The NZ Supreme Court decisions in the King Salmon cases were released on Thursday 17 April. The cases involved appeals against plan changes and resource consent applications for 9 marine farming sites in the Marlborough Sounds.
Two sites were challenged by EDS and Save the Sounds on the basis that the NZ Coastal Policy Statement requires outstanding natural landscapes to be avoided, and that this policy directive established a clear environmental bottom line.
The Supreme Court agreed with this legal submission and departed from the overall broad judgment approach adopted by the Environment Court in the North Shore City Council case in 1997. Subsequently, some commentators have referred to this approach as a “balancing” test arguing that it (generally) favours development, while others have argued that the test is neutral and leaves decision makers free to select their own preferred policy option.
The likely effect of this landmark judgment by the Supreme Court was neatly summarised by Raewyn Peart of EDS who observed:
This is arguably the most important decision on the Resource Management Act (RMA) that has been given by our courts to date and it establishes new jurisprudence in this area. EDS has always believed that the overall broad judgment approach was wrong and that the RMA contains environmental bottom lines.
This will be interesting to debate in class in Week 8 when we look at the topic of sustainable management, including the meaning and effect of RMA s 5.
Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited [2014] NZSC 38