WATERFALL PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v HADLEY [2022] NZHC 376

WATERFALL PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v HADLEY [2022] NZHC 376

The planting did not meet the PDP definition of 'farming activity' because its primary purpose was not the production of vegetative matter or commercial livestock on the facts and there was insufficient evidence that a future primary farming purpose was likely; accordingly an activity not permitted under the PDP (r 24.4.1) defaults to non-complying in light of Chapter 24 objectives and policies protecting Wakatipu Basin landscape values; the Environment Court's factual findings were open on the evidence and no error of law was made, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 376
Parties
Appellant: Waterfall Park Developments Limited; First Respondent: James Hadley and Rebecca Hadley; Second Respondent: Queenstown Lakes District Council
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Environment Court Under S 299 Resource Management Act 1991 / High Court Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Environment Court decision upheld
Legal Topics
Land Use, District Plan Interpretation, Definition of Farming Activity, Resource Consent, Non Complying Activity
Resource Management Environment Law Planning Law Land Use District Plan Interpretation Definition of Farming Activity Resource Consent Non Complying Activity

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waterfall Park Developments Limited

Appellant

James Hadley and Rebecca Hadley

First Respondent

Queenstown Lakes District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Environment Court Under S 299 Resource Management Act 1991 / High Court Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tree planting constituted a permitted 'farming activity' under the Proposed District Plan definition
  2. 2 Whether an activity not listed as permitted defaults to a non-complying activity under r 24.4.1 of the PDP
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of the phrase 'primary purpose' in the PDP definition of farming activity

Ratio Decidendi

The planting did not meet the PDP definition of 'farming activity' because its primary purpose was not the production of vegetative matter or commercial livestock on the facts and there was insufficient evidence that a future primary farming purpose was likely; accordingly an activity not permitted under the PDP (r 24.4.1) defaults to non-complying in light of Chapter 24 objectives and policies protecting Wakatipu Basin landscape values; the Environment Court's factual findings were open on the evidence and no error of law was made, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Environment Court decision upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs reserved; preliminary view Waterfall Park liable for costs on category 2B basis