New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reverse sensitivity

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2020

ALPHA DAIRY NZ LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1517

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1517
Court

High Court

The Court held that the concrete activities Tonea intended to carry out on site — including construction of sets and props, use of rigging, lighting, camera and motion capture equipment, physical labour by carpenters/electricians/riggers, and digital post-production work — fall within the AUP definition of 'Manufacturing' ('Making items by physical labour or machinery' including assembly) and thus constitute an Industrial Activity permitted in the relevant Business – Light Industry (and by nesting, Heavy Industry) zones; accordingly Alpha's challenge to the Council's notification and substant…
10 Sept 2019

ALPHA DAIRY NZ LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2263

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2263
Court

High Court

The Court granted Wiri Oil Services Ltd limited leave to intervene because Wiri demonstrated a direct interest and could improve the information before the Court without materially prejudicing the parties; its participation was confined to evidence already served and written submissions (max 15 pages) by 4 pm on 13 September 2019, oral submissions to be at the discretion of the hearing judge, an extension to the requested filing deadline was refused, and no costs were awarded for or against the intervener.
20 Apr 2017

TURNERS & GROWERS HORTICULTURE LTD v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2017] NZHC 764

Citation

[2017] NZHC 764
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed Turners & Growers' appeal and Northland Waste's cross-appeal. The Environment Court did not err in law: it properly applied s32, considered Part 2 and s31 as required by s74, correctly applied Clearwater principles on scope of submissions, and its factual and evaluative conclusions that a district-wide activity-based setback was a coarse, unjustified measure unsupported by evidence were open to it.
30 Sept 2016

TEGEL FOODS LIMITED v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL & ORS [2016] NZHC 2324

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2324
Court

High Court

Tegel failed to meet the statutory threshold under s8 because it did not establish that restraining Mega's lawful, non-notified consented operation was reasonably necessary to preserve its position; the status quo and proportionality favoured allowing Mega to continue given its lawful consent, substantial investment, and lack of demonstrated material prejudice to Tegel, therefore interim relief was dismissed.
21 Jul 2016

TASTI PRODUCTS LTD & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ORS [2016] NZHC 1673

Citation

(2016) 19 ELRNZ 555
Court

High Court

The notification decision was legally flawed because the Council asked the wrong question by focusing on 'sites' rather than 'persons', applied an overly high 'preclusion' test for effects, failed to adequately consider reverse sensitivity effects beyond internal noise (including external noise, light, vibration and odour) and omitted consideration of relevant PAUP objectives and policies; accordingly the notification, consent and variation decisions were quashed and remitted to Auckland Council for reconsideration by independent planning officers.
24 May 2011

ADCOCK AND DEVIR v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL HC BLE CIV 2010-406-230

Citation

openlaw-41c4cbdc_c896_4403_b956_6eb885b7b0da.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed because the Environment Court materially erred by identifying additional affected persons without prior notice and by relying on incomplete approvals, thereby denying the appellants a fair opportunity to address local effects; the Environment Court's decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Environment Court for rehearing in accordance with the judgment.
15 May 2007

UNISON NETWORKS LIMITED V HAWKE'S BAY WIND FARM LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2006-441-0810

Citation

openlaw-0c659423_8d1a_45f5_9133_961dbd765163.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court correctly applied the first-come-first-served priority rule; Unison's earlier consent (being likely to be implemented) properly formed part of the receiving environment for assessing HBWF's application under s104(1)(a); the priority rule applies regardless of whether the resource is characterised as finite or non-finite, and there was no breach of natural justice because parties were given opportunity to make submissions on conditions and did not seek further evidence.

New Zealand Case Law

ALPHA DAIRY NZ LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1517

ALPHA DAIRY NZ LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 2263

TURNERS & GROWERS HORTICULTURE LTD v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS [2017] NZHC 764

TEGEL FOODS LIMITED v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL & ORS [2016] NZHC 2324

TASTI PRODUCTS LTD & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ORS [2016] NZHC 1673

ADCOCK AND DEVIR v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL HC BLE CIV 2010-406-230

UNISON NETWORKS LIMITED V HAWKE'S BAY WIND FARM LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2006-441-0810