ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 980

ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 980 [15 May 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2016-404-2343[2017] NZHC 980BETWEEN ROYAL FOREST AND BIRDPROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEWZEALAND INCORPORATEDAppellantAND AUCKLAND COUNCILRespondent(Continued next page)Hearing: On the papersCounsel: S Gepp and P Anderson for AppellantM G Wakefield and CJ Brown for RespondentJudgment: 15 May 2017JUDGMENT OF WHATA JThis judgment was delivered by me on 15 May 2017 at 2.30 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .Solicitors: Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand IncAuckland Council, AucklandBuddle Findlay, AucklandHOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION INCORPORATEDFEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATEDSTEVENSON GROUP LIMITEDFULTON HOGAN LIMITEDBROOKBY QUARRIES LIMITEDNEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCYWINSTONE AGGREGATES LIMITEDTE ARAI GROUPTRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATEDMAN O'WAR FARM LIMITEDCOUNTIES MANUKAU DISTRICT HEALTH BOARDSection 301 PartiesIntroduction[1] This judgment addresses the request for a consent order in relation to the third alleged error of law contained in Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society ofNew Zealand Incorporated's (RFB) notice of appeal.[2] I have assessed the request for a consent order on the following basis, namely whether:(a) The consent order reflects the proper resolution of issues of law raised by RFB;1(b) The proposed amendments and the resolution of the appeal is consistent with the purposes and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), including in particular Part 2;(c) Approval of the proposed consent order would also be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act), namely Part 4, which provides a streamlined process designed to enable the Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) to become operative within a short period of time;(d) The order may be granted pursuant to r 20.19 of the High Court Rules 2016, ss 300-307 of the RMA and s 158 of the Act; and(e) The consent order is within the scope of the appeals.1 As Wylie J in Man O'War Farm Limited v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 202 put it at [33], the Court must first be satisfied that the decision challenged on appeal was made pursuant to error of law. See also my decision in North Canterbury Fish and Game Council v Canterbury Regional Council [2013] NZHC 3196 at [2].Procedural background[3] This matter has a complex procedural history. The third error of lawcontained in RFB's notice of appeal was a classified as a category 3 priority fixturein my Minute (No 19) (Second Case Management Conference – Category 3 Proceedings) dated 19 December 2016.[4] On 10 February 2017 a joint memorandum recording settlement was filed.However, Man O'War Farm Limited (Man O'War) was one of the s 301 interestedparties, and its approval was subject to its own settlement in relation to a separate appeal being approved. Wylie J did not approve the Man O'War settlement.2 In a Minute dated 17 February 2017, Wylie J acknowledged that the RFB settlement waseffectively conditional on the Man O'War settlement, and as a result of his judgment, Man O'War withdrew its consent.[5] Man O'War has since, on 6 March 2017, consented to the RFB settlement,subject to the inclusion of an additional clarification which was the basis of its original settlement with Auckland Council (the Council). Another joint memorandum of counsel recording settlement (in relation to the third error of law) was filed on 6 March 2017.[6] In a Minute dated 22 March 2017, I requested further submissions from the parties setting out with a greater level of particularity how the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) recommendations are deficient in terms alleged, and how the additional clarification is within the scope of the present appeal. I thank the parties for their detailed submissions, which have helpfully provided context to this appeal and the matters at issue.The submissions and IHP decision[7] RFB is an incorporated society and a registered charity. Its purpose is to take all reasonable steps within its power to preserve and protect indigenous flora and fauna and the natural features of New Zealand. It made a submission and further submission on the notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) to the IHP2 Man O'War Farm Limited v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 202.which, inter alia, addressed various provisions relating to the coastal environment, biodiversity, vegetation management and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs).[8] During the hearings process, the Council proposed several changes to theprovisions for SEAs and indigenous vegetation in order to "give effect" to Policy 11of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). This included amendments to Policy 16 and a new Policy 17 in B4.3.4 Biodiversity. RFB and other interested parties presented evidence and legal submissions on various hearings on Topics 010, 033/034 and 023 regarding how the Unitary Plan should give effect to the NZCPS and considering the Council's proposals.[9] The IHP's recommendations broadly adopted the changes proposed byCouncil, and also included significant changes to the structure of biodiversity related provisions: the notified PAUP proposed a single suite of Regional Policy Statement (RPS), Regional Plan and regional coastal plan objectives and policies for biodiversity, but the IHP recommended separate RPS (B7), SEA overlay (D9), and Auckland-wide (E15) objectives and policies inside and out of the coastal marine area. The amended policy 16 and new policy 17 (which the Council proposed in relation to Chapter B4.3.4) were relocated by the IHP recommendations from the RPS into the Regional Plan Chapter E15 Vegetation Management and Biodiversity as policies E15.3(9) and (10). However, no equivalent to these policies was located in Chapter D9 SEAs overlay.[10] The Council adopted the recommendations in its decisions version of the Unitary Plan on 19 August 2016.Error of law[11] The third error of law alleged by RFB, which this settlement concerns, is that the Council made an error by adopting a range of policies within the Unitary Plan for the management of SEAs, vegetation management and biodiversity, and activities within the coastal environment that are contradictory, and do not give effect to, the NZCPS or the RPS. More specifically, error of law is alleged on the basis that:33 For a full outline of the alleged errors of law and proposed amendments, see Appendix A(a) Subsections 67(3)(b) and (c) of the RMA requires that a Regional Plan give effect to the NZCPS and a RPS;(b) The policies contained in Chapters D9, E15 and F2 cannot be reconciled in a manner that gives effect to the NZCPS (specifically Policy 11) or the RPS (specifically Policy B7.2.2(5)); and thus(c) The Council, in adopting the suite of policies in the Unitary Plan relating to the protection of the coastal environment and activities in the coastal environment without a specific requirement to avoid adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity, failed to give effect to:(i) The NZCPS, in particular Policy 11; and(ii) The RPS, in particular Policy B7.2.2(5).[12] RFB submits that the RMA imposes a hierarchical, cascading scheme of policy documents with the NZCPS as the document at the top of this hierarchy.4RFB contends that the requirement to give effect to the NZCPS was settled by the Supreme Court in King Salmon in the following terms:5Essentially, the position since the King Salmon decision is that where there are relevant directive provisions in a higher order policy document, plan provisions are no longer framed by reference back to the provisions of Part 2 (except in cases of incomplete coverage, uncertainty of meaning or invalidity) but rather, the plan provisions must strictly implement the directive provisions. This does not necessarily mean that the plan provisions must mirror the higher order provisions. However, where the higher orderprovision mandates a particular management approach ("avoid adverse effects" or "avoid significant adverse effects" for example), plan provisions that provide for an alternative approach ("avoid, remedy or mitigate", forexample) will not give effect to the higher order document.(attached). The specific policies in question are: Chapter D9 SEAs Overlay, policies D9.3(1), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12); Chapter E15 Vegetation Management and Biodiversity, policies E15.3(9) and (10) and the application of those policies as specified in the introduction to Chapter E15; and Chapter F2 Coastal – General Coastal and Marine Zone, policies F2.2.3(1), F2.3.3(4) and F2.16.3(6).4 Citing Environmental Defence Society Incorporated v New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited [2014] NZSC 38, [2014] 1 NZLR 717 at [152].5 Citing also Transpower New Zealand Limited v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 281 at [67]- [68].[13] It says this has not occurred in the present matter as:(a) There is no clear direction to avoid adverse effects on SEA marine areas and other areas meeting Policy 11 criteria;(b) A range of differing standards are applied to such areas in different policies throughout the Unitary Plan; and(c) The Unitary Plan recognises that the coastal environment has not been comprehensively surveyed for the purpose of identifying SEAs, and incorporates specific policies E15(9) and (10) to give effect to Policy 11 values and sites, but those only apply outside coastal marine SEAs.[14] The Council has clarified in a further memorandum that it agrees with thisanalysis to the extent it is specific to RFB's third error, but that it should not be regarded as a full or definitive statement of the law for purposes beyond the resolution of this error.[15] Federated Farmers of New Zealand Incorporated (Federated Farmers) meanwhile notes that on its view, a party challenging the legality of provisions in plans that derive from Policy 11 will need to evaluate those provisions against Part 2 of the RMA and thereby demonstrate how those provisions do not meet therequirements therein. It also questions whether RFB's claim is that the currentprovisions at issue do not give effect to the NZCPS or RPS, or whether they do but the proposed changes will improve them. In particular, it notes that RFB refers to theproposed amendments "better giving effect" to the NZCPS and RPS, which indicatethe latter interpretation. This, in its submission, is a matter of evaluative assessment for the IHP, and not an error per se.[16] Finally, while agreeing that there has been an error of law, Federated Farmers submits that it prefers the position elaborated upon in Transpower at [70]-[75], that the current provisions represent a decision that the IHP and Council could not have reasonably come to on the evidence, the relevant evidence being the NZCPS and RPS which they impugn.Proposed amendments[17] The parties have reached agreement to amend Chapters D9, E15 and F2 of the Unitary Plan, and seek that the Court exercises its powers under r 20.19 of the High Court Rules 2016 to make the proposed amendments.[18] This appeal is brought pursuant to s 158 of the Act, which allows appeals to the High Court on questions of law. Sections 300-307 of the RMA apply with all necessary modifications, such that this Court may make the orders sought under r 20.19 of the High Court Rules 2016.[19] The amendments involve:(a) Insertion of policies equivalent to Policies 16 and 17, which the Council proposed at the hearings in relation to Chapter B4.3.4, in Chapter D9 SEAs. These directly implement Policy 11 of the NZCPS and are substantially the same as policies 9 and 10 of Chapter E15 of the decisions version of the Unitary Plan;(b) Changes to certain policies in D9 and F2 to clarify the application of the NZCPS related policies in relation to activities with effects on biodiversity within the coastal environment; and(c) Minor changes in D9 and E15 to ensure greater consistency between terminology used in those policies and in Policy 11 of the NZCPS.[20] Specifically, RFB's concern regarding Chapter D9.3, which contains theobjectives and policies for the SEA overlay, is that it does not contain clear policies requiring avoidance of adverse effects on Policy 11 values and sites. The amended wording, namely the inclusion of D9.3(1)(a), D9.3(9) and D9.3(10), is designed to explicitly require avoidance and also includes some specific effects-based sub- policies that were previously specified for non-significant sites in Chapter E15, but which also apply within SEAs under the proposed amendments. In particular the amendments:(a) Explicitly require avoidance of adverse affects in SEAs; and(b) Clarify the requirements of Policy 11 apply in relation to other provisions in the Chapter, namely D9.3(6) and the existing provisions D9.3(9), D9.3(11) and D9.3(12).[21] The concern in relation to Chapter E15 is that as a result of the IHP's reordering of the Council's proposal at hearing to include specific provisions requiring compliance with Policy 11, the only Policy 11 specific policies are located in Chapter E15, and thus only apply outside scheduled SEAs. The changes to E15 are thus more technical in nature, ensuring consistency with the wording of Policy 11 of the NZCPS.[22] The other key change to Chapter E15 is the clarification sought by ManO'War, which is addressed at [25] below.[23] Finally, in relation to Chapter F2, RFB's concern is that under the currentwording Policy F2.2.3(1) may be read as only requiring avoidance of adverse effects in two circumstances: on sites scheduled in the D17 Historic Heritage Overlay or D21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay. It seeks deletion of these specific references, and instead insertion of a general reference back to the specific effects management regions set out in the overlay policies (which includes the amended D9). The other change to F2 is in Policy F2.16.3. RFB seeks deletion of a provision which it says conflicts with the D9.3 policies to the extent it specifies a different effects management scheme for Marine SEAs.Interested parties[24] There are eleven s 301 interested parties to this appeal. They were all consulted for feedback and have agreed to the proposed amendments. More specifically:(a) Transpower's agreement is on the basis that settlement is withoutprejudice to the extent to which the Unitary Plan, and itsimplementation (through any consent process), gives effect to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission;(b) Man O'War is prepared to agree to the amended provisions, providedthat clarification is given in Chapter E15 that the existing rules of the section implement the policies and objectives of Chapters D9 and E15 and do not give rise to any requirement to fence areas of indigenous vegetation, including Terrestrial SEAs; and(c) The remaining s 301 parties were asked for feedback in relation to the 10 February 2017 settlement, which proposed the same amendments as the present settlement. They did not offer a view on the merits.Man O'War Clarification[25] The parties also seek the insertion of a clarification of what is meant by therequirement to "avoid adverse effects" in Chapters D9.3 and E15.9. RFB submitsthat this is a permissible way of particularising the NZCPS policies at the Auckland Plan level. The clarification is to be inserted directly above activity table E15.4.1.6[26] In essence, RFB submits that the proposed insertion clarifies that in thecontext of SEAs within the coastal environment, "avoid adverse effects" does not mean "fence to exclude stock". In this sense, it lies between the provisions of theUnitary Plan and the amendments sought, neither detracting from the NZCPS or RPS nor undermining the intent of the policies approved by the IHP.[27] Man O'War submits that the proposed wording simply adds clarity as to themanner in which Policy 11 is now given effect to under the Unitary Plan, and thus is within the scope of the appeal and part of the package of the wider amendments sought by RFB. Federated Farmers likewise characterises the changes as a clarification on the manner in which Policy 11 is to be given effect to under the Unitary Plan.6 See Appendix A for the full clarification.[28] The Council considers that it is appropriate that the two appeals be resolved together, given that they both address the implementation of Policy 11 of the NZCPS in the Unitary Plan.[29] The s 301 parties are all in agreement with RFB and Council that theclarification sought by Man O'War is appropriate as part of the settlement.Caveat[30] The parties clarify that the agreed amendments in this settlement do not relate to or affect a number of other issues in other appeals relating to the interpretation of and giving effect to the NZCPS:(a) The first or second alleged errors of law in RFB's appeal;(b) Parts A, C and D of the Man O'War appeal; and(c) The first and third alleged errors of law of the Federated Farmers appeal.Assessment[31] The issues of law arsing are noted at [11]-[16].[32] Since at least King Salmon, failure to give effect to directive policies of the NZCPS may be an appealable error. Whether or not there has been such a failure, however, must be shown and must ordinarily be linked to a discernible error in legal reasoning, including a decision which cannot be supported on the evidence. Conversely, it will not be enough to simply assert error of evaluation. In King Salmon for example, the Court identified error of law, namely erroneous application of Part 2 of the RMA to the evaluative exercise.[33] In addition, the Court of Appeal in Man O' War Station Ltd7 emphasised the importance of interpreting the dicta in King Salmon in light of its facts. The Court7 Man O'War Station Ltd v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 24.highlighted the fact that the outcome in King Salmon was premised on a first instance finding that the effects of the proposal on the outstanding natural character of the area would be high, and there would be a very high adverse visual effect on an outstanding natural landscape.8 Therefore, the error was plainly material.[34] The Court of Appeal also noted, with respect orthodoxically, that therequirement to "avoid" adverse effects is contextual, so that whether any newactivity or development would amount to an adverse effect must be assessed in both in the factual and broader policy context.9[35] These related propositions are important because they demonstrate that whether the IHP erred, the significance of the error and the nature and form of the remedy (if any), is context specific.[36] In the present case, significantly, the parties agree that the IHP recommendations in relation to Chapters D9, E15 and F2 are deficient in terms of the NZCPS and the RPS. I agree also that there appears to be an error on the face of the recommendations.[37] To elaborate, Policy 11 of the NZCPS states:Policy 11 Indigenous biological diversityTo protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment:a. avoid adverse effects of activities on:i. indigenous taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat Classification System lists;ii. taxa that are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as threatened;iii. indigenous ecosystems and vegetation types that are threatened in the coastal environment, or are naturally rare;iv. habitats of indigenous species where the species are at the limit of their natural range, or are naturally rare;8 At [65].9 At [66]-[67].v. areas containing nationally significant examples of indigenous community types; andvi. areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biological diversity under other legislation; andb. avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on:i. areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment;ii. habitats in the coastal environment that are important during the vulnerable life stages of indigenous species;iii. indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are only found in the coastal environment and are particularly vulnerable to modification, including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands, intertidal zones, rocky reef systems, eelgrass and saltmarsh;iv. habitats of indigenous species in the coastal environment that are important for recreational, commercial, traditional or cultural purposes;v. habitats, including areas and routes, important to migratory species; andvi. ecological corridors, and areas important for linking or maintaining biological values identified under this policy.[38] RPS Policy B7.2.2(5) gives effect to this policy in the following way:B7.2. Indigenous biodiversityB7.2.2. Policies(5) Avoid adverse effects on areas listed in the Schedule 3 of Significant Ecological Areas – Terrestrial Schedule and Schedule 4 Significant Ecological Areas – Marine Schedule.[39] Yet the only provisions of the Unitary Plan that give effect to these policies are found in E15.3(9) and (10), provisions which the Council in its submissions to the IHP sought to have included in B4.3.4 of the PAUP. The effect of this is that there is no specific protection for indigenous biodiversity in coastal marine SEAS. As Chapter E15.1 – Background to the Unitary Plan currently states:The objectives and policies that apply to scheduled significant ecological areas for both terrestrial and coastal marine areas are contained in D9 Significant Ecological Areas Overlay.The rules that apply to the management of vegetation and biodiversity for areas both outside of and within scheduled significant ecological areas –terrestrial are contained in this chapter.The rules that apply to vegetation management and biodiversity in the coastal marine area, including for areas identified as Significant Ecological Areas – Marine are contained in Chapter F Coastal.[40] The absence, however, of any equivalent provisions in Chapters D9 and F2 means that compliance with Policy 11 is not achieved in relation to coastal marine SEAs.[41] Annexed to this judgment is a table making a comparison between the status quo and the proposed amendments. This serves to highlight the absence of provisions explicitly giving effect to Policy 11 NZCPS and Policy B7.2.2 outside of Chapter E15.The IHP decision[42] I have reviewed the IHP recommendation to discern whether the apparent omission is explained. I could find none. Moreover, the reverse is true. Explicit provision for protection of specified elements of indigenous biodiversity was contemplated. In its report on Hearing Topics 006 and 010, the IHP states that its proposed changes to the objectives and policies include:10(i) A number of amendments to give better effect to the NZCPS and the National Policy Statement – Fresh Water Management 2014; and(ii) A number of amendments to objectives and policies to provide stronger support for the RPS policies.10 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topics 010 and 006 Natural Resources (22 July 2016) at 5.[43] The IHP goes on to specifically address biodiversity, stating:11The Panel recommends that the regional policy statement be a standalone document. In doing so the biodiversity provisions which were tagged regional coastal plan (rcp), regional (rp) and/or district plan (dp) have been relocated to new sections created in the overlay and Auckland-wide sections of the Plan.This has resulted in a much simplified regional policy statement addressing biodiversity, with much of the detail being relocated to the regional and district plan portion of the Unitary Plan. The recommendations of the Panel in relation to those provisions is to retain the policy direction of identifying and protecting significant ecological areas, and managing, by avoiding, remedying or mitigating, significant adverse effects on those areas not identified as significant ecological areas. Offsetting adverse effects is also retained, but redrafted to enable offsetting to be considered where there are significant residual adverse effects.[44] Part 7 of the IHP's report deals with the structure of the biodiversityprovisions, stating:12As has already addressed, the Panel recommends that the regional policy statement be a standalone document. The Panel has redrafted the regional policy statement accordingly, removing the tagging provisions from the entire regional policy statement, including those relating to biodiversity. This has resulted in the notified regional policy statement biodiversity provisions being located in the regional policy statement as well as new sections created in the overlay and Auckland-wide sections of the Plan.[45] Significantly for present purposes the IHP observes:13the biodiversity objectives set out that significant indigenous biodiversity values in terrestrial, freshwater and the coastal marine area are protected from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development. Also that indigenous biodiversity is maintained through protection, restoration and enhancement where those values are degraded or where development is occurring.The policies, in addressing the objectives, set out how areas containing such values are to be identified and evaluated based on a range of factors, and those that satisfy those factors are included in the schedules of significant ecological areas - either in Schedule 3 Significant Ecological Areas - Terrestrial Schedule or Schedule 4 Significant Ecological Areas – Marine Schedule.All of the other biodiversity provisions that were in the notified regional policy statement have been relocated to the Plan section of the Unitary Plan, either in D Overlays or E Auckland-wide. Those recommended to go to the11 At 7.12 At 14.13 At 15.overlay section are generally those relating to identified significant ecological areas, as they relate to Part 2 matters of the Resource Management Act 1991. Those provisions that relate to areas other than significant ecological areas, are contained in the Auckland-wide provisions. Some provisions relating to the coastal marine area are in the regional coastal plan section of the Plan.Given the changes to the structure of the Plan as recommended by the Panel, and the range of submissions and evidence received, the Panel considers that all of the key policy directions relating to indigenous biodiversity in the notified plan have been retained. While a number of the provisions have been re-cast, redrafted, deleted or added to (in light of the submissions and evidence) the Panel is satisfied the provisions give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (in relation to the coastal environment) and the New National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014.In changing the structure of the regional policy statement, and relocating the provisions that were tagged regional plan (rp), regional coastal plan (rcp) and/or district plan (dp) to the regional and district plan, the Panel is satisfied in terms of section 32 and 32AA that the provisions and where they are placed is the most appropriate.(emphasis added)[46] In its report on Hearing Topic 023, the IHP also states:14The Plan identifies (maps) significant ecological areas and provides a management regime protecting these areas by seeking to avoid the adverse effects of subdivision use and development. Other areas not identified as significant ecological areas, but having significant biodiversity and ecological values, are also important. The Plan seeks to manage theseareas.(emphasis added)[47] With respect to the care taken by the IHP, I could find no explicit policies in Chapter D, the overlays section of the Unitary Plan, to secure the outcome foreshadowed in the above passages. In particular, the overlays relating to SEAs, found in Chapter D9, contain no explicit policy to secure protection of significant indigenous biodiversity as envisaged above or in terms of the NZCPS or to "avoid"the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development in SEAs.[48] Accordingly, given that all the parties agree, a proper basis for allowing the appeal has been made out. It is unnecessary to adopt or reject the RFB submission14 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Report to Auckland Council Hearing Topic 023 Significant ecological areas and vegetation management (22 July 2016) at 4.noted at [12] to reach this conclusion. Indeed on the limited argument before me, it would not be appropriate for me to provide a fully reasoned decision on these submissions, particularly as there is no right of appeal from my decision to grant the consent order. Nor am I able to adopt the basis as put by Federated Farmers as I have not undertaken the review exercise needed, with the assistance of the parties, to reach that conclusion.[49] Rather, I proceed on the basis that there is on error on the face of the record, there being no explicit recognition of Policy 11 NZCPS in those parts of the UnitaryPlan where recognition would be expected and indeed is foreshadowed in the IHP'sreport and in other parts of the Plan (see [39]). This should not be taken to give rise to a new independent error of law in future cases. I have reached that conclusion given the unanimity of the parties on this particular point.[50] Finally, I agree that this appeal provides a proper vehicle to incorporate therelief sought by Man O'War as set out at [25] above. It forms part of the wider relief necessary to give effect to the Policy 11 of the NZCPS, as does the further consequential relief sought by the parties.Relief[51] The question of relief is however more difficult to resolve in this case. Recently, in Ancona Properties Ltd v Auckland Council, I observed:15[4] A curious feature of the Unitary Plan process is that the Council may accept or reject an IHP recommendation. A decision to accept an IHP recommendation may be appealed to this Court on a question of law, while a decision to reject an IHP recommendation triggers a right of appeal to the Environment Court. A decision of this Court to substantively amend the Unitary Plan must usually trigger a statutory right of appeal to the Environment Court because the effect of the amendment is to reject the IHP recommendation. Subject to futility, this statutory right of appeal should be activated. By futility I mean situations where:(a) There are no other submitters on the relevant part(s) of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);(b) Any submitters consent to the changes; or15 Ancona Properties Ltd v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 594 at [4]-[5], citing Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, ss 148, 156 and 158.(c) The changes are of a technical nature only.[5] A corollary of this is that a consent order granting substantive amendments will ordinarily trigger the notice and appeal procedures of s 156 as if the consent order is a decision of the Council to reject an IHP recommendation. However, as I explain in relation to each appeal, on the facts of the settlements before me I am satisfied that in all cases referral to the Environment Court would be futile and unnecessary.[52] In the present case, all interested parties have been given an opportunity to contest the relief sought. Notably also a broad cross-section of affected persons are represented by the parties to this appeal and were consulted about the proposed changes. This satisfies me that the amendments sought have been subject to oversight by the persons most interested in the outcome.[53] I have also examined the amendments in terms of the IHP recommendation report and in light of Policy 11 of NZCPS. I am satisfied, like the parties, that the amendments accord with, in a proportionate way, the purposes and principles of Part 2 and give effect to Policy 11 of the NZCPS.[54] One residual concern is that, notwithstanding the consensus reached, and given the very broad potential application of the policies under appeal, all submitters on this part of the Unitary Plan should be given the opportunity to appeal to the Environment Court. Had the correction been anything more than giving effect to the outcomes foreshadowed by the IHP in its reports, I would have been minded to require a further opportunity for appeal to the Environment Court. But the correctionlogically follows from the IHP's reasoning. I therefore see no substantive unfairnessto submitters who were not involved in this appeal process.Outcome[55] The consent order sought by the parties in this matter is granted.[56] The decision of the Council on 19 August 2016 is amended as per Appendix A.[57] The Council's decisions are final.Costs[58] There is no issue as to costs.