New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Controlled activity

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2022

CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 510

Citation

[2022] NZHC 510
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court did not err in law by considering end-use effects of water supplied by the community scheme (notably dairy shed wash) when fixing consent duration because there was a sufficient nexus (the council supplied water directly to farms and permitted that use, with up to 30% used for dairy wash), the effects were not too remote, and integrated consideration under s104 and the NPSFM 2020 justified the approach; review conditions would not adequately address present risks, so a 25-year term was reasonable and the Environment Court's decision was upheld.
29 Sept 2016

CLOVA BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2317

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2317
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council was entitled to treat the application as a controlled activity because the implemented structures and purposes were within the scope of the existing consent and Plan standards; however the Council failed to properly apply ss95B and 95E to determine whether there were affected persons and so denied statutory participation rights; accordingly the consent is quashed and remitted for reconsideration under s95B/95E with limited notification, subject to measures to avoid disproportionate prejudice to the permit holder (notably seasonal timing).
9 Sept 2015

RANGITATA DIVERSION RACE MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND ORS v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 2174

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2174
Court

High Court

The Court held the Commissioners erred in law by treating the s 77A discretion to assign activity status as implicitly limited by ss 123 and 128; there is no statutory prohibition preventing categorisation of the challenged water-related activities as controlled activities and the matter must be reconsidered by the Canterbury Regional Council on the merits in light of this judgment.
28 Sept 2007

DOBSON V WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC TAU CIV-2007-470-814

Citation

openlaw-f7c4ac84_d16f_47b5_84b5_9ff9ae0ec77a.pdf
Court

High Court

On the interlocutory record the Court considered Comanche's interpretation of the District Plan s17 provision likely correct such that the road creation was lawfully authorised as a works/network utility (controlled activity), the applicants had not shown sufficient strength of case or that alternatives to the proposed road were more than theoretical, and the balance of convenience did not justify injunctive relief; application for interim injunction was dismissed and consent may be lawfully acted upon.

New Zealand Case Law

CLUTHA DISTRICT COUNCIL v OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 510

CLOVA BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2317

RANGITATA DIVERSION RACE MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND ORS v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 2174

DOBSON V WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC TAU CIV-2007-470-814