[1] The Environmental Defence Society appealed the decision specifically in relation to the plan change at Papatua in Port Gore.

[4]Hence the majority concluded that the Board of Inquiry's plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore, did not comply with section 67(3)(b) of the RMA in that it did not give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

[5] The majority also decided that a consideration of alternative sites may be necessary; although, '"This will be determined by the nature and circumstances of the particular site-specific plan change application.

"[6] William Young J delivered a dissenting opinion in which he expressed that ss 6(a) and (b) of the RMA, "seems to me leave open the possibility that a use or development might be appropriate despite having adverse effects on outstanding natural character."

"[7] The full significance of this recent case is not yet known, as the ratio of the case may be restricted narrowly to the facts or only to plan changes in the coastal marine area or it may mark the, "death knell for the overall judgment approach in all applications, including applications for resource consents, designations and heritage orders.