At a hearing last week, Onumai Enterprises director Greg Mirams outlined a proposal for a development in Taieri Mouth which would have accommodation and also facilities for disabled people to get close to water and into boats.
In his evidence to the Otago Regional Council (ORC) hearing he outlined his vision for the development.
He also has dealings with Aukaha, the consultancy that works across the environmental, health, social services and cultural and economic development sectors.
Mr Mirams, who was out of the country this week and could not be contacted, said in written evidence to the hearing he and his wife Angela - the other director of Onumai Enterprises - had initially consulted with local iwi representatives, who were receptive and supportive of the proposal.
They then referred the proposal with their recommendation to Aukaha.
Through other local iwi contacts, they facilitated an introduction to Aukaha and were offered a face-to-face meeting to discuss the proposal.
‘‘Having initially agreeing to meet, Aukaha then changed their mind,’’ he said in his evidence.
‘‘We then wrote to Aukaha directly addressing their submission points.
‘‘We did not receive a response to our written report.
‘‘At the ORC pre-hearing, Aukaha again agreed to meet, only to then decline us again.’’
A pre-hearing meeting is used to try to sort things out by meeting face to face to talk through issues.
The meeting provides an opportunity for parties to work out points of disagreement or misunderstanding in a semi-formal setting.
Mr Mirams continued to try to contact Aukaha.
‘‘In total, I sent 14 emails to Aukaha over several months, made numerous phone calls, our lawyer contacted them and I also made inquiries via my business contacts.
‘‘We were left with no further options to engage iwi to discuss the proposal and the concerns they had raised in their submission.’’
Aukaha interim chief executive Chris Rosenbrock said Aukaha and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou participated in this process by providing cultural evidence and legal submissions in support of its position.
‘‘The applicant was provided with an opportunity to respond to these matters,’’ he said.
The hearing process remained ongoing and ultimately it was a matter for the hearing panel appointed by the council to determine whether to grant consent.
‘‘As this process is ongoing, it is not appropriate for Aukaha to comment further on the application.’’
Aukaha did not answer questions on why it did not take part in the pre-hearing meeting or answer emails and other correspondence from the applicant.
