We summarise two recent Environment Court decisions where substantial costs awards were ordered, and comment on some key principles arising from those cases regarding costs and hearing procedure generally.

Amendments to the Resource Management Act as a result of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Act 2009 which removed blanket tree protection rules were at the time applauded by many developers and private landowners. We examine a recent case where those changes were tested by the Environment Court, and conclude that the removal of blanket tree protection rules is perhaps not as effective as first perceived it to be. Councils may not face the “long and expensive” task of changing the provisions within district plans, initially thought required to manage urban vegetation, provided they can show the trees intended to be protected are specified by virtue of one of the categories detailed by the Court.

In the first consideration of the 2009 amendments on trade competition, General Distributors (Progressive Enterprises) sought a declaration from the Environment Court that Foodstuffs Properties (Wellington) was in breach of the RMA by making a submission opposing its non-complying resource consent application to establish a new Countdown supermarket in Tawa. We set out our summary of the Environment Court decision on this important jurisdictional issue.

The Environment Court has ordered Auckland Regional Council (ARC) to pay almost $100,000 in costs for taking an “unreasonable approach” to an appeal of its decision to decline consent for an airport expansion on Waiheke Island.

The recently released interim decision on Crest Energy Kaipara Limited’s (Crest) application to construct turbines on the seabed of the Kaipara Harbour for the purposes of marine energy generation will be of interest to many, as it has implications outside the coastal/marine context.