Port Otago is taking a fight to the Supreme Court over "overly restrictive" environmental constraints the port says could have a significant effect on its operations.
The Otago Regional Council-owned company has appealed a Court of Appeal decision and hearings at New Zealand’s highest court begin next week.
Port Otago chief executive Kevin Winders said the port had been working on the issue consistently for the five years he had been with the company — and the outcome of next week’s hearings would have ramifications not only for Port Otago but for other ports in New Zealand.
The port must avoid adverse effects to the outstanding environmental areas at its doorstep in Otago Harbour "in all instances", Mr Winders said.
The blanket policy could hinder a cleanup after a disaster or major storm, he said, and could hamper the port making changes to meet the evolving needs of ships bringing cargo to and from Otago.
For example, if a navigational beacons fell over in a storm, to pull it out and replace it in the environmentally significant Aramoana saltmarsh might require "absolutely zero consequences for the environment", he said.
"I’m sure you could find a scientist that would say there was a very small chance that there could be an adverse effect.
"I can’t put my hand on my heart and tell everyone there would be no effect, because there could be a very small one.
"If you have to avoid all effects, in that case, we would be unable to put that navigation beacon back in place.
"We’ve got real concerns that the protection of the environment is being put well ahead — to the point where certain changes that may be required to safely operate the port might be put at risk," he said.
The December Court of Appeal judgement confirms regional policies must adhere to the overarching policies of the New Zealand coastal policy statement.
In areas of outstanding natural character, adverse effects to the environment must be avoided rather than "avoided, remedied or mitigated" as is otherwise typical under the Resource Management Act.
At the heart of the matter is a 2014 Supreme Court decision around a Marlborough Sounds aquaculture project that was not allowed to go ahead in full.
The 2014 King Salmon decision overturned a regional plan change that would have made a salmon farm a discretionary activity in Papatua, Marlborough.
The Court of Appeal judgement finds against Port Otago’s claim that the rules as applied in the King Salmon decision could unfairly prohibit activities in areas with outstanding natural character.
The Court said existing law would not prohibit all port activities in these areas, the port would have to get a resource consent to carry out those activities.
During the consenting process, it would be up to the consent authority to evaluate how adverse effects on a protected landscape could be avoided.
The Environmental Defence Society was responsible for the Supreme Court overturning the King Salmon decision and is behind this court battle with Port Otago.
Society chairman Gary Taylor declined to comment before the hearings other than to confirm the society was calling for donations to help fund its legal battle.
In its March newsletter the society said Port Otago’s appeal sought "to relitigate King Salmon in its entirety" and that "is deeply concerning".
