Auckland Council v Cabra Rural Developments Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-1294

[2019] NZHC 1892

UNDER

the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
(LGATPA)

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the

Environment Court under section 299 of the RMA and section 156(4) of the LGATPA

BETWEEN

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Appellant

AND

CABRA RURAL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

…/cont

Hearing:

24-25 June 2019

Appearances:

D K Hartley and A F Buchanan for the Appellant

J M Savage for Cabra Rural Developments Ltd, Rahopara Farms Ltd, SH 16 Ltd, Forest Habitats Ltd, Rauhori Forests Ltd, Monowai Properties Ltd and Karepiro Investments Ltd

KRM Littlejohn and W D McKenzie for Cato Bolam Consultants Ltd and Terra Nova Planning Ltd
No appearance on behalf of David Mason, Better Living Landscapes Ltd, Parallax Consultants Ltd, Fluker Surveying Ltd, Sayes In Trust Ltd and Smithies Family Trust

N M De Wit for Zakara Investments Ltd A Webb for Radiata Properaties Ltd

Judgment:

6 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 August 2019 at 4 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v CABRA RURAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2019] NZHC 1892 [6 August 2019]

RAHOPARA FARMS LIMITED SH 16 LIMITED

FOREST HABITATS LIMITED RAUHORI FORESTS LIMITED MONOWAI PROPERTIES LIMITED KAREPIRO INVESTMENTS LIMITED CATO BOLAM CONSULTANTS

LIMITED DAVID MASON

BETTER LIVING LANDSCAPES LIMITED

PARALLAX CONSULTANTS LIMITED

(also known as PARALLAX SURVEYORS LIMITED)
FLUKER SURVEYING LIMITED (also

known as FLUKER SURVEYORS LIMITED)

SAYES IN TRUST LIMITED SMITHIES FAMILY TRUST

ZAKARA INVESTMENTS LIMITED RADIATA PROPERTIES LIMITED
TERRA NOVA PLANNING LIMITED
Respondents

Solicitors:           DLA Piper, Auckland

North Harbour Law, Orewa Smith & Partners, Auckland Chapman Tripp, Auckland Cook Morris Quinn

Counsel:M Savage, Auckland KRM Littlejohn, Auckland W D McKenzie, Auckland A Webb, Auckland

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  [1]

Background  [5]

AUP provisions in dispute in Environment Court  [16]

Options before Environment Court  [19]

The decision  [22]

Appeal to High Court  [25]

First alleged error of law — failure to take into account and properly

apply mandatory considerations under the RMA.  [28] New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement — Policies 13 and 15 (Issue one)  [29] New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement — Policy 11 (Issue 2)  [78]

Regional Policy Statement (Issue 3)  [85]

Part 2 of the RMA (Issue 4)  [99]

Cumulative effects (Issue 5)  [113]

Second alleged error of law — misapplication of provisions of the RMA

and failure to have regard to the AUP  [144]

Third alleged error of law — coming to a conclusion without evidence

or one to which it could not reasonably have come to on the evidence           [171]

Coastal environment  [172]

Dr Fairgray  [201]

Fourth alleged error of law — taking into account irrelevant

considerations  [209]

Fifth alleged error of law — failure to give reasons commensurate with

importance of decision  [222]

Sixth alleged error of law — failure to determine issues in the proceeding    [246]

Questions of…