New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notification of resource consent applications

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2021

NZ SOUTHERN RIVERS SOCIETY INCORPORATED v GORE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 296 [5 July 2021]

Citation

(2021) 22 ELRNZ 880
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Commissioner had adequate and reliable information in the application (including frequency, duration, scale and proposed management measures) and in the written approvals from relevant agencies to reasonably conclude adverse effects on anglers would be infrequent, short-term and no more than minor; the absence of the angler emails and the subjective views of anglers did not render the non-notification decision unlawful under s95A–95E RMA.
19 Jun 2015

URBAN AUCKLAND v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1382

Citation

(2015) 18 ELRNZ 792
Court

High Court

The Court held the notification decisions were unlawful because the council erred in failing to bundle overlapping consent applications (the most restrictive discretionary activity under the Proposed Plan made notification necessary) and, alternatively, the commissioners misdirected themselves by treating controlled-activity status as determinative of the absence of special circumstances; therefore the non-notified consents were set aside. The Court also held no additional consent was required under Proposed Plan r 3.I.6.1.10.
16 May 2011

PACIFIC FARMS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL COA CA116/2010

Citation

COA CA116/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court declarations because the High Court was confronted with inadequate and late evidence (notably the late disclosure of RM2636 and failure to address operative regional plan provisions) which prevented a reliable resolution of whether stormwater discharges were permitted or required regional consents; notification and quashing issues could not be properly determined on the material before the High Court, so the High Court's orders and costs award were set aside and the appeals disposed accordingly.
15 Dec 2010

FAIR INVESTMENTS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC PMN CIV 2010-454-653

Citation

openlaw-0ce65db8_ffb5_4b20_bc66_0de271ef5f49.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council lawfully and rationally considered the relevant matters (traffic, parking, visual amenity, special circumstances and affected persons), correctly concluded the adverse effects were less than minor, and therefore properly declined public or limited notification and lawfully granted consent; the judicial review application was dismissed.
19 Apr 2007

REA V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-0162

Citation

openlaw-cdd8f1e8_7917_41c6_9c52_f51ee502f8e3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Council's decision to treat the application as non-notified and to give no notice to the plaintiff was unlawful and is quashed because the Council did not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied under s 93 that adverse effects would be minor and erred in concluding under s 94 that the plaintiff would not be adversely affected (the material failed to address sunlight/shading, bulk and dominance, traffic and noise adequately); the matter must be reconsidered and the plaintiff must be treated as potentially adversely affected for purposes of s 94 if the Council again seeks non-notified proc…

New Zealand Case Law

NZ SOUTHERN RIVERS SOCIETY INCORPORATED v GORE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZCA 296 [5 July 2021]

URBAN AUCKLAND v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1382

PACIFIC FARMS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL COA CA116/2010

FAIR INVESTMENTS LIMITED V PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC PMN CIV 2010-454-653

REA V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-0162