Decision on the TTRL marine consent application
This summary is provided to assist the media in the understanding of the decision by the EPA’s Decision-making Committee
in relation to the Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd application to mine iron sands in the South Taranaki Bight. It does not
comprise part of the reasons for that decision. The full decision document, with reasons, is the only authoritative
document. The full text of the decision document and reasons can be found on the EPA website.
The Decision-making Committee, appointed by the Board of the Environmental Protection Authority to decide a marine
consent application by Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd, has granted consent, subject to conditions, for the company to mine
iron sands off the South Taranaki Bight.
However, after hearing and considering all the evidence, submissions, reports and information, members of the
Decision-making Committee did not agree in the final deliberations.
Committee Chairman Alick Shaw and Dr Kevin Thompson voted to grant consent. Deputy Chair, Sharon McGarry and Gerry Te
Kapa Coates, voted to refuse consent, citing concerns over localised adverse environmental effects and tangata whenua
In accordance with the procedures adopted before the hearing began, the decision to grant consent, subject to
conditions, was determined on the casting vote of Mr Shaw, as Chair of the DMC.
While the committee worked collaboratively on the agreed factual narrative of the report, it recorded major differences
in its interpretation of the evidence. These differences are set out in Part Two of the Record of Decision document.
The committee’s rationale for granting consent is set out in the over 300-page decision document and includes conditions
and operating constraints to limit the scale, intensity and duration of the discharge effects of residual material to
the seabed, known as sediment plume, as well as impacts on marine mammals.
With the imposition of such conditions, TTRL’s marine consent application to mine iron sands in the South Taranaki Bight
is granted and will remain in place for 35 years.
In its summary, the committee states: “Although some submitters had misgivings about the quality of information, we
determined that it was sufficient for our purposes… and we are satisfied that we have been able to make our decision
based on the best available information in accordance with… the EEZ Act.”
A pre-commencement monitoring plan must collect two years’ worth of data before mining commences. That data, and
subsequent monitoring data during the operations, will further inform management plans and operational decisions, as
required by the consent conditions.
The decision is subject to appeal on points of law by the applicant and any submitters. The consents commence after any
appeals have been resolved.
Notes for editors:
Reasons for the decision to grant consent are only summarised in this media release. Detailed information can be found
in chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Record of Decision document.
All minutes in relation to decisions made by the committee during the hearing process can be found here.
Background information on the application, process updates, further hearing and submission information can be found here.
Information on the appeal process can be found here.
Because of the complexity of the decision document and issues that may arise from it, further media enquiries in
relation to the decision can only be accepted in writing to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Further media information is available here: