Canterbury Council's Freshwater Management Challenged In Court
Article – RNZ
The first of two back-to-back court cases challenging the Canterbury regional council's freshwater management begins at the Christchurch High Court today., Senior reporter
The first of two back-to-back court cases challenging the Canterbury regional council's freshwater management begins at the Christchurch High Court today.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) will ask the court to quash a rule in the regional plan which allows certain farming discharges as a permitted activity.
Senior researcher Anna Sintenie said ELI will argue the rule – which allows the discharge of nutrients onto or into land to be a permitted activity in some circumstances, but can result in contaminants entering water – breaches the Resource Management Act.
She said the council should be protecting the health of Canterbury's waterways and people for generations to come, but has instead been 'illegally permissive' of activities that have led to significant pollution.
The organisations will be back in the High Court the following week, as ELI seeks to have a consent for the Mayfield Hinds Valetta (MHV) irrigation scheme deemed unlawful.
In 2021, the council granted MHV Water Ltd a consent to discharge nitrogen over more than 58,000 hectares in the Hinds/Hekeao Plains.
Sintenie said the organisation is seeking a similar outcome as they won in 2024, when the court found the council had unlawfully granted a resource consent for the neighbouring Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Ltd irrigation scheme (ALIL), and quashed the consent.
The regional council and ALIL have appealed the decision.
She said in the wake of the court's findings in the ALIL case – that the council's decision to grant the discharge consent breached the RMA, and that the council had failed to consider other relevant policies requiring it to avoid adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity and the 'natural character' of coastal and freshwater environment – ELI took another look at the council's water management and protection.
The group will also argue the council failed to consider the potential impacts on local drinking water supplies, and should have notified the community.
It was just down to the court's timetabling that the cases had been scheduled back to back, Sintinie said.
But it was no coincidence the organisation was scrutinising the Canterbury Regional Council's decison-making, consent management and protection of freshwater.
'We've had a focus on water quality outcomes in Canterbury because we can see there's a significant nitrogen pollution issue in the region.
'We believe in this context of significant pollution, there's a high responsibility on ECan [the regional council] to be sure it's properly managing these issues.'
The majority of the country's freshwater is located in Canterbury (about 70 percent), as is the bulk of the nation's irrigated land.
The council declined to comment while the cases were before the court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Governments plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. A coalition of legal experts has launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government's emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law. 'Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government has to put in place a credible emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets and set us up for success,' says Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc Executive Director Jessica Palairet. 'Yet, in the face of warnings from our Climate Change Commission that there are 'significant risks' around whether New Zealand will meet its climate targets, the plan misses the mark. It takes a high-risk, forestry-led approach to emissions reductions. Our law requires more.' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Government's plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. 'As it stands, the Government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' says Ms Palairet. Under the Climate Change Response Act, governments must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets – which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target. In 2024, the Government published the second emissions reduction plan, which will be operative from 2026 – 2030. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030). ELI's director, research and legal, Dr Matt Hall says 'the Government cancelled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan – without consulting the public first, as required by law. It then put in place a second emissions reduction plan which is almost devoid of actions or policies for reducing emissions at their source.' The NGOs allege that the second emissions reduction plan is unlikely to ensure emissions stay within the budget, has an unrealistic approach to risk management, and assumes that 95% of the planned emissions reductions will occur by themselves without policies or strategies. Instead of focusing on reducing emissions at source, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts instead relied heavily on offsetting the country's emissions with forestry plantations. 'This was despite warnings from the Climate Change Commission that tree planting is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. It locks-in vast pine plantations for future generations, and runs up against our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The science is clear that forestry is important, but it's not a substitute for reducing our combustion of fossil fuels,' says Dr Hall. Dr Hall says the Minister was required to publish a sufficiently detailed plan that could assure the public New Zealand will meet its emissions budget. The Government's plan does not give confidence; in our view, it is neither credible nor capable of achieving the purpose, which is to reduce emissions'. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ's Jessica Palairet says, 'The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future.' 'We believe it is necessary to take this case to protect the interests of the public now and in the future, and to test these important legal provisions for the first time.' The application for judicial review has been filed with the High Court and is awaiting a court date. Notes:
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Governments plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. A coalition of legal experts has launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government's emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law. 'Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government has to put in place a credible emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets and set us up for success,' says Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc Executive Director Jessica Palairet. 'Yet, in the face of warnings from our Climate Change Commission that there are 'significant risks' around whether New Zealand will meet its climate targets, the plan misses the mark. It takes a high-risk, forestry-led approach to emissions reductions. Our law requires more.' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Government's plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. 'As it stands, the Government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' says Ms Palairet. Under the Climate Change Response Act, governments must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets – which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target. In 2024, the Government published the second emissions reduction plan, which will be operative from 2026 – 2030. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030). ELI's director, research and legal, Dr Matt Hall says 'the Government cancelled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan – without consulting the public first, as required by law. It then put in place a second emissions reduction plan which is almost devoid of actions or policies for reducing emissions at their source.' The NGOs allege that the second emissions reduction plan is unlikely to ensure emissions stay within the budget, has an unrealistic approach to risk management, and assumes that 95% of the planned emissions reductions will occur by themselves without policies or strategies. Instead of focusing on reducing emissions at source, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts instead relied heavily on offsetting the country's emissions with forestry plantations. 'This was despite warnings from the Climate Change Commission that tree planting is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. It locks-in vast pine plantations for future generations, and runs up against our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The science is clear that forestry is important, but it's not a substitute for reducing our combustion of fossil fuels,' says Dr Hall. Dr Hall says the Minister was required to publish a sufficiently detailed plan that could assure the public New Zealand will meet its emissions budget. The Government's plan does not give confidence; in our view, it is neither credible nor capable of achieving the purpose, which is to reduce emissions'. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ's Jessica Palairet says, 'The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future.' 'We believe it is necessary to take this case to protect the interests of the public now and in the future, and to test these important legal provisions for the first time.' The application for judicial review has been filed with the High Court and is awaiting a court date. Notes:
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Resource Consent Exemptions For Granny Flats And Papakāinga
Press Release – Science Media Centre The government is asking for public feedback on proposed changes to how we can create more housing in Aotearoa, such as 'granny flats' in backyards and papakāinga on Māori ancestral land. Proposed National Environmental Standards (NES) for granny flats would require all councils to permit a granny flat of up to 70 m2 on an existing property without needing to get a resource consent, subject to certain conditions. The new NES for papakāinga would create uniform standards across the motu, and would allow Māori landowners to build up to 10 homes for small papakāinga without needing a resource consent. Submissions on these and many other proposed changes to the Resource Management Act are open until Sunday, 27 July. The SMC asked experts to comment. Jade Kake, Senior Lecturer, Huri te Ao School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: Comment on New NES for papakāinga: 'Papakāinga provisions vary widely throughout Aotearoa, with territorial authorities either having no provisions at all or provisions with varying approaches, rules, and definitions of papakāinga. This issue was raised in the Office of the Auditor General's 2011 report and in the 2014 follow-up. Whilst a number of individual territorial authorities have initiated plan change processes in the intervening years to adopt papakāinga policies, many have yet to initiate this process. The proposed NES will be welcomed by Māori housing advocates, including Te Matapihi he tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, who have long advocated for consistency at a national level with regards to papakāinga provisions. 'The NES for papakāinga is an important step towards unlocking Māori land for the development of papakāinga, providing national direction to territorial authorities to introduce minimum standards for papakāinga within their district plans. For some, this will mean introducing new papakāinga policies; for others, this will mean making changes to existing ones. These are minimum standards, which means that although territorial authorities can set their own rules, these must meet or exceed the minimum standards (be more enabling) but cannot be less enabling. 'A major issue is that much of Māori land is zoned rural, with density provisions of around one dwelling per 10 hectares, limiting the ability of whānau Māori to establish or re-establish kāinga on their ancestral lands. Under the proposed provisions, the NES will remove the need for notified consents for papakāinga (of up to 10 dwellings) within all territorial authority areas. Māori landowners (of Māori ancestral land as defined in the NES) will be able to develop up to 10 residential units, marae, and a number of ancillary non-residential activities (such as commercial, conservation, educational, health, sports and recreation activities, provided these are directly associated with the papakāinga) as a matter of right without the need for resource consent (for the activity – consents can still be required for other matters, such as earthworks, wastewater, Indigenous vegetation clearance, etc). The NES also includes provisions for medium and larger papakāinga: medium-sized papakāinga (11-30 units) will be a restricted discretionary activity, and more than 30 units will be a discretionary activity.' Comment on New NES for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) Regulations: 'Similar to the NES for papakāinga, these changes direct territorial authorities to amend their district plans to allow for one minor residential unit per site in residential, rural, mixed-use, and Māori purpose zones across all of New Zealand. Many district plans already provide for minor residential units as a permitted activity, and some are more enabling, however, the NES will ensure that all territorial authorities adopt this standard as a minimum. Outside of papakāinga provisions, this will provide greater opportunities for multigenerational living on a single site, enabling whānau to develop a minor dwelling or granny flat without the need for resource consent.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Not a conflict, but I have a background in policy advocacy and have provided policy advice to government and political parties and provided expert commentary both in an independent capacity and in a previous role for Te Matapihi he Tirohanga mō te Iwi Trust, an independent national Māori housing advocacy organisation.' Dr Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Note: Dr Welch also recently wrote an in-depth piece on this topic for The Conversation. 'While New Zealand's granny flat exemption removes important regulatory barriers, we need to be honest about its limitations. Adding 13,000 small units over a decade – just 2.6% more housing supply – won't solve a crisis of this magnitude. With construction costs reaching $300,000, these units primarily benefit existing property owners who can access capital, not the young families and essential workers most in need of affordable housing. 'The real challenge isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure capacity and construction costs. Our water networks are already strained, and dispersed infill development only adds pressure. The policy's design constraints, requiring standalone single-storey units, deliver the least efficient form of density possible. 'This is progress, but incremental progress. We should embrace these reforms while acknowledging they're no substitute for the comprehensive urban development our housing crisis demands. Granny flats can be part of the solution, but only if we view them as one small component of much larger reforms needed to house New Zealanders affordably.' No conflicts of interest. Professor John Tookey, School of Future Environments, AUT, comments: 'The proposal for broadening the opportunities to construct 70m2 'granny flats' is a useful way of generating additional housing, specifically by creating rental properties in the category of 'home with income' subsidiary dwellings. The initial reporting around this issue in effect predicted a housing free-for-all where any proposals would likely be approved. In reality this was always misleading. The new proposals indicate more reservations in that zoning will need careful consideration of the cumulative effects of all the critical infrastructural loads servicing the proposed property. These include such issues as provision of potable water, managing stormwater, sewerage, on/off street parking, traffic volumes, schools, hospitals etc. In short, this will not and cannot be a free for all for development. In reality, councils will likely err on the side of caution in their announcements of zones suitable for the new granny flats because of these infrastructural impacts. Hence the outcome is unlikely to be a panacea for developing affordable housing in our cities. More likely a measured additional option rather than a 'go to' across the country.' No conflicts of interest. Bill McKay, Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, comments: Granny Flats 'Granny flats are additional, detached 'minor residential units' on a property with an existing family home. The size limit of 70m2 will enable two bedrooms plus living area, kitchen, bathroom etc. They can be self-contained in contrast with 'sleep outs' which don't have kitchens or bathrooms. The government consultation received a lot of supportive public feedback from the public, not so councils. 'This policy will introduce consistency as the rules currently vary across many councils. It won't solve the housing crisis but it will allow families more flexibility to solve their own housing issues. Granny flats aren't just for grandparents, they can be for young adults as well. They can improve accommodation for intergenerational living. Or they could be rentals to improve family income. The proposal is to allow them without resource consent (council planning permission) or building consent, but the devil will be in the detail: They need to comply with the Building Code, how will this be ensured without building consent or inspections? Councils will want records of what is built for their statutory requirements such as property files and Land Information Memorandum. Councils will want to know what plumbing and drainage is connected to the systems they maintain. These issues explain why a detailed proposal and legislation are yet to appear.' Papakāinga 'To do a granny flat / minor dwelling unit you need land with a family home on it already. A lot of public feedback on the granny flats proposal, particularly from Māori, focused on the desire to do small houses as of right on 'empty' land. As a result, the government has now proposed papakāinga. What's a papakāinga? Basically a small group of housing where mostly related people live together. So this proposal will allow as of right up to 10 homes on Māori or Treaty settlement land. You can build on up to 50% of the land and you can also have non-residential activity: 100m2 of commercial, accommodation for eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities, marae, urupā, food gardens and so on. And if you want more housing than 10 homes, that's 'restricted discretionary' meaning you will need to apply for resource consent / planning permission from your council. Just a proposal at the moment, open for consultation. 'I commend this as giving power / opportunity to Māori. A few centuries of Pākehā patronage hasn't really worked out for them so this papakāinga proposal can allow some self-determination. It hasn't got much publicity so I would encourage people to get in there and support it. And the success of this can open the door for others to build small homes on chunks of land, whether individually, such as tiny homes, or collectively such as co-housing groups or community housing providers.'
