Mayfield-Hinds-Valetta resource consent judicial review
Find out about the Environmental Law Initiative’s (ELI) application for judicial review of our decisions relating to the granting of Mayfield-Hinds-Valetta Water Limited’s (MHV) irrigation scheme discharge permit.
Current status: High Court decision delivered on 1 September 2025
What is being reviewed
Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) sought review of our decisions in relation to MHV’s discharge permit to:
- notify the application on a limited basis
- grant the discharge permit
- not revoke MHV’s discharge permit in the wake of the High Court decision on Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Limited’s (ALIL) discharge permit. Read Decision on discharge consent will have broad repercussions | 19 April 2024.
High Court decision
The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It confirmed Council’s long-held position that Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) decisions on resource consent applications are irrevocable final decisions that cannot be substantively re-examined by us.
The Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) sets a framework by which resource consents for farming activities and nutrient discharges can be considered in areas with degraded water quality. These frameworks vary depending on where the activity occurs, in this case the Hinds/Hekeao area covered by Plan Change 2 to the LWRP.
ELI sought judicial review of our decision to grant a discharge permit to MHV on three grounds, including incorrect application of section 107 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
The High Court decided that section 107 (as it was at the time of decision) did not allow for reductions in the discharge of contaminants to happen over time where the discharge, either by itself or in combination with other discharges, was likely to give rise to significant adverse effects on aquatic life.
The MHV decision relates to the Hinds/Hekeao Plains part of the Ashburton sub-region, so is subject to a different planning framework than ALIL (Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Ltd consent judicial review).
Unlike the ALIL permit, the MHV permit was not quashed by the High Court and returned to an independent hearing commissioner for further decision.
Law change
Following the High Court decision in ALIL, Parliament amended section 107 of the RMA to allow for the granting of a discharge permit, or a coastal permit, that may allow for significant adverse effects on aquatic life, if a council is satisfied that the conditions of the permit will contribute to a reduction of the effects over the duration of the permit.
Effect of the law change
Section 107 is now aligned with the LWRP approach to phasing out degraded water quality over time while supporting the social, economic, and cultural wellbeing of communities.
Next steps
The parties have until 29 September 2025 to decide whether they wish to lodge an appeal.