20 Nov 2023
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal: under the LWRP rule 5.128 the taking and use of groundwater must be considered together as an integrated activity for the purposes of consent; ECan therefore erred in processing Cloud Ocean's proposal as a use-only application under residual rule 5.6 and the consents granted were unlawful.
30 Nov 2021
High Court held Fish & Game failed to establish material errors of law in the Environment Court's decision on the Plan Change except that the sustainable management purpose in s5 RMA does encompass sustainable management of trout and their habitat and there was a non‑material interpretive error on the NPSFM 'limit'/'over‑allocation' point; the Environment Court's factual findings on hydrology, ecology and the comparative effectiveness of the Galleries 550/1,639 scenario were supported by evidence and were within the range of reasonable conclusions; s7(h) imposes a duty to have particular rega…
8 Jul 2020
The Council lawfully processed the applications as consents to change the use of water already authorised by existing take permits; s14 permits the grant of standalone use consents which can authorise water taken under another permit; amalgamation of the new use consents with existing take consents was an administrative measure that did not create new takes; implemented consents form part of the existing environment for effects and notification assessments under ss95A/95B; accordingly there was no reviewable error in the Council's notification or substantive decisions and the judicial review…
7 Dec 2016
The Environment Court made material errors of law by failing to consider all relevant expert scenarios, by treating NZEL's late 'fall back' position as a controlled activity outside the scope of the pleaded appeal and beyond its jurisdiction, and by wrongly treating the existing environment as including the scheme in operation; the Environment Court's decision is quashed and must be reconsidered applying the correct s104 approach and respecting the scope of proceedings and One Plan controls.
2 Nov 2015
The appeal is dismissed because CRC042233.3 was subject to a condition (agreed by the appellant) limiting use of the remaining allocation to Robert's land so the later grant of CRC110662 did not derogate from or unlawfully interfere with the appellant's consent; transfers under s136 are applications for resource consent and contingent on statutory assessment; the appellant had no freestanding proprietary right to unfettered transfer, and procedural and notification requirements were properly addressed by an independent commissioner.