Forest and Bird is contemplating legal action over the granting of a non-notified consent by the Otago Regional Council which would destroy a protected wetland at the Remarkables skifield.
Forest and Bird lawyer Sally Gepp said yesterday before a final decision was made she wanted to wait for the council’s chief executive to reply to a letter Forest and Bird sent her on the issue on May 22.
"Forest and Bird staff are seeking instruction from their board to pursue legal action.
"We don’t like to launch into legal action without getting a proper response. Once we have had that engagement we will make a call on what we do next."
Miss Gepp said staff were seeking action in the way of a judicial review, which was a High Court preceding.
At the centre of the debate would be whether extension of the learners’ ski slope, which would result in the loss of the protected wetland, could be considered "regionally important infrastructure".
It could not be if it was "not infrastructure in the first place", Miss Gepp said.
The term was meant for transport, not recreational facilities, she said.
"I don’t accept that a learners’ ski slope is infrastructure to start with."
The council’s water plan did not define the term.
Nationally and regionally significant infrastructure was defined in Otago’s regional policy statement.
Its list includes telecommunication and radiocommunication facilities, roads classified as being of national or regional importance and ports, airports and associated navigation infrastructure.
It was "very clear" the term did not apply to facilities such as commercial ski slopes, she said.
In the Resource Management Act one example of infrastructure is "structures for transport on land by cycleways, rail, roads, walkways, or any other means".
ORC chief executive Sarah Gardner said the phrase "or any other means" left it "wide open" for something like a learners’ ski slope.
"What this [a learners’ ski slope] is, is an access track," she said.
She would respond to the organisation’s letter early next week, she said.
"There were some other priorities I had to work on, but absolutely I’m responding."
Forest and Bird staff were "within their rights" to pursue legal action, she said.
Part of the reason the consent was not notified was the organisation had written approval from affected bodies such as the Department of Conservation, which owned the land, and iwi.
These came with conditions the council was happy would mitigate the effects, she said.
It was also worth noting the area was designated for skiing in the Queenstown Lakes District Council’s district plan, she said.
