Environment Court decision inconclusive

The Environment Court has recently released an interim decision that the status of a resource consent granted to Lakeview Ventures Limited, be determined at a full Court hearing.

Lakeview Ventures Ltd was granted a controlled activity resource consent by Taupo District Council for a 57 lot subdivision off Mapara Road. This decision was appealed by the Mapara Valley Preservation Society with support from the Environmental Defence Society.

The validity of the Court hearing the appeal was recently challenged by the consent holder (Lakeview Ventures Limited) in a ‘strike out’ application before the Environment Court. Lakeview Ventures Limited argued that the Court could not hear the appeal, as it was a controlled activity (meaning that consent could not be declined). The Court noted that the issues raised were complex and best dealt with via a thorough hearing with all parties involved.

Council’s Group Manager Environmental Services, Gareth Green said that this was a fair call, given that as a controlled activity, Council has no choice but to grant resource consent, and can only impose conditions on the consent. Mr Green said that the Council has since received further advice, and as a result is confident that the Council’s position of assessing the applications as controlled activities is legally correct.

This means that the decision by Council to grant the consent and others like it stands, and will be explored by the Court in the near future.

Council’s District Regulatory and Hearings Committee Chair, Cr Don Ormsby, supports the Court’s decision and says that having the matters proceed to hearing is the most sensible approach to a complex set of circumstances, and will allow the Court to consider all of the matters in a comprehensive way.

He said despite recent media coverage, this was certainly not a case of the Environment Court stating that Council was wrong, simply that the matter should be heard by the Court before the Court makes a decision. “For anyone to believe that it was the Court stating that Council was wrong, shows that they have either not read the decision, or are being mischievous,” he said.

Both Cr Ormsby and Mr Green believe Council’s original decision that the applications are controlled activities, would ultimately be upheld by the Court. Mr Green said “Officers have looked at this matter very seriously and sought legal advice before advising the Regulatory and Hearing’s Committee. As a result, we are confident that when Council’s situation is comprehensively put in front of the Court they will appreciate the Council’s position.”

Cr Ormsby said that he welcomed the Court having the opportunity to consider this matter as carefully as his Committee had done, in coming to their decision. “The Committee has made a decision based on the evidence and best advice available to it - the Court should have that same opportunity. Until the Court states that we were wrong, our decision does not change.”

A date for the Environment Court hearing is yet to be set.