PETER ANTHONY RUSSELL AND GILLIAN RUSSELL V TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC NEL CIV-2009-442-305

PETER ANTHONY RUSSELL AND GILLIAN RUSSELL V TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC NEL CIV-2009-442-305

'Vineyard' in rule 17.7.3.2(f)(iii) is a planning concept requiring case‑by‑case assessment of scale and purpose; the Council's classification of the Russells' 250‑vine planting as not a vineyard was open on the evidence; notification under s94(1) was not required on the balance of material; and even if error existed relief to quash consent would be refused because of delay, completion of the house and absence of practical prejudice.

Citation
openlaw-3663752e_2d47_44f9_8e5d_9726d07d669d.pdf
Parties
Applicant: Peter Anthony Russell; Applicant: Gillian Russell; First Respondent: Tasman District Council; Second Respondent: Richard John Lowe; Second Respondent: Jocelyn Vivienne Lowe
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Judicature Amendment Act 1972 / High Court Judgment on Application for Review (24 September 2009)
Outcome
Application dismissed; review refused; resource consent not quashed; relief declined.
Legal Topics
Notification Under S94 RMA, Definition of 'vineyard' in District Plan, Controlled Vs Restricted Discretionary Activity Status, Reverse Sensitivity and Spray Drift, Relief and Delay in Judicial Review
Resource Management Administrative Law Planning/property Notification Under S94 RMA Definition of 'vineyard' in District Plan Controlled Vs Restricted Discretionary Activity Status Reverse Sensitivity and Spray Drift Relief and Delay in Judicial Review

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Anthony Russell

Applicant

Gillian Russell

Applicant

Tasman District Council

First Respondent

Richard John Lowe

Second Respondent

Jocelyn Vivienne Lowe

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Judicature Amendment Act 1972 / High Court Judgment on Application for Review (24 September 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grapevines constitute a 'vineyard' under Tasman District Plan rule 17.7.3.2(f)
  2. 2 Whether the Council was required to notify affected persons under s94(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991
  3. 3 Whether the information before the decision-maker was sufficient to assess the vineyard issue and notification

Ratio Decidendi

'Vineyard' in rule 17.7.3.2(f)(iii) is a planning concept requiring case‑by‑case assessment of scale and purpose; the Council's classification of the Russells' 250‑vine planting as not a vineyard was open on the evidence; notification under s94(1) was not required on the balance of material; and even if error existed relief to quash consent would be refused because of delay, completion of the house and absence of practical prejudice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; review refused; resource consent not quashed; relief declined.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed
  • Resource consent confirmed and not quashed