10 Jul 2020
The Court held the Council erred in law by failing to have proper regard to acknowledged temporary moderate adverse landscape and visual effects and by discounting those interim effects on the basis they would be mitigated over time; the notification and consent decisions were set aside and remitted for a fresh notification decision.
4 Jun 2019
The High Court dismissed the judicial review: the Council's consultation (including 14 months of prior engagement culminating in a 14-day formal consultation) complied with s77, s78 and s82 LGA and common law duties; options reasonably reflected practicable designs and safety/regulatory constraints; technical peer review could properly occur after a preferred option was selected; Option E could be nominated by submitters; the Mayor's hybrid option was not so materially different as to require re-consultation; and the Council lawfully weighed submissions among other factors so there was no unl…
17 Apr 2014
An adaptive management regime may lawfully form part of a precautionary response under the NZCPS where there is an adequate evidential foundation: baseline monitoring and modelling sufficient to reduce uncertainty before stocking, effective monitoring and remedial thresholds, and enforceable consent conditions (including peer review and council approval) that prevent expansion until standards are met. Given those safeguards the Board lawfully approved the plan changes and consents for the Waitata, Richmond and Ngamahau sites; it was permissible for the Board to take the proposed consent condi…
23 Mar 2010
The Court allowed the appeal: ERMA's acceptance and registration of AgResearch's broadly framed s40 applications was essentially procedural/mechanical and not a conclusive vetting or approval; HSNO does not oblige ERMA to reject at the threshold every application that may be generically framed and it may use s52/s58 and s45 powers during assessment; judicial review of the mere act of registering the applications was premature, so the High Court orders quashing ERMA's acceptance were quashed and ERMA must be allowed to continue its assessment under s45.
2 Oct 2009
The Environment Court exceeded its jurisdiction by adopting a 10 ha minimum lot size for discretionary activities in the RAL Zone because Liz Briggs' Reference and submissions did not reasonably and fairly alert interested parties to that relief; accordingly the Environment Court's amendment was beyond the scope of the Reference, evidence cannot supply jurisdiction, and the 10 ha threshold must be set aside and the 4 ha threshold reinstated.
21 Nov 2007
The High Court held the Council lawfully declined public notification: the Council had sufficient information and properly addressed site effects such that concluding the effects on the subdivision site were no more than minor was open to it; s94A(c) requires disregarding effects on persons who gave written approval (here DOC), so off‑site effects on the Reserve were excluded from the s94 assessment; Forest and Bird lacked the necessary site‑specific interest to be a person who 'may be adversely affected'; and no special circumstances under s94C arose that required notification.