Foster flies solo to fight landfill in court

One local tip opponent had the distinction of being not only the only individual to give evidence and cross-examine witnesses, he was also the only party not represented by a lawyer.

Bill Foster, who lives at Leigh, is best known as the chair of the Northern Action Group, or NAG, originally formed to oppose Rodney’s inclusion into the Auckland Supercity, although in this case, he was appearing for himself.

He attended the court as a Section 274 party – that is, someone who had already made a submission in previous hearings – which meant he had the option of presenting a submission, producing evidence and crossexamining witnesses if he chose.

In his closing submissions, Foster noted that he had no formal legal training and expressed his gratitude to the court for its consideration and understanding of this, as well as for the case being conducted online, which made attendance a lot easier for him and others.

Despite his professed lack of training, Foster demonstrated extensive knowledge of the Auckland Unitary Plan, the Resource

Management Act, the Waste Minimisation Act and other key laws and regulations concerning landfills and waste disposal. He said that as adverse effects of the proposal were more than minor, they therefore should be avoided if practicable, and practicable alternatives had been identified.

He also said there was no urgent need for a new regional landfill and the status quo was a valid, practicable alternative that would do far less harm.

“Necessity is claimed by the applicant, but has not been shown. A new regional landfill is not currently needed for Auckland, and may never be needed,” Foster told the court.

“As Commissioner Tepania said in her dissenting opinion [in the independent hearing judgement], ‘I was not persuaded by the evidence of the applicant that that facility needs to be a landfill and that that landfill needs to be in this particular location and at the proposed scale, extent and form proposed by the applicant’.

“Evidence [from WM] has shown that there is no urgent need to provide additional capacity. There is sufficient time for Auckland Council to review and plan

Having submitted at some length on various legal definitions and applications pertaining to the case, Foster said it was neither logical nor environmentally or ethically sound for the proposal to be consented.