The Resource Management Amendment Bill was introduced earlier this week. The Bill includes revisiting restrictions on public notification and appeals, reinstating financial contributions and adding a new specialised process for freshwater decision-making. You can view the full list of proposals in the Explanatory Note at the following link:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Discount Brands Ltd v Westfield (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] NZSC 17 established the standard of information consent authorities require to make notification decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). However, subsequent amendments to the notification provisions of the RMA removed the express statutory requirement for consent authorities to have adequate information, and replaced the rebuttable presumption of notification with a discretion to notify, casting doubt on the continued applicability of Discount Brands.
In the recent decision of Liu v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 33 the Environment Court cautioned that personal views as to what constitutes an adverse effect must not outweigh the application of relevant planning provisions. The decision also provides helpful commentary regarding the nature of the abatement notice appeal regime under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
Earlier this month, in the decision Tauranga City Council v Minister of Education [2019] NZEnvC 032, the Environment Court considered as a preliminary question of law whether sections 171 or 174 of the RMA allow a territorial authority to recommend, and the Environment Court to impose, conditions requiring “monetary contributions” on designations (other than conditions that are offered on an Augier basis).
In its recent decision in Re McKay the Environment Court has determined that the conversion of a cross lease title to a fee simple (freehold) title constitutes a subdivision in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991.
This is an unsurprising decision given the terms of the Resource Management Act and having regard to the true nature of a cross lease title.
Introduction
In the recent decision Daisley v Whangarei District Council [2018] NZHC 2211 the High Court dismissed an application for leave to bring a summary judgment application against the Whangarei District Council (Council) and Mr Peters. In the process of reaching this decision the High Court provided some interesting commentary surrounding local authority liability in relation to the duty of care owed to landowners when taking regulatory action.
0508 Brookfields