Iron sand project not over yet

The company planning to mine iron sand off the South Taranaki coast is seeking legal advice after a recent Court of Appeal judgement asked for the multimillion-dollar project to be sent back to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Trans Tasman Resources (TTR) managing director Allan Eggers said the court’s April 3 judgment meant the EPA decisionmaking committee’s original grant of the company’s environmental consents remained ‘‘quashed’’.

TTR was granted marine discharge consents in August 2017 by the EPA decisionmaking committee (DMC) to mine 50 million tonnes of iron ore from the South Taranaki seabed over 35 years.

The company said the $1bn project would generate $250m for the Taranaki region each year and create 300 jobs locally.

The original decision was appealed three times to the High Court by TTR, iwi, and environmental and fishing groups.

On April 3, the Court of Appeal said it was not in a position to decide whether the company’s application should be declined.

It said the ‘‘appropriate outcome’’ was for the application to be referred back to the DMC to be reconsidered.

‘‘TTR has succeeded with its appeal to have the High Court’s ruling that the DMC had adopted an adaptive management approach in TTR’s discharge consent overturned,’’ Eggers said in media release.

Eggers said the Court of Appeal ruled on 15 points of law, of which nine were upheld in favour of TTR, and six upheld in favour of groups opposing the project.

The court considered that the appropriate outcome was for TTR’s application to be referred back to the DMC for clarification of the law as set out in the court’s judgment on April 3, he said.

Eggers said that the company was now taking advice on its rights to appeal the judgment.

Opponents labelled the latest decision a ‘‘victory’’ for groups opposing the project.

Ngati Ruanui chief executive Debbie Ngawera-Packer said that if TTR appealed the decision to the Supreme Court it would highlight the company’s ‘‘foolishness.’’

‘‘The Court of Appeal has made it clear in its judgement that a reconvened decision making committee would be unable to reach the same decision based on the court’s guidance on how the law should be applied.’’