A Mataura River tourism business can go ahead, following a decision by the High Court to dismiss concerns raised by anglers that rafting trips would impact on the river amenity, the behaviour of brown trout and their enjoyment of angling.

The High Court application for judicial review was brought by the NZ Southern Rivers Society Inc against the Gore District Council and Phillip Raymond Joostens. Judge Osborne’s decision was released on August 7.

The Gore District Council’s independent commissioner Andrew Henderson granted Mr Joostens a non-notified resource consent in October last year, permitting Mr Joostens to operate three types of river rafting trips on the Mataura River near Gore.

Mr Joostens had also applied to and obtained consent from the Southland District Council for trips on sections of the river within that council’s authority.

The society said the Gore District Council made three errors in granting the consent. 

The first was in relation to the status given to Fish and Game Council’ written approval of the consent. 

The society said the council’s second error was its failure to take into account relevant considerations, such as angling activities, recreational and amenity values, the behaviour of brown trout, and a Water Conservation Order on the river.

The third error, the society said, was the council had no evidence of and was not sufficiently informed of those issues.

The council denied making those errors and said there would be no more than minor adverse effects from Mr Joosten’s rafting business.

Judge Osborne said the society had not established the three errors were made and the commissioner decided on material properly before him.

“The council’s conclusions were clearly driven by the timing detail of the proposal for excursions (“Any disturbance of aquatic wildlife will also be infrequent and short-term”) and in the description of the excursions (Mr Joostens having “mentioned that the trips will involve leisurely travel … without significant disturbance to aquatic life”),’’ Judge Osborne said, quoting from the council decision.

Judge Osborne rejected submissions that the council’s non-notified decision was invalid and dismissed the application for judicial review.

He ordered costs and reasonable disbursements be paid by the society to the council. 

Judge Osborne did not set out the amount of costs. He said if the parties disagreed on costs, the court would determine the amount based on memorandum submitted to the court.