The Southland District Council has withdrawn two pending prosecutions for the clearance of indigenous vegetation after losing a legal battle with a Te Anau station.
The council’s environmental planning manager, Marcus Roy, said following the Environment Court decision against the council and in favour of Te Anau Downs Station, two prosecutions relating to the clearance of indigenous vegetation have been dropped.
The court decision in favour of Te Anau Downs followed a four-year legal battle in which the council sought an enforcement order to prevent any further indigenous vegetation clearance on the station, and to require significant remedial work for clearance dating back to 2001.
Late last year the court declined the council’s application for an enforcement order and required it to pay costs and compensation of $300,000.
Roy said in a statement one of the two abandoned cases relates to another case against Peter Chartres from Te Anau Downs station over an alleged breach of an interim court decision to cease any indigenous vegetation clearance on the property.
“The recent court decision on existing use rights has outlined that existing use rights may apply to the site, so there is little merit in council pursuing this prosecution in light of these findings,” Roy said.
The second case is against Hokonui Hills Ltd and relates to the clearance of indigenous vegetation.
“Following the substantive Chartres decision on existing use rights, council has reviewed its position and considers that there is a high level of uncertainty about whether council will be successful if it continues.
“Accordingly, the prosecution has been withdrawn.”
Roy said the council is applying the findings and comments in the Environment Court decision to test its position and ensure enforcement decisions reflect the most current legal interpretations.
“Council needs to manage risk and ensure that it understands how interpretation can impact the direction and outcome of enforcement matters.”
It has also contacted the Ministry for the Environment and highlighted to those developing the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity that the court interpretation may be contrary to the intent of protecting significant indigenous vegetation.
“Additionally, as part of council’s submission on the new environmental legislation which will replace the [Resource Management Act], council has highlighted that clarity is needed within the legislation about [how] existing use rights will be integrated into the new system.”
