Council ‘neutral’ on Rena wreck

Tauranga City Council is considering making a ‘neutral' submission on the resource consent application to leave the Rena wreck on Astrolabe Reef.

At next Wednesday's meeting councillors will discuss whether to approve the preparation and lodgement of a submission in the view of taking a 'stepped approach as more information comes available”.

Tauranga City Council will look to put forward a neutral submission on the Rena wreck.

Last month Bay of Plenty Regional Council received a resource consent application from the Rena owners and insurers, acting under the Astrolabe Community Trust, to leave the Rena on the reef.

It opened a 40-day submissions period that will close on August 8.

The applicants have applied for two consents – the first is to leave the structure of the vessel as it is currently, and some associated debris, including containers and parts of the contents of those containers.

The second is for the discharge of contaminants under section 15b of the Resource Management Act, which includes the leaching of materials from the vessel and debris that is left behind.

Council's consents acting team leader, Brad Bellamy, says making a ‘neutral' submission allows council to state its view on the application and ultimately be involved in the decision making-process.

It also gives council the chance to set out additional information or conditions that should be considered in making a decision on the application.

Tauranga City Mayor Stuart Crosby says while on face value it looks like council is taking a neutral position, it is actually a stepped approach.

'So what that means is that at each stage of the resource consent process we will analyse our position. But the key thing is that we stay involved,” says Stuart.

He believes the application will more than likely head to the Environment Court and a stepped position falls in line with what will be a highly evidence based decision.

If the application is then referred to the Environment Court, there is the option of becoming a ‘247 party', done by lodging a section 247 notice to the court.

Once a 247 party, council will have the ability to submit to the court and be informed of all information it has in deciding on the application.

The former containership owners Daina Shipping, and insurers, The Swedish Club, have said they want to go straight to the Environment Court following the submissions process.

The regional council won't make a formal decision until after submissions have closed. It can take the matter to the Environment Court, the Environment Protection Agency, or hear it itself.

The timeline gives the Rena owners and insurers five working days after submissions close on August 8 to lodge for direct referral to the court. The council then has to respond within 15 working days, by September 5.

Councillors views on leaving or removing the wreck.

Mayor Stuart Crosby

'I have always said publically that it should go and I think the storm of last weekend proved that it should go, because there is more debris on the beach.

Matt Cowley

'Everyone wants to see it gone. If it can go, it should go.

'My personal view on the consent is that staff have got it bang on purely because we have the option then of making sure the conditions super tight if it does stays. But we are obviously not supporting it staying.”

Gail McIntosh

'I have a neutral position as I don't know all the science of it being able to be lifted. Yes I would love it to go, but I don't know if it's possible.

'So I think as a council we have got to stay neutral. We are one large player because we have to put up with the repercussions, but I think the Environment Court where it's going to end up is the best place for it - where the experts can have their say.”

Rick Curach

'My view is that it should be left there.”

John Robson

'I think it's a very finely balanced decision on the basis of what I have seen so far; but I haven't seen all the evidence. I am keeping across it, but I know through the resource consent process it will become public and then I will make a decision.

'My gut feel, leaving aside people's belief systems, is I'm not totally against leaving it there. But can we please in the age of reason, use science logical and rationality as best as we can. If they don't give us an answer then lets resort to prejudice and ideology.”

Steve Morris

'If it's a go or stay; my view is it has to go.

'My view is as much of it as practicable needs to go. The argument has been made if it was gold down there, there wouldn't be much left.”

Clayton Mitchell

'My positon is to have it fully removed. Just last weekend with the storm we had more polystyrene balls wash up and that just going to continue to happen.

'As long as we can remove it safely without any serious injury to human life my preference is to remove it. Otherwise for a very long time we are going to have a lot of pollution and problems on our beaches, not to mention the problem on the reef itself.”

Bev Edlin

Is yet to reply to SunLive's questions.

Catherine Stewart

'I would prefer the Environment Court to make that decision as they are the right people to make this decision.”

Bill Grainger

'I would like to see it go. But where we are at the moment, we have to go through the processes and procedures.

'Before I make any final judgement I want to see what's happening through the [resource consent] process. But if possible and all goes well I personally would like to see it gone.”

Deputy Mayor Kelvin Clout

'It's going to be unrealistic to remove the whole thing and as a community we need to extract as much benefit as we can from the insurers as possible.

'At the end of the day we need to make a pragmatic decision; the cost of getting it removed is ridiculous.”

You may also like....

9 comments

Councilers

Posted on 18-07-2014 12:06 | By DAD

Well that makes it easier to decide who to wipe of my voting list next time! How anybody could think leaving the Rena there is ok beats me! Talk to the Guys that have been working out there and they will tell you what a mess the Reef is with the thousands of meters of wire etc that is out there plus all the dangerous cargo that will release in time and wash up on our beaches. Still lots of oil in wreck and other dangerous contaminants


Cant go

Posted on 18-07-2014 12:08 | By YOGI BEAR

The cost for one thing, the additional damage to the reef far out weights any aesthetic value of removing what can not be seen.


Photoshot is appropriate for financial wreck known as SS City of Tauranga

Posted on 18-07-2014 13:35 | By ROCCO

Very appropriate in todays climate it is too and has the Titanic look about it moving the deckchairs around to suit.Most EM's comments are reasonable except those of Messrs Crosby Cowley and wouldn't you know it Mitchells who are away with the fairies.


Great to see councillor's votes -

Posted on 18-07-2014 13:35 | By SML

will make it easier next election. But, given what's stated here, and given the Treaty of Waitangi's decision made public at maintain a "neutral" stance? Or do the decent thing and seek/support it's removal? Please do, or it'll be yet another thing ratepayers will be paying for for ever and ever


Move it!

Posted on 18-07-2014 14:44 | By Mary Faith

To quote Deputy Mayor Kelvin Clout "The cost of getting it moved is ridiculous" Ridiculous or not - it will not be our concern - it is that of the owners Insurance Company. The ship was/still is insured - they have the money - they are obligated to move it! Th Costa Concordia has just been raised and is being towed away to be scrapped. The Rena job should be peanuts in comparison!


cost is not ours to worry about

Posted on 18-07-2014 14:55 | By Susie 14

Kelvin Clout the cost of removing the Rena is not ours to worry about that is why shipping lines pay huge amounts of premiums the only people to make out of this is the insurance company if we leave the Rena there. Mother nature herself is telling you all to remove it by sending you a message in the storms with all the balls washing up again pragmatic is a pragmatic does mate!


excuses and pass the buck again

Posted on 18-07-2014 16:07 | By Me again

Welll, are we sitting on our hands again. Oh wait, when the next elections comes we can PROMISE again to get it moved, that will keep the locals quiet eh!


Mary Faith

Posted on 18-07-2014 16:58 | By Jitter

The Costa Concordia was on a reef on the surface not deep like the Rena. The Costa Concordia was relatively easy to remove as it had not broken up. The salvage techniques between the two wrecks are technically totally different. I would like to see the Rena go but at what possible cost to the lives of the salvors. If it is going to mean wasting human lives in the salvage then remove the accessible relatively easy bits and leave the rest. Local "Maori" may have to accept that the wreck will not be completely removed whether they get their way "culturally" or not. Believe it or not this whole incident, wreck, removal or not affects the whole population of BOP "culturally" and not just "Maori". The 80% remainder of the BOP population have their own important cultures.


Mary Faith

Posted on 18-07-2014 18:27 | By Capt_Kaveman

Well Said


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.