COVER STORY - GAEL BALDOCK

THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR ABUSE

I've just been up against the 'machine' of Auckland Council and it's still not done, yet I feel as though I've been spat out the other end. I've been outnumbered in a 'David and Goliath war of words' in court.

I've been threatened by the senior council member leading the project and even falsely accused of faking a heart attack by a local board member - to name just a few of my experiences.

To add insult to injury, I have been bullied by Auckland Council staff and local board members, yet Council have launched a campaign - "treat our Auckland Council whānau with respect" - that disregards their behaviour to us. Absolutely, everyone deserves respect. Shouldn't Auckland Council staff also treat community with respect?

Here's my story... Since 2014, I have advocated for saving Western Springs Forest, a ’significant ecological area', from the destruction wrecked upon it last month. Community are in a state of mourning over the loss of the canopy trees where the birds lived, and the huge amount of unnecessary annihilation of the native under storey. Mountains of resin filled chip were made to destroy the evidence of the good healthy trees. More than shovel depth of chip remains under the planted area, with several metres deep in a large area. I submitted to the notified resource consent, as did 40 others. Alongside the Society for the Protection of Western Springs Forest, I was an appellant to the environment court mediation that mandated a community liaison group (CLG), consisting of myself, representatives of the Zoo, MOTAT, the Stadium and four Council members.

The mediation was intimidating, with Council flanking either side of us with the full weight of their ratepayer funded resources including highly paid experts and legal council. Conversely, we were represented by one lawyer, a member of the community as second chair, and community advocates and experts in a voluntary capacity. As well as time and stress, that legal action cost one member of the community $60,000.

The intention of the CLG was for Auckland Council representatives to liaise (hence the name) with the community. But engagement is NOT what Council does best.

Council changed representatives a number of times until at the critical part of the project an ex-police officer had the main

role. That's when the flow of information almost ground to a halt. CLG members were blocked from critical information, there was a lack of clarification, and questions were evaded over and over again.

Community advocates continually bent over backwards with politeness in an attempt to keep the lines of communication open, but the responses lacked any professionalism or respectful behaviour. Community members on the CLG were compelled to bring support people to meetings to maintain their dignity and wellbeing. I was so stressed I had to take time out for my mental health. I culled anything from my life other than this project and my health suffered.

Auckland Council Community Facilities chose the day after Easter to start work while only giving one working day notice to the CLG of this intention. It fell upon me, as the appellant to take Auckland Council Community Facilities to the environment court for an enforcement order. As a layperson it took me a week to write the affidavit and assemble the evidence. Me against the 'machine'!

The Auckland Council lawyers called my application "frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process" and asked for a security of costs, in an effort to have me withdraw the enforcement order.

A 'stop work' was ordered for a day for a teleconference. The judge sent an environment court commissioner to the CLG meetings. He determined that communication had broken down and therefore it needed to go to hearing - so not "frivolous or vexatious".

The council's in-house lawyer repeatedly sniggered in court with council representative on the CLG, including when I shared with the judge personal matters and the mental toll of council's lack of good faith engagement in the CLG.

The judgement was around the vibrational impact on the old mill cottages, from 40 metre high trees smashing to the ground. Even then, the council representative wouldn't provide the measures required.

Breaching my privacy, council's representative rang me the day after the traumatic court hearing. Her threatening call left me in foetal position. Escalating pains resulted in my doctor insisting on the hospital conducting an ECG on my heart.

In desperation, I reached out to Waitematā Local Board (WLB). Their role is to liaise between community and council. But the chair shut me down in a state of deep distress, saying I couldn't criticise staff. A board member even accused me of "faking a heart attack", which was bizarre as she had accompanied me to hospital. This has been one of the worst experiences of my life. Subsequently, I submitted a complaint about the breach of the Privacy Act, and I initiated a code of conduct complaint to the CEO of Auckland Council, Jim Stabback. Months later, I still haven't received the courtesy of a response.

CLG members were refused access to the site. We wanted to ensure that the resource consent was being upheld. Council spent $50,000 per week on security guards to watch and photograph the neighbours and visitors 24/7 and six foot high wire fences were erected. Neighbours, protesters and CLG members were treated like caged criminals.

Many of the community have informed WLB that their all important resolution has been disregarded by the CEO, who is responsible for implementation of it. The resolution clearly states, "to protect the existing and regenerating ecology"..."low impact methods identified by Professor Visser to the extent legally possible". This matter should be in front of the ombudsman, auditor general, attorney general, and minister of local government for review.

As guardians of the project and representing the 'land owners', I have informed WLB that there are breaches of the resource consent. The consent states, "Within 3 months of pine tree removal being completed, the access track, culvert and landing/chipping areas shall be disestablished and the area returned to the same general topographical formation as existed prior to the works being undertaken". That means the slope and the valleys of the land must be returned to their original shape so the over land water courses can flow rather than pond on the track area, therefore the land can become a 'significant ecological area' again.

I presented these breaches to the board in their public meeting with a croaky voice as the stress of the last 5 months has been so intense that I lost my voice for the last month. It's rather ironic as it's really a metaphor for how voiceless I've felt during this debacle.

Why should saving a forest be so hard when Auckland Council has an 'urban ngahere plan' and a 'climate change emergency'?

The council and compliance process appeared, in my architectural experience, to be treated very differently to how any private contract would be run.

To me the death of this 'gold standard transitioning native forest', Te Wai Ōrea, deserves a eulogy in its honour. I feel an obligation to restore the land and complete the process, having lost the battle, and hopefully, walk away with my sanity intact.

The survival of pathetically small plants now sitting in chip, not in soil, is dubious. One thing is certain, there won't be a forest able to sustain the level of birdlife that inhabited it before the carnage, in my lifetime. This reality has also made me look into the abyss of my longevity. That being said, there's no excuse for the abuse I've had to endure.  PN

Gael Baldock, Community Advocate