HANNA v WHANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1360

HANNA v WHANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 1360

The Council's notification decision was unlawful and irrational because it was based on inadequate information, failed to take proper account of effects on adjoining neighbours, and misapplied the permitted baseline in s95E(2)(a); consequently the notification decision and the consequent resource consent were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration by an independent planning expert.

Citation
(2013) 17 ELRNZ 314
Parties
Plaintiffs: Anthony Hanna and Sarah Hanna; First Defendant: Whanganui District Council; Second Defendant: Daren Bendle
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Judicature Amendment Act 1972 of Resource Management Act Decision / High Court Judgment on Application for Judicial Review (decision)
Outcome
Notification decision and resource consent quashed; matter remitted for fresh notification assessment and consent consideration by an independent planning expert; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Notification Decision, Permitted Baseline (s95 E), Non Complying Activity, Effects Assessment, Judicial Review of Administrative Decision
Resource Management Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Notification Decision Permitted Baseline (s95 E) Non Complying Activity Effects Assessment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Hanna and Sarah Hanna

Plaintiffs

Whanganui District Council

First Defendant

Daren Bendle

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Judicature Amendment Act 1972 of Resource Management Act Decision / High Court Judgment on Application for Judicial Review (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Council had sufficient information to make a notification assessment under Part 6 RMA
  2. 2 Whether the Council's conclusion that adverse effects on adjoining neighbours were less than minor was irrational
  3. 3 Whether the Council misapplied the permitted baseline under s95E(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's notification decision was unlawful and irrational because it was based on inadequate information, failed to take proper account of effects on adjoining neighbours, and misapplied the permitted baseline in s95E(2)(a); consequently the notification decision and the consequent resource consent were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration by an independent planning expert.

Court Disposition

Notification decision and resource consent quashed; matter remitted for fresh notification assessment and consent consideration by an independent planning expert; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Quash the Council's decision not to notify (limited notification decision) dated 19 February 2013
  • Quash the resource consent granted consequential to that decision