Meridian Energy Ltd v Central Otago District Council HC Dunedin

COURT OR TRIBUNAL

High Court of New Zealand

DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)

21/06/2010

LITIGATION TYPE

Project Approval - Mitigation

SUBJECT MATTER

Wind farm

REVIEW TYPE

Merits review and judicial review

SUMMARY

(Lexis Catchwords & Digest)

Energy and resources — Electricity — Resource Management Act 1991 — Consent to operate wind farm

Appeal against New Zealand Environment Court (NZEnvC). Appellant applied for resource consent to operate substantial wind farm for generation of electricity. NZEnvC refused consent holding that project did not achieve sustainable management in terms of (NZ) Resource Management Act 1991 s 5. Held: nationally important positive factor of providing renewable energy was outweighed by adverse considerations including substantial impact on outstanding natural landscape.

Appellant appealed to New Zealand High Court (NZHC) alleging that NZEnvC erred in law requiring consideration of alternatives to appellant site and requiring comprehensive and explicit cost-benefit analysis of proposal. Claimed was denied fair hearing because of process used in reaching decision. NZHC adopted approach to alternative site issue based on another NZEnvC decision delivered after appellant hearing. Appellant claimed should have been given opportunity for further submission once other decision was released.

Cross-appeal was filed claimed NZEnvC erred in consideration and evaluation of effects of climate change in terms of s 7(i) because NZEnvC excluded consideration of causes of climate change. Established EnvC did not err in law when called for consideration of alternative locations as this was relevant and reasonably necessary to determine application in terms of s104 (1)(c). Established consent authority was not required to consider alternatives as part of efficiency analysis under s 7(b) nor could comprehensive and explicit cost-benefit analysis of proposal be required as part of examination of efficiency criterion in s 7(b). Established nothing to put appellant on notice that NZEnvC was considering adopting approach to alternative sites nor had issue been identified by parties or addressed during hearing. Established NZEnvC should have heard further from parties including giving opportunity for further evidence and once decision on which based had been released. Established requirement to have particular regard to effects of climate change in s 7(i) did not include requirement to consider causes of climate change. Accordingly, matter referred to NZEnvC for consideration and cross appeal dismissed. Appeal allowed.

CASE DOCUMENTS

Meridian Energy Ltd v Central Otago District Council HC Dunedin CIV-2009-412-000980 [2010] NZHC 1390; [2011] 1 NZLR 482; [2010] NZRMA 477 (16 August 2010)
Meridian Energy Ltd v Central Otago District Council [2011] NZLR 712