Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others - SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014