The High Court has quashed resource consents issued by the Waitaki District Council to three companies wanting to develop 16 new dairy farms with up to 17,850 cows on 8555ha in the Omarama and Ohau areas.
The court's decision comes after the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) challenged non-notified land use consents and certificates of compliance issued to Five Rivers Ltd, Southdown Holdings Ltd and Williamson Holdings Ltd for the dairy farms.
EDS chairman Gary Taylor announced the decision yesterday, after discussions revealed the council had failed to follow proper procedures of delegated authority.
Court orders signed by all parties recognised the council's decision not to notify the consent applications was invalid and of no effect, and that the decisions to grant certificates of compliance and resource consents were also invalid, which effectively, means the three companies and the council will have to start the process again.
However, a director of two of the companies, Richard Peacocke, told the Otago Daily Times yesterday they would not be requesting that at this stage, but may do so in the future.
Plans for the farms, which included housing the cows in cubicles all day from March to October and 12 hours a day from November to February, led to claims of "factory farming".
Council planning manager David Campbell confirmed yesterday the court decision followed discussions between the council, EDS and the three companies which led to an agreement not to defend the society's court action.
That agreement was then filed with the court.
Mr Campbell said the council would have to start the process again, including deciding whether the applications should be publicly notified for submissions.
However, Mr Campbell said it would not make that decision until it had heard from the three companies that they wished it to do so.
Another issue was the question of the parties' costs from the court action, which should be settled by the end of next week.
Because costs were still before the court, Mr Campbell did not want to comment further on what might happen.
Mr Peacocke said the council accepted the proper procedures in terms of delegating decisions to council officers, to decide on whether the consents should be notified and whether those and the certificates be issued, had not been properly followed.
"Effectively, there were no [valid] consents if the delegated authority had not been done legally," he said.
Mr Peacocke said the companies did not think it appropriate to pursue the consents "at this time".
People needed greater understanding of what was being proposed with the cubicle farming, Mr Peacocke said, rejecting claims it was "factory farming".
Within a year, the companies would reconsider proposals for the Ohau and Omarama developments and he predicted that within five years they would seek consents for the dairy farms.
The three companies originally applied for land use and certificates from the Waitaki council, consents for water for irrigation and construction of effluent storage and disposal from Environment Canterbury (ECan).
An ECan panel has heard the applications for water and is at present considering a decision.
During that process, the three companies put up alternative conventional farming plans for the properties, but also retained the dairy farm option.
The consents for effluent, including discharging it to land, were called in by the Government to be considered by a board of inquiry.
The three companies withdrew the effluent consents because of the estimated cost of more than $3 million for the process, deciding to wait until they knew whether water - vital for the dairy farm developments and effluent disposal - was granted.
Mr Taylor said the major concerns were primarily the effects of the proposals on the fragile and unique tussock grasslands and landscapes of the areas.
"We do not believe that the future of this iconic part of New Zealand should be decided by individual resource consent applications," he said.
There was now an opportunity to prepare a long-term strategic plan for the area, led by the local community with both ECan and the Ministry for the Environment involved.
It needed to look at the landscape, natural values and social and economic development options for the area over the next 25 or more years.
However if decisions continued to be made in an ad hoc way, then EDS would continue to be vigilant, Mr Taylor said.
