Environmental / Resource Management
High Court dumps the Dome Valley landfill appeals
Having dismissed the appeals challenging the Environment Court's interim decision to grant consent for Dome Valley mega-dump in Wellsford1, the High Court has made important findings regarding the ongoing development of waste management infrastructure in Auckland, balancing environmental protection, cultural values, and practical necessities in infrastructure development.
The following key areas were challenged by the appellants:
Mana whenua status and cultural effects
The appellants alleged that the landfill would significantly adversely affect the mauri of receiving waters in breach of their tikanga, which should have been treated by the Environment Court as the cultural bottom line, not to be breached.
The High Court found that the Environment Court had given appropriate consideration to mana whenua values in its deliberations. While acknowledging that tikanga of particular iwi might serve as a cultural "bottom line" in certain cases, the High Court determined that the Environment Court's role was to balance competing values unless clearly directed otherwise by statute or policy.
Site selection
The Environment Court’s finding that the appropriateness of the site was not determinative to the consent outcome was challenged by the appellants.
The High Court supported the Environment Court's approach to alternative site consideration. While acknowledging that procedural failures in considering alternatives wouldn't typically justify declining consent, the Court found no substantive error in the Environment Court's methodology for evaluating alternative locations.
Freshwater matters and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM)
Appellants had suggested that the Environment Court adopted an overly simplistic overall broad judgement or "blender" approach to the NPS-FM “avoid” provisions.2 The High Court rejected this characterization, emphasizing that the Environment Court's 900-paragraph judgment demonstrated a thorough and nuanced analysis of individual policies within their proper context.
The Court having noted that the applicant’s involvement in the application process had spanned more than 13 years before the NPS-FM came into effect, concluded that treating the policies as an automatic veto would be procedurally and substantively unfair to the applicant.
The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP)
The appellants contended that the Environment Court was wrong to treat the AUP landfill policy (Chapter E13) as relating to discharges only, and the policy applied to all effects.
The High Court endorsed the Environment Court's interpretation regarding the establishment of new landfills. While recognizing that landfills could potentially meet the planning requirements by demonstrating no material harm, the Court found that imposing such a stringent standard universally would be unjustified and inconsistent with the AUP’s recognition of infrastructure's broader public benefits.
The waste minimisation framework
The appellants challenged the Environment Court’s finding that the framework was not saying there was no need for solid waste disposal to landfill in the medium future, arguing that in effect the Environment Court had treated the framework as having only a symbolic significance not needing to be enforced by the council.
In determining that the Environment Court had appropriately considered both, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the council’s Waste Management Plan, the High Court noted its limited ability to second-guess the Environment Court's factual and evaluative findings in this area.
- Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua v Auckland Council [2024] NZHC 3794.
- Avoid provisions require councils to include objectives, policies, and methods in their district plans to avoid any further loss or degradation of wetlands and streams, mapping existing wetlands and encouraging their restoration.
