a structure or facility (or extend or add to an
Released
existing structure or facility) :
a. where it could reasonably be provided in an area outside the Park; or
b. Could reasonably be provided in another part of the Park where it’s effects
would be significantly less; or
c. The applicant could reasonably use an existing structure or facility or could
use an existing structure or facility without addition.
36
211.The Applicant has requested to use existing structures and facilities. It has not sought
permission to build or extend any structures as part of its application. Some submit ers
noted the Applicant does not need to keep all the existing structures within the Park
and could, for example, move its of ices and rentals into the Ohakune township.
However s17U(4) is not engaged in this instance and does not act as a bar to granting
the concession sought by the Applicant since no new structures, nor extensions are
being sought.
212.It is noted that any future application for new structures or extensions would be subject to
the tests in section 17U(4).
Act
9.7 Granting of a lease s17U(5) and (6)
213.The Applicant has requested a lease in respect of all existing buildings and ski field
infrastructure plus a 1m curtilage. A list of all the affected buildings and ski field
infrastructure is provided at appendix 2.
214.The Applicant has also requested a lease over the base plaza area
. This is described in
the map in appendix 1 and includes the open space at the base of the ski area with no
structures on it. Note the buildings within this area are considered separately to this
Information
area. The Applicant has described the base plaza area as being comprised of four
“zones”. It has requested a lease over the zones within the base plaza area for the
following reasons:
a. Zone A – includes the helicopter pad for medivacs, diesel storage and maintenance
and emergency equipment which require strict access for public safety
.
b. Zones B and D – require management in the form of moveable barriers and crowd
control. The Applicant stated a lease is required for m
Official anagement of public safety in
busy times, under bad weather conditions and when special events or operational
activities are occurring
.
c. Zone C – this is a staging area for alternative helicopter movements under multi-
the
evacuation situations and exceptional disaster management events.
215.In addition, the Applicant has stated “all zones include operational and emergency vehicle
and equipment movements within shared public areas and require the management of
congestion flows especially in bad weather where visibility and ground conditions are
under
compromised.”
216.In order to grant the lease requested, you must be satisfied that the requirements in
section 17U(5) are met. That section provides:
“The Minister may grant a lease or a licence (other than a profit à prendre) granting an
interest in land only if—
(a) the lease or licence relates to 1 or more fixed structures and facilities (which
structures and facilities do not include any track or road except where the track
Released
or road is an integral part of a larger facility); and
(b) in any case where the application includes an area or areas around the structure or
facility,—
(i) either—
(A) it is necessary for the purposes of safety or security of the site, structure, or
facility to include any area or areas (including any security fence) around the
structure or facility; or
37
(B) it is necessary to include any clearly defined area or areas that are an integral
part of the activity on the land; and
(i ) the grant of a lease or licence granting an interest in land is essential to enable the
activity to be carried on.”
217.Section 17U(6) further restricts the situations in which a lease can be granted. It provides
that no lease may be granted unless exclusive possession is necessary for (a) the
protection of public safety, (b) the protection of physical security of the activity
concerned and (c) the competent operation of the activity concerned.
218.The Department’s view is that the request for a lease over the buildings and ski field Act
infrastructure meets the tests in s 17U(5) and (6) and that it would be appropriate to
grant a lease over these areas. The proposed lease areas that relate to buildings and
ski field infrastructure satisfy the test in s 17U(5)(a) because they are fixed structures
and facilities, and they do not include any track or road. The buildings are all clearly
defined and have been identified and relate to fixed structures or facilities. As to s
17U(6), the Department considers that exclusive possession is necessary over
buildings and infrastructure for the purposes of safety and security of those assets,
and to ensure that PTL can operate the activity competently (which includes the need
to achieve adequate maintenance and investment). PTL would have a significant
investment in buildings and related infrastructure. In addition, exclusive possession
Information
over some structures is necessary for public safety reasons, for example exclusive
possession of the chairlift drive and return stations is needed to protect public safety
from hazards that may result from operating machinery. This is consistent in practice
with RAL’s rights under its concession to exclude or limit access by the public to those
parts of the land occupied by its structures and facilities.
Official
219.In terms of the request for a lease over a 1 m curtilage around all buildings and
infrastructure, the Department does not consider this is necessary for the purposes of
safety or security around the structures, nor integral to enabling the activity to occur
the
(s17U(5)(b)) and does not recommend that you grant a lease over those areas.
220.The Department recommends that you grant a lease over Zone A. The Department
considers that Zone A (which includes the helicopter pad, diesel storage, and
emergency and maintenance equipment plus curtilage) is a “facility” in terms of s
under
17U(5), and that exclusive possession is required for the protection of public safety
from the helicopter base and to protect the physical security of the diesel storage and
emergency equipment stored in this area. Therefore, zone A meets the tests set out in
s 17U(6).
221.However, the Department is not convinced that Zones B, C and D meet the criteria in
s17U(5) and (6), and does not recommend that you grant a lease with respect to those
areas. The proposed concession includes terms that would require PTL to take
practicable steps to protect the safety of persons on the land, and to define, mark and
Released
control areas that are unsafe for the public. The lease request for Zones B, C and D
appears to be based on occasional events/circumstances giving rise to safety
concerns, and the Department considers that these general “safety” provisions in the
concession would be adequate, particularly given the high threshold for granting a
lease.
38
222.Many submit ers were concerned about the impacts granting a lease would have on public
access to the ski area and the ‘privatisation of public land’. In addition, some submitters
believe a lease wil create complexities for management. The overwhelming majority
of the Tūroa ski area would not be subject to a lease. The public wil retain a right of
access to the general ski field terrain. The proposed lease areas relate to a very small
proportion of the total area and are for the purposes of ensuring that the Applicant has
the necessary legal rights to secure its structures and facilities and to protect public
safety. Having ski field infrastructure on the mountain provides recreational
opportunities and enhances public access to the Park, and the Applicant needs to be
able to secure that infrastructure.
Act
223.Although the Applicant would have a lease over its buildings, a proposed condition on the
concession is that the Applicant must ensure that toilets and public shelters within the
base area are open to the public. This is consistent with Policy 4.3.2, 9 (page 130) of
the TNPMP.
9.8 Discretion to decline if you consider inappropriate (s17U(8))
224.Section 17U(8) provides that nothing in the Conservation Act or any other Act requires
you to grant any concession if you consider it is inappropriate in the circumstances of
the particular application having regard to the matters set out in section 17U.
Information
225.Some of the submitters identified this section as giving the Minister discretion to decline
the application for wider process reasons, namely their concerns with the liquidation of
RAL and the process by which bids for RAL’s assets were invited and considered by
the liquidators and MBIE.
Official
226.However, concerns with the commercial processes by which PTL was selected as the
preferred bidder do not have any bearing on the appropriateness of its application in
terms of the matters set out in s17U of the Conservation Act. PTL’s application has
the
been made and must be assessed in accordance with the Conservation Act and the
NPA.
227.Members of the public (not Treaty Partners) also submitted that they consider it
inappropriate to grant a concession prior to the Treaty set lement process being
under
completed for the Park. For further discussion on section 4 of the Conservation Act,
please refer to sections 7 and 8 of this report. These matters should be considered
under the assessment of the Crown’s Treaty obligations in section 4, rather than
Section 17U. For these reasons, it is not considered appropriate to decline the
application under section 17U(8).
9.9 Statutory planning documents S17W
228.The statutory planning documents which are relevant to this application are the General
Released
Policy for National Parks, Tongariro Taupo Conservation Management Strategy 2002
(CMS) and the Tongariro National Park Management Plan 2007 (TNPMP). The
Tongariro National Park Bylaws have also been considered. A full analysis can be
found attached at Appendix 10.
229.While the policies in the General Policy for National Parks (GPNP) are not a matter the
decision maker is expressly required to take into account when considering a
39
concession application, it must be remembered that the policies in the GPNP are
implemented through the Conservation Management Strategies and the Management
Plans. They GPNP is also at the apex of the policy hierarchy and its policies are
considered, by the Department, to be relevant to the Minister’s decision. The pertinent
portions of the GPNP are set out and considered in appendix 10. It is the Department’s
view that the GPNP does not prevent the grant of a concession, provided terms and
conditions are imposed in accordance with the draft/proposed concession annexed to
this Report.
230.The CMS contains no specific policies in relation to the Tūroa ski area since it defers to
the TNMPM. However, there are general principles and other policies which are
Act
relevant to the proposed activity. These are discussed in appendix 10. Overall, the
CMS encourages recreational use of public conservation land and provides for the
Tūroa Ski Area. The proposed activity is not inconsistent with the CMS, provided public
access is maintained to the current extent. Extending exclusive use to the base plaza
area is contrary to section 3.5.2, policy c and, for that reason, it is recommended that
you not do so.
231.He Kaupapa Rangatira, in the CMS and TNPMP comprises a set of Treaty principles and
related objectives, and directs the development of a framework and protocols to give
effect to these principles and objectives in the management of the Park. The framework
Information
and protocols described in the CMS and TNPMP are not yet operative. While this has
not occurred to date, the framework should stil be considered. He Kaupapa Rangatira
principles give meaningful effect to the Treaty principles and must be considered as
part of this application. Patutokotoko identified principles 7, 8, and 9 as important for
this application. Principle 7 – actively protect the interests of iwi in respect to land,
resources and taonga where they are considered by iwi to be of significance to them.
Official
Principle 8 Duty of the Crown to make informed decisions, objective to engage in
regular, active and meaningful consultation with iwi. Principle 9 Duty of the Crown to
remedy past breaches of the Treaty and prevent further breaches. To avoid any action
the
which might prevent redress of Treaty claims. To address any grievances formally or
informally of act of omission of the department in administration of the Park. Other
relevant principles are Kāwanatanga, Tino Rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and
whakawhanaungatanga. These principles all relate to Treaty principles and are
discussed further in section 7 of this report.
under
232.TNPMP is the primary statutory policy framework against which decisions are made in
relation to the Park. The TNPMP recognises that activities such as this proposal can
be managed. Many sections of the TNPMP are relevant to the application as set out
below. There is a ful chapter on Ski Area management and specific Ski Area Policies.
Part 4 of the TNPMP provides general use objectives and policies for the Park, more
specifically, the policies in section 4.4 (concessions) while Part 5 objectives and
policies are specific to ski areas within the Park.
These policies provide for skiing and
snow related activities within the Tūroa ski area boundary. The application is broadly
Released
consistent with these policies. Overall, it is considered the proposed activity is
consistent with the TNPMP subject to recommended conditions. Granting of a lease
over areas B, C and D of the base plaza area is not consistent with policies 5.2.7 and
5.2.14. Using aircraft for filming is also not consistent with the TNPMP and using
aircraft for this use is recommended to be declined.
40
233.The Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 set out bylaws for certain activities within the
Park. They include restrictions on refuse, camping, access, vehicles amongst other
things. Provided the Applicant complies with the standard and special conditions, it is
considered the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 wil be complied with.
234.Section 17W(3) allows for the possibility of declining the application if the ef ects are such
that it is more appropriate to review the TNPMP (or the CMS). Some submitters
believed this would be more appropriate for this application. The Department does not
consider this is appropriate for this application because the effects of the activity are
well understood and are (with the exceptions of the parts identified above) provided for
within the TNPMP.
Act
9.10 Requirements of National Parks Act section 49(2) 235.In addition to the requirements of Part 3B of the Conservation Act, before granting any
concession over a national park you must satisfy yourself that:
a. granting the concession wil not permanently affect the rights of the public in
respect of the Park; and
b. the concession would not be inconsistent with Section 4 of the NPA.
Information
236.Granting this concession wil not permanently affect the rights of the public in respect of
the Tūroa ski area. The proposed concession is for a term of 10 years. The
infrastructure necessary for the activity to occur already exists on the mountain.
237.The concession would not be inconsistent with section 4 of the NPA. Granting the
concession would enable the existing ski field infrastructure to remain in operation, and
Official
wil thus preserve recreational opportunities, and the public’s use and enjoyment of the
area. Section 4 of the NPA has modified application to amenities areas. For amenities
areas, the development and operation of recreational and public amenities and
the
services may be authorised in accordance with the NPA and the TNPMP, and the
principles applicable to national parks apply only so far as they are compatible with the
development and operation of such amenities and services. Much of the application
site is within an amenities area. In terms of section 49(2), the application provides for
the continuation of existing facilities and services and does not seek permission to
under
build or extend any structures as part of its application.
238.Section 49(5) allows the Concessionaire to impose a reasonable charge for the use of its
structures, sites, or services provided that is not contrary to the management plan and
conservation management strategy.
9.11 Proposed Special Conditions
239.The recommended conditions are set out in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the draft
Released
lease/licence document. Schedule 2 contains the Department’s “template” conditions.
In some instances, those have been modified by bespoke clauses which are contained
in Schedule 3.
240.Schedule 3 special conditions include a description of the concession activity, public use
of the ski area, maintenance of infrastructure, hazardous substances, terrain
modification, vehicle parks and use, snow making, signage, wastewater, events,
41
filming, and aircraft. Some of the more significant proposed conditions are discussed
below and are the Year 3 review, Cultural Impact Assessment, Cultural Monitoring,
Ecological review, Annual Work Plan, and obligations to remove redundant
infrastructure.
Year 3 Review
241.The Applicant has proposed a three-year review to be included in their application. This
review would be undertaken by the Department but wil also involve Treaty Partners to
ensure iwi interests are appropriately considered. The purposed of this review is to
provide the opportunity to review the concession based on the conditions, any adverse
effects, Cultural Impact Assessment, Ecological Assessment, Environmental Plan and
Act
any other relevant information. This review was proposed by the Applicant and is also
supported by Treaty Partners (however, note there are dif erences in how to implement
this review). Some submitters support this review, others believe limiting the scope to
cultural measures is too narrow. This review is set out in the special conditions and
also below. Note, Ngāti Haua and Patutokotoko recommend the right to terminate at
this review is the outcome isn’t favourable. The Department instead recommends to
review the conditions of the concession without terminating. It is also noted the
standard condition providing for termination if the concession is not complied with.
242.The proposed special conditions is as follows:
Information
1. Three years from the date of this Concession (per the commencement date set
out in Schedule 1 Item 3) the Grantor wil initiate a review of this Concession
(Year 3 Review) and the Concessionaire wil be required to meet the actual and
reasonable costs incurred by or on behalf of the Grantor in relation to the Year
3 Review.
2. When undertaking the Year 3 Review, the Grantor wil consider:
Official
a. Whether the Concessionaire has complied with the conditions set out in
the Concession;
b. Any adverse effects of the Concession Activity, and whether these
the
adverse effects can be reasonably avoided, remedied, or mitigated
(either through existing concession conditions, the amendment of
existing concession conditions, or the incorporation of new concession
conditions);
c. Any Cultural Impact Assessment;
under
d. The Ecological Assessment;
e. The Concessionaire’s Environmental Plan; and
f. Any other information the Grantor considers relevant to the operation of
the Concession Activity.
3. Prior to undertaking the Year 3 Review, the Grantor wil consult with Treaty
Partners on the scope of the review to identify any areas of concern or interest
to them.
4. The Grantor wil determine the final scope of the Year 3 Review.
5. Once the Grantor has confirmed the scope of the Year 3 Review, the Grantor
Released
must inform the Concessionaire promptly of the scope of the review.
6. The Grantor may commission an independent third-party to undertake the Year
3 Review or to contribute to the review on the Grantor’s behalf.
243.Other related conditions to the Year Three review are the Cultural Impact Assessment and
Cultural Monitoring conditions. The purpose of the Cultural Impact Assessment is to
understand the cultural values on the land, understand how the concession activity
42
impacts on those values and understand how the concession may impact on the rights
and values of Treaty Partners. This cultural impact assessment would be procured by
the Department and cost recovered from the applicant. The Cultural monitoring
condition is discussed further in the monitoring section below (section 12) and requires
the Department to procure a cultural monitoring plan within one year of the term start
date.
244.The ecological assessment outcome wil also build into the outcome of the Year three
review. This ecological assessment must be undertaken within 12 months of the
concession term start date. An Environmental Plan must be procured by the
Concessionaire after the ecological assessment has been completed.
Act
245.The Concessionaire wil also be required to provide an Annual Work Plan which sets out
intended works for the upcoming year. This wil include modifications to infrastructure,
construction, terrain modification, restoration or revegetation works.
10. Term
246. The Applicant has requested a 10-year term for this application.
247.In their original application form the applicant requested: “PTL seek a licence with an initial
Information
ter
m of 10 years, with a review at 3 years. PTL seek an option to extend the initial 10
years by 20 years, with 5 yearly reviews to be undertaken in years 15, 20 and 25”. On
19 December 2023, the Applicant clarified they were only applying for a 10-year term
at this stage. “
Yes 10 years duration sought...The 20 years is real y to show our intent
to apply for that term in the future”.
Official
248.In light of the Applicant’s clarification, the Department has proceeded on the basis that
what is being sought is a 10-year combined lease and licence.
the
249. The Applicant notes Ski area infrastructure is expensive to construct, but the high capital
cost can be justified provided a long period of operation is available to realise the
benefit of investment. Planning must include consideration of climate change and
replacement of aging infrastructure. They note lifts are bespoke and costly to build. In
addition, the location of the activity in an alpine environment raises costs. The ski area
under
wil require investment of $32M over the next 10 years. They note similar ski field
concessions (including the previous concession held by RAL) are typically 50-60
years. The applicant recognises the Treaty Partners view on a long-term concession
which may limit their aspirations in the Park and for this reason have only applied for
a 10-year term at this stage. It is the intent of the applicant to build a relationship with
Treaty Partners and then be in a position to apply for a longer-term concession at the
end of the initial 10 year term.
250.
Released
Over 150 submitters commented on the term length. The majority of submitters who
opposed the term length thought the term length is too short to allow sufficient
investment in the site. A lot of these urged the Decision Maker to consider a term of 30
years, however, this is outside the scope of what has been applied for. Some
submit ers also thought it showed a lack of commitment by the Applicant who may
decide to walk away at the end of the 10 years.
43
251. Conversely, a few submitters supported the 10-year term as they felt it would allow a new
operator to take over activities without locking-in a state of affairs over a longer term
(20-30 year) concession.
252.The Department notes the standard term length for recent concessions granted within the
Park is 3-5 years. This period reflects the reality that upcoming Treaty settlement
negotiations for the Park have not yet commenced but are expected to occur in the
near future. The timeframes are intended to avoid prejudicing or pre-empting the
outcomes of those negotiations. Although the outcome of this Treaty settlement
process is unknown, it is expected to influence the planning and statutory framework
for the Park. Some non-Treaty Partner submit ers identified the upcoming Treaty
Act
settlement process for the Park as a reason to decline the application or for a term
shorter than 10 years. Patutokotoku request a review occurs of the concession once
settlement occurs if this occurs within the 10 years.
253.The Department considers a 10-year term is appropriate at this time, noting the Applicant
has identified it plans a long-term investment at Tūroa ski area. A 10-year term wil
allow the Applicant to undertake initial financial investment required for a ski field of
this size. The Treaty settlement process for the Park is expected to be completed within
10 years.
Information
254.It is the Department’s view that the 10-year horizon strikes a reasonable balance between
the Applicant’s need for some certainty over the near to medium terms and the need
to ensure that future Treaty settlement negotiations are not unduly compromised or
constrained.
11. Fees
Official
255.The Department recommends that the Applicant pays the concession application
processing fees as a pre-condition of it commencing its use of the land. In addition to
the
the (one-off) processing fee, the Department recommends that other annual charges
are imposed on the Applicant in the event that the concession is granted. These
fees/charges are discussed below.
256.Departmental processing fees are charged to concession applicants on a cost recovery
under
basis. An initial cost estimate in this case is Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
An updated processing fee wil be provided to the Applicant prior to you making your
decision.
257.Concession activity Fees: The Minister is entitled to set the rent or fees at a rate that
reflects the market value of the activity. Regard is to be had to the nature of the activity,
its impact on the purpose of the land, and any encumbrances upon the intrinsic, historic
or natural resource on the land. Similarly, the legislation explicitly allows the Minister
to discount or waive fees in certain circumstances.
Released
258.Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
44
259.Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
260.T D
Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
T
i
i
l
i
i
i i
l
l
l
i i
C l
l I
Y 3
w
Act
i
F
D
l i i F
i
I i
l
il i il
R
T
w
261.In addition, the Applicant wil be required to fund the year 3 review, monitoring plan
Information
development and implementation and the Cultural Impact Assessment which are
discussed in the conditions section above (9.11).
12. Monitoring
262.Monitoring of compliance with the concession conditions is generally undertaken by the
Official
Department and is cost recoverable based on time-and-attendance basis (usually up
to two or three times per year) and can require an environmental monitoring plan.
the
263.It is noted that Treaty Partners have requested to be involved with monitoring any
concession from an environmental and cultural perspective. Ngāti Rangi have
requested a monitoring fee which would fund two full time iwi representatives to
undertake cultural and environmental monitoring. Ngāti Hāua and Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua have also expressed an expectation they wil be involved with monitoring.
under
Ngāti Rangi have requested two full-time monitors (an Environmental Monitor and
Cultural Monitor). The Department considers daily monitoring is an unreasonable
frequency to impose on a concessionaire in this form.
264.For this application, the Department intends procuring a cultural monitoring plan (which
wil include environmental matters) to ensure compliance with the conditions of the
concession and also to ensure it is meeting the expectations of Treaty Partners. It is
recommended that concession compliance monitoring is not set at a pre-determined
figure but is determined through the monitoring plan. Rather than that approach the
Released
Department instead recommends that detailed iwi/hapu input is procured by input
through the Monitoring plan which is set out below. This plan wil provide an opportunity
for iwi to of er feedback not only on compliance with the current concession conditions
but recommendations as to future changes that may be appropriate.
265.The proposed condition around monitoring is set out below:
45
a. The Grantor must procure a cultural monitoring plan (Cultural Monitoring Plan)
within 1 year of the commencement of this Concession (per the concession
commencement date listed in Schedule 1 Item 3).
b. The Grantor wil consult with Treaty Partners on the scope of the cultural
monitoring plan to understand what cultural effects require monitoring.
c. The Grantor wil determine the scope and content of the Cultural Monitoring Plan.
d. The Grantor wil inform the Concessionaire and Treaty Partners of the scope and
content of the finalised Cultural Monitoring Plan in writing.
e. If the Grantor updates or amends the requirements of the Cultural Monitoring Plan,
the Concessionaire must be informed in writing.
f. As part of the monitoring requirements of this Concession, the Grantor wil
Act
undertake cultural monitoring as and when required and may deviate from the
Cultural Monitoring Plan if it is reasonable to do so.
g. The Grantor may commission Treaty Partners or any other third-party to:
i. Undertake or assist with the cultural monitoring program; or
ii. Assess the findings of the cultural monitoring program.
h. The Concessionaire is responsible for paying any actual and reasonable costs
incurred by the Grantor or on behalf of the Grantor to develop, implement or
commission the Cultural Monitoring Plan and, for the purposes of
clause 10.2 of
Schedule 2, the fees associated with the Cultural Monitoring Plan wil be a
component of the Environmental Monitoring Contribution specified in
Item 7 of
Information
Schedule 1 and, collectively, wil not exceed the annual sum specified in
Item 7.
i. The Grantor must provide the Concessionaire with any findings from any Cultural
Monitoring Plan undertaken in writing.
13. Removal of redundant infrastructure Official
266.The background to PTL’s application means that the position regarding redundant
infrastructure is more complex than usual. RAL’s current concession includes
obligations to remove redundant infrastructure. However, RAL is in liquidation and wil
the
not be able to comply with this obligation. In 2023, when RAL’s administrators sought
expressions of interest to acquire RAL’s assets, none of the potentially interested
bidders were wil ing to take on RAL’s “make good” obligations. On 12 June 2023
Cabinet agreed that the obligation and liability to “make good” the ski fields would fall
to the Crown (CAB-23-MIN-0240 refers). This position was confirmed by Cabinet on
under
2 October 2023 (CAB-23-MIN-0456 refers).
267.The draft concession makes the following provision for removal of redundant
infrastructure:
a. There is one piece of infrastructure that is already redundant – the Nga Wai Heke
lift. The Department has previously accepted responsibility to remove this lift
(CAB-23-MIN-0456 refers).
b. PTL would be responsible for the removal of any new infrastructure installed by
PTL, if required by the Grantor at the end of the term.
Released
c. If any currently existing infrastructure becomes redundant in the course of PTL’s
concession term, PTL would be responsible for the removal of that infrastructure.
d. However, if there is any currently existing infrastructure that is stil in use at the
end of the concession term, PTL would not be responsible for its removal. If, at
the end of PTL’s concession term, the Grantor considered that any infrastructure
(that is currently RAL’s, and stil functional at the end of PTL’s term) should be
46
removed, that responsibility would fall to the Crown. This is consistent with
Cabinet’s agreement, noted above.
268.There are a number of policies in the TNPMP that refer to redundant infrastructure. The
key point is that redundant infrastructure should be removed. Although in general it
is expected that this wil be done by the concessionaire who installed it, the TNPMP
does not contemplate the possibility of a concessionaire in liquidation. In some places
the TNPMP expressly contemplates that removal of disused structures might need to
be done by the Department. The proposed arrangements regarding the removal of
redundant infrastructure are generally consistent with the TNPMP.
Act
14. Summary and Recommendations
269.The Decision Maker must consider the information in this report and determine whether
to approve or decline the application from Pure Tūroa Limited and, if to approve, on
what terms and conditions. Based on the information in the report, the following
recommendations are made:
270.The Decision Maker must give ef ect to Treaty principles (the s 4 obligation); and comply
with the relevant statutory obligations contained in Te Awa Tupua Act and the Ngāti
Information
Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019 that applies. The Department has complied s 109(2)
of the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act and s 15(2) Te Awa Tupua Act.
271.Section 4 of the Conservation Act requires that the Department (including the Decision-
Maker) give ef ect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Treaty Partners consider
the application process flawed due to the constrained timeframes of the application.
Official
The Department acknowledges that timeframes for engagement on this application
have been more constrained than usual. However, these timeframes have resulted
from the financial collapse of RAL and the need for a timely decision one way or the
the
other so that PTL, the receivers, the Department, and other stakeholders know what
the position is and can plan accordingly. The Department has undertaken extensive
engagement with relevant Treaty Partners, including engagement before the
application was lodged, and considers that it is well informed about their views on this
application. Where possible, the Department has incorporated mitigation measures
under
into the proposed concession. Exactly what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
require in any given situation depends on the context; and in this context the
Department considers that it has given effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Department considers the process undertaken has been reasonable in the
particular circumstances of this application and has given effect to the relevant Treaty
principles. In particular, the Department has sought to actively protect the interests of
each Treaty Partner through the identified proposed mitigations to be included in the
concession document
Released
272.The Department recommends you consider the application complete and the information
provided in the application form relevant for the purposes of considering the application
(s17S) and that the applicant has the ability to carry out the activity (s17U(1)(d)). The
assessment of effects concludes that the activity is for the continuation of an existing
ski area and the effects wil be similar to the existing activity. It is recommended you
determine the information available is sufficient to determine the ef ects and there are
reasonable methods to remedy, avoid or mitigate any adverse effects.
47
273.Section 17U(3) provides that you shal not grant an application if the activity is contrary to
the provisions of the Conservation Act or the purpose for which the land is held. The
land is a National Park, managed under section 4 of the NPA. In addition, the majority
of the ski area is within an amenities area (section 15 of NPA). The Park is also within
a UNESCO World Heritage site. This report concludes the land is not inconsistent with
the purpose for which the land is held.
274.The Applicant has requested a lease over all buildings, a 1 metre curtilage and the base
Plaza area. The Department recommends that you grant a lease over the buildings
and ski field infrastructure, and in Area A of the base plaza area. The remainder of the
Act
base plaza area and curtilage areas are recommended to be granted as licences
instead as they do not meet the requirements for exclusive possession in s17U(5) and
s17U(6).
275.The relevant statutory planning documents are the General Policy for National Parks,
Taupo/Tongariro Conservation Management Strategy 2002 and the Tongariro National
Park Management Plan. A concession shal not be granted unless it is consistent with
the relevant strategy or plan (s17W). The proposed activity is mostly consistent with
these documents, the exception being the following. Using aircraft to film for
promotional purposes is inconsistent with Policy 4.4.2.6 and this is recommended to
Information
be declined. Granting a lease over the base plaza area (areas B, C, and D) is
inconsistent with policies 5.2.7 and 5.2.14 and a licence is recommended instead.
contrary to Section 17U(6) of the Conservation Act. Accordingly, it is recommended
that those activities not be approved.
276.Term recommendation: This report recommends that a lease/licence concession is
Official
granted for a term of 10 years on the terms and conditions described in the draft
concession are imposed. the
277.If the decision is granted, the existing concession granted to RAL wil be surrendered
simultaneously. The Applicant wil complete the sale of the Turoa Ski Area and wil
operate the Turoa Ski Area for the 2024 winter season.
278.Although not recommended by the Department, an alternative option is to decline the
under
application. If the decision is to decline the application, further considerations wil need
to be made by the Crown on the future of the Tūroa Ski Area and all infrastructure in
place. It is also noted that some Treaty Partners may be interested in the opportunity
in the future (Patutokotoko has indicated their interest) and declining this application
may not make this a viable option in the future.
Released
48
15. Table of Appendices
Appendix 1 – Maps of lease area, including licence boundary, amenities area
Appendix 2 – List of structures
Appendix 3 – Table of Treaty Partner engagement
Appendix 4 – Treaty Partner submissions and records of engagement
Appendix 5 – Thematic analysis of Treaty Partner feedback
Appendix 6 – Memo application ready to notify
Act
Appendix 7 – Ful assessment of effects
Appendix 8 - District office contributions to ef ects
Appendix 9 – Technical advice received – Ecological, Visitor, Heritage
Appendix 10 – Ful analysis of Statutory Planning Documents
Information
Official
the
under
Released
49
Appendix 1 – Relevant maps of area
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
50
Appendix 1.1 Map of Turoa ski area
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Appendix 1.2 Map of Base Plaza area showing zones and requested lease area
Act
Information
Official
the
under
52
Released
Appendix 1.3 – Turoa Trail map
Act
Information
Official
the
under
53
Released
Appendix 1.4 – Map of Amenities boundary (Map 11 of TNPMP) note ski area infrastructure
on this map is outdated.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
54
Appendix 2 – List of structures
Schedule 4.1:
Table of Lease Structures and Facilities
Figure Map Infrastructure / Building Name
Actual
Approx.
Footprint Coordinates
(m2)
1
2
Explosives magazine
20
E1817817 N5646033
2
2
Sewage storage and pumphouse
71
E1817817 N5646033 Act
3
2
Lower reservoir and maintenance sheds 1212
E1817813
N5646161
and
E1817822 N5646213
4
2, 3
Sun kid carpet
548
E1817907 N5646248
5
3
Kids ski and ride school
129
E1817909 N5646352
6
3
Alpine café and retail shop
753
E1817924 N5646366
Information
7
3
Ski school
42
E1817924 N5646389
8
3
Administration, rental, and guest 904
E1817898N5646403
services building
9
3
Maintenance shed
250
E1817875 N5646426
Official
10
3
Diesel tank
43
E1817857 N5646435
11
3
Top of road buildings and storage 352
E1817858 N5646370
the
container
12
3
Base Plaza zone A (contains structures 8, 5268
E1817845 N5646417
9, 10, 11)
13
3
Movenpick drive station
130
E1818018 N5646362
under
14
3
Parklane drive station
134
E1818016 N5646350
15
4
Snow making reservoir
10602
E1818325 N5646243
16
4
Snow making pumphouse
113
E1818332 N5646305
17
4
ARMCO cat workshop
87
E1818601 N5646392
Released
18
4
Snowflake cafe
461
E1818619 N5646413
19
4
Parklane return
147
E1818603N5646436
20
4
Toilets
91
E1818647 N5646448
55
Schedule 4.1:
Table of Lease Structures and Facilities
Figure Map Infrastructure / Building Name
Actual
Approx.
Footprint Coordinates
(m2)
21
4
Toilets
38
E1818662 N5646468
22
4
Ski school hut
25
E1818687 N5646485
23
4
Giant drive station
201
E1818599 N5646522
Act
24
5
High Noon drive station
917
E1819181 N5646761
25
5
Movenpick return building
149
E1819301 N5646619
26
5
Diesel storage tank
10
E1819302 N5646609
27
5
High Flyer magazine
9
E1819391 N5646413
Information
28
6
Giant park shack
38
E1819705 N5646966
29
6
Giant return, café, and toilets
555
E1819651 N5647054
30
6
High Noon return station
336
E1820324 N5647395
Official
31
1
Ohakune mountain road grit shed
205
E1815173 N5643815
the
Total lease area:
22,291m2
under
Released
56
Schedule 4.2:
Table of other infrastructure
Figure Map
Infrastructure / Building Actual
Approx.
#
Name
Footprint
Coordinates
(m2)
32
2, 3
Alpine Meadow Platter
353m
E1817897 N5646178
to E1818217
N5646328
33
3, 4
Parklane Chairlift
593m
E1818016 N5646350
to
E1818603
N5646436
Act
34
3, 4, 5
Movenpick Chairlift
1303m
E1818018 N5646362
to E1819301
N5646619
35
4
Wintergarden Platter
164m
E1818793 N5646476
to E1818650
to N5646396
36
4, 5, 6
Giant Chairlift
1179m
E1818599 N5646522
to E1819651
N5647054
37
5, 6
High Noon Express
1307m
E1819181 N5646761
to E1820324
Information
N5647395
38
All
Snowmaking Pipeline,
2836m
E1817817 N5646033
Electrical cable and
to E1819651
sewage pipeline in
N5647054
common trench
39
2, 3
Carpark 1A
4815m
E1817878 N5646310
Official
40
2
Carpark 1B
9920m
E1817728 N5646161
the
41
2
Carpark 2
2945m
E1817632 N5645962
42
2
Carpark 3
4447m
E1817520 N5645902
43
2
Carpark 4
9867m
E1817703 N5645905
under
44
2
Carpark 5
5435m
E1817738 N5645971
45
2
Carpark 6
3484m
E1817780 N5646018
Released
57
Appendix 3 – Table of engagement with Treaty Partners
Representative
Date
Type of
Subject
DOC Reference
engagement
Ngā Waihua or Paerangi Trust (Ngāti Rangi)
Sec 9(2)(a)
,
25 May 2023 Letter from the
Letter re Proposed
7352614
Chair
Department
concession transfer
Sec 9(2)(a)
2 June 2023
Letter from Ngāti
Provides initial views and
Pou Arahi/CE
Rangi
seeks further information
Sec 9(2)(a)
9 June 2023
Letter from the
Provides further information 7364735
Pou Arahi/CE
Department
requested
Whetu Moataane
June 2023
Act
Hui with DOC, Te
Discussion about RAL’s
Chair
Arawhiti, MBIE
concessions, before
Sec 9(2)(a)
watershed meeting
Pou Arahi/CE
Followed by letters by
Ministers
Sec 9(2)(a)
9 November
Meeting with CNI
Discussion about RAL
-
Pou Arahi/CE
2023
Director
Sec 9(2)(a)
17 November
Letter from the
Pure Tūroa intend to submit 7504177
Pou Arahi/CE
2023
Department
a concession application
Sec 9(2)(a)
30 November
Letter to Ngāti
Sharing Pure Tūroa’s
7514950
Pou Arahi/CE
2023
Rangi
concession application
Sec 9(2)(a)
9 February
Submission
Submission on concession 7564561
Information
Pou Arahi/CE
2024
application
Sec 9(2)(a)
23 February
Hearing
Presentation of submission
Pou Arahi/CE
at hearing
Sec 9(2)(a)
Sec 9(2)(a)
Pou
27 February
Meeting
Pure Tūroa Ltd
-
Arahi/CE
2024
Submission
Official
Sec 9(2)(a)
Pou
Whirinaki/Manager
Sec 9(2)(a)
the
Sec 9(2)(a)
Pou
28 February
Memo confirming
Pure Tūroa Ltd Concession 7596625
Arahi/CE
2024
meeting discussion Application -Ngāti Rangi
Sec 9(2)(a)
Pou
Conditions
Whirinaki/Manager
Sec 9(2)(a)
Pou
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Arahi/CE
Department
Concession document for
review
under
Sec 9(2)(a)
Pou
25 March 2024 Email response to
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Arahi/CE
22 March 2024
Concession document for
letter
review
– response not to
engage
Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
25 May 2023 Letter from the
Letter re Proposed
7352659
Chair
Department
concession transfer
Sec 9(2)(a)
June 2023
Hui with DOC, Te
Discussion about RAL’s
and representatives
Arawhiti, MBIE
concessions, both before
Released
and after watershed
meeting
Followed by letters by
Ministers
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 November
Letter from the
Concession application to 7507802
Chair
2023
Department
operate Tūroa Skifield
Sec 9(2)(a)
30 November
Letter to Ngāti Hāua Potential for Whakapapa 7514706
Chair
2023
Holdings to submit a
concession application
58
Representatives
23 November
Meeting
RAL catch up
-
2023
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
11 January
Letter from the
Pure Tūroa Concession
7530949
Chair
2024
Department
application
Sec 9(2)(a)
- Pou
Arahi
Sec 9(2)(a)
– Pou 9 February
Submission
Interim submission
7565754
Arahi
2024
9(2)(a)
- Chair
Representatives
21 February
Meeting
Pure Tūroa Ltd
-
2024
Submission
Sec 9(2)(a) ,
25 February
Submission
Supplementary submission 7589955
Act
Kaimanaaki Taiao
2024
Representatives
26 February
Hearing
Presentation of submissions
2024
at hearing
Sec 9(2)(a) ,
5 March 2024
Meeting
Pure Tūroa - Concern vs -
Kaimanaaki Taiao
Mitigation
Sec 9(2)(a) ,
12 March
Memo confirming
RE: Confidential and
7596622
Kaimanaaki Taiao
2024
meetings
Without Prejudice - Memo
following 5 March 2024
Meeting
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Kaimanaaki Taiao
Department
Concession document for
review
Information
Sec 9(2)(a)
25 March 2024 Email response to
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Kaimanaaki Taiao
22 March 2024
Concession document for
letter
review
– response
Te Korowai o Wainuārua (Ngā Hapū o Uenuku)
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
25 May 2023
Letter from the
Letter re Proposed
7352661
Chair
Department
concession transfer
Official
Sec 9(2)(a)
and
June 2023
Hui with DOC,
Discussion about RAL’s
representatives
MBIE, Te Arawhiti
concessions, both before
and after watershed
meeting
the
Followed by letters by
Ministers
Representatives
26 October
Meeting
RAL catch up
2023
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
21 November
Letter from the
Concession application to 7507740
Chair
2023
Department
operate Tūroa Skifield
under
Sec 9(2)(a)
30 November
Letter from the
Potential for Whakapapa 7514626
Chair
2023
Department
Holdings to submit a
concession application
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
5 February
Submission
Submission on concession 7560922
Chair
2024
application
Representatives
13 February
Meeting
Pure Tūroa & redundant -
2024
infrastructure
Sec 9(2)(a)
23 February
Hearing
Presentation of submissions
Chair
2024
at hearing
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
1 March 2024
Meeting
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Concern v -
Released
Chair
Mitigation
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
12 March
Memo
PTL concession application 7596624
Chair
2024
- Uenuku concerns
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Chair
Department
Concession document for
review
59
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
27 March
Email from Uenuku Support for draft
TBC
Chair
2024
concession
Te Patutokotoko
Sec 9(2)(a)
and
June 2023
Hui with DOC,
Discussion about RAL’s
representatives
MBIE, Te Arawhiti
concessions, both before
and after watershed
meeting
Followed by letters by
Ministers
Sec 9(2)(a)
9 February
Submission
Submission on concession 7565738
2024
application
Act
Representatives
23 February
Hearing
Presentation of submissions
2024
at hearing
Sec 9(2)(a)
23 March
Email from the
PTL Application – follow up 7605508
Department
hui
Sec 9(2)(a)
18 March 2024 Email to the
Protection of the Turoa
7605551
Department
name
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Department
Concession document for
review
Information
Sec 9(2)(a)
27 March 2024 Email response to
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
22 March 2024
Concession document for
letter
review
– response
Legal representative 27 March 2024 Email from lawyer
Setting out concern about TBC
for Patutokotoko
process
Sec 9(2)(a)
28 March
Multiple emails from Emails about Tūroa name TBC
9(2)(a)
Official
Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 November
Letter from the
Concession application to 7507793
Kaihutu/CE
2023
Department
operate Tūroa Skifield
the
Sec 9(2)(a)
28 February
Letter from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd Concession 7581148
Pou Ārahi/Chair
2024
Department
Application
Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o 4 March 2024 Text from Ngā
Advising won’t meet;
Whanganui
Tāngata Tiaki o
support iwi and hapū at
Whanganui
place
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
under
Pou Ārahi/Chair
Department
Concession document for
review
Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tūwharetoa
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
25 May 2023 Letter from the
Letter re Proposed
7352603
Chair
Department
concession transfer
Sec 9(2)(a)
and
June 2023
Hui with DOC, Te
Discussion about RAL’s
representatives
Arawhiti, MBIE
concessions, both before
and after watershed
meeting
Followed by letters by
Released
Ministers
Representatives
24 October
Meeting
RAL catch up
-
2023
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
22 November
Letter from the
Concession application to 7507855
Chair
2023
Department
operate Tūroa Skifield
Sec 9(2)(a)
30 November
Letter
Potential for Whakapapa 7507802
Chair
2023
Holdings to submit a
concession application
60
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Chair
Department
Concession document for
review
Sec 9(2)(a)
-
26 March 2024 Email response to
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Chair
22 March 2024
Concession document for
letter
review
– response not to
engage
Ngāti Tūwharetoa
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 November
Letter from the
Concession application to 7507819
2023
Department
operate Tūroa Skifield
Sec 9(2)(a)
18 December
Email from the
Email re Pure Tūroa
7592292
Act
2024
Department
Concession application.
Sec 9(2)(a)
21 February
Letter from Treaty
Declining engagement re 7592268
2024
Partner
Pure Tūroa Concession
Application.
Sec 9(2)(a)
22 March 2024 Email from the
Pure Tūroa Ltd – Draft
TBC
Department
Concession document for
review
Te Rūngananui o Ngāti Hikairo ki Tongariro
Huria Chambers
23 June 2023
Letter
Concession for Tūroa and 7379178
Chair
Whakapapa
Information
Note: This list does not include details of engagement prior to May 2023. Informal engagement is not
included.
Official
the
under
Released
61
Appendix 4 – Treaty Partner submissions and records of engagement
Interim Submission Ngati Haua -
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
62
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
63
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
66
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
67
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
68
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
69
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
70
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
71
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
72
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
73
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
74
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
75
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
76
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
77
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Memo
Meeting Memo
for external meeting
Date:
11 March 2024
o:
Damian Coutts
Act
Cc: Sec 9(2)(a)
Organisation:
Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust
Attendees
and Department: Anna Atchley, (Senior Ranger Community), Mitch
titles:
Roderick-Hall (Kai Tohu Matua, Treaty Partnerships)
Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust: Sec 9(2)(a) , (Taiao Manager)
Meeting Date:
1pm-3pm 05 March Location: Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust Offices
Information
DOC Contacts
Role
Name and position
Phone
Official
Relationship
Damian Coutts, Director Operations
Sec 9(2)(a)
Document author Anna Atchley, Senior Ranger Community
the
Sec 9(2)(a)
under
Purpose
1. To discuss the Pure Tūroa Limited (
PTL) Concession Application. As noted, the purpose
of the hui was to discuss some of the key details in the Concession and what those
should/might look like given the lack of process and engagement with Ngāti Hāua, and if
granted.
Discussion
2. Ngāti Hāua would like their disappointment noted that the Department has been working
Released
with urgency to assist the applicant and process this Pure Tūroa Application but have
failed to engage with Ngāti Hāua in an appropriate manner to develop their relationship
and build trust.
3. Much of the discussion centred on the need for mechanisms to be in any concession (if
granted) that allows Ngāti Hāua kawa and interests to be recognised appropriately, and
protections put in place to ensure procedural erasure does not occur again.
79
4.
Ngāti Hāua Position
Ngāti Hāua have provided some feedback in relation to the make-up of a new concession
document, however their position shared in their submission, remains. They have not
been acknowledged in the application and this will need to be remedied in the
concession.
•
Submission to be given as primary position: Ngāti Hāua outlined, that Ngāti Hāua
Act
do not believe the Minister or any decision maker can lawfully grant the Concession
(for the reasons outlined in their submission). Ngāti Hāua suggested a statement
could be used to communicate that, Ngāti Hāua have drafted the following:
“Ngāti Hāua are clear that the procedural context of the Concession provides rationale
to decline the Concession Application. Had proper process and engagement
occurred with Ngāti Hāua, the below matters and key areas of the Concession
could have been worked through in greater detail and in a way that provided
options for all parties. The Minister will need to determine whether such
procedural issues (including non-compliance with settlement legislation)
Information
warrants a decline of the Concession. We say it does, but in the alternative, we
suggest that provision should be inbuilt into the Concession that aims to rectify
the deficiencies in the Application and that deters future concession applicants
(including this applicant) and DoC from conducting these processes in a way that
is inconsistent with the expectations of Ngāti Hāua.”
Official
•
Partnership and framework between us and DoC going forward: The Department
accepted that the process needed to be remedied and that Ngāti Hāua were
invisiblised within the application and should have been included. The suggestion
the
was to build a partnership and relationship that is consistent with Te Awa Tupua and
Ngāti Hāua kawa. This can be inbuilt into the Concession through “monitoring”
provisions but also through working with the Department to review and work through
the Concession post any potential grant. Ngāti Hāua also made the point that this
would ensure smooth transitions during and after any outcomes from the TNP
under
negotiations.
•
Acknowledgment of process concerns from DoC, and commitments going
forward: Ngāti Hāua have suggested that an acknowledgement to their interests on
the Maunga be inbuilt into the report to the Minister, and that the process with regards
to section 4 and Tupua te Kawa was not sufficient. There would need to be some
further work with Ngāti Hāua on this.
Released
•
Steps required in conditions given the lack of process and engagement: For the
application for term to be considered, meaningful reviews that include a framework
of milestones and associated timeframes will need to be embedded into the
concession.
Ngāti Hāua have given clear conditions, these are as follows:
80
a) that a new environmental impacts assessment/management plan must be
discussed with Ngāti Hāua within the first 4 months and completed by 12
months.
b) Resourcing that should be external. If that is not done, then at the 12-month
point DoC could issue a non-compliance and intention to terminate.
c) Ngāti Hāua have suggested that it is within this process that Ngāti Hāua
establish a relationship agreement with PTL and put in place some additional
provisions for Ngāti Hāua. The relationship agreement will ensure the
development of targets that reflect Ngāti Hāua’s values and operating
expectations. This includes whether the completion of a new cultural impact
Act
assessment is appropriate.
•
Term: The term PTL seek is 10 years. If they pass the 3-year review (discussed below),
then they seek an additional 10 years be added to the term. That amounts to a 20-
year term in total (conditional on meeting various conditions). Ngāti Hāua are clear
that they would not be comfortable with that being detailed in any condition. Ngāti
Hāua have suggested that the question of extending the term to 20 years or even
agreeing to the 10-year term is something that needs to be answered at the 3-year
review.
Information
•
Review of Concession: The review of the concession was discussed at length. The
suggestion is that the review is at the 3-year mark (noting other incremental steps
before then). The review date will be the date DoC (and Ngāti Hāua) decide whether
the concession is good to continue on or not (and if so on what new conditions). This
means that about a year out from that date, DoC will work with the Applicant and iwi
to make sure things are tracking well (and if not, why that is including resolving those
Official
issues where possible). If at the date of review, things are not good, then a cancelation
of the concession can occur. It could be discussed at this point whether another
review is required sooner than the 10-year mark.
the
•
Termination clause: Ngāti Hāua was assured by DoC that there are standard
termination clauses in all concessions. Ngāti Hāua expects surety on what the
criteria normally is to trigger such a clause and that some key matters like compliance
with Te Awa Tupua and Ngāti Hāua kawa are grounds enough to terminate, so should
under
be included as standalone matters in the termination context. Ngāti Hāua stated that
this has to be the case, given the previous lack of process.
•
Assignment: Ngāti Hāua stated that any assignment of the application by the
Applicant to external parties would need to be discussed, but that if the other
conditions are in the concession, then assignment shouldn’t be an issue.
•
Visitor inductions: This was not discussed fully, since the meeting, Ngāti Hāua have
Released
stated that a management plan that implements a new Impacts Assessment will be
able to include these matters. This would be consistent with the acknowledgments
of Ngāti Hāua interests/whakapapa to/on the maunga.
•
General monitoring and reporting: Ngāti Hāua were clear that they will participate
with PTL in the monitoring and reporting of this concession. This will require further
work. In terms of reporting, Ngāti Hāua expectations is that the Applicants will do
81
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
RAETIHI 4632
6 February 2024
Mount Ruapehu Submissions Inbox
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
Per e mail; [email address]
Tena koe
Submission re: Application for a concession (licence and Lease) sought by Pure Turoa
Limited
Act
To operate the Turoa Ski Area – Application No. 109883-SKI
1
The submission
I oppose the Application. I seek to appear in person, to speak to my submission, before the lead
officer of the Department of Conservation and/or the Minister of Conservation, as appropriate in
the submission process. This, to give voice to the rights and responsibilities of Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua, to its beneficiaries under the Treaty of Waitangi claimant settlement process.
2
Reasons for opposition to the Application
Breach of the principle of good faith:
Information
•
The Notification time span for submissions spans December 2023 and January 2024
being the national holiday period when affected iwi parties are not available for internal
consultation to develop an effective and informed submission. It is manifest that this
period was selected to expedite the procedural demands of public service timetables
regarding obeisance to the Government’s funding cycle with the result that iwi settlement
and post settlement procedural needs and timeframes are completely disregarded.
Official
•
The public sector agencies: DOC, MBIE, Te Arawhiti are implicated in the Treaty
settlement process. Thereby they are fully informed of the aspirations and expectations
of iwi settlement groups pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi. Knowing this they
the
nonetheless are colluding in the desire of DOC to expedite the notification and
submission process, to align with the funding cycles that are out of step with iwi
settlement timetabling and processes, sufficient to obstruct the time and resources to be
made available for claimants to consolidate their responsibilities to beneficiaries of the
settlements to be satisfied appropriately.
•
Cumbersome application documentation. The volume of 277 pages: was not presented
under
with pagination, contents page, or executive summary to assist navigation and clarity of
the key issues. Further they were not presented with transparency of all information.
What they included, in breach of the principle of good faith, were, as follows:
o Redaction that obscured:
▪ Record of engagement for consultation by the Applicant
▪ The identification of the Applicant
▪ The identification of e mail correspondents
Released
3
Lack of evidence to support economic viability of the Application:
•
Opinion without substance:
o Opinion of consultants, for example, PWC, is descriptive at best.
o The Application does not include financial projections-cash flow – to
demonstrate viability. Any citing of ‘commercial sensitivity’ is not acceptable in
this case: given the deep, historical and cultural values of iwi in particular, and
the community in general, that are at stake.
83
o
Pure Turoa Limited was incorporated as recently as June 2023;
▪ There is no track record of their ability to conduct an enterprise to validate
any award of the Concession to the Applicant.
▪ Yet, imminently after their incorporation, the Crown, through the media
announced its support of the Applicant. At the very least this bespeaks of
collusion beyond the vision of, or any justifiable accountability to,
affected parties, in particular, iwi interests’ rights with responsibilities to
their beneficiaries. It is notable that the Crown is aware of this, yet
negligent of its own responsibilities in any settlement processes that
would be conducted in good faith.
Act
4
Treaty of Waitangi claimant hearing: Tongariro National Park Enquiry, yet to occur:
•
Term of the Concession in the Application
The Term is for 10 years, with a review timetabled for 3 years. This is unacceptable as
being out of step with the timetabling, yet to be set, of the Tongariro National Park Enquiry.
This is known by the public sector agencies and the Crown, who support the Applicant:
against the interests, rights and responsibilities of iwi claimants, Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua, in particular.
5
Conduct of the Applicant
• The Applicant purports to have consulted iwi and included their views in consideration of
Information
the Application; as reported in the media, recently: The Ruapehu Bulletin and the
Taumarunui Bulletin. The iwi has no satisfaction on this matter, at all. Nor were there any
points of proof of this cited in the media articles.
• The point of the articles, above, was to campaign the public to support the Application.
This is outside the integrity of any submission process that should be monitored by the
consenting authority, in this case, the Department of Conservation. That is has not been
Official
so monitored, indicates a bias by the Department of Conservation and the Crown, against
the justifiable rights and interests of iwi in particular, and the community in general.
• It may be deduced, given the expedience of the application, notification and submission
the
process that MBIE has constructed a fast passage for the Applicant, based on a collusive
relationship and unacceptable shared interests that are obscure that bespeak of
potential conflicts of interest.
6
The benefit of economic development in the Region
under
Te Korowai o Wainuiārua supports economic development in the Region. However, the effect of
the process in this matter, has thwarted a justifiable opportunity within the principle of
partnership for our effective participation and inclusion in economic development of the Turoa
Ski Area.
At best, consideration should be given to the establishment of a governance entity enjoining the
Crown, iwi, to oversee the management of the Turoa Ski Area, to ensure that iwi values,
opportunities for co investment, education, training, employment and procurement of iwi service
delivery [construction, maintenance, for example] shall be delivered through the operations of
the concession holder.
Released
Heoi anō, nā
Sec 9(2)(a)
Chair: Uenuku Charitable Trust – Te Korowai o Wainuiārua
Sec 9(2)(a)
84
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
(6) Pure Turoa Limited will enter into a relationship agreement with Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua. Through this relationship Te Korowai o Wainuiārua will share their
expectations and the key performance indicators that will be measured for the three-
year review.
(7) A fee will be charged and utilised for the ongoing monitoring of the Ski Area operation.
Monitoring must be a collaborative endeavour between Iwi/Hapu, the Department of
Conservation and Pure Turoa Limited.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
86
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
• The Te Waiū-o-te-Ika principles should guide all decisions and all conditions imposed on any
concession issued.
• By the conclusion of Year 1, Te Pae Toka or a similar relationship agreement will be in place
between Ngāti Rangi and Pure Turoa Limited. This agreement will outline a series of KPI’s
that will be regularly monitored. A full review will be undertaken by Ngāti Rangi at year 3
against these KPI’s. Failure to meet these KPI’s will result in Pure Turoa Limited being ‘put
on notice’ with a timeframe outlined for corrective actions to be undertaken. Further failure
to meet these KPI’s could result in suspension of their concession.
Act
• Concession is to include only activities / infrastructure that is already in place under the
existing RAL concession. Any new upgrades or changes will require either a variation to the
concession or a new concession application. Ngāti Rangi will then assess this request as part
of the normal concession application process. This includes but is not limited to
snowmaking facilities, new tracks, lowering of carparks etc
• By conclusion of year 1, a new updated Environmental Assessment will be completed and
available for review by Ngāti Rangi. This assessment should include an Environmental
Management Plan that is agreed to by Ngāti Rangi for the duration of the concession, with
Information
protection measures put in place for the alpine flushes.
• Introduction of a management fee on top of the concession fee. This management fee will
fund 1x Environmental Monitor and 1x Cultural Monitor that will be employed by and report
to Ngāti Rangi. These 2 positions will undertake daily monitoring. Should any additional
works or maintenance be required, additional monitors will be sourced by Ngāti Rangi and
funded by the concessionaire to carry out continual monitoring of the works being
Official
undertaken.
• All waste both solid and liquid will be removed from site and taken to a consented facility.
the
• Ngāti Rangi would like to review the final Decision Support Document that is being provided
to the Decision Maker.
• Ngāti Rangi would like it noted that they were expecting to be involved and partnering with
under
the Department in order to create a new concession framework for this application that
would be the first of it’s kind, and would create the foundations for a true partnership
approach for concessions into the future. They are disappointed the process has been
rushed and processed in the traditional manner. Therefore the three year review
mechanism within the concession is essential to ensure the long term viability, sustainability
and protection of Matua te Mana (Ruapehu).
Further Concerns around Environmental Protection – Tuesday March 5
Released
1.
Statutory recognition and values for Te Waiū-o-te-Ika
Under the settlement, Te Waiū-o-te-Ika is recognised as a living and indivisible whole, from Te Wai-a-
Moe (the Crater Lake) to the sea, comprising physical and metaphysical elements giving life and
healing to its surroundings and communities. The settlement also recognises a set of four intrinsic
values that represent the essence of Te Waiū-o-te-Ika. While these principles were referred to in
the notes, we want to emphasize that the statutory recognition and values must be given
88
appropriate consideration by persons exercising certain statutory functions, duties, or powers
that relate to the River, or to activities in the catchment affecting the River.
2. Human Waste
As far as Te Waiū-o-te-ika is concerned, the response did not mention the human waste being flushed
into the Mangawhero at the Ohakune Waste Water Treatment Plant. It is likely that the Rangataua
plant is also overloaded in winter from visitors to the ski field. The Rangataua is discharging
directly into the Mangaehuehu. until that waste water treatment plant has the wetland
developed it is still discharging directly into the awa and as a consequence is affecting Te Waiū-o-
te-ika.
Act
It is vitally important that we understand that what happens
on the mountain can have effects
off the
mountain. The skiing activity is having an indirect effect on the waterways. There are regulatory
precedents for this. Resource consents for land use for example have to take into account the
effects of traffic, which is something that would happen off-site.
Requiring waste to be removed to a consented activity would deal with the problem on the
mountain. Pure Tūroa Ltd may even decide it is cheaper to pay a realistic contribution to Ruapehu
District Council and fund their upgrades so they become consented. This would also solve waste
off the mountain. If they decide to take their waste somewhere else, then the Ohakune plants
would still be overloaded.
Information
We thought that at our hui, the Department of Conservation had actually proposed that there should
be a separate ecological management plan for the flushes.
Official
the
under
Released
89
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Seeking amendment to commencement of concession to reflect
date of signing.
Item 3 Schedule 1 -
Term
Response - Agreed in part, but additional changes needed to
address interaction with Deed of Surrender. Drafting amended
accordingly.
Seeking an expiry date 10 years from commencement.
Response - Commencement could be protracted (via
Item 5, Sch 1 - Final
reconsideration process for instance). Recommend retaining
Expiry
defined end date as 4 April 2024 as it provides certainty as to
timeframes and ensures clarity for iwi and others. Note previous
Act
error showed 31 March 2033 not 2034.
Seeking removal of Concession Monitoring Fee
Item 6, Sch 1 –
Response - Concession management fee (can include
Concession Fee
monitoring) is capped at Sec 9(2) . Additional monitoring
(environmental and cultural
(b)(ii)plus Year 3 Review), are caught by
the Administrative Fees Cap.
Item 7, Sch 1 –
Environmental
Information
Seeking removal of these fees
Monitoring (including
Cultural Monitoring
Response - included but contained within the Administrative
Plan and
Fees Cap with a review at end of Year 3.
implementation)
Seeking removal of ability to charge under s17ZH
Official
Response – recommend decline. The statutory power already
Community Services
contains discretion to pass on charges and to apportion them. It
Contribution
would be unreasonable to prevent (fetter) the Minister having
the
resort to that power if the need arose. As the Department does
not currently provide services at Tūroa, this is unlikely to be
charged.
Seeking removal of all payments save for Concession Activity
Fee and Concession Management Fee
under
Response – Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
Items 9 and 11, Total
Payments to be made
and Payment Dates
Response to fee matters:
Released
Non-rental fees (i.e.
DOC has recommended that there be two components of the
fees not related to
fees:
Concession Activity
The Concession Activity Fee to be set (for the first 3 years) at
Fee)
Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
; and
Al other monitoring and management fees: to be set at the
reasonable and actual costs incurred by the Grantor but not to
91
exceed Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
for the first 3 years. (included in
that is Sec 9(2)(a) Concession Management Fee)
To reflect that approach, scope needs to be given for reviewing
the cap on the fees at Year 3. Amendments are proposed to
Items 6, 7, 9 and 11 to reflect. Also, the addition of a new clause
to permit the Grantor to review the cap on “Administrative
Fees”.
Seeking addition of words “exclusively” to described rights in
respect of the Lease Land.
Response –
Act
• Recommend amending to read: The Concessionaire,
while paying the Concession Fee and performing and
observing the terms and conditions of this Concession,
is entitled, exclusively and peaceably to hold and enjoy
Clause 3.1 – quiet
the Lease Land and any structures and facilities of the
enjoyment
Grantor (if any) on the Lease Land without hindrance or
interruption…”
• Also recommend amending the clause 3.2 as follows:
“Provided reasonable notice has been given to the
Concessionaire the Grantor, its employees and
Information
contractors may enter the Lease Land and Licence Land
to inspect the Lease Land and facilities on/within the
Lease Land, to carry out repairs and to monitor
compliance with this Concession
Amendment sought to allow Concession Fee Review to occur 6
months after the Concession Fee Review Date.
Official
Clause 6.1(–) - fee
reviews
Response – decline request as not consistent with statute’s
timeframes which requires reviews to take place no later than
every three years.
the
PTL seeks to harmonise the assignment provisions with those
contained in RAL’s concession. Those provisions limited the
Clause 8 –
Minister's discretion when assessing the fitness of proposed
assignments
assignees.
under
Response - No change - recommend retaining full discretion.
This aligns with drafting of the Act.
Seeks amendment to allow storage of hazardous substances
Clause 9.3 -
with Grantor’s prior consent.
hazardous
Response – allow amendments as change aligns with
substances
understanding that there are already hazardous substances
stored in tanks etc. District Of ice supported the change.
Released PTL sought deletion of clause 10 saying it understood
environmental monitoring is dealt with via the Environmental
Clause 10 –
Plan and Ecological Assessment.
Environmental
Monitoring
Response - recommend this is retained as the two do not
entirely overlap: and the Environmental Plan and Ecological
Assessment are “one-offs”. Subsequent (or concomitant)
monitoring may be required in later years. For the first 3 years
92
though, any Environmental Monitoring under this clause would
be subject to the 9(2)(b)(ii) cap.
These clauses allow the Grantor to pass on expenses that DOC
incurs if upgrades or changes are needed to
Grantor’s land,
facilities or structures. It also allows the Grantor to terminate the
Clauses 15.5 and 15.6 concession if the costs of doing the work are deemed to be too
- Legislation requires high. Would cover things like earthquake strengthening or lahar
Grantor to spend
management systems. This reflects the powers in s17ZH to
money
pass on costs but expands on those by empowering the
Minister to charge in advance (not just in arrears) and also
allowing the Minister to terminate if the costs are too high.
Act
Response – Recommend retaining these clauses.
PTL wants to add a provision which entitles PTL to terminate on
14 days’ notice if the Grantor’s structures or facilities are
damaged such that the Concessionaire’s use of the land is
detrimentally and materially impacted.
Response - It is not clear what Grantor structures or facilities
PTL is dependent upon at this point in time since it is
responsible for the maintenance and repair of all the buildings,
Information
lifts, services and carparks during the term. If PTL could identify
Clause 16 –
particular structures/facilities of the Grantor’s upon which it
destruction of the
depends, or set out the circumstances in which it would wish to
Grantor’s structures.
terminate (for instance, volcanic activity that materially affects
its use for a period of 6 months or more), then an appropriate
provision could be drafted. In the meantime, and given the
wide-ranging effect that PTL’s amendment might have, the
Official
Department does not consider it appropriate.
The Department’s position is that the Concessionaire can seek
a surrender of its concession at any time and the Minister is
the
obliged to act reasonably. Where access to the Land or a
significant portion of it is rendered unusable the Concessionaire
can apply for a surrender.
PTL wants to amend clause 16.4 to require the Grantor to repair
to a standard which is the same or bet er. Currently the drafting
under
says the repair must be to a standard which is reasonably
adequate for the Concessionaire's use. The amendment would
place a higher burden on the Grantor and may result in
Clause 16.4 - repair
significant cost increases that are not anticipated. Clause 16.3
and reinstatement of
provides that the Grantor need not spend more than insurance
Grantor’s structures
wil pay but that presumes the Grantor has insurance for the
to the same or better
items. That is not likely to be the case in this location.
standard
Accordingly, it may be important to limit the repairs.
Released
Response - Recommended that the change is declined, as this
is a standard clause in concession. We note the Department is
not currently providing structures that the Concessionaire wil
be using.
Clause 18 – temporary PTL sought to delete the suspension provisions and replace
suspension of
them with provisions from the RAL concession. RAL’s
93
Concession Activity
provisions only address temporary suspensions where there
by the Grantor
has been a breach (or an investigation of a breach).
Response - Given the dynamic environment, it is reasonable to
continue to provide scope for the Minister to interrupt PTL’s
activities where there are temporary threats to safety or the
environment. Clause 18.1 should therefore remain.
The amended clauses that PTL proposes to address the
Grantor's right to suspend if there has been a breach of the
concession are significantly more limited than the drafting
provided in the proposed concession. Suspension could only
occur, on PTL’s drafting, if there were more than minor adverse Act
effects. In some cases, the Grantor may wish to suspend for
incidental breaches (such as a failure to furnish activity returns
or to provide information about numbers of visitors). It is
recommended that the broader provisions in clauses 18.4 and
18.5 be left as they are. In addition, a new Special Condition
has been added to specifically (and unequivocal y) allow the
Minister to suspend access and require evacuation where
volcanic activity threatens public safety. This clause (which is
now standard for this region) was developed in response to
experiences following Whakāri/White Island.
Information
Where PTL has failed to pay an invoice for 10 working days, the
Grantor can serve a notice terminating the concession. The
Clause 19.1 Period
concession would terminate 14 days after the notice is served.
within which Grantor
PTL seeks that termination takes effect 28 days later rather
can terminate if
than 14. This amendment aligns with RAL’s concession.
rent/fees remain
Official
unpaid.
Response - The extended timeframe is reasonable in the
circumstances, given the significant infrastructure and
resourcing implications of a termination.
the
PTL wishes to delete clauses 19.1(b) and 19(c) and to replace
with a provision which would only permit the Grantor to
terminate where a breach results in more than minor adverse
effects. This would remove the Minister’s ability to terminate
Clause 19.1(b) -
where there are administrative failings which do not necessarily
under
terminating for
manifest and “adverse effects” on the land (for instance, failures
breaches
to furnish the Statement of Gross Annual Revenue, or to
provide the list of contractors, or undertake the Ecological
Assessment or produce the Environmental Plan).
Response - That the drafting ought to remain as per the
template.
PTL seeks removal of clause 19.1(h) and 19.1(i) in their
entirety. This would largely eliminate the Grantor’s ability to
Released
Clause 19.1(f) -
terminate even where there are significant impacts to the
terminating where
environment or public safety.
there is a permanent
risk to public safety or Response - It is the Department’s position that scope to
resources
manage public land responsibly requires the Grantor to retain
the ability to terminate activities where they have significant
negative impacts on the public or public land. The vulnerability
of the area to natural disasters and changing environmental
94
conditions means it is appropriate for the Minister to take action
to prevent harm. The drafting ought to remain.
This is a standard condition.
PTL seeks a minor amendment to clause 22.1 to align it with
RAL’s concession. PTL seeks to add words “.. and/or any rights
granted by this Concession”. That likely expands the situations
where the MOC could not grant a new concession to a third
party. If PTL argued that one of its rights is to charge a
Clause 22.1 - other
reasonable price for its food and beverages then a competitor
concessions
might be seen to undermine that “right” and the MOC might be Act
prevailed upon to decline the third party’s request.
Response – The change may introduce additional scope of
argument that PTL’s “rights” are infringed by a competing
concessionaire in relation to the Licence area, in particular.
Given the uncertainty, it is preferable to resist the change.
PTL does not want to pay DOC’s legal fees for processing the
concession. PTL say it is unfair because the company
anticipated getting an assignment and not being required to
seek a standalone concession.
Information
Response - PTL has been advised by Department staff that
they are required to pay processing fees, including solicitor
fees. However, a partial waiver is likely to be considered.
Clause 27 – Payment
Accordingly, the figure that wil be inserted to Item 20 of
of costs
Schedule 1 wil (likely) reflect a reduction. It is therefore
unnecessary to amend this clause for the purposes of current
Official
processing fees and it would be undesirable to prevent
solicitor’s fees being charged in the future if variations are
sought. The Crown is entitled to be reimbursed for such
expenses.
the
At the time PTL made their application, it was aware a new
concession would be processed, and it would be responsible for
processing costs.
Special Conditions under
PTL seeks to amend the list of activities permitted under the
concession in the following ways:
• It wants to be able to sell tickets and to operate the ski
lifts so they can be used year-round, rather than just
during winter.
Concession Activities
• It wishes to use helicopters and drones or other aircraft
defined
to support activities such as search and rescue.
Released • It wants to be able to use drones (but not other types of
aircraft) for filming.
• It wants to host events year-round, rather than just
winter-related events during winter months.
Response - Year-round lift ticket sales
95
• Year-round activities (such as summer sight-seeing)
were not applied for and the public were not put on
notice that such activities would be considered. There is
no substantial information to explain the effects of such
activities and they represent a departure from activities
previously undertaken at Tūroa by RAL. However, the
Department acknowledges that the winter activities
provided for under RAL’s concession did intermit ently
occur up to 30 November (if weather conditions were
favourable). However, summer sight-seeing at Turoa did
not take place. It is therefore the Department’s view that Act
sale of tickets for ski/snow-related use is permissible
between 1 June and 30 November and the clause is
amended accordingly. On the other hand, year-round
sale of tickets (which would enable summer activities) is
to be declined. The Concessionaire may wish to apply
separately or by way of a variation for additional
summer activities, noting that summer activities which
use winter infrastructure is generally supported by
Section 5.2.15 of the current Tongariro National Park
Management Plan.
• The concession as currently drafted does allow PTL to
Information
use their food and beverage, and other retail, facilities
year round.
Use of drones to support H&S, etc.
• District Of ice staff support the use of aircraft (such as
drones) in addition to helicopters where that use is
connected to H&S, S&R avalanche management and
Official
medical emergencies. The condition can therefore be
amended.
Use of drones to do promotional filming
the
• Use of aircraft (including drones) to undertake filming is
contrary to the current Tongariro National Park
Management Plan. The request should be declined.
PTL’s request to amend special condition 56 (use of
drones for filming) should also be declined.
Year-round events
under
• The District Of ice advises that the application was
loosely drafted and could (arguably) be interpreted as
including events. However, no specific information about
the nature of events, their duration, or their effects was
provided. Winter sport events were undertaken by RAL
and the effects are therefore understood. The current
TNPMP also applies dif erent rules or “prohibitions” to
certain classes of activity (e.g. weddings, car club
Released
meets, photography of the peaks, running events). The
Of ice therefore recommended that the request is
declined. A variation or standalone application could be
lodged in which the classes and effects of the activities
are addressed, and appropriate conditions can be
imposed. Accordingly, changes sought by PTL to
Special Conditions 53 and 54 ought to be declined also.
96
Signage: The draft concession presented to PTL contained a
revised clause regarding signage. The revised clause was more
permissive than the template. However, following discussions
with Operational staff it was considered that the template is
more appropriate. Significant issues have arisen in the past
regarding inappropriate, cumbersome signage and the
Department takes the view that it is preferable to maintain
tighter control. Accordingly, the template condition has been
retained (12.1) and the Special Condition 44 has been struck
through.
Clarry’s Track – the version of the concession that was shared Act
with PTL prevented it maintaining a vehicle access way which
doubles as a ski trail. Subsequent interactions with the
Operations staff have resulted in this being relaxed. Routine
maintenance is permit ed but development of upgrades wil
require approval.
PTL requested that the first sentence be removed. The first
sentence provided: “The Concessionaire may impose a
reasonable charge on people using or purchasing its goods,
services and facilities...”
Special Condition 8 -
Information
Public use of Services Response - It is recommended the request be declined.
and facilities
Special Condition 8 reflects the expectations of section 49(5) of
the National Parks Act 1980 which stipulates that, subject to a
concession, the Concessionaire can only impose “reasonable
charges” for “access to or use of their structures, site or places
or the carrying on or products of the activity”.
Official
PTL has sought changes to the clause to require the Grantor to
meet the costs of fencing and preventing access to the Nga Wai
Heke lift. the
Response - The Nga Wai Heke lift is scheduled to be removed
by the Department. However, for so long as it remains in situ,
Special Condition 9 – the Concessionaire ought to provide barriers, signage or other
Public access and
methods of preventing the public entering the area currently
safety, including at
occupied by the lift. According to the District Of ice, were it not
under
Nga Wai Heke Lift
for the operation of the High Noon Lift affording access to the
Eastern Terrain, few people would be able to access the Nga
Wai Heke lift at all. Accordingly, the obligation to protect people
from it should rest with the concessionaire since public access
largely depends on the concessionaire’s operations.
We wil discuss further whether there is a compromise for both
parties to share costs.
PTL suggested adding a definition to capture the surplus
Released
Special Condition 16 – improvements so they can be readily referred to in subsequent
defining surplus
clauses.
improvements
Response - Accept the amendment.
Special Condition 39 – PTL argues that snowmaking is critical to its operations and
Snow making and
needs to be permitted. Also, that Snowmax should be approved
snow grooming
now. Risk to DOC is a gradual expansion of snowmaking in
97
terms of physical extent and extension of the months when
snow is applied (thereby extending the winter season) - could
result in year-round snowmaking in some locations.
Response – The advice from the Director of Operations for the
area is that all snow making products ought to be approved.
This is a matter of particular sensitivity to iwi. We also
recommend including the following conditions to better manage
snow making activities:
• Man-made snow can’t be applied except during the
winter season (1 June to 30 November) unless the
Grantor gives prior approval.
Act
• all water used for the snow machines comes from the
Mangawhero catchment and the snow is placed to
ensure it only goes back into the same catchment
Amendments have been made to special conditions 39 and 40
to reflect the above.
PTL sought changes to ensure that the Year 3 Review cannot
lead to unilateral changes to their concession conditions.
Response - The Department agreed that unilateral changes to
conditions as a result of the Year 3 Review would mean the
Information
operations would result in an unacceptable level of operating
and commercial uncertainty. Special Condition 110 has
therefore been removed. As a result, changes can only be
imposed on PTL without its agreement if the criteria in
17ZC(3)(a) or (b) exist. That is, the changes to the conditions
are needed
Official
• to address significant adverse ef ects that were not
reasonably foreseeable when the concession was
granted; or
the
Special Conditions 72
• to remedy a problem created by an error in the
to 86 – Year 3 Review
concessionaire’s application.
PTL sought a cap on the fees for the Year 3 Review.
Response - Regarding the fee cap, changes have been made
to the document to create a cap on all fees which fall into the
under
“Administrative Fees” category. The cap is Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
(plus GST) for the first 3 years and applies to the following: the
Environmental Monitoring Contribution (if any) (Item 7); Fees
associated with the Year-3 Review and fees associated with the
Cultural Impact Assessment; and fees associated with the
Cultural Monitoring Plan.
The Concession Management and Monitoring Fee Sec 9(2)(b)(ii)
in the first 3 years) is provided for within the class of
“Concession Fee”. Similarly, the Concession Fee also includes
Released the concession activity fee which is based on a percentage of
Gross Annual Revenue.
Special Conditions
PTL has sought a cap on the costs of the cultural monitoring
99-107 Cultural
plan (and its implementation). This is one component of the
Monitoring Plan
fees collectively referred to in the document as the
“Administrative Fees”.
98
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
We extended the timeframe for Ngāti Rangi, and other iwi, to
comment on the draft concession document by an additional 1.5
working days. We acknowledge this remains a short timeframe to
provide feedback.
The opportunity to provide feedback on the draft concession
document should be contextualised within the wider engagement
we have undertaken with Ngāti Rangi on matters relating to RAL
since October 2022, and specifically since we received the
concession application.
Ultimately, while we acknowledge our timeframes for engagement
at the end of the process have been short, we are constrained by
external timeframes. Conditions relating to the three-year review, Act
cultural monitoring, and the Cultural Impact Assessment are
ntended to ensure there are ongoing opportunities for iwi to
consider how the activity is being undertaken and have been under
discussion for several months. Further analysis on this matter is
ncluded in the decision report.
Clarity that any
Response: We note the concession document does not specifically
condition that refers ist which Iwi/Hapū are deemed to be the relevant ‘Treaty Partner’
to ‘Treaty Partner’ or or ‘Iwi/Hapū’. We do not consider we need to list each Iwi/Hapū that
‘Iwi/Hapū’ applies to qualify as ‘Treaty Partner’ or ‘Iwi/Hapū’ in the concession
Ngāti Rangi
document. However, we give reassurances that not listing the
Information
specific Iwi/Hapū in the concession document does not remove our
statutory responsibilities to identify and engagement with relevant
wi/Hapū during the operation of this concession.
Changes have been made to ensure that references to Māori
groups is consistent. The phrase “Treaty Partners” or “relevant
Treaty Partners” is therefore applied throughout the document in
preference to “tangata whenua”, or “iwi and hapū”.
Official
We have noted in the recitals of the concession iwi and hapū with a
strong connection to the Maunga.
Clarity the concession Response: This request is likely born of confusion regarding the
the
does not exempt the effect of section 17P of the Conservation Act. The purpose of s17P
Concessionaire from s to simply make it clear that leases granted by the Minister of
requiring the
Conservation in respect of public conservation land do not amount
necessary resource to subdivisions. Were it not for this section, long-term leases would
consents required
trigger the need for subdivision consents. It is recommended that
under the Resource no change is made to the concession. Assuming the concern from
under
Management Act
Ngāti Rangi is that the Concessionaire complies with the RMA the
1991
answer is that clause 15 of Schedule 2 requires the Concessionaire
to comply with all relevant laws affecting the concession activity.
The RMA is but one of those.
Request to see copy Response: Pest management strategies, for the purposes of
of Pest Management clause 9, are strategies produced under the Biosecurity Act. They
Plan (Schedule 2 –
are publicly available. Iwi engagement in the production or review
Clause 9)
of national or regional pest management strategies sits outside the
scope of the concession process. Accordingly, no change is
Released required to clause 9. The Department recognises that iwi may be
nterested to understand the content of those documents,
however.
Concessionaire to
Response: We are supportive of the proposed amendments that
obtain views of
any such advertising or promotional materials utilised by the
Iwi/Hapū in
Concessionaire obtain the views of tangata whenua.
development of
100
advertising or
We also note an additional clause in Schedule 3 (Special Condition
promotional materials 44 and 45) that highlights the Concessionaire must consult with
(Schedule 2 – Clause wi/Hapū in for any interpretation materials.
12)
Signage
44. Clause 12.1 of Schedule 2 is deleted and amended to read:
“12.1 The Concessionaire may, without the Grantor’s prior approval,
erect or display signs or advertising on authorised structures on
the Lease Land and, upon the Licence Land, may erect or
Act
display signs that but only those that relate to the safe and
efficient operation of the activity (and limited to temporary
events). At the expiry or termination of this Concession the
Concessionaire must remove all signs and advertising material
and make good any damage caused by the removal.”
Interpretation Materials and Cultural Values
45. If the Concessionaire intends to undertake or provide any
Information
written interpretation materials (panels, brochures, signage,
etc.) that include reference to Māori/iwi cultural values of the
area, then the Concessionaire is required to consult the relevant
Treaty Partner(s) in advance of producing the items.
Iwi/Hapū wil be
Support: We consider consultation is reasonable. We note
Official
consulted by the
consultation does not diminish or delegate the Grantor’s decision-
Grantor when various making powers to decide the outcome of these conditions.
conditions are
Ngāti Rangi are seeking they be consulted by the Grantor:
enacted and/or should
• on any additional consents granted to erect or alter
the
be enacted.
structures on the Land (Schedule 2 – Clause 11)
• on any changes to Annual Work Plan (Schedule 3 –
Clause 22)
• on snowmaking/use of snow-making equipment
(Schedule 3 – Clause 35)
under • on the use of explosives for avalanche management
(Schedule 3 – Clause 37 – 38)
• on the appointment of a person to undertake the
Cultural Impact Assessment (Schedule 3 – Clause 86)
• on the scope of the Environmental Monitoring Plan
(Schedule 3 – Clause 10)
Iwi/hapū be provided Response: This is a reasonable request. Providing a copy of the
the finalized
Environmental Plan does not diminish or delegate the Grantor’s
Environmental
decision-making powers nor does it place an onerous burden on
Released
Monitoring Plan for the Concessionaire.
review (Schedule 3 –
Clause 67)
Special Condition 71, Schedule 3 now reads:
Within 12 months of the Ecological Assessment being completed,
the Concessionaire (at its expense) must provide the Grantor with
an environmental plan (Environmental Plan). This Environmental
Plan will describe what steps the Concessionaire proposes to
101
employ in order to protect sensitive areas identified by the
Ecological Assessment, keep the land free of weeds, control invasive
animal species and monitor the efficacy of the protective measures
proposed. The Grantor may share the Environmental Plan with
relevant Treaty Partners.
Iwi/Hapū be
Response: The concession is drafted to enable the Grantor to seek
reimbursed for
reimbursement from the Concessionaire for the Grantor’s costs
engagement in the
ncurred in producing the Cultural Impact Assessment (refer Special
Cultural Impact
Con 92). Where the Grantor determines that it is appropriate to
Assessment
ncur costs associated with engaging with Treaty Partners (or
(Schedule 3 – Clause appoints a Treaty Partner to produce the review) the Grantor may
88)
do so, and those fees can be reimbursed by the Concessionaire so
Act
ong as the Administrative Fees Cap is honoured. That noted, it
would place an unknowable (and potentially unreasonable) burden
upon the Concessionaire if it was required to directly reimburse
Treaty Partners for any costs they might incur to engage in
consulting on the Cultural Impact Assessment.
Iwi/Hapū decide if the Response: We cannot delegate or co-share the Grantor’s decision-
requirement for the making powers. We propose that, where possible, conditions be
Cultural Impact
amended to reflect that we wil engage with iwi/hapū (where
Assessment is waived reasonable) on to decision to waive the need for a Cultural Impact
(Schedule 3 – Clause Assessment, but final decision-making sits with the Grantor.
Information
93)
A critical concern for Response: We have accepted the accounting liability for the
Ngāti Rangi in our
removal of infrastructure. A commitment to remove surplus
engagement over
nfrastructure was made under the previous Government. We
voluntary
recommend you seek commitment from Cabinet before
administration of
commenting on this matter.
Ruapehu Alpine Lifts
Official
was that appropriate
remediation was
provided on
the
termination of the
concession
arrangement. At that
time, the Crown
committed to doing
so. We ask that, given
under
this commitment falls
outside of matters to
be covered in the
concession
document, the
Department confirms
the Crown’s
commitment to
remediate the land
Released
should the structures
become surplus to
requirements.
It appears that Ngāti Response: We are not varying the Whakapapa concession at this
Rangi has only been time to incorporate any edits.
provided with the
Tūroa Ski Area
102
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
• Deciding when structures can be erected,
altered, or removed on site (Schedule 2 Clause
11).
• Deciding how contaminants on the Land are
managed (Schedule 3 Clause 18)
• Deciding the scope of the Environmental
Monitoring Plan (Schedule 2 Clause 10).
• Deciding if a Cultural Impact Assessment is
not required (Schedule 3 Clause 93).
• Deciding if explosives can be used to
manage Avalanches (Schedule 3 Clause 37).
The Minister cannot delegate or co-share the Ministers Act
powers or functions. That noted, conditions have been
amended to identify explicit situations where Treaty
Partners wil be consulted prior to decisions being made by
the Minister.
Iwi/hapū receive costs for any Response: In line with the above, iwi/hapū have requested
decision-making undertaken they receive final compensation/payment when deciding
(Schedule 2 Clause 8 and
whether a condition has been complied with or should be
Clause 10, Schedule 3 Clause complied with.
1(c)).
The Minister cannot delegate or co-share powers.
Accordingly, amendments intended to recompense
Information
wi/hapū for decision making are not appropriate. There is
however some scope for the Grantor requiring the
Concessionaire to reimburse the Grantor if the Grantor
ncurs iwi-related expenses. It is notable though that the
concession does not require the concessionaire to make
any direct payments to iwi. It is considered inappropriate to
mpose such an obligation particularly where the scale and
Official
duration of engagement with iwi is unknown.
The concession is drafted to enable the Grantor to seek
reimbursement from the Concessionaire for the Grantor’s
the
costs incurred in producing the Cultural Impact
Assessment (refer Special Condition 92). Where the
Grantor determines that it is appropriate to incur costs
associated with engaging with Treaty Partners (or appoints
a Treaty Partner to produce the review) the Grantor may
do so, and those fees can be reimbursed by the
under Concessionaire so long as the Administrative Fees Cap is
honoured. That noted, it would place an unknowable (and
potentially unreasonable) burden upon the Concessionaire
f it was required to directly reimburse Treaty Partners for
any costs they might incur to engage in consulting on the
Cultural Impact Assessment.
Advertising and promotional Response: The Department draws attention to the
materials used by the
following clauses which address Māori cultural values and
Concessionaire must have
the Concessionaire's reference to them:
Released
regard to the views of iwi
Clause 12, Schedule 2 – encourages the Concessionaire
/hapū (Schedule 2 – Clause
to seek iwi input when producing advertising material;
12)
Clause 12.4, Schedule 2 reads:
104
12.4
The Concessionaire is encouraged to obtain
information from and have regard to the views of relevant
Treaty Partners.
Special Condition 45, Schedule 3 – requires the
Concessionaire to consult with relevant Treaty Partners if it
ntends to refer to Māori/iwi values about the area in its
written materials.
Special Condition 45, Schedule 3 reads:
Act
If the Concessionaire intends to undertake or provide any
written interpretation materials (panels, brochures,
signage, etc.) that include reference to Māori/iwi cultural
values of the area, then the Concessionaire is required to
consult the relevant Treaty Partner(s) in advance of
producing the items.
Special Condition 55, Schedule 3 – encourages the
Concessionaire to consult iwi or hapū prior to producing
any film products if Māori cultural values are referred to in
the film.
Information
Special Condition 55, Schedule 3 reads:
Promotional filming by the Concessionaire (including its
agents and contractors) is allowed to the extent that it is for
the purpose of promoting the activities which the
Concessionaire is permitted to undertake under this
Official
Concession. Where reference is made to Iwi or Māori
cultural values regarding the Land in the film product the
Concessionaire is encouraged to consult with the relevant
the
Treaty Partners prior to producing the film product. For the
avoidance of doubt, this Concession does not permit filming
or photographing activities for the purpose of creating a
purchasable product (such as a photograph or video pack).
The Grantor’s prior approval for any other filming such as
marketing or commercial filming by, and for, any third
under parties is required separately (e.g. ski equipment brands,
advertisements or television shows).
The Concessionaire informs Response: The purpose of requiring a Health and Safety
iwi/ hapū of any Health and
plan and informing the Department where natural disasters
Safety issues during the
are encountered is to enable the Department, as land
Concession (Schedule 2 –
manager, to take steps to protect the public. Notifying
Clause 14)
wi/hapū as wel is likely to create an unnecessary
administrative burden and it is difficult to see how the
condition would meaningfully address the effects of the
Released
concession activity.
The Department wil inform iwi/hapū of such events, as
reflects existing protocols/ways of working in the Tongariro
area. As this is part of our relationship with iwi/hapū, it
should not be reflected in the concession.
Repercussions for the
Response: Ngāti Haua have not proposed an amendment
Concessionaire if they bring to the contract, only sought clarification whether there are
105
dangerous/hazardous
penalties for the Concessionaire breaching this
materials onto the Land
concession.
(Schedule 2 - Clause 14.6(j)) Attention is directed to clause 9.3, 14.6(j) and
15.1(b). Failure to comply with conditions may result in
termination or suspension of the concession.
Request the concession be
Response: Ngāti Haua have proposed a number of
carried out “in a manner
amendments stating that the concession activity must be
consistent with the
undertaken/the concessionaire must comply with the
Conservation Act 1987, Treaty Conservation Act 1987 and Treaty Settlement legislation,
Settlement legislation, and
as wel as Deeds of Settlement and Agreements in
tikanga and kawa”, and if this Principle and tikanga and kawa.
Act
does not occur, the
The Department’s position is that the concession
concession be suspended or document already requires the Concessionaire to comply
terminated.
with legislation to the extent that the law controls its
activities or use of the land. The Settlement Acts (be they
current or future) are captured by that default provision.
ndeed, the Concessionaire would be obliged to comply
with any pertinent legislation even if the concession was
silent on the matter. That noted, it is dif icult to see what
aspects of the existing Settlement Acts do apply directly to
a Concessionaire and it would be inappropriate to transmit
duties held by the Crown to a private entity. In addition, the
Information
Concessionaire cannot reasonably be required to comply
with Agreements in Principle nor Deeds of Settlement
which are not themselves legislation since those
documents do not operate as law.
Furthermore, the concession document makes clear it is
governed by New Zealand Law. Tikanga and kawa can be
part of the law but when and how is context dependent.
Official
Requiring a Concessionaire, the Minister and the
Department to comply (at all times) with tikanga and kawa
may amount to a power of veto and could result in a level
the
of commercial and operational uncertainty that is unlikely
to be workable for the Applicant. There would also be
questions as to how Ngāti Haua’s tikanga interacts with
other iwi/hapū.
The Land be returned to its
Response: Iwi/hapū have requested that when specific
‘original state’ if specific
actions are undertaken (such as the removal of structures)
under
conditions are enacted
the Land be returned to its ‘original state’.
(Schedule 2 Clause 9).
Adequate provision is made to reinstatement of the land
via clause 9.7 and special condition 16 and special
condition 113 (which supplants clause 20 of Schedule 2).
Special Condition 16
Further and in addition to clause 9.7 of Schedule 2, if,
during the Term, any structures on the Land are materially
underutilised, defunct or surplus to the Concessionaire’s
Released
needs (Surplus Improvements ) (other than by reason that
the skifield is temporarily unable to operate due to weather
or snow conditions beyond the Concessionaire’s control):
(a)
the Concessionaire must immediately notify the
Grantor; and
(b)
if required by the Grantor, the Concessionaire must:
106
i.
promptly remove the structures Surplus
Improvements, make good any damage to the Land and
leave the Land and any other public conservation land
affected by the removal, in a clean and tidy condition; and
ii.
replant the areas affected by the removal with
indigenous vegetation of the same types, abundance and
diversity as found generally on the Land.
For the purposes of this Special Condition, structures
include, but are not limited to, buildings, signage. , fences,
services, facilities, utilities, underground services, plant,
equipment or similar installed by the Concessionaire during
Act
the Term and/or pre-existing structures referred to in
Special Condition 13 above but excluding the structures
referred to in Special Condition 14(a) and (b) above (other
concessionaires’ structures and the Ngā Wai Heke lift).
Special Condition 11, In order to comply with its
obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
to eliminate or minimise risks to health and safety so far as
is reasonably practicable, the Concessionaire may, when
Information
undertaking activities such as slope safety, car park, snow
grooming and avalanche control work, control, limit or
restrict public access to the specific area of the Land where
the activity is to be carried out for a period not exceeding 2
days.
Stylistic changes regarding Response: There are multiple requests to change the flow
order of clauses / structure of or structure of the document.
Official We are satisfied that the
document
content and framing of the document is understood by the
Applicant. Further amendments are likely to confuse
matters.
the
Stylistic changes regarding Response: Ngāti Haua have identified there are various
clarity on ‘key terms’ or scope conditions which talk about
“maintaining” and
“repairing”
of conditions (Schedule 3
structures on the Land (during the operation of the
Clause 1, Clause 13, Clause Concession). There are concerns these terms are
19, Clause 31)
ambiguous about such activities would result in the
Con
under cessionaire needing additional consents or approvals
from the Grantor (such as an Approved Works Plan).
We consider the proposed conditions are reasonable and
note there are conditions in Schedule 2 and 3 that set out
when separate approvals (outside of the
Concession/authorised concession activity) are required.
Moreover, the Annual Works Plan process wil alert the
Department to any proposals which may fall beyond the
scope of the current concession and therefore require
formal approval.
Released
Definition of what constitutes Response: Ngāti Haua have identified various conditions
as ‘Legislation’ or ‘Acts’.
which talk about the concession and/or Concessionaire
complying with
“Legislation” and “
Acts”. These terms are
used interchangeably; sometimes there is the specific
isting of legislation (such as the Conservation Act 1987 or
the National Parks Act 1990).
107
Ngāti Haua have requested any conditions that refer to
“legislation” or
“Acts” list the relevant legislation, including
Treaty Settlements, Deed of Settlement, and Agreements
n Principle.
The Department does not support this request, noting a
breath of legislation is applicable to the concession and it
would be cumbersome to list all legislation in such detail.
Moreover, for reasons noted above, it is inappropriate to
devolve Crown obligations under settlement legislation to
private entities.
Confirmation the concession Response: The contract (per Schedule 1 Item 3 – Item 5) Act
term is 10 years, and there is clearly states when the concession commences, when it
no right of renewal for the
ends, and that there is no right of renewal.
concession
Remove Concession Fee
Response: The Department does not accept the
Review Dates (Schedule 1 -
recommendation to remove fee review dates on the basis
Item 13)
the concession
might be terminated.
The Conservation Act requires that concession fees be
reviewed at least every three years. It is therefore
appropriate to set dates which align with that requirement
throughout the life of concession.
State which iwi and hapū have Response: The concession document does not
Information
interests in the Land and/or specifically list which Iwi/Hapū are deemed to be the
should be consulted with
relevant ‘Treaty Partner’ or ‘Iwi/Hapū’. We do not consider
(Schedule 2)
we need to list each Iwi/Hapū that qualify as ‘Treaty
Partner’ or ‘Iwi/Hapū’ in the concession document. Indeed,
new Treaty Partners may emerge during the life of the
concession as a result of Treaty Settlements.
Not listing the specific Iwi/Hapū in the concession
Official
document does not remove our statutory responsibilities to
dentify and engagement with relevant iwi/hapū during the
operation of this concession.
the
Reassurance any consents
Response: We consider there are multiple conditions that
granted under the Concession outline the Grantor’s requirements for granting any
wil be compliant with Treaty consents under this concession. As part of the decision-
Settlement obligations
making process the Grantor wil need to ensure any
(Schedule 2 - Clause 1)
consents are consistent with the Conservation Act 1987 as
well as other legislative requirements (inc. Treaty
under Settlements).
Ability of iwi/hapū to enter and Response: It is the Grantor’s responsibility to enforce and
inspect the Land (for various monitor the terms of the concession. It is inappropriate to
purposes, including
devolve (or attempt to devolve) the power of enforcement
monitoring of the
to a third party. The Department does support there being
Concession), at all (Schedule scope for iwi members to support the Department cultural
2 - Clause 3.2)
monitoring activities. Such contracting arrangements wil
however be carefully scoped, and the roles defined. Refer
to Special Conditions 99 to 107.
Released
An Environmental Monitoring Response: Within the first 12 months the Concessionaire
Plan and Environmental
s required to produce an Ecological Assessment and,
Monitoring is mandatory
within 2 years, an Environmental Plan (Special Conditions
(Schedule 2 - Clause 10)
64 to 71). In addition, the Grantor retains the ability to
require environmental monitoring to be done either by the
Concessionaire or by the Department with reimbursement
by the Concessionaire. The Department considers that is
108
sufficient to provide ongoing assessment of impacts during
the term.
Clarity on what is terminated if Response: The Department’s position is that the context
the Grantor’s
n which “terminate” is used throughout Clause 16 means it
structures/facilities are
s self-evident that it refers to termination of the
damaged (Schedule 2 –
Concession. No further amendments are required.
Clause 16)
Various concerns about when Response: Special Condition 113 replaces the standard
the Concession is terminated condition 20. The Department's position is that concerns
or expires (Schedule 2 –
raised by Ngāti Haua in relation to Clause 20 are properly
Clause 20)
addressed via the replacement.
Act
Request that Tūnuake of Te Response: The power of appointment is appropriate in the
Hunga Roia Māori/the Māori circumstances. The New Zealand Law Society is
Law Society appoint any
ndependent of the Department and is the national
dispute arbitrator instead of regulator of the legal profession in New Zealand.
the President of the New
Zealand Law Society
(Schedule 2 – Clause 23)
The Concessionaire not have Response: The Concession would (if granted) give the
exclusive or priority rights
Concessionaire exclusive occupation rights in respect of
over any provided in current the Lease Land and the right to undertake operations on
or future Treaty Settlements the Licence Land. Granting those rights, provided the tests
Information
(Schedule 2 – Clause 29)
n the National Parks Act and the Conservation Act are
met, is within the Grantor’s power. Ngāti Haua’s suggested
changes to clause 29 would render those rights uncertain.
f those rights are to be removed or altered the appropriate
mechanism is via specific Treaty Settlement Legislation.
Removal of
Response: There is no guarantee required. Removing the
Guarantee/Guarantor
clause however is not necessary and would have flow-on
Official
(Schedule 2 – Clause 30)
consequences for the remainder of the document.
Co-Siting (Schedule 2 –
Response: Ngāti Haua seeks a right of veto in respect of
Clause 31)
the ability to approve co-siting. The Department’s position
the
s that devolving or deferring the Grantor’s statutory
functions is not appropriate. Other changes requested are
not considered necessary or appropriate.
Registering the Concession Response: Ngāti Haua seeks a right of veto in respect of
under the Land Transfer Act the ability to register the Concession under the Land
under
1952 (Schedule 2 – Clause 33) Transfer Act 1952. The Department’s position is that
devolving or deferring the Grantor’s statutory functions is
not appropriate. Other changes requested are not
considered necessary or appropriate.
Seeking clarity about the
Response: The proposed condition outlines an
carrying capacity of the
expectation that PTL wil ensure its facilities can serve
up
Activity (Schedule 3 – Clause to 5500 persons per day. This is to ensure that adequate
1, and Schedule 3 – Clause 4) facilities are (and continue to be) available to visitors as
compared with those provided by RAL. The condition does
Released
not however set a cap on visitor numbers and nor does it
require the Concessionaire to provide facilities for more
than that number. The Concessionaire, in any event, has
imited capacity to control all access to the Land since the
public can come and go. If the Concessionaire wishes to
ncrease the number of structures or to upgrade them to
accommodate a larger number of visitors than the current
facilities can accommodate it wil require a variation. The
109
potential impact on visitor numbers can then be assessed
and the application declined, or suitable controls imposed
n the event that the impacts of additional capacity is
undesirable.
The current TNPMP anticipates skier numbers of 5500
stating that this is the “comfortable carrying capacity” (page
202). The description of the concession activity in Special
Condition 1(a) includes a limitation of operating the lifts to
a capacity of 5500 visitors per day, noting that not all
people using the facilities are “skiers”.
Seeking amendments to
Response: The Department considers that Special
Act
require snow making and
Conditions 39 and 40 suitably address the impacts of snow
snow grooming to be
making and snow grooming.
performed according to
tikanga (Schedule 3 – Special
Condition 1(e))
New Special Condition 3 –
Response: An amendment is recommended to Special
Grantor to determine whether Condition 1 to enable the Grantor to determine whether an
activities are within the scope activity is or is not captured within the definition of
of the Concession with
“Concession Activity”. However, the Department does not
reference to s4.
consider it appropriate to refer to section 4 of the
Conservation Act and Treaty Settlements for this purpose.
Information
Cultural Induction of al
Response: The Department considers this unworkable
persons entering the Land for and inappropriate: it is not reasonable for the
the purposes of participating Concessionaire to culturally induct all visitors to the Ski
in the concession activity
Field, noting the Land receives over 5000+ visitors each
(Schedule 3 – Clause 13)
day.
As noted elsewhere, to the extent that cultural values are
described in written, or film materials produced by the
Official
Concessionaire iwi/hapū engagement is encouraged or
required. It is the Department’s position that this approach
strikes the appropriate balance without mandating
the
processes that curtail freedoms of the Concessionaire and
visitors or interfere unduly with day-to-day operations.
Concern about
Response: It is not clear what concern is being raised in
Concessionaire’s access to relation to this condition. The Special Condition simply
the Redundant Infrastructure requires the Concessionaire to remove (and pay for)
Fund (Schedule 3 – Clause
nfrastructure that becomes surplus to its requirements
under
16)
during the life of the Concession.
Concessionaire to pay costs Response: Clauses 30 and 31 require the Concessionaire
to rectify any leakage of
to take responsibility for remediation/clean-up in the event
contaminants on the Land
of a spil of hazardous substances.
(Schedule 3 – Clause 18)
Iwi/Hapū to be involved in the Response: An opportunity to consult with affected Treaty
development of the Annual
Partners has been provided for in Special Condition 24
.
Work Plan (Schedule 3 –
Clause 21)
Released
Request that preference be
Response: This request places an inappropriate constraint
given to local contractors
on the contracting ability of the Concessionaire and is not
and/or Concessionaire invest directly connected to conservation matters.
in ‘upskil ing’ local
contractors (Schedule 3 –
Clause 26)
110
Iwi/Hapū to be engaged in the Response: The Ecological Assessment is clearly defined
Ecological Assessment
as being related to ecological matters. There is a separate
(Schedule 3 – Clause 60)
process for assessing cultural impacts. In the event that
there are any aspects of the assessment that may require
reference to iwi/hapū, the Grantor has an opportunity to do
so since Special Condition 60 requires the Concessionaire
to consult with the Grantor.
Set timeframe of when the
Response: Placing an arbitrary time limit on when the
scope of the Year 3 Review
scope of the report is to be finalised may present
(and what is considers) wil be difficulties for the Grantor, the Concessionaire and
confirmed to ensure Grantor, wi/hapū. It risks placing the Grantor in breach of the
Act
Concessionaire and iwi/hapū Concession for a technical non-observance. The Minister
all have clarity (Schedule 3 – must, as always act reasonably in the circumstances in
Clause 71)
any case.
Iwi/Hapū wil be consulted on Response: Special Condition 80 responds to this matter.
the Year 3 Review report prior
to its finalisation (Schedule 3 80. Prior to the report being finalised, the Grantor will
– Clause 76, Clause 77, and
consult with Treaty Partners on the report’s findings,
Clause 78)
and any recommendations made in the report.
Ambiguity about whether the Response: Special Condition 90 allows all relevant Treaty
Information
requirement for a cultural
Partners to be consulted prior to determining the final
impact assessment is
scope of the assessment.
required for each iwi/hapū
(Schedule 3 – Clause 83)
90.
The Grantor will determine the final scope of the
Cultural Impact Assessment after consulting with all
relevant Treaty Partners.
Official
Purpose of the Cultural Impact Response: the Special Conditions 89 and 91 are very
Assessment to include Treaty broad and comfortably accommodates issues around
Settlement Context (Schedule Treaty
Settlements where those are pertinent.
the
3 – Clause 85)
Clarity on the timeframe in
Response: Special Conditions 87 and 93 adequately
which the scope of the
address the timeframes for completion of the Cultural
Cultural Impact Assessment is mpact Assessment. Namely, in sufficient time for the Year
decided (Schedule 3 – Clause 3 Review.
86) and clarity on the
Special Condition 87
under
timeframe in which the
To support the Grantor with undertaking the Year 3
Cultural Impact Assessment Review, the Grantor will procure a cultural impact
must be completed (Schedule assessment of the activities authorised in this Concession
3 – Clause 86 and Clause 90) (Cultural Impact Assessment). The assessment may take
the form of a single document or may be done in parts.
93.
The Grantor will endeavour to complete the
Cultural Impact Assessment by in sufficient time for it to
Released
be used for the purposes of the Year 3 Review.
Iwi/hapū to decide the scope Response: Provision has been made to ensure that Treaty
of the Cultural Impact
Partner perspectives are taken account when determining
Assessment (Schedule 3 –
the scope of the assessment and in who wil carry out the
Clause 87)
assessment (refer Special Conditions 88 and 90). It may
not be possible for iwi to reach consensus on these
matters. The Grantor wil retain the power to determine
111
both matters since the purpose of the report is to inform
the Grantor of the cultural impacts of the concession
activity.
Special Condition 80
The Grantor may instruct Department of Conservation staff
or an independent third-party to prepare the Cultural Impact
Assessment on the Grantor’s behalf and will consult with
relevant Treaty Partners prior to making the determination.
Special Condition 90
90.
The Grantor will determine the final scope of the Act
Cultural Impact Assessment after consulting with all
relevant Treaty Partners.
Removes the requirement the Response: Production of the Assessment relies, to a large
Grantor notifies the
extent, on interactions with iwi/hapū. For reasons outside
Concessionaire and/or
the Grantor’s control, it may be dif icult or impossible to
iwi/hapū the Cultural Impact complete the report.
Assessment is not required
(Schedule 3 – Clause 95)
Specificity around the
Response: The Cultural Monitoring Plan is required within
purpose of the Environmental the first year. It is expected that the plan wil identify future-
Information
Monitoring Plan, and how it
ooking monitoring activities that the Department wil
incorporates cultural values undertake. It may be the case that cultural monitoring
(Schedule 3 – Clause 96 to
takes place under the wider rubric of Clause 10. That
Clause 104)
clause allows the Grantor to require the Concessionaire to
provide its own environmental monitoring plan or to pay for
monitoring that is performed by the Grantor’s
staff/contractors.
Official
Iwi/Hapū to be informed of any Response: The provisions (Special Condition 111) have
proposed amendments to the been amended to provide an opportunity for iwi to be
contract because of Climate nformed as/when revised conditions are proposed which
the
Change conditions, and for
would impact on the Concessionaire’s greenhouse gas
the Grantor to consider any emissions.
We consider this amendment reasonable. `
iwi/hapū comments before
111. Before amending the conditions of this Concession
any such amendments are
in accordance with Special Condition 110, the Grantor will
finalised (Schedule 3 – Clause provide the Concessionaire and relevant Treaty Partners the
108)
under draft Revised Conditions. The Concessionaire may provide
written comments on those draft Revised Conditions within
60 days. The Grantor must take into account any comments
received from the Concessionaire on the Revised
Conditions before finalising the Revised Conditions.
Concession must not be
Response: The proposed amendment to Special
assigned and/or issues with Condition 114 (now 117) is not required. The
third parties (Schedule 3 –
Concessionaire has the right to apply to assign the
Clause 114 and Clause 117) concession to another party, subject to the approval of the
Released
Grantor. Where appropriate, the Department wil engage
with iwi/hapū prior to making any such decision.
Iwi/Hapū to acquire shares
Response: It is appropriate to retain the ability to consider
(Schedule 3 – Clause 127)
shareholder changes which result in control of the
Concessionaire being altered. The implications of those
changes, and their impact on other iwi, cannot be known in
advance.
112
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
• Terrain Modification (Schedule 3 - Clause 31)
• Snowmaking/ Snowmaking equipment (Schedule 3
- Clause 35)
• Filming on the Land (Schedule 3 – Clause 51)
• Accidental Discovery Protocols (Schedule 3 -
Clause 59)
• Cultural Monitoring (Schedule 3 – Clause 96)
The Minister cannot delegate or co-share the Grantor’s decision-
making powers. That noted, amendments have been made to
dentify key opportunities where iwi/hapū input ought to be sought
prior to decisions being made by the Minister. Section 4 may
require (on a case-by-case basis) that iwi/hapū input is sought at Act
other times as well. However, the context and circumstances that
exist at the time wil need to be evaluated by the Grantor and, at
that point, a decision made as to whether engagement with Treaty
Partners is appropriate and, if so, how that engagement ought to
take place.
State which iwi and
Response: Defining, with precision, which iwi ought to have input
hapū have interests in (or not) is problematic as it may be context dependent. There is
the Land and/or should also a risk that the definition wil inadvertently exclude Treaty
be consulted with
Partners (for instance Post Settlement Governance Entities yet to
during the concession. be established). Accordingly, throughout the concession, where
Information
there is reference to “Treaty Partners” there is usual y also a
qualifier “relevant”. We have updated the Recitals in the
concession document to include iwi and hapū that have a strong
nterest in the Maunga.
I.
The Concessionaire and the Grantor acknowledge that the
following Māori entities have particular connection with the
Maunga: Ngāti Rangi, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Ngāti
Official
Tūwharetoa, Patutokotoko , Te Pou Tupua.
No recognition of
Response: During the decision-making process, the Grantor must
Treaty Settlement in
ensure the concession is consistent with the relevant statutory
the
the concession
provisions (including Treaty Settlement). We do not consider the
contract
concession must explicitly state what Treaty Settlements are
relevant to the concession, and whether these have been complied
with.
Ambiguity about cost Response: As noted in relation to Ngāti Haua’s feedback,
the
under
recovery of work
concession is drafted to enable the Grantor to seek
undertaken by Iwi/Hapū reimbursement from the Concessionaire for the Grantor’s costs
ncurred in producing the Cultural Impact Assessment (refer
Special Condition 92) and cultural monitoring. Where the Grantor
determines that it is appropriate to incur costs associated with
engaging with Treaty Partners (or appoints a Treaty Partner to
produce the review or to undertake the monitoring) the Grantor
may do so, and those fees can be reimbursed by the
Concessionaire so long as the Administrative Fees Cap is
Released honoured. That noted, it would place an unknowable (and
potentially unreasonable) burden upon the Concessionaire if it
was required to directly reimburse Treaty Partners for any costs
they might incur to engage in consulting on the Cultural Impact
Assessment or cultural monitoring.
Provide clause to
Response: It is not reasonable for the concession document to
protect use/
require Pure Tūroa Limited to amend its company name/trading
commercialisation of name. However, the Department draws attention to the following
114
Tūroa name, and that clauses which address Māori cultural values and the
use be at the sole
Concessionaire's reference to them:
discretion of the Tūroa Clause 12, Sch 2 – encourages the Concessionaire to seek iwi
whānau
nput when producing advertising material;
Special Condition 45 – requires the Concessionaire to consult with
relevant Treaty Partners if it intends to refer to Māori/iwi values
about the area in its written materials.
Special Condition 55 – encourages the Concessionaire to consult
wi or hapū prior to producing any film products if Māori cultural
values are referred to in the film.
t is the Department’s position that otherwise controlling the use of
a word which is in the public domain and describes the
Act
geographical location of the field is not appropriate nor
reasonable.
The Department encourages Pure Tūroa Limited and
Patutokotoko/the Tūroa whānau to reach an agreement about the
use of the name Tūroa.
The Concessionaire’s Response: The Department considers that mana whenua are not
quiet enjoyment of
unreasonably excluded from use of the skifield. In particular,
should not undermine Schedule 2 Clause 29 makes clear that:
rights and interests of “Nothing expressed or implied in this Concession is to be
mana whenua and park construed as ... affecting the rights of the Grantor and the public to
Information
users (Schedule 2 -
have access across the Licence Land.”
Clause 3)
n relation to the Leased areas, it would not be reasonable (and is
contrary to the very nature of a lease) to provide ongoing access
for third parties, including iwi/hapū to those limited zones. It is
acknowledged that if iwi/hapū wish to utilise the Concessionaire's
ifts or other services they wil be required to pay the
Concessionaire (if it seeks a payment). It is notable that Special
Official
Condition 8 permits the Concessionaire to only charge a
“reasonable” amount. Moreover, no standalone charge can be
made for use of the carpark without the Grantor’s approval. In this
the
way, continued public access to the area is maintained.
The term should
Response: There is no right of renewal. The term wil expire on
provide certainty in
31 March 2034. The only scope for extending the term is (a) the
relation to the ability of Grantor allowing the Concessionaire to remain at the end on a
Grantor and grantee to month-to-month tenancy; (b) the Concessionaire being permitted
negotiate future terms (under s17ZAA) to remain while it awaits the outcome of its
under
(Schedule 2 - Clause 4) request for a new concession; (c) the Applicant seeking to vary the
concession during the life of the current concession, in which case
the application would be dealt with as though it were seeking a
new concession.
Clarity on the quantum Response: The draft concession provided to iwi and hapū did not
of the concession fee contain details as to the fees structure. The fees structure wil be
and recovery of fee
clearly set out in the final concession document. However, where
(Schedule 2 - Clause 5) appropriate, commercial y sensitive information may be withheld.
Environmental
Response: Schedule 2 contains standard concession clauses.
Released
protection (including Where the specific features or constraints at Turoa require
monitoring) clauses in bespoke clauses these have been produced in the Schedule 3
Schedule 2 should
Special Conditions. The Special Conditions traverse an array of
reflect local operating matters unique to Turoa. It is the Department’s view that the
constraints and issues, standard clauses, coupled with the Special Conditions do address
including interests of the impacts of the concession activity.
iwi and hapū interests
115
(Schedule 2 - Clauses
9-10)
Advertising clauses
Response: The Department draws attention to the following
require stronger
clauses which address Māori cultural values and the
requirement for mana Concessionaire's reference to them:
whenua input
•
Clause 12, Schedule 2 – encourages the
(Schedule 2 - Clause
Concessionaire to seek iwi input when producing
12)
advertising material;
•
Special Condition 45, Schedule 3 – requires the
Concessionaire to consult with relevant Treaty Partners if it
intends to refer to Māori/iwi values about the area in its Act
written materials.
•
Special Condition 55, Schedule 3 – encourages the
Concessionaire to consult iwi or hapū prior to producing
any film products if Māori cultural values are referred to in
the film.
Failure to include a
Response: The Grantor has the discretion to decide if a
Surety/Bond (Schedule Surety/Bond is required for this concession. It is notable that the
2 – Clause 30)
Crown has undertaken to accept responsibility at the end of the
Term for pre-existing structures (RAL’s buildings and structures).
At this stage, PTL is not seeking permission to add or modify any
structures. As or when it does apply the Grantor can revisit
Information
matters and determine whether a bond, surety or other
reassurance is appropriate. In the interim, PTL is only obliged to
arrange for removal of structures that it ceases using during the
Term (the “Surplus Structures”). Under current circumstances it is
not considered necessary for a bond or surety to be imposed.
Exclusion of Ngā Wai Response: The Ngā Wai Heke lift is intentionally excluded from
Heke lift – its future
the list of items that the Concessionaire may use and maintain.
Official
(Schedule 3 - Clause 1) The Crown has accepted that responsibility for removal of the Ngā
Wai Heke lift resides with the Crown. (Special Conditions 1 and 9
refer). the
Seeking clarity about Response: The proposed special condition outlines an
the carrying capacity of expectation that PTL wil ensure that its facilities can serve
up to
the Activity (Schedule 3 5500 persons per day. This is to ensure that adequate facilities
– Clause 1, and
are (and continue to be) available to visitors as compared with
Schedule 3 – Clause 4) those provided by RAL. The special condition does not however
set a cap on visitor numbers and nor does it require the
under
Concessionaire to provide facilities for more than that number.
The Concessionaire, in any event, has limited capacity to control
all access to the Land since the public can come and go. If the
Concessionaire wishes to increase the number of structures or to
upgrade them to accommodate a larger number of visitors than
the current facilities can accommodate it wil require a variation.
The potential impact on visitor numbers can then be assessed and
the application declined or suitable controls imposed in the event
that the impacts of additional capacity is undesirable.
Released The current TNPMP anticipates skier numbers of 5500 stating that
this is the “comfortable carrying capacity” (page 202). The
description of the concession activity in Special Condition 1(a)
ncludes a limitation of operating the lifts and facilities to a capacity
of 5500 visitors per day, noting that not all people are “skiers”.
116
Control of wastewater Response: We consider the wastewater provisions are adequate
(Schedule 3 – Clause for the concession.
46)
Iwi/Hapū to be
Response: The ecological assessment special conditions are
consulted on the
appropriate given the nature and subject matter of the
Ecological Assessment nvestigation. The findings of the review wil be considered during
(Schedule 3 – Clause the Year 3-Review and there is opportunity for iwi/hapū to offer
60)
feedback at that time.
Iwi/Hapū wil be
Response: There is opportunity for Treaty Partners to provide
consulted on the Year 3 comment before the scope of the Year 3 Review is set and prior to
Review report prior to the Review being finalised. (Refer to special conditions 74 and 80.
Act
its finalisation
74.
Prior to undertaking the Year 3 Review, the Grantor will
(Schedule 3 – Clause consult with Treaty Partners on the scope of the review to identify
70)
any areas of concern or interest to them.
80.
Prior to the report being finalised, the Grantor will consult
with Treaty Partners on the report’s findings, and any
recommendations made in the report.
Iwi/hapū to decide the Response: The purpose of the Assessment is to inform the
scope of the Cultural Grantor on cultural matters that impact the concession. The
Impact Assessment
Grantor retains ultimate decision-making power in respect of the
Information
(Schedule 3 – Clause scope of the Cultural Impact Assessment however amendments to
83)
Special Condition 90 make it clear that the Grantor wil consult
with relevant Treaty Partners prior to finalising the scope.
90.
The Grantor will determine the final scope of the Cultural
Impact Assessment after consulting with all relevant Treaty
Partners.
Official
Climate Change
Response: The applicant has sought permission to continue
conditions limited in operating the existing facilities for the next 10 years. If
the
scope and should
adjustments to the number, location of facilities is required or
anticipate a future
changes to the types of use are thought necessary to
desire to develop
accommodate the impacts of climate change the Concessionaire
infrastructure higher wil need to seek approval. If, for instance, the Concessionaire felt
up (Schedule 3 –
t necessary to add a new lift because of retreating snowlines it
Clause 105)
would require a variation to the concession. It could not make
under
changes without the Grantor’s approval. That affords the Grantor a
further opportunity to consider any proposals that are designed to
respond to climate change. This is evident to, and understood by,
the Applicant. The Applicant has, nonetheless, decided to seek
approval to continue the activities previously undertaken by RAL.
On the other hand, if there are changes that are appropriate to
manage the concessionaire’s own GHG emissions for instance,
the current conditions provide scope for adjusting after consulting
with the Concessionaire.
Released
Ambiguity over
Response: As noted above, the Crown has undertaken to accept
Remediation of land
responsibility at the end of the Term for pre-existing structures
(Schedule 3 – Clause (RAL’s buildings and structures). The Applicant is not seeking
111)
permission to add or modify any structures. In the event that the
Applicant added new structures it would be responsible for their
removal and specific provisions (such as a bond or surety) may be
considered at that stage. If the Concessionaire ceases using
117
RAL’s structures during the term it is required to promptly remove
them and reinstate the land.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
118
Appendix 6 – Memo Application ready to notify
Date: 12 December 2023
To: Stef Bowman, Permissions Regulatory Delivery Manager
From: Lynette Trewavas, Senior Permissions Advisor
Subject:
Recommendation to Publicly Notify Concession Application:
Pure Tūroa
Limited 109883-SKI
Act
Purpose
To make a decision to publicly notify the application.
Context
On 11 December 2023 Pure Turoa Limited applied for a 30-year lease/licence for the operation
of recreational and tourism activities within the current Turoa ski area boundaries. The
Turoa Ski Field was previously operated by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts (RAL) until they entered
receivership in 2022. A lease has been requested over all buildings and the base Plaza area
Information
with the remaining area covered by a licence. There are no significant changes to the
activities included in the previous licence held by RAL.
The Applicant was requested to provide the Department of Conservation Aircraft Application
form and Filming form 5a which were not provided in the original application form. These
were provided on 12 December 2023.
Official
The Tongariro District Operations have reviewed the application and consider all information
from an Operations perspective is included. The Permissions team consider the
the
application includes all the required information under section 17S of the Conservation
Act 1987 (the Act) and is ready for public notification.
Section 17SC requires the Minister/delegate to publicly notify an application for: a) a lease; or
b) a licence for a term of more than 10 years; or c) if having regard to the effects of the
under
licence they consider it appropriate.
No issues arise about whether the application lacks required information (s 17SA); or is
obviously inconsistent with the Act (s 17SB).
Public notification must conform with the requirements of s 49(1) of the Act – that is, as s 17SC
of the Act requires the application to be publicly notified, the application must be publicly
notified in a newspaper circulating in the area where the subject matter of the application
Released
is situated and at least once in each of 4 daily newspapers published in Auckland,
Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin; but may limit the publication of the notice to a
newspaper circulating throughout the locality or region in which the subject matter is
situated, if satisfied that the thing is of local or regional interest only.
119
Because of the widespread public interest in the application, it is considered that it should be
publicly notified in a local paper and 4 daily newspapers published in the 4 cities
mentioned above.
Section 49(2) of the Act provides that where the Minister gives public notice of an application
for a concession: (a) any person or organisation may object to the Director-General
against the proposal, or make written submission on the proposal; (b) provides that the
Minister must give persons and organisations wishing to make objections or submissions
at least 20 working days; ba) provides that every objection or submission must be sent to
the Director-General at the place, and by the date, specified in the notice; and (c) provides
Act
that where a person or organisation making an objection or submission so requests, the
Director-General must give them a reasonable opportunity of appearing before the
Director-General in support of the objection or submission.
Document Links
Original Application
DOC-7522295
Additional application forms
DOC-7524196
Information
Recommendation It is recommended that you:
(a) Note this concession application is ready for public notification.
(b) Agree to insert a public notice setting out the requisite matters in s 49(2) noted above in
Official
the following publications with notification for a period of 20 working days. Note while
the public notices will be placed prior to Christmas, due to the statutory Christmas close
down period, public notification will not commence until 11 January 2024 (and ending on
the
9 February 2024):
•
New Zealand Herald (Auckland) – 19th December 2023
•
The Post (Wellington) – 19th December 2023
•
The Press (Christchurch) – 19th December 2023
under
•
Otago Daily Times (Dunedin) – 19th December 2023
•
Ruapehu Bulletin – 20th December 2023
•
Taupo Times – 22nd December 2023
•
Taupo Turangi Herald 21st December 2023
•
Taumarunui Bulletin – 21st December 2023
(c) Agree to publicly notify the application on the Department’s website (but noting that this
is not a requirement under s 49).
Released
12/12/2023
Signed: ___________________________
Date: __________________
120
Addendum to memo 17 January 2024
A question has been asked of the Department whether iwi engagement by the Applicant, in
accordance with Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, was considered by the
Department as part of the assessment about whether the applicant is complete and
appropriate for public notification.
Public notification occurs at the start of the concession process to enable all views to be
included in the determination of the decision. The test for determining an application to
be ready for public notification is to ensure the application is complete and members of
Act
the public would be able to understand the proposed activity.
This test does not specifically include ensuring iwi engagement has occurred. Iwi engagement
is encouraged by the Applicant but is not a criterion for accepting an application and
proceeding to notification under section 17SC of the Conservation Act 1987.
Informal conversations occurred during the consideration of whether the application was
ready for public notification. It was noted that the Applicant did not specifically engage
with Ngāti Hāua iwi and has instead relied on the Department to engage on their behalf.
It was also noted that no Cultural Impact Assessment was undertaken. The Department
Information
can only encourage the Applicant to engage with all Treaty Partners but cannot require it.
It is the expectation of the Department that the Applicant will engage with all Treaty
Partners including Ngāti Hāua iwi throughout the concession process and throughout the
term of any concession, if granted. The Department will also continue to engage with all
Treaty Partners with an interest in the area during the processing of this concession. For
these reasons, it was recommended to progress on to public notification of the application.
Official
It is also noted that since the date of this memo, the Applicant has reduced their proposed
term to 10 years.
the
under
Signed:
Date: 18/1/24
Comments:
As outlined above, I agree for public notification to continue based on the current application
and noting the apparent lack of engagement by the application with Ngāti Hāua
specifically, that the Department addresses this through its own engagement directly with
Released
Ngāti Hāua as part of the consideration of the application, either in parallel to the public
notification process or following it.
121
Appendix 7 – Ful Assessment of Effects
1. Infrastructure – The Applicant has provided a list of structures within the ski field. This list
incorporates all the major structures, buildings and buried infrastructure. However, it is
noted this list does not include the minor structures such as snow machines and snow
fences. It is recommended to include a special condition to provide an accurate list of all
structures within 1 year of the concession being granted. No new infrastructure wil be
allowed within the ski area without the normal assessments being made as to whether
they are appropriate and whether they require public notification prior to a decision being
reached. A condition wil be recommended that no new structures wil be erected without
the approval of the Grantor.
Act
2. Structures and clean-up – The Applicant wil be responsible for maintaining all
infrastructure during the term. However, it is not proposed that the Applicant wil have an
obligation to remove the items that are already existing as these items wil be re-inherited
by the Crown (see discussion in the main report about proposed special conditions). Any
new infrastructure which is installed by the Applicant wil need to be removed at the end
of the term unless agreed by the Department that it can remain. The Applicant wil also
need to remove redundant infrastructure if this is replaced during the term of the
concession. The standard “make good conditions” wil be included for these structures.
Bonds have not traditionally been required for ski areas but may be used more in the
Information
future for ski areas. The Department also not require a bond or guarantee as part of any
concession, as most infrastructure is existing as part of an operational ski area.
3. Some submitters raised concerns about redundant infrastructure and the requirement for
the Applicant to remove it. They also requested the ‘make-good’ conditions be included.
Some submitters raised that the Department needs to consider contingent or actual
Official
liabilities. It is anticipated that the Indicative Development Plan needs to consider the
removal of structures. However, it is noted (and identified by submitters) that the removal
of infrastructure and associated earthworks can have a greater impact than leaving
the
infrastructure in situ. It is anticipated any works requiring earthworks wil be undertaken
through the works approval process where the impacts can be considered, and Treaty
Partners can also consider the impacts. Major works approvals must also be notified
where members of the public wil be able to make submissions on the proposed works.
under
Environmental
4. It is noted the majority of the ski area is within an Amenities zone as outlined in the TNPMP
which allows for the development of services and facilities compatible with the amenities
area. This means a higher level of environmental effects is expected within this area. It is
also noted that the ski area is an existing operation and increased effects are not
expected. This was also noted by some submitters including the RSSA. Many submit ers
noted the environmental impacts must be assessed and any adverse ef ects mitigated.
There are many environmental impacts from a ski area operating within a national park
Released
including machinery, vehicles and infrastructure related effects. Wastewater, hazardous
substances and rubbish also need to be considered. Ngāti Rangi identified environmental
concerns with any proposed works (although subject to consideration under a separate
Works Approval), continuing damage to the Mangawhero ecological area from water
discharge and inadequate fencing, sediment effects from Clarry’s track and rubbish. They
also identified concerns with snowmaking, especially using snomax. Te Korowai o
Wainuiārua didn’t raise any specific environmental concerns but requested an
122
Environmental assessment be undertaken to identify environmental matters. Ngāti Hāua
agree with the environmental concerns outlined by other submit ers for this application.
The recommended management of these effects are discussed below.
5. Ecological effects of the application were assessed by one of the Department’s ecological
advisers (Technical Advisor, Ecology). The adviser concludes
“the impacts wil be largely
what they are currently, and I can see no valid reason for declining their application”. He
has some concerns with the age of the Ecological Assessment (as do some submit ers)
and recommends this is reviewed or updated to provide a current assessment of
ecological impacts. However, the Advisor does not expect there to be significant change
from the previous assessment but recommends a new assessment or review wil confirm
Act
this. He believes the assessment provided in the application is sufficient for the application
to proceed. The proposed concession requires the concessionaire to procure ecological
assessment within 12 months of the concession commencing. The assessment wil
ensure the Department has a refreshed understanding of the ecological conditions. It wil
also be used to inform an Environmental Plan which is intended to protect sensitive areas
and control weeds and pests.
6. Alpine Flush and Mangawhero ecological area. These areas are identified as having high
natural values (page 207 of the TNPMP) and are specifically excluded from the amenities
area. Ngāti Rangi and many submit ers also raised concerns on the impact of the ski area
Information
on these sensitive areas and may cause further damage. They noted it has been
degraded in recent years. Ngāti Rangi are particularly concerned with a future proposal
of PTL to create a ‘snow farm’ near the Tūroa Alpine Flush. However, it is noted that the
snow farm is not part of this specific application and the potential effects for this can be
considered if and when an application is made. It is noted the Tūroa Alpine Flush and
Mangawhero ecological area are excluded from the Tūroa Amenities area and these
Official
areas wil need to be protected from any adverse effects. They are stil within the ski area
licence boundary but any proposed developments would be unlikely to be approved. The
ecological areas have been fenced off to limit foot or vehicle access to these areas which
the
may damage vegetation. In addition, it is recommended that the Applicant undertake a
review of the plants and boundary which wil be part of the recommended Ecological
assessment. The Applicant wil need to identify ways to manage these ecological areas
within their Environmental Plan.
under
7. It is recommended environmental effects are managed in two ways, through special
conditions and also through an Environmental Plan. A few submitters agreed with the
mitigation measures outlined in the Application (which the Department are recommending
to be included in the Environmental Plan). A special condition wil require the
concessionaire to create undertake an ecological assessment and, relying on that,
generate a forward-looking environmental plan (to be agreed to by the decision maker).
The Environmental Plan wil direct how the Applicant intends on protecting the
environment. Things recommended to be included are protecting vegetation, keeping the
land free of weeds, controlling invasive animal species and environmental monitoring.
Released
8. Machinery related effects. Vehicles are recognised as being essential to the carrying out
maintenance tasks within the ski area. Ground-based vehicles have less greenhouse gas
emissions than helicopters but do more damage when not travel ing over snow. An
example of this is the compaction and damage caused by vehicles up Clarry’s track when
there is no snow on the ground. The Department would like to be notified when vehicles
are used on Clarry’s track. No vehicles are to be allowed off Clarry’s track and of formed
123
roads (tarsealed roads or car parks). Vehicles can also bring in weeds and other
contaminants. A special condition is recommended to ensure any machinery brought into
the Park is free of weeds and other contaminants. It is recommended all machinery is
subject to the Department’s standard inspection conditions. It is also recommended that
machinery is included in the Environmental Plan.
9. Clarry’s track. As identified above, there has been damage to this track due to vehicle
use. There is a risk that silt wil flow down this track into the base area, potentially the
Tūroa Alpine Flush and also into the Mangawhero headwater. It is recommended the
concessionaire is required to remediate areas impacted by the activity and Clarry’s track
is specifically included in the Environmental Plan. The Ecological Technical Advisor also
Act
noted the compaction of Clarry’s track but noted the effects of this would not be so great
as if an uncompacted area was used. However, the compaction should be remedied,
particularly to prevent erosion issues.
Wastewater
10. Al sewerage and other wastewater from the ski area is currently collected and transported
off site to the Ohakune Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is currently a pipeline which
traverses the ski area which must be maintained to prevent any failures. There is also a
risk of failure with transporting the waste along the Ohakune Mountain Road. Ngāti Rangi
Information
made a submission that identified the Ohakune Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently
unconsented under the Resource Management Act 1991 and requires significant
upgrades. They identified the Applicant should be contributing to this upgrade as the ski
area places a large burden on this plant either directly or indirectly. The Ohakune plant is
located outside the National Park and is not operated by the Department. The Department
cannot direct the upgrade of any Council owned facilities. Wastewater wil be required to
Official
be removed to a facility to ensure it is appropriately disposed of. A special condition is
also recommended for the sewage pipeline within the Park to be maintained.
the
Rubbish
11. Rubbish can take the form of small pieces of waste created by customers or larger items
discarded by the Concessionaire. Rubbish can escape the ski area boundary and be
deposited downstream. It can also impact on the natural values within the ski area.
under
Submitters also raised concerns with rubbish and waste generated from the users of the
ski area and also from construction. Special conditions are recommended for the
concessionaire to provide for sanitary facilities and dispose of all waste off site.
Hazardous Substances and contamination incidents
12. Hazardous substances include diesel and, potential y, ammonia in the future for snow
making. Diesel is used for machinery which are re-fuel ed on site. Diesel spil s are a big
risk as noted by submitters and also Ngāti Rangi. There was a large diesel spil at the
Released
Tūroa ski area in 2013 which damaged the Makotuku Stream. There have also been more
regular small scale diesel spil s. The Applicant states all diesel tanks are double skinned
and emergency spil kits are also on site. There are now only four permanent fuel tanks
(down from six) and fuel capacity reduced to 63m3. Submitters raised concerns about fuel
spil s which are continuing to occur on a small scale. Special conditions are recommended
on hazardous storage, reporting of incidents and remediation. Note, ammonia use is not
part of this application, and a separate approval wil be required to start using this
124
chemical. A condition is included in the draft concessions to prevent the use of new
chemicals without the approval of the Grantor.
Maintenance
13. Infrastructure may start to deteriorate which can pol ute the park such as through paint
chips flaking off. The snow catch fences on the upper mountain are currently shedding. A
condition is recommended around maintaining infrastructure to an appropriate standard.
Climate change
Act
14. The viability of the ski area wil be af ected by climate change. The Applicant has
recognised this and proposes that more man-made snow wil be required in the future (as
opposed to moving the ski area up the mountain further). Many submit ers also raised the
issue of climate change and identified the Applicant needs to adapt as much as possible.
They also raised the issue of cars driving to the ski area as there is no viable public
transport to the site (and some submitters advocated for this to be included but the
Department does not consider this to be an option at this time). In addition, the Applicant
should transfer to using sustainable fuels. The Visitor Technical Advisor has
recommended the Applicant consider preparing a climate change adaption management
plan to address future impacts on the management of the ski field (including snow making
Information
machinery) and could include transport options.
15. The activity wil use diesel for vehicles, and for snowmaking. The activity wil emit
greenhouse gas emissions that wil make some (albeit small) contribution to climate
change and therefore contribute (in a small way) to adverse effects on New Zealand’s
natural and historic resources in terms of s17U(1). The activity’s contribution to climate
Official
change is relevant to the purpose of the Conservation Act, and the Conservation General
Policy, in particular Policy 4.6 Ecosystem Services of the CGP (avoiding or otherwise
minimising adverse effects on the quality of ecosystem services).In making a decision on
the
PTL’s application, you may (but are not required to) take account of New Zealand’s 2050
target for emissions reductions in the Climate Change Response Act 2002 .
16. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires measuring the emissions of the activity,
developing and implementing a plan to reduce those emissions, and if appropriate,
under
offsetting those emissions. The Permissions Advisor recommends, if the application is
approved, to include special conditions enabling the Department to require greenhouse
gas emissions data from the Applicant during the term of the concession, and to amend
the conditions to reflect climate change-related legislation and government or
Departmental policy and that those conditions may, amongst other things, require the
Applicant to measure, manage and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the proposal.
Events
Released
17. The Applicant has indicated it wil be undertaking events as part of the activity. Events are
not specifically identified in its application form, however, are expected to be similar to
events which have been undertaken on the ski area in the past. The events are expected
to be limited to snow sport events which occur during winter. The Department considers
this type of event acceptable and should not cause any significant ef ects. However, the
District Of ice recommends special conditions be included to notify them of when events
125
occur and also to limit these to winter snow sport activities, unless these are agreed to in
advance by the Grantor.
Advertising
18. the Applicant has requested filming for promotional purposes within the Tūroa ski area.
The effects of filming for promotional purposes only are anticipated to be small. However,
filming using a helicopter or drone is not considered appropriate in the national park. This
is contrary to the TNPMP and should not be allowed. The Department has no concerns
with filming for promotional purposes provided aircraft is not used as part of this.
Act
Dogs
19. Dogs are allowed in the Park for search and rescue purposes. The Ski Patrol have a
number of dogs who are allowed in the Park and these have all received a permit from
the Department. A condition wil be included requiring any dogs being used for search and
rescue purposes to have a permit from the Department.
Aircraft
20. The main ef ects from aircraft include noise and impacts on other users of the park. Three
Information
submit ers raised concerns with the potential increase in aircraft use from the previous
RAL concession. Also, that aircraft may be used for things other than park management.
Patutokotoko raised concerns with the proposed aircraft use and requested this be
authorised separately each time. The Department notes while there is less damage to the
ground when using aircraft (as opposed to ground-based vehicles) aircraft can have
impacts on other park users. Drones wil have less impact than helicopters and are
Official
recommended to be used as a preference to helicopters when this is possible. Aircraft wil
be only able to be used for essential ski area management. In order to assist with
managing the impacts on other users, they request to be notified each time a helicopter
the
or drone is used. The helicopters should be radioing into the visitor centre. They request
any adverse incidents are to be reported to the Department and no Robinson helicopters
are allowed due to safety concerns with these helicopters. Helicopters and drones should
also only be used for approved management or Search and Rescue purposes.
21. The District Of ice also notes if drones are to be utilised standard conditions are required,
under
and the following information needs to be supplied to the Department:
-
Drone model
-
Drone operator
-
Location of operation
-
Purpose (this can only be for management purposes expressly approved in the
concession e.g. not for filming advertising material but filming to map refuse distribution
would be acceptable).
It is therefore recommended that conditions be imposed in the concession to control and
Released
limit the range of activities that can be performed using aircraft.
Safety
22. The Department needs to ensure that concessionaires have an adequate safety plan. The
Department relies on external safety experts to audit concessionaire’s safety plans. For
this application a condition is included requiring an audited Health and Safety Plan. This
126
wil be required for before the start of the 2024 ski season. A health and safety plan has
been created for this season under the name of the Tūroa Ski Area and is not limited to
RAL operations, and can be used by the Applicant. The Senior Visitor Advisor noted there
is limited information in the application on visitor safety and no assessment of hazards or
how the site wil be managed with a major event. In addition, this wil need to cover
customers and the general public. She recommended a visitor safety plan be requested
and also signage to be required. However, the Department does not have the expertise
to state what needs to be required within the Health and Safety plan and the details on
this plan are recommended to be determined by the Heath and Safety industry.
23. Two specifically identified risks are volcanic and avalanche risks. The Tongariro National
Act
Park Volcanic Guidelines outline the procedure that need to be followed by
Concessionaire if Volcanic Alert Levels change. It is noted that some lifts are within the
Alert Level 2 exclusion zone. Special conditions are proposed to mitigate this risk.
Avalanche Control is required to ensure the safety of people within the ski area. Avalanche
control should only be permit ed if an avalanche poses a direct threat to the safety of
users. The Applicant has stated the current use of hand placed, or projectile explosives
wil not be a sufficient long-term management solution for avalanche control. Conditions
are recommended to ensure the risk of avalanches are minimised.
24. Due to various factors such as weather, volcanic risk or other factors, the ski area may be
Information
required to be closed for public safety. A special condition wil be included allowing this to
occur, similar to what was granted to the previous operator.
Heritage Effects
25. Heritage ef ects were assessed by Paul Cashmore who considered two heritage contexts:
Official
Places of designated heritage significance to be conserved and pre-1900 archaeological
sites to be protected from harm. He advised there are no adverse heritage impacts
relating to the application. See appendix 8 for full advice. If granted, archaeological
the
accidental discovery protocols wil be recommended as special conditions.
Dark Sky
26. Two submit ers noted the Ruapehu District Council is currently considering a Dark Sky
under
Initiative application. These submitters are concerned the lights at the ski field may impact
on this proposal. While not proposed to be increased from the existing levels, there is the
possibility that in the future night skiing may increase light pol ution (this is not part of their
current application). The Department notes the night sky is an active consideration as the
night sky is part of the natural environment and is a significant value of the Park. Any
Works Approval to increase lighting wil be considered carefully at the time this is
submit ed. Overall, the lighting at the ski area is not deemed to have a large impact on
the natural or physical resources.
Released
Recreational/visitor impacts
27. Recreational/Visitor Advice was provided by Tamzin Moore (a Departmental Senior Visitor
Advisor). See appendix 8 for full advice. This advice notes the ski area has a long history
of commercial use, which was also noted by the majority of the submit ers. Road access
and the ski area were developed in the mid 1960’s. The ski area attracts up to 130,000
visitors during the winter season, with the majority being from the North Island. Many
127
submit ers noted the recreational benefits to the activity and the importance for snow
sports in the North Island. Some submit ers also noted the impacts of the proposed
reduction in lifts, as outlined in the Indicative Development Plan (note this is not part of
the application). This plan also states the Applicant proposes to reduce the carrying
capacity to 4,500 visitors per day. This number does not dif erentiate between snow sport
users or other day visitors who may visit the base area. It is noted the application is in a
national park which has freedom of access for the public. Considering a lease may impact
on people’s rights compared to a licence. The advice notes the proposed ski field is not
inconsistent with the Heritage and Visitor Strategy. “
The ski field, the community and other
stakeholders are provided opportunities to connect and thrive through the location and
activities. Protection is best dealt with through conditions and consultation with iwi.” Act
28. The Technical Advisor listed 11 recommendations regarding maintaining public access,
except for security or safety matters. They were as follows: A visitor safety Management
Plan be included; clarity on the maintenance/contributions for the Old Mountain Road,
climate change adaption management plan is required, summer use is limited, annual ski
and visitor numbers are provided to the Department, transport options are managed,
visitor safety information is provided to visitors and monitoring is undertaken by the
Department. From these recommendations, some of these have been included in the draft
concession conditions. The Department notes a visitor safety management plan wil fall
under the remit of the Audited Health and Plan (as wil the visitor safety information),
Information
climate change conditions are recommended to be included, summer use wil be limited
and monitoring is recommended.
29. The Department notes the positive impact the Tūroa ski area wil provide in allowing
increased recreational use of the Tongariro National Park. The ski area is the most
accessible from the South and is valued by many people in the lower North Island. This
Official
is mostly during the winter months but it also provides access to the Tongariro National
Park during summer months. The ski area provides access and facilities for other
recreational users in the park, including mountaineers, walkers and sightseers.
the
under
Released
128
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
DOC District(s)
Tongariro District (Ohakune)
DOC Region(s)
Central North Island
Functional Location Ski fields are not recorded in EAM.
Name
Maps
As per the application
Destination
There is no Destination Management category for ski fields in EAM as they are
Management
not DOC managed assets. Other assets manged by DOC such as
Category
Ohakune Walks are typically Local Treasures or Back Country
experiences in this area.
Visitor Group
Typically, Day Visitor as there is no accommodation on the ski field itself. Public
Act
access should be available to all visitors to the Maunga regardless of the
any license or lease area that supports recreational areas unless it is
unsafe.
Product
category N/A
and/or
key
product)
Visitor Demand
The Tūroa Ski Area attracts up to 130,000 day visitors during the winter season,
with the majority of visitors being North Islanders and New Zealanders.
Visitor numbers are significantly reduced outside the ski season and
Information
over the summer months. It is not clear from the application what
summer activities are proposed noting that there are restrictions as set
out in the Tongariro National Park Management Plan (TNPMP). Further
information on these activities needs to be explored and consulted on
further.
For the winter season, the applicant proposes the design carrying capacity is
Official
reduced slightly lower to 4,500 visitors per day to reduce congestion on
the ski field but is still seeking approval for a maximum number of 5,500
skiers per day. The TNPMP identifies the comfortable carrying capacity
the
of Tūroa as 5,500 skiers per day. It is not clear in the application around
the distinction of skiers/riders versus day visitors who may visit the base
area. Unlike Whakapapa ski field, Turoa does not have a gondola which
may lessen the conflict between numbers of day visitors, other
recreation users or skiers.
under
Winter activities typically include skiing, snowboarding, mountain climbing,
snow play and sight-seeing. The shoulder seasons to winter has been
seeing an increase in visitors at both ski fields. There are two other ski
fields available with the National Park being Whakapapa and Tukino ski
fields.
The applicant has stated, “
The ski area provides for other recreational users
outside of the ski season also. Although the Tūroa Ski Area currently
doesn’t open during summer, the carpark provides access to walks.
Released
Potentially in the future Tūroa Ski Area may open outside of the ski
season.”
The applicant has stated that visitors will have access and refers to the provision
in the National Parks Act 1980
“for public benefit, use and enjoyment.
The Act also provides for the public to have freedom of entry and access
to national parks…This demonstrates the importance of access to the
Park which the proposed licence supports”. This needs to be confirmed
142
in light of the licence versus lease areas of the application. Clarity is also
required around the future ski area being open outside of the ski season.
Any future plans will need to be consistent with the Tongariro National
Park Management Plan, form part of the IDP and been done in
consultation with Iwi and all stakeholders.
There is no information for the ski field from the Strategic Intentions Tool or
investment group as part of DOC process and systems as it is not a DOC
asset.
Revenue
The applicant refers to the Price Waterhouse Coopers 2014 report titled Lifting
the Region. The economic benefits of the Ruapehu ski-fields (appended
Act
to this application):
RAL employs an average of 257 direct full-time
equivalent workers (FTEs) on an ongoing basis and contributes $15m to
local GDP from on the mountain operations. During the ski season. The
applicant has relied on the previous documentation and information
from the RAL application in 2013/14.
Partnerships/
PTL have advised in their application that they been consulting with Ngāti Rangi
Stakeholders
and Uenuku regarding the Tūroa licence application since February
2023. Iwi have made submissions on the application and consultation
process. I note there is no cultural assessment included with the
Information
application.
DOC website URL (if Public feedback sought on Pure Tūroa concession application: Media release 18
applicable)
December 2023 (doc.govt.nz)
PCL/Private
land PCL – Tongariro National Park
ownership
Heritage and Visitor The proposed ski field is not inconsistent with the Heritage and Visitor Strategy.
Official
Strategy and
The ski field, the community and other stakeholders are provided
Goals
opportunities to connect and thrive through the location and activities.
Protection of the ski field on the environment is best dealt with through
the
conditions on the concession and through consultation with Iwi.
Statutory and non- The applicant has provided a detailed policy assessment and discussion on how
statutory
the proposal aligns with the Tongariro Taupo CMS and the Tongariro
documents
National Park Management Plan. The previous RAL application was
approved and assessed as consistent with the statutory documents
under
subject to conditions.
The Ruapehu Destination Management Plan
Ruapehu Destination Management Plan 2023 ISSUU compressed pdf
(visitruapehu.com)
He mana te taiao, ko ana kai he kōrero. The paramount mana of our natural
environment protects and provides for the wellbeing of all.
Ko te tiaki i te ao me ngā taonga katoa hei oranga mō tātou, mō ngā uri
whakatupuranga
Released
Presence and expression of the preservation, guardianship and enhancement of
what we have for the future benefit of all
Ko te mea nui ko te mana o te taiao, o te whānau, o te hāpori me te iwi
The presence and expression of mana enhancing behaviours and practices in
everything we do across our shared region Designing our own Ruapehu
Tiaki promise of care for our environment that holds us all as community
and visitors accountable for the wellbeing of our natural taonga to our
143
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Recommendations
The following comments are made to consider from a recreational perspective
to be developed into conditions:
1. That public access is maintained for all visitors and recreation users
to the mountain/maunga with no exclusive use areas unless it relates
to a security or safety matter.
2. Visitor Safety Management Plan should be required to be submitted
and approved by the Department to cover, snow management, snow
machines, ice, white out conditions and extreme weather events, fall
from heights, volcanic hazard events, avalanche, weather and
closure events, transport accidents, traffic management etc.
Act
3. Clarity over who maintains and contributes (opex/capex) to what
sections of the Old Mountain Road, access road to the ski field.
4. That the IDP be approved by all parties and is consistent with the
Tongariro National Park Management Plan (TNPMP) and Tongariro
Taupo Conservation Management Strategy (TTCMS).
5. That it is clear that the lease is for a 10 year period only and that a new
application would need to be applied for after this time period.
6. That the applicant prepares and submits a climate change adaption
management plan.
Information
7. That the applicant document what type of summer activities they
propose and ensure they are compliant with the TNPMP/TTCMS and
the National Parks Act/Conservation Act and monitor any effects on
‘summer trails’ created.
8. That the applicant submits annual ski and visitor numbers and
complies with the carrying capacity as per the TNPMP (and DOC
Official
monitors this).
9. That the applicant explores transport options from Ohakune to
manage visitor numbers and capacity at the ski field particularly on
the
busy ‘blue bird’ sunny days and weekends, traffic management plan.
10. Visitor safety information is contained on the website and regularly
updated and appropriate signage is used onsite to warn visitors of
any hazards or areas to avoid.
11. Monitoring by the Department (staff time/mileage) should be
under
undertaken at the expense of the application:
• Frequency of monitoring (annual, bi-annual etc)
• Time of the year (month)
• Staff time (including travel to and from site, site visit and time to write
up appropriate report)
• Mileage
Released
145
Ecological advice:
From:
Graeme
La
Cock
<[email address]>
Sent:
Monday,
March
11,
2024
4:17
PM
To:
Lynette
Trewavas
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: Support for Ruapehu ski-fields concession process
Hi Lynette
I’m not sure of the difference between a snow farm and snow making. For Turoa they have a 45,000
Act
m3 reservoir for the purpose, with a smaller reservoir and a pump system.
I hadn’t picked up the comment about compaction of a Clary’s Track in their report, but Anna
seemed to know about it from personal knowledge of the site. I don’t know the site well. I did
assess the EIA for the gondola she refers to. I think if they’re staying within the footprint of the
track impacts will be confined to an already impacted/compacted area. There may be a bit
more compaction, but it’s not as if they’re compacting virgin ground. But the damage caused
to the sides of the track that Anna refers to is something they should be remedying. It would
be picked up in a new EIA. I think it’s reasonable to request it be remedied, otherwise they
Information
could have erosion issues.
In his report Nick Singers had recommended an assessment of new pipelines for snow making. I
assume this will come under a separate development similar to the gondola. His other
recommendations were around petrochemical storage, which they seem to have addressed,
and the vegetation monitoring. If they didn’t follow his recommendation last time I agree with
Official
you that it should be included as a condition.
But overall the impacts will be largely what they are currently, and I can see no valid reason for
the
declining their application.
I’m around today and tomorrow, but will be away for about 10 days from Wednesday afternoon.
Cheers
under
Graeme
From:
Graeme
La
Cock
<[email address]>
Sent:
Friday,
March
8,
2024
2:11
PM
To:
Lynette
Trewavas
<[email address]>
Cc:
Vicki
Crosbie
<[email address]>
Subject: FW: Support for Ruapehu ski-fields concession process
Released
Kia Ora Lynette
I’ve had a look at the application as well as some of the earlier correspondence around it.
I believe there are several positive aspects to the proposals, such as removing ski lifts and the overall
capacity of the ski field from 5,500 per day to 4,500, all positives in terms of environmental
146
values. Page 26 of their “proposal outline and environmental impact assessment” document
highlights their current standard practices, including avoiding flush zones. They’ve upgraded
the protection around their fuel tanks. They seem to be doing the right things.
However, the Ecological Assessment (EA) done by Nick Singers is now 10 years out of date. There’s
additional information to be assessed, e.g. the vegetation monitoring at Turoa (second 9.2
(9.3?) on pg 14 of his report), names and threat status of species may have changed, and
new discoveries may have been made. Changes have also been made to their operation and
infrastructure, as outlined by Anna Atchley in her email to Steve Brightwell of 30 September
2023 (attached). She points out each new development or change has its own impact
Act
assessment process. The rest of the document appears to be up to date.
The third paragraph of the conclusion on pg 15 of the EA commends the previous operators for their
environmental management. I don’t believe things would have changed so much as to lead
to a change in this sentiment. I think an upgrade of the information in this document should
satisfy all parties. I do not believe a retrospective report a year into their operation will meet
the needs of all parties as well as a review before they begin, would meet these needs.
I therefore recommend you follow the advice put forward by Paul Cashmore in his email to Steve
Information
Brightwell dated 22 August 2023, in the email chain below. Ideally the applicant will be able
to get Nick Singers to do the update; it could take the form of a letter outlining changes. Nick
knows the area well, having served as a DOC botanist in Turangi for about 15 years before
becoming a consultant following a restructuring.
The area is already used as a ski field, they are not proposing to increase the footprint, and plan to
Official
remove some structures and ski lifts. From an environmental and landscape point of view I
do not foresee any reason to not approve the application, but it all depends on what comes
to light in the updated ecological assessment.
the
I hope this helps.
Cheers
Graeme
under
Released
147
Appendix 10 – Statutory Planning Document Analysis
General Policy for National Parks 2005
1.In relation to this application the detailed provisions in the Tongariro Taupo Conservation
Management Strategy 2002 (CMS) and Tongariro National Park Management Plan
(TNPMP) clarify or respond to more general matters raised in the GPNP. Those planning
documents are discussed below. Although they of er a more granular set of policies, the
GPNP does contain high-level and over-arching policies that are pertinent and warrant
some discussion. As noted previously, it is the Department’s position that, although
concessions are not explicitly required to be declined if they contradict the GPNP, the
Act
GPNP remains a relevant matter for the Minister to consider.
2.The GPNP provides interpretation aids in Policy 1(d). In particular, it explains that it carefully
uses the words “wil ”, “should” or “may” to instruct readers as to how the Policies ought to
be applied. For completeness,
a. policies where legislation provides no discretion for decision-making or a
deliberate decision has been made by the Authority to direct decision-makers,
state that a particular action or actions ‘wil ’ be undertaken;
b. policies that carry with them a strong expectation of outcome, without
diminishing the constitutional role of the Minister and other decision-makers,
Information
state that a particular action or actions ‘should’ be undertaken;
c. policies intended to allow flexibility in decision-making, state that a particular
action or actions ‘may’ be undertaken.
3.The specific areas of GPNP applicable to this application are as follows:
Official
a. Policy 2 (e) requires consultation with tangata whenua on specific proposals
involving places of significance to them and policy. Engagement has occurred
for this application, see section 8 for discussion on this.
the
b. Policy 4.1 is on Indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems. Policy 4(1)(b)(iv)
states indigenous species, habitats and ecosystem within a national park
should be managed to maintain the indigenous character and avoid adverse
effects on habitats and ecosystems. Policy 4.5(b) states activities which
under
diminish the quality of features and diversity within the national parks should
be avoided. Policy 4.6 states activities within national parks should be planned
and managed in ways which avoid adverse ef ects on the quality of ecosystem
services provided by national parks. See the assessment of effects section
which notes the majority of the application is within the amenities area where
greater ef ects are expected. This section concludes the ongoing
environmental effects is not expected to have an adverse effect on the habitat,
provided the special conditions are adhered to.
Released
c. Policy 8 provides for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public. Policy 8.1(b)
states opportunities should be provided for the benefit, use and enjoyment of
the national park, provided they are consistent with the outcomes planned for
places. The application is consistent with this policy as discussed in this report.
d. Policy 8.6 specifically refers to vehicles and other transport. Policy 8.6(a) states
the use of vehicles may be allowed where adverse effects, including natural
148
quiet, can be minimised. Policy 8.6(c) allows for the landing, hovering and take-
off of aircraft where this is consistent with the outcomes planned for a place
provided for in the relevant national park management plan. Policy 8.6(f) refers
to powered vehicles and these should not be taken off roads or routes
specifically approved. Vehicles and aircraft are discussed in more detail in the
TNPMP analysis and also in the assessment of effects section (section 9.3)
where vehicles are discussed in more detail.
e. Policy 10.3(d) states a lease granting an interest in the land should be
considered only when exclusive possession is necessary for the protection of
public safety or the physical security of the activity or for its competent
Act
operation. This is discussed further in section 9.7 of the report. Policies 10.4
and 10.5 of the GPNP recognise ski area facilities and aerial cableways (such
as those which the Applicant [plans to use) can be accommodated within
national parks so long as they are located in amenities area and/or ski fields.
Policy 10.4 (a) states national park management plans wil identify the
conditions under which applications for new ski fields and modifications to
existing ones may be considered. In this case, the Applicant has sought to
continue operations within an existing field and is not presently seeking consent
to expand or develop the field.
Information
f. Activities involving powered aircraft are recognised in policies 10.6 (a) to (h)
which are managed through the TNPMP. Section 10.7 Commercial Filming and
Photography provides for commercial filming and photography so long as
criteria are met.
g. In the Department’s view, none of the Policies described above would be
Official
contravened by the granting of a concession to the Applicant, provided that the
terms and conditions proposed in the draft concession are imposed.
the
Tongariro Taupo Conservation Management Strategy 2002
4.The operative Tongariro Taupo Conservation Management Strategy 2002 – 2012 (CMS)
contains no specific policies in relation to the Tūroa ski area, however there are general
principles and other policies which are relevant to the proposed activity. These are
under
discussed below. The general principles are found in section 2.1.2 of the CMS.
5.
Principle 1: Protection and Enhancement of natural environment within the
Conservancy. The management actions relate to the protection and management of
biodiversity, including protected species as well as introduced species. One submit er
noted the importance of this principle when considering the application. There is specific
reference to the removal of past developments which no longer fulfil a function. The Nga
Wai Heke chairlift is considered redundant and is not required as part of the application.
The Applicant wil achieve this by complying with works approvals when they seek to
Released
construct new facilities. They have also commit ed consolidating lifts and having a net
decrease in infrastructure over the term of the concession.
6.
Principle 2: Protection of Historic Resources where they are managed by the
Department. There are no identified historic resources or actively managed historic sites
within the Tūroa Ski Area boundaries. It is noted that the site is a UNESCO World Heritage
Site and the Park as a whole needs to be managed according to the values which the site
149
is set aside for. Submit ers raised the site was set aside for cultural values and this needs
to be considered. This is discussed more in sections 7 and 8 of the main report.
7.
Principle 3: Development of an effective conservation partnership with Tangata
Whenua. The management actions relate to the Department’s engagement and work with
Tangata Whenua as an agent of the Crown, including the requirement to give effect to the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Please see sections 7 and 8 of the main report where
this is discussed.
8.
Principle 4: Fostering recreation use of public conservation land. The Applicant is
contributing to the recreational facilities that provide for experiences for the public on
Act
conservation land. A range of activities, from safe snow fun, sightseer experiences,
beginner skier through to the provision of expert ski and snow board trails, are all provided
by the Applicant. Approximately half of the visitors to the Tongariro National Park visit to
recreate at the ski areas and traditionally Tūroa has been one of the most visited ski areas
in New Zealand. Many of the submissions received stated they had learned to ski on the
ski area and continue to be regular visitors. Submitters noted granting this concession wil
foster recreation and the use of natural and historic resources for recreation.
9.
Principle 5: Limiting non-recreation commercial use of public conservation land. The
purpose of the Applicant’s activities is to provide for recreational use.
Information
10.
Principle 6: Enhancing advocacy outcomes and community relations. The
Department has a statutory duty to advocate for the protection of natural and historic
values and the department should work closely with local bodies and community agents
to achieve its goals. The Applicant is popular with some submit ers. It has also indicated
a wil ingness to become involved in, and advocate for, conservation outcomes and
Official
community relations. The Application could be viewed as positive if viewed by the lens of
Principal 6. However, some submit ers (Ruapehu Skiers Stakeholders Association and
Life Pass Holders for example) are currently unhappy with the MBIE process resulting in
the
this Applicant seeking to operate Tūroa ski field, including because life passes issued by
RAL wil not be binding on the Applicant. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and
Kaupapa Māori are discussed in section 3.7 of the CMS. This section sets out an
interpretation of the principles and how the Department wil work with Treaty Partners. He
Kaupapa Rangatira is a joint initiative document which wil set out how the two parties wil
under
define and work together. This has not yet been implemented but may be implemented in
the future.
11.
Part 3 – 3.5.2 Recreation Management. A listed objective in this section of the CMS is
‘t
o provide, where practicable, access to public conservation land for people with
disabilities, and to provide appropriate facilities’ and ‘to provide free public access to public
conservation land’.
12.
Implementation c states, ‘
public access wil not be restricted in favour of concessionaire
Released
activities, except where an existing lease provides an exclusive occupation’. These
objectives provide a clear direction to allow public access to public conservation land. It
is noted that the application dif ers from the licence held by RAL. The Applicant is applying
for a lease and licence whereas RAL holds a concession described as a “licence”. Some
submit ers were concerned with the restriction of further areas of public access to the
lease areas which is contrary to implementation clause c. This clause sets out a clear
expectation for public access It is noted the previous RAL licence did provide exclusive
150
occupation over the buildings. The Department is recommending the exclusive
occupation areas are broadly similar to what has previous been granted plus base area A
for safety reasons (refer to section 9.7). There is not considered to be a material change
to exclusive use occupation of the ski area.
13.Although RAL’s concession is described on its face as a licence, in fact it allows RAL to
exclude public access to those parts of the land that are occupied by RAL’s structures
and facilities. The current Applicant is seeking a similar ability to exclusively occupy those
areas but has also requested exclusive use of locations which RAL may not have enjoyed.
In particular, the base plaza area and a one metre curtilage. Expanding the exclusive use
areas is contrary to implementation c discussed above. This matter is also discussed in
Act
section 9.7. In order to honour the expectations, set out in the CMS, the Department
recommends that exclusive occupation (via a lease) does not expand upon the areas
previously exclusively used by RAL.
14.Aircraft part 3 – 3.5.2.2 objective allows for aircraft landings for management and
emergency purposes where this enhances visitor opportunities without compromising the
experience of others. Aircraft includes helicopters and drones for the purposes of this
application. A range of implementation policies are listed, and aircraft is discussed more
in the TNPMP section below.
Information
15.Part 3.8 Concessions sets out expectations for concessions and section 3.8.1 refers to
Recreation Concessions. This section specifically provides for the Tūroa ski area. This
section includes an objective which also encourages recreation use through concessions
provided they are compatible with natural and historic values. Implementation policies (a)
to (m) set out policies which must be considered when processing an application. These
include that they need to be considered in accordance with the Conservation Act, relevant
Official
plans, adverse effects (including cumulative effects) need to be minimised. These
considerations are set out in this report.
the
16.Overall, the CMS encourages recreational use of public conservation land and provides
for the Tūroa Ski Area. The proposed activity is consistent with the CMS, provided public
access is maintained to the current extent.
Tongariro National Park Management Plan 2006-2016
under
17.The current TNPMP is tche primary statutory policy framework against which decisions
are made in relation to the park. TNPMP was developed in accordance with the NPA and
sets out the Department of Conservation’s proposed intentions for managing Tongariro
National Park. You should only grant the concession if you are satisfied that this would be
consistent with the TNPMP.
18.In general, the TNPMP recognises that activities, such as those in this proposal, can be
enabled provided they are appropriately managed. The TNPMP also notes Mt Ruapehu
Released
is ‘nationally important’ for skiing. Many submitters raised this point. The RSSA
submission (and other submitters af iliated with the RSSA) noted the Applicant proposes
to reduce the carrying capacity of the ski area, which they say is contrary to this aim.
19.Many sections of the TNPMP are relevant to the application as set out below. There is a
full chapter on Ski Area management and specific Ski Area Policies. Part 4 of the park
plan provides general use objectives and policies for the park, more specifically, the
151
policies in section 4.4 (concessions) while Part 5 objectives and policies are specific to
ski areas within the park.
These policies provide for skiing and snow related activities
within the Tūroa ski area boundary. The application is broadly consistent with these
policies, which are outlined below.
20.Submissions in support of the proposal noted that it is generally consistent with the
TNPMP objectives and policies. Submit ers emphasised the recognition the TNPMP gives
to the national importance of the area for skiing, highlighting that the Plan provides for
skiing related activities in the Tūroa Amenities Area.
Treaty Partner
Act
21.Sections 3.1.5 (Key management philosophies) and 4.1.2 (He Kaupapa Rangatira) refer
to the principles and objectives of the Treaty of Waitangi. The specific protocols referred
to in 5.2.1.14 (He Kaupapa Rangatira) were developed in conjunction with Ngāti
Tūwharetoa in response to a Treaty claim filed by Sir Hepi Te Heuheu. See section 8 of
the main report for Treaty Partner engagement and involvement for this application.
Landscape
22.Section 4.1.3 seeks to protect the Park’s natural landscape values and ensure
Information
infrastructure is designed and located to avoid impacts on landscape values. Section
4.1.3, in accordance with many other sections within the plan, also includes a requirement
to remove redundant infrastructure. A submitter raised that terrain modification should be
approved. A submitter raised the requirement to minimise infrastructure and noted the
applicant may increase infrastructure or extend buildings in the future. While this
application doesn’t seek authorisation for terrain modification or any new infrastructure
Official
that has not yet been approved, nevertheless, when considering applications for
replacement infrastructure, this is a matter that is given effect to through the works
approval process. There are no new structures proposed and the Department is satisfied
the
that the landscape effects are well managed, and that existing buildings, structures and
facilities are located in such a way as to minimise the effects on landscape values.
Waste, Discharges, Contaminants and Noise
23.The objectives and policies in Section 4.1.17 set out expectations for how waste wil be
under
managed. These are discussed further in the ef ects section (section 9.3 of the main
report) and special conditions are recommended to ensure the concession (if granted) is
consistent with this section. Of note, policy 6 states fuel and sewage spil s onto land or
into watercourses constitute serious pol ution. It is noted there has been a large discharge
into the Makotuku River by RAL in 2013 and small-scale spil s occur on a semi-regular
basis. More robust conditions are recommended than were in place prior to this spil . Also,
Policy 10 states Concessionaires who surrender their licences or permits wil be required
to remove all buildings, structures, and rubbish from the park. As discussed elsewhere in
Released
this report, the Concessionaire wil be responsible for any structure they install during the
term of the concession (and any structures which become redundant during the term).
However, any structures which are currently present wil become the responsibility of the
Crown at the end of the term.
Amenities
152
24.The Tūroa Ski area is within the Tūroa Amenities Area which is covered under section
4.2.4. Amenity areas are set aside to provide for the development and operation of
recreational and public amenities and services at a scale which is not appropriate
elsewhere in the park. Policies state the boundaries of these amenities area should not
be amended, except if a survey of the Tūroa Alpine Flush show the natural boundary
dif ers from the gazetted exclusion to the Tūroa Amenities Area. See Appendix 1 for a
map of the Tūroa Amenities Area. It is noted not all infrastructure is within the Amenities
area, with the High Noon T Bar extending north of the area. However, no new
infrastructure is proposed for outside the amenities area for this application. New
proposals would need to be assessed on their merits.
Act
Recreation
25.Public recreation use of the National Park is encouraged in the TNPMP. It is clear
throughout the TNPMP, in the descriptive text (page 128), that the expected focus for
recreation in the National Park Amenities Areas is skiing as the activity that requires the
most significant systems and mechanised support. This is accepted within this area due
to the historic usage and that Mt Ruapehu is one of only two true alpine terrain areas in
the North Island where skiing can take place.
The Tūroa Ski Area is an important part of
the recreational mix of opportunities in the Park as it enables visitors to enjoy the natural
values of the Park. While the ski area occupies less than 1% of the total land area, the ski
Information
area attracts some 20 – 30% of all visitors to the Park who come for an alpine recreation
experience in a safe and managed way.
26.The National Park wide Recreation Objectives and Policies (4.3.2 page 129) require the
department to a)
ensure free and unrestricted public access to and use of the park where
consistent with national park principles b)
provide for enjoyable visitor experiences
Official
…consistent with national park philosophy and values c)
maintain national park values to
provide for high quality visitor experiences d)
manage Visitor pressure at sites to keep
within the sites’ physical, ecological and social carrying capacity and e)
encourage
the
regional tourism stakeholders to develop activities and attractions at appropriate sites off
Public conservation lands.
27.Policies under 4.3.2 Recreation support this push to protect the values of the Park whilst
providing visitors with experiences that can only be had within the National Park. This
under
includes policy identifying the need for research and monitoring on the ef ects of use on
the Park, especially in high impact areas.
28.Policy 4.3.2, 9 (page 130) identifies the opportunity to work with ski concessionaires in
Tūroa to provide permanent end of road facilities for all year-round visitors (shelter, toilets
and interpretation). This policy indicates the expectation that although the majority of
visitors to the Ski areas wil be going to ski there wil be other visitors year-round
interacting with the ski areas for other recreational activities. The Applicant has requested
year-round use of the Tūroa Ski Area, which is limited to providing retail and
Released
food/beverage services from buildings currently used for those purposes during winter).
Note any additional summer activities use wil need to be assessed separately through a
variation or works approval process. The proposed summer use is aligned with this policy
for year-round use of the base area.
Concessionaires
153
29.Section 4.4 relates to concessions and provides broad guidance to decision makers on all
concession types and specific guidance on a narrow range of activities that does not
include ski areas. This is due to a separate section of the TNPMP containing specific
policies with regard to the operation of the ski area which are discussed below.
Aircraft
30.Aircraft policies, including helicopters and drones, are covered section 4.4.2.6. In order to
protect the value of natural quiet in the Park aircraft use is not supported in the TNPMP
except for specific uses, i.e. park management and visitor safety activities. However, it
does recognise aircraft use can provide a practical and useful means of management and
Act
visitor safety. Policy 4.4.2.6, 1 allows for aircraft to operate for activities which would
benefit park management, where undertaken by the Department or a concessionaire
authorised by the Department to carry out these activities. This provides scope for the
Applicant to undertake the park management activities specified in the application form.
These include maintenance of assets, transporting personnel when other transport
options are not available, transporting food and waste, relocating items after extreme
weather, search and rescue. The Applicant intends on using drones as much as possible
(over helicopters) which wil minimise impacts on park visitors (policy 4.4.2.6, 2). Policy
4.4.2.6, 11 states any application must take account of the purpose for the aircraft,
alternative transport and the impact of aircraft on the environment. These are considered
Information
in the effects section 9.3 of the main report and show that the impacts of aircraft, especially
drones, is the only viable option and wil have less impact than overland transport,
however, do have higher noise and impacts on other users. Using aircraft for filming (for
promotional purposes) is not required for park management and therefore is inconsistent
with this policy. A definition of what aircraft can be used for park management purposes
is recommended to be included in any concession granted. In addition, a special condition
Official
wil be recommended requiring re-fuel ing to be undertaken in the Tūroa Ski Area on hard
standing areas where possible (policy 4.4.2.6, 13).
the
Ski Area
31.The natural values of the Tūroa Ski Area are described in section 5.1.1.2 of which the two
most important are the Tuora alpine flush and the upper Mangawhero stream. These two
areas have close to 100 per cent plant cover. See section 9.3 of the main report for more
under
discussion on these areas.
32.Section 5.1.1.3 relates to Ski Area Development and Slope Capacity. The comfortable
carrying capacity of the Tūroa Ski Area is 5,500 skiers per day, which is determined by
environmental and infrastructure limits. The Applicant has stated the carrying capacity wil
remain at 5,500 skiers in the short term but has indicated it wil likely reduce the carrying
capacity to 4,500 snow-sport users within 10 years by reducing the ski lift infrastructure.
Any future proposals to add or remove infrastructure wil be subject to separate
considerations and are not part of this application. The RSSA submission (and other
Released
submit ers affiliated with the RSSA) noted the application’s proposed reduced carrying
capacity wil reduce public enjoyment of the Park. However, the TNPMP notes the 5,500
carrying capacity is a maximum not a minimum. It is recommended a special condition be
included which requires a carrying capacity of up to 5,500 snow-sport users per day.
Ski Area Objectives and Policies
154
33.Section 5.2 has 15 subsections which set out how ski areas should be managed. For
completeness, each section is discussed below. Section 5.2.4 Landscape Planning, and
5.2.5 Building Development, are not discussed as no new works are proposed as part of
the concession.
34.Management of Existing Ski Areas - Section 5.2.1 relates to the management of existing
ski areas. As an established ski area, Tūroa is recognised and no additions or extensions
to the ski area boundary or licence area are proposed. Objective d is to ensure operations
of ski areas does not adversely affect the experience of park visitors, the landscape and
biophysical environment. This was noted by a submitter as a crucial point. The following
Act
set out how the objectives are met. The application is consistent with policy 2, which
provides that some ski lifts and associated facilities can are provided outside of the
amenities areas if they cannot reasonably be located within the amenities area. In this
case the Applicant is simply seeking approval to continue use of existing structures, some
of which are located beyond the amenities area. The activity (other than filming) is
consistent with policy 7, in that aircraft is managed as per policy 4.4.2.6.
35.Policy 12 allows for summer activities without expanding the use of facilities, which is
consistent with the summer use proposed by the Applicant.Information
36.Policy 14 discussed He
Kaupapa Rangatira, specifically that tangata whenua wil be
included in the development and management of the ski areas. This is discussed more
thoroughly in the
He Kaupapa Rangatira section and the treaty section of the main report
(section 8).
37.
Indicative Development Plans for Ski Areas – section 5.2.2 and Base Area Strategies
Official
5.2.3. Indicative Development Plans are intended to provide long-term strategic direction
of the ski area and to outline proposed large-scale changes to the ski area. The objectives
and policies set out what should be included in the Indicative Development Plan. An
Indicative Development Plan wil be required if the concession application is approved
the
and the Concessioniare wil work with the Department to approve this plan. It is important
to note however that approval of the Indicative Development Plan does not obviate the
need for Ministerial consent for new activities or structures where those are foreshadowed
in the IDP. A Base Area Strategy is similar and provides for long-term planning specific to
the base and carparking areas.
under
38.Ski Area Licences are discussed under section 5.2.6. This section records that RAL holds
licences for both the Whakapapa and Tūroa ski fields and records the Department’s belief
in the benefits of having one concessionaire for both ski fields. The policies set out that
the terms of the licences wil be subject to the TNPMP (policy 1). Furthermore, the licences
will be consistent with the ski area boundaries (policy 2) and the efficiencies of single
concessionaire regimes wil be maximised (policy 3).
Released
39.The TNPMP did not foresee RAL entering receivership or liquidation, and subsequent
attempts to sell its assets. While the Department recognises the efficiencies of a single
concessionaire (particularly in terms of communication, and safety), the Department does
not control commercial decision-making around the sale of RAL’s assets. The policies do
not preclude a separate concessionaire operating Tūroa and PTL’s application has to be
assessed on its merits. Section 5.2.7 Cafeterias and Day Shelter requires ski areas to
provide public shelters within the base areas of the ski area and notes Tūroa Ski Area has
155
covered open spaces. The Applicant has requested the base plaza area be included as a
lease area. Many submit ers were concerned about a lease of the base plaza area leading
to loss of public use of the shelter(s) located within that area. It is the Department’s view
that exclusive use Zones B, C and D of the of the Base Plaza Area by the Applicant is
inappropriate. It is recommended a lease is declined for the base plaza area and the
Applicant’s activities are instead provided for by way of a licence.
40.Sections 5.2.8 Water Uses and Snowmaking, Section 5.2.9 Snow Fencing and Grooming,
Section 5.2.10 Slope Modification and Rock Grooming, Section 5.2.11 Vehicular Access
Onto Ski Areas and Section 5.2.12 Ski-Lift Construction and Maintenance cover
operational aspects of the ski area. The recommended special conditions wil ensure the
Act
activity is consistent with these aspects of the TNPMP. It is also noted that if there are any
future changes to snowmaking, such as the snow farm identified in the draft IDP, those
activities wil need to be assessed against policies in those parts of the TNPMP.
41.Public safety (section 5.2.13), it is the responsibility of the concessionaire to provide a safe
environment. The policies set out that ski area concessionaires must maintain a current
safety plan which are approved by the Minister prior to each season. The ski areas must
also provide a ski patrol and emergency care facilities. Submitters were concerned the
Applicant may not continue the existing ski patrol service or public safety work. It is also
noted that Ruapehu is an active volcano and is known for its adverse weather conditions.
Information
Section 4.1.14.1 discusses volcanic hazards. It is noted volcanic events are a risk and the
concessionaire wil be required to maintain a current safety management system.
Similarly, section 4.2.14.2 relates to Avalanche and Erosion which wil also need to be
managed through the safety management system. These issues are discussed more in
the assessment of effects section (9.3). In summary, suitable conditions can be imposed
in a lease/licence concession to address these matters.
Official
42.Section 5.2.14 covers public access to the ski area which states that the general public
has a right to freedom of access to the ski areas. This has been discussed in this report
the
and free public access wil be a condition of any concession except in relation to the
leased areas.
43.
Summer use (section 5.2.15). This section states the primary purpose of the ski area
must be for winter-based snow activities. Summer activities wil be allowed where they
under
use the winter infrastructure without additional requirements (objective b). The Applicant
has stated it intends to conduct summer activities in the future. They haven’t specifically
stated what these are, except that they wil be low impact activities which utilise retail and
food and beverage facilities. A special condition is proposed which requires a separate
approval for any additional summer activities. The sale of food, beverages and other items
from existing buildings is not contrary to this policy.
44.Overall, it is considered the proposed activity is consistent with the TNPMP subject to
recommended conditions. However, granting of a lease over the base plaza area is not
Released
consistent with policies 5.2.6, 5.2.7 and 5.2.14. Using aircraft for filming is also not
consistent with the TNPMP and using aircraft. Accordingly, the Department recommends
those aspects of the application are declined.
Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981
156
45.The Tongariro National Park Bylaws set out bylaws for certain activities within the park.
They include restrictions on refuse, camping, access, vehicles amongst other things.
Provided the Applicant complies with the standard and special conditions, it is considered
the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 wil be complied with.
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
157
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
158
