‘Tribunal was misdirected’

Press, 14 May 1982, Page 1

‘Tribunal was misdirected’

If the power from the Clyde high dam is not required for the Aramoana smelter, the Planning Tribunal’s ruling upholding the decision of the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority to grant water rights for the Clyde high dam should be re-examined, Mr Justice Casey has held in a decision given in the High Court yesterday. ’Seventeen persons objected against the tribunal decisions and took an appeal to the High Court by way of case stated on questions of law. The authority was cited as the first respondent and the Minister of Energy (Mr Birch) was cited as the second respondent. The case was heard last week when Messrs C. B. Atkinson and C. A. McVeigh appeared for the objectors and Messrs K. Robinson and J. R. F. Fardell for the Crown. The authority took no part in the appeal. Mr Robinson informed the Court that it would abide by the Court’s decision. His Honour said that on June 10. 1977, the Minister applied for a right to dam the Clutha River and in December the authority granted the application. An appeal was then made to the Planning Tribunal.

After a 10-day hearing the appeal was dismissed and the authority’s decision was confirmed by a majority decision. The basic issue was whether the Clyde dam should be a high or low dam. The high dam would flood a far greater area of orchard and farmland than would the low dam. . The objectors made it clear that they did not oppose the low dam. “At the heart of this appeal is the question of whether the tribunal should have taken into account the purpose for which the electricity was required. They claimed a high dam was needed only because of the Aramoana "smelter project, and that the tribunal refused to put that in balance in assessing the merits or disadvantages of the application, in relation to the matter which had to be taken into account under the act,” his Honour said. “To put the matter beyond doubt, I emphasise that I have decided no more than that the tribunal misdirected themselves in concluding that they could not consider the end use of the power because they mistakenly thought the act required an approach that made that subject irrelevant,” his Honour said.