Court Grants Interim Enforcement Order Over Saddle Hill Quarrying

Dunedin (Thursday, 15 November 2012) – The Environment Court has granted an interim enforcement order to ensure that the ridge line of the Saddle Hill quarry is not changed before the Court considers an earlier application from the Dunedin City Council, seeking a decision on what quarrying can be lawfully carried out.

Earlier this month the DCC applied for the interim enforcement order to prevent any quarrying that affects the skyline.

DCC staff originally began investigating the quarrying activities in 2010. Following mediation, the DCC went to the Environment Court to determine the legal rights of quarry owners Saddle Views Estate Limited to continue quarrying on Saddle Hill.

In September 2012 the DCC was notified that quarrying had occurred that affected the skyline. Staff undertook an investigation and formed the opinion that the skyline had been changed on the north-western side.

Dunedin City Councillor Colin Weatherall, who has been closely involved in the lengthy process to try to resolve the overall issue, said work affecting the skyline should not occur before the Environment Court considers the rights to undertake quarrying.

“We want to ensure that there are no further changes to the landscape features of Saddle Hill before the Environment Court has had the opportunity to hear the case and make a decision.”

The interim enforcement order requires the skyline to remain unchanged until a decision is made on the application for a declaration.

The DCC’s application for a declaration from the Environment Court was lodged in 2011. While it has been subject to delays it is now expected the Environment Court will hear the application in mid-December.

ends

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>