The High Court has allowed appeals in part by Remarkables Park Ltd (RPL) and the Queenstown Airport Corporation (QAC) over the latter's Notice of Requirement seeking 19ha of land to allow for expansion and projected growth.
The land, owned by RPL, would enable the airport corporation to provide additional space for other aviation activity, including relocation of smaller and private aviation operations and helicopters, a ''precision instrument approach runway'' and parallel taxiway.
QAC applied to alter the land, zoned as Remarkables Park Activity Area 9 and used for grazing, in December 2010.
In February 2011, Environment Minister Nick Smith decided the matter was an issue of ''national significance'', directing the application to the Environment Protection Authority to go directly to the Environment Court.
The court heard the matter in July 2012 and in September last year issued its decision, rejecting the provision of the precision instrument approach runway and parallel taxiway, reducing the land subject to the application to 8.07ha.
QAC and RPL contended the Environment Court ''got it wrong'' and appealed to the High Court. The hearing was held last month in Queenstown.
In his decision, released on Thursday, Justice Whata allowed the appeals in part and referred the application back to the Environment Court.
Justice Whata said QAC identified five errors of law, while RPL identified 12 errors.
''QAC says, in short, that the Environment Court exceeded its jurisdiction by revisiting the scope of the existing designation and erred in law also by imposing a limitation on the NOR based on an interpretation of civil aviation standards that might prove to be erroneous.''
The RPL appeal raised several issues, including whether the Environment Court was empowered to cancel only part of the notice of requirement (NOR) and whether the Environment Court ''wrongly failed to consider the unfairness of the NOR to RPL''.
In the 52-page decision, Justice Whata said QAC managed one of the busiest airports in New Zealand, with an average of 40,000 aircraft movements and more than one million passenger movements every year.
He found the Environment Court did not have regard to the potential ''disenabling effect'' of a maximum separation distance between the main runway strip and taxiway; it incorrectly excluded ''fairness'' as an irrelevant consideration; did not correctly assess RPL's claims based on legitimate expectation; and did not provide RPL with an opportunity to address the issue of scarcity of industrial land and its relevance or otherwise to the adequacy of the assessment of alternatives.
Justice Whata directed the Environment Court to reconsider whether the requirement should be cancelled or modified after it had provided the parties an opportunity to be heard in relation to the separation requirements; and the assessment of the adequacy of alternatives and reasonable necessity after it had provided the parties with an opportunity to be heard in relation to RPL's ''legitimate expectation claims'' and the scarcity of industrial land.
