There were legal errors in assessing the project's impacts on local flora and bird species
The Supreme Court allowed the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society's appeal, finding errors in the approval of the East West Link (EWL) project in Auckland, a significant infrastructure proposal by the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi).
The EWL project aims to enhance transportation in Auckland's Onehunga-Penrose industrial area, a hub for New Zealand’s logistics and manufacturing sectors, by providing a four-lane road linking State Highways 1 and 20, along with local road connections, improved cycling and walking paths, public transport access, and environmental rehabilitation.
The Supreme Court found that the board of inquiry, which initially granted approvals under the Resource Management Act (RMA), made legal errors in assessing the environmental impacts of the project on local flora and bird species.
The case centred on the adverse environmental effects of the EWL, which Royal Forest and Bird argued violated policies in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) and Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). Royal Forest and Bird contended that these policy breaches should prevent approval. At the same time, Waka Kotahi, supported by Auckland Council, maintained that the project could proceed under certain exceptions within the policies, despite environmental impacts.
The Supreme Court ruled that while Royal Forest and Bird successfully established that the board erred in its approach, it did not agree with the assertion that the EWL could never meet approval standards under the NZCPS and AUP. The majority held that the board had misinterpreted key legal standards under the RMA, improperly combined considerations under s. 171 with those in the AUP and assessed environmental impacts inconsistently with policy requirements. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the board to reassess the project in light of this judgment.
Regarding costs, Royal Forest and Bird sought reimbursement of legal fees from Waka Kotahi for both the supreme court and high court proceedings. Waka Kotahi argued that costs should remain with each party due to the mixed outcome of the case, as the court did not fully endorse Royal Forest and Bird’s position.
However, the court awarded costs to Royal Forest and Bird, noting that the group succeeded in having the case sent back to the board for reconsideration. To reflect the mixed success, the court applied a 30 per cent reduction, awarding Royal Forest and Bird $35,000 for the appeal. The registrar will determine the disbursements, while the high court will resolve costs for the high court proceedings.
