Keith Melville

I was sipping coffee on Tuesday when I witnessed the protest hikoi through Whakatāne, against development of land that protesters claim is part of the Ōpihi Urupa on the sandspit across the harbour from the town centre.

First, I want to say the urupa must be protected and respected, absolutely, but the big question remains – is the council-owned land next to the fenced area we all know as Ōpihi really part of the urupa?

That has been the question for 25 years and more ever since Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa wanted to relocate Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiarangi to the council-owned site.

I attended those early hearings as a reporter but not the appeal cases that followed. The Environment Court began hearing the latest appeal, brought by Ōpihi’s trustees, at REAP House on Tuesday.

I doubt whether many of those involved in the hikoi would be aware that Ngāti Awa elders, at least when the dispute started, backed a development plan for the council-owned part of the site.

The key issues, Ōpihi’s size and suitability for development, were first argued in the early 2000s, or maybe a few years earlier, when the Environment Court rejected claims by some younger Ngāti Awa, (one of them, Rapata Kopae, is now a tribal elder and the leading  trustee), that the boundaries were much bigger than claimed by their elders.

The elders were led by the late Joe Mason, and supported by the runanga chairman, Dr Hirii Mead, and the runanga legal team headed by Layne Harvey (now Justice Harvey). They maintained that the urupa boundaries had already been established. Mr Mason outlined those boundaries to the court and the court in its judgment accepted the views of the elders.

An archaeological report had been produced showing there was no evidence of archaeological material on the disputed land.

Archaeologist Ken Phillips later said (2017), due to the shifting nature of sand dunes, it would be impossible to know whether burials had taken place outside Ōpihi until earthworks had taken place.

At the first hearing the runanga also said the wānanga would serve as a buffer zone between Ōpihi and the council land. The parties agreed that should archaeological material be found, work would cease to allow for the site’s reassessment.

Ngāti Awa decided many years ago the site was too expensive and the wānanga’s interest was withdrawn.

The runanga, at one point, renounced its original decision and was backing the trustees.

Since the first court case, the wider issues have been re-litigated again in the Environment Court after Heritage New Zealand approved a consent for a 240-lot subdivision on the site at 77 Bunyan Road.

The appellants lost an appeal to the Environment Court in 2022, and the High Court backed that finding in the same year.

The current appeal is against the decision by Heritage New Zealand to approve an archaeological consent for the 27-hectare development.

The site has been subject to a sale and purchase agreement with developers since 2017.

Since the original decision there have been some substantial changes in matters surrounding the case, but, as far as I know, the central issues remain the same – that is its size and whether it is suitable for development due to archaeological factors.