2 May 2018
CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL v P & E LIMITED & OTHERS [2018] NZHC 905
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 905
- Court
- High Court
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in law because it had an evidential foundation for imposing the 800 L/s cut-off, drawn from and supported by hydrological evidence (hydrograph, MALF estimates, quantified gravel losses) together with expert ecological evidence and planning instruments; the Court's inference that preserving MALF plus allowance for gravel losses would avoid more than minor ecological effects was open on the evidence and not unreasonable.