Bay of Islands marina fast‑tracked but developers yet to commit

The proposed marina includes berthage for 250 vessels, a public boat ramp, trailer parking, and a commercial precinct with fuelling services, hospitality and retail outlets, emergency service facilities, upgraded road access, and supporting infrastructure. It would require multiple approvals, including resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991, permits under the Wildlife Act 1953, and archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

Azuma and Hoppers are proposing a marina for up to 250 vessels, including capacity for up to 14 super yachts, but the developers face hurdles. Photo / Supplied

Hurdles identified by submitters

Comments from officials invited by Bishop to make submissions point to some of the major hurdles that lie ahead for the developers should they decide to advance their application.

These range from biosecurity and environmental concerns to questions about economic viability, iwi engagement, and regulatory compliance — many of which would need to be addressed in detail at the substantive application stage.

Biosecurity New Zealand: The site lies within a Controlled Area Notice zone for the invasive exotic seaweed caulerpa, prohibiting dredging and anchoring unless strict biosecurity permits are granted. Removed materials would be deemed high-risk under the Biosecurity Act 1993.Shane Jones (Regional Development Minister): Acknowledged potential tourism and economic benefits but questioned whether the scale of them was sufficient to classify the project as regionally or nationally significant. Urged consideration of impacts on kaimoana, caulerpa management, and iwi relationships.Penny Simmonds (Environment Minister): Noted the referral lacked detailed ecological and landscape assessments. More comprehensive studies would be required to determine environmental effects and mitigation.Paul Goldsmith (Treaty Negotiations Minister): Initially raised concerns about the legal uncertainty of a marginal coastal strip on which the marina encroached but this was resolved when the applicant clarified — and the Treaty Settlements Office Te Tari Whakatau agreed — that the land falls within the common marine and coastal area under the Takutai Moana Act, and cannot be owned. However, customary title claims may still affect the project.Department of Conservation (DoC): Warned of risks to habitats for Australasian bittern, bottlenose dolphins and native lizards. The site lies within the Bay of Islands Marine Mammal Sanctuary, requiring permits under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and Conservation Act 1987. DoC also flagged the absence of ecological assessments and potential conflicts with customary marine title claims. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga: Recommended a formal archaeological assessment due to likely presence of recorded and unrecorded sites. If an authority is required, iwi and hapū consultation will be mandatory. The applicant’s outreach to mana whenua has largely gone unanswered, and Heritage NZ warned that the archaeological process demands a higher standard of engagement.Northland Regional Council (NRC): Questioned whether the marina’s economic benefits would be regionally concentrated, noting much of the projected GDP may flow outside Northland. Existing marina capacity in Opua, Paihia, and Waitangi may already meet demand. NRC also highlighted regulatory hurdles under the Regional Plan, including mooring restrictions, marine pest pathways, and mapped habitats for threatened species. The site’s location within areas of high natural character would trigger multiple discretionary and non-complying activities.Far North District Council: Confirmed no competing applications are lodged but noted awareness of three other marina developments under consideration. The council said it could not determine whether the Waipiro Marina would deliver significant regional benefits and found the proposal difficult to assess against district plans due to unclear details around earthworks, vegetation clearance, roading and access.Tama Potaka (Minister for Māori Development and Māori Crown Relations): Recommended the application be considered under other legislation, citing strong opposition from Māori groups, inadequate consultation, and concerns that feedback had not been properly addressed.Of 40 Māori groups invited to comment, 16 submitted responses: All preferred to see the project dealt with under the Resource Management Act, which they believed better protected Māori interests. Concerns included impacts on customary rights under the Takutai Moana Act, access to kaimoana, cultural practices, and insufficient engagement with hapū and MACA applicants. Submitters also noted iwi environmental plans had been overlooked and highlighted obligations under Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia.

Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, most of which she spent reporting on the courts in Gisborne and the East Coast.