Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Like many coastal areas in Aotearoa New Zealand, Otago Harbour is of economic, ecological, natural character, landscape and recreational value. These overlapping and sometimes competing values are recognised in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) through policies of various strengths and levels of directiveness. Each region must then give effect to those national priorities on a regional level. How regions should do this was the subject of the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in King Salmon.
The Court of Appeal recently considered whether the Otago Proposed Regional Policy Statement’s approach to the port activity gave effect to the NZCPS’s natural character bottom line in the way that King Salmon required it to.
“Avoid” vs “Avoid, remedy, mitigate”
EDS appealed the Environment Court’s decision to the High Court on the basis that requiring adverse effects on outstanding natural character to be “avoided, remedied and mitigated” was different from the NZCPS requirement to avoid adverse effects. The High Court agreed with EDS. Port Otago appealed to the Court of Appeal which agreed that the High Court had correctly applied King Salmon, (Miller J dissented). The core finding was that to “avoid” and to “avoid, remedy and mitigate” are distinct concepts. A regional policy that allows for the latter does not meet the requirement of the national policy that requires the former. The Court also made observations about the reconciliation of NZCPS policies that appear to pull in different directions. It also addresses what avoidance requires and discusses the regulatory mismatch between the context in which the NZCPS was promulgated and the approach to it in King Salmon.
While there may be competing environmental interests and values, the NZCPS avoidance policies do not conflict with the strategic planning or ports policies (7 and 9). It is not necessary to dilute the avoidance policies to reconcile these policies. The NZCPS creates its own directive hierarchy through the strength of the language in each policy, which should be considered by regional policy makers when giving effect to the NZCPS.
What do the avoidance policies require?
The natural character avoidance policy (Policy 13) does not preclude all new activities in areas with outstanding natural character, exclude the use of adaptive management, or require prohibited activity rules. The avoidance relates to the effect of an activity, not the activity itself. When considering whether a particular activity complies with Policy 13, existing modifications, appropriateness of development, the extent and duration of effects, and avoidance methods including adaptive management, are all relevant.
While the Court of Appeal quickly dismissed the appeal, the majority in the Port Otago address the wider application, implications, and criticisms of King Salmon in some detail. This decision is a worthwhile read for anyone charged with giving effect to the NZCPS or looking to better understand what King Salmon is shorthand for.
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
