Skip to main content.

4 Conclusions

This analysis clearly indicates that the greatest number of decisions from the Environment Court over the study period were in respect of non-substantive issues and enforcement. For the most part, these are issued from judges sitting alone.

However, it is apparent that a major part of the Environment Court's resources go towards the relatively small number (56 of 217 or 26%) of substantive decisions that involved a hearing before a panel.

This analysis has looked at the output from the court - that is, proceedings which have stayed the distance. It appears likely that many appeals are lodged as a first step in renegotiating council decisions. It is likely that a substantial number of actions lodged are withdrawn or settled (possibly with intervention from members of the court through mediation) without recourse to hearing. However, unless recorded in a consent order decision, these settlements are not recorded in decisions (and as stated in section 2.2.2 above, apparently relatively few agreements are recorded in consent orders that are issued as decisions).

Of those appeals (on resource consent and plan/policy statement issues) that go through to a hearing, most are decided in favour of the consent authority as the primary decision-maker. However, there are notable exceptions decided in favour of appellants and against the primary decision-maker, which in the period analysed, included subdivisions in Queenstown Lakes District and elsewhere, district plan provisions which prevented reasonable use of sites (Whangarei District), one Transit New Zealand requirement and a Transit New Zealand property acquisition issue.

Enforcement is an important function of the Environment Court. Enforcement issues often require speedy resolution, and even substantive enforcement matters can be considered by a judge alone.


[ ]