|
''Environmental Defence Society v New Zealand King Salmon'' was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning the proper interpretation of the Resource Management Act by planning bodies. ==Background== In October 2011, King Salmon applied for changes to the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan, so that salmon farming would be changed from a prohibited to a discretionary activity in eight locations. At the same time, King Salmon applied for resource consents to enable it to undertake salmon farming at these locations, and at one other, for a term of 35 years. A Board of Inquiry granted plan changes in relation to four of the proposed sites and resource consents for salmon farming at those sites. One of the proposed salmon farms was to be located at Port Gore, adjoining an Outstanding Natural Landscape and an Area of Outstanding Natural Character. The Board of Inquiry decided, using an "overall balance" approach, that although the farm would compromise that natural character of the area that was to be balanced against the attractiveness of the site from a biosecurity perspective to King Salmon farms and the positive contribution it would have on the regions economic and social well-being.〔''Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited & Ors ''() NZSC 38 at ().〕 The Environmental Defence Society appealed the decision specifically in relation to the plan change at Papatua in Port Gore. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Environmental Defence Society v New Zealand King Salmon」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|