New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Certificate of compliance (s139 rma)

  • 28 Nov 2014

    NORTH CANTERBURY CLAY TARGET ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 3021

    Citation
    [2014] NZHC 3021
    Court
    High Court

    The phrase "any dwelling house" in the plan's noise rule includes dwellings constructed after the certificate of compliance was issued; a certificate of compliance, while treated as a deemed resource consent, remains subject to the plan's conditions and does not exempt the holder from complying with the noise limits measured at any notional boundary including new dwellings, so the Association remains obliged to meet the noise rule despite changes in the receiving environment.

    • Certificate of compliance (s139 rma)
    • Interpretation of district plan
    • Noise control/permitted activity
    • Deemed resource consent
    • Effects-based planning
    • Existing use rights

  • 31 Jul 2009

    PETER WILLIAM MAWHINNEY V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL CA CA136/2009

    Citation
    openlaw-2c53af32_ed9e_46c5_b7c7_6fde7856b4b6.pdf
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The application for special leave was declined because the points raised do not disclose arguable questions of law; s11 RMA presumes subdivision is prohibited unless expressly allowed or authorised by resource consent, certificates of compliance under s139 are only available where the activity is permitted in all respects, and combined or compartmentalised applications attempting to use certificates plus consents to circumvent s11 are invalid and constitute an abuse of process.

    • Subdivision of land
    • Certificate of compliance (s139 rma)
    • Section 11 rma
    • Abuse of process
    • Leave to appeal
    • Combined applications for consent and certificates

  • 10 Sept 2008

    HAVELOCK NORTH CITIZENS INC V HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL HC NAP CIV 2007-441-1009

    Citation
    openlaw-5cbf31ac_675e_44ec_84e9_e92a5de15fd2.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court set aside both certificates because Council erred in law by issuing certificates without sufficient information and by misapplying plan rules: (1) Te Mata Rd certificate unlawful because Conrad failed to calculate recession planes from all residential zone boundaries (including road centrelines under R16.4) and both Te Mata Rd and Napier Rd developments breached the 250m² gross floor area limit in R9.8.9 which applies to all permitted suburban commercial activities including residential uses; (2) Napier Rd certificate was also unlawful because the proposed earthworks exceeded the pe…

    • Certificate of compliance (s139 rma)
    • Building envelope / recession planes
    • Gross floor area limit
    • Earthworks consent
    • Plan interpretation
    • Judicial review procedure

  • 7 Mar 2008

    COROMANDEL MARINE FARMERS V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-419-000877

    Citation
    openlaw-59e2dde2_6a0b_47be_af11_58050c8378ab.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court dismissed CMFA's declaratory application and appeal because MFP 364, by its own condition 2, required any necessary resource consents to be obtained and be kept in force; no such consents were obtained and the purported Certificate of Compliance did not validly address the operative regional coastal plan, therefore the permit was void and not in force on 31 December 2004 and could not be deemed a coastal permit under s20(2) Aquaculture Reform Act 2004. Consequently CMFA was not entitled to the declaration. The Environment Court's bespoke amendment to the proposed plan exceeded the s…

    • Declaratory relief
    • Certificate of compliance (s139 rma)
    • Marine farming permit (s67j fisheries act)
    • Deemed coastal permit (s20 aquaculture reform act)
    • Existing use rights
    • Plan variation and s293 rma

  • 19 Dec 2007

    MAWHINNEY AND GLORIT SUBDIVISION LIMITED V WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2006-485-000627

    Citation
    openlaw-4a6698ad_31c2_4f18_873b_baf44e6e62f0.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    At least some of the proposed boundary adjustments (notably lots 323 and 324) altered site area by more than 10% and therefore were not permitted under rule 2.1(a); s218(3) does not treat an undivided share separated by a cadastral boundary as forming a single continuous allotment for subdivision purposes, so the 'complete site' argument fails; the Council was obliged to refuse the certificate of compliance for the particular package proposed and the Environment Court correctly struck out the appeal and declined rehearing.

    • Certificate of compliance (s139 rma)
    • Interpretation of 'allotment' and 'site' (s218(3))
    • Subdivision performance standards (rule 2.1(a)/(b))
    • Strike out/abuse of process
    • Rehearing (s294 rma)