Cooper v Hastings District Council
[2023] NZHC 611
•24 March 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE
CIV-2022-441-58
[2023] NZHC 611
UNDER the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 IN THE MATTER
of the Public Works Act 1981
BETWEEN
KAREN MARY COOPER
Applicant
AND
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Respondent
AND
AH & HM MASTERS
Interested Parties
Hearing: 20–21 March 2023 Appearances:
M Williams and C D Beattie for the Applicant
M Casey KC and A Davidson for the Respondent M B Lawson for the Interested Parties
Judgment:
24 March 2023
JUDGMENT OF COOKE J
[1] The applicant, Karen Cooper owns property in Howard Street, Hastings. Her land has been rezoned as residential land by the Hastings District Council (the Council). Part of her land has also been compulsorily acquired in order to establish an internal road and to provide for a stormwater detention area in the contemplated residential subdivision. She is in dispute with the Council about the basis upon which she is to be compensated for this compulsory acquisition, and she brings this declaratory judgment proceeding to address the dispute. Anthony and Heather Masters are nearby landowners, and they have a similar disagreement with the Council and join as an interested party to support her claim for declarations.
COOPER v HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 611 [24 March 2023]
Background
[2] The relevant facts have been largely agreed in the form of an agreed statement of facts filed by the parties, although affidavit evidence has also been filed.
[3] Prior to compulsory acquisition Dr Cooper owned 2.76 hectares on Howard Street, and Mr and Mrs Masters own 1.6 hectares on Havelock Road. The properties are on an area of land adjacent to residential areas of Hastings. It was zoned Plains Productive Zone (PPZ) which is a zone which supports primary production, particularly cropping, viticulture and orcharding. Their properties are used for activities consistent with this zoning.
[4] The Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2010 identified 14 hectares of land between Havelock Road and Howard Street as future residential land. The area so identified did not include Dr Cooper’s or the Masters’ land. Issues with other areas identified for urban growth meant that the Council brought forward this greenfield growth area and it proposed that this area be rezoned as general residential in 2015. After engaging with the community, the proposed area was extended to include Dr Cooper’s land, and part of the Masters’ land, including because of a desire to provide additional residential yield in what came to be known as Variation 3.
[5] Variation 3 became operative on 13 March 2019. It rezoned the land as general residential. A Structure Plan was also introduced by the Council at this time. That Structure Plan makes provision for the infrastructure that is associated with the contemplated residential development. This included an indicative roading corridor and a stormwater detention area. The land required for the roading and the stormwater detention occupies a substantial portion of Dr Cooper’s land, and the Masters’ land.
[6] The Council proposed to acquire the Cooper and Masters’ land for this purpose. Advanced purchase agreements have been entered between the Council and Dr Cooper and the Masters respectively. The compensation that will be payable to them under the agreements contemplate both a determination by the Land Valuation Tribunal, and declaratory judgment proceedings in this Court.
[7]The dispute between the parties turns on two areas of disagreement, namely:
(a)The Council says that Dr Cooper’s and the Masters’ land being acquired should be valued on the basis of its previous PPZ zoning rather than as residential land. This involves a substantially lower value for Dr Cooper and the Masters.
(b)The Council also contends, particularly in the case of Dr Cooper, that the compensation to be paid for its acquisition is offset by an increase in value in Dr Cooper’s other land which is not being acquired arising from the residential rezoning.
[8] As a consequence of both the above factors, the Council contends that Dr Cooper is not due any compensation under the statutory provisions — that is to say that the increase in the value of her other land as a consequence of the residential rezoning is greater than the compensation due to her for the land being acquired. For the Masters’ land there is no offsetting value of this kind. That is because the majority of their land that is not being acquired for roading or stormwater detention sits outside the new residential zone. For them the issue is that they are only being compensated for their land on the basis of its rural PPZ zoning notwithstanding that it has been rezoned residential. They receive less compensation as a consequence.
[9] In this proceeding Dr Cooper sought declarations that the residential zoning in Variation 3 was not part of the public work for which her land was acquired, and that the consequences described in [7] above accordingly did not arise as argued by the Council.
The relevant statutory provisions
[10] A local authority has the power to acquire land under s 189 of the Local Government Act 2002. When it does, under s 190 the person has a right to “full compensation” under the Public Works Act 1981 (the Act). The disputes in this proceeding turn on the proper interpretation of the following provisions of the Act:
62 Assessment of compensation
(1)The amount of compensation payable under this Act, whether for land taken, land injuriously affected, or otherwise, shall be assessed in accordance with the following provisions:
…
(b)the value of land shall, except as otherwise provided, be taken to be that amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer on the specified date might be expected to realise …
(c)where the value of the land taken for any public work has, on or before the specified date, been increased or reduced by the work or the prospect of the work, the amount of that increase or reduction shall not be taken into account:
…
(e) the Tribunal shall take into account by way of deduction from that part of the total amount of compensation that would otherwise be awarded on any claim in respect of a public work that comprises the market value of the land taken and any injurious affection to land arising out of the taking, any increase in the value of any land of the claimant that is injuriously affected, or in the value of any other land in which the claimant has an interest, caused before the specified date or likely to be caused after that date by the work or the prospect of the work:
…
[11]There is a definition of “work” in the following terms in s 2:
public work and work mean—
(a)every Government work or local work that the Crown or any local authority is authorised to construct, undertake, establish, manage, operate, or maintain, and every use of land for any Government work or local work which the Crown or any local authority is authorised to construct, undertake, establish, manage, operate, or maintain by or under this or any other Act; and include anything required directly or indirectly for any such Government work or local work or use:
…
[12]And there is also the following definition:
local work means—
(a)a work constructed or intended to be constructed by or under the control of a local authority, or for the time being under the control of a local authority; and
…
The general approach
[13] There is a common law right to receive compensation when property is expropriated for public purposes.1 That common law right is reflected in the provisions of the Act. In Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General the Court of Appeal observed that “… the compulsory acquisition of land has always been viewed as a serious interference in individual rights demanding special attention”.2 The Court said:3
[I]t is well established that the principle underlying the compensation provisions of the Public Works Act is full compensation. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure the person to be compensated is given a full money equivalent of their loss. The word “full” has the added purpose of emphasising that a claimant is entitled to receive the complete equivalent of that which has been taken away from them. The claimant has the right to be put, so far as money can do it, in the same position as if their land had not been taken.
[14] Similarly in Green & McCahill Holdings Ltd v Auckland Council the High Court said:4
The expression “full compensation” means such sum of money as will place the dispossessed owner in a position as similar as possible to that which the owner was in before the land was taken. The governing principle of compensation is the award of a monetary equivalent for that which has been lost. The word “full” can probably be equated with the word “fair”. A claimant is entitled to receive the full money equivalent of what he has lost and in respect of each category of compensatable loss. Use of the word “full” implies a direction that his or her entitlement must not be whittled down in any respect.
[15] But the nature and calculation of that compensation is in accordance with the specific statutory provisions. The requirement that compensation be full and fair means full and fair in accordance with that scheme. There can be complaints that the scheme is arbitrary, or unfair in the way that it operates. But that is nevertheless the scheme that must be applied.
1 Waitakere City Council v Estate Homes Ltd [2006] NZSC 112, [2007] 2 NZLR 149 at [43].
2 Ace Developments Ltd v Attorney-General [2017] NZCA 409, [2017] 3 NZLR 728 at [61].
3 At [65] (footnotes omitted).
4 Green & McCahill Holdings Ltd v Auckland Council [2013] NZHC 507 at [55] (footnotes omitted).
[16] There can be different perspectives on what is fair in particular contexts. Here, for example, the Council say that it is fair that Dr Cooper receive no financial compensation for the taking of her land because of the increase in value of her other land caused by the rezoning that was inherently interlinked with that taking. So she is no worse off economically, and it is of no moment that she does not get the windfall gains from rezoning that her neighbours do.5 By contrast she says that it is fundamentally unfair to have property taken from her without any payment. There can be different views on which perspective is correct. But the answer in legal terms comes from the Act interpreted from its text, in light of its purpose, context, and in accordance with the common law principle referred to above.
What is the “work”?
[17] There is no difference between the parties that the disputes between them turn on the meaning to be given to ss 62(1)(c) and (e). Whilst s 62(1)(b) sets up the willing buyer and seller concept, this provision is subject to the other provisions as a consequences of the words “accept as otherwise provided”. So it is the meaning and effect of s 62(1)(c) and (e) that are in issue.
[18] The primary issue identified by the pleadings, and the parties’ written submissions, was whether the residential rezoning of the land was itself part of the “work” as defined. The Council contended that it was, including in a counterclaim that it advanced. It argued that the residential rezoning needed to be excluded from the assessment under s 62(1)(c) so that the value of the land was to be assessed by its previous PPZ zoning, and also that the increase to the value of other land arising from the rezoning needed to be taken into account under s 62(1)(e).
[19] In pursuing its oral arguments, however, Mr Casey KC did not maintain the Council’s argument in this respect. It is nevertheless appropriate to address it as it is a necessary element of what remains in dispute.
5 As a full Court held in Ross v Minister of Public Works (1913) 32 NZLR 1155 (SC).
[20] For reasons that will be explored in greater detail below, I accept that the creation of the road and the stormwater detention area were essential components of the residential development, and an inextricable part of the rezoning of the land as residential land. The Council argued in its written submissions that they were an integral and necessary component of residential development, and that rezoning was accordingly part of “the work” as defined. That was because the infrastructure required to bring about the rezoning was not severable from the rezoning itself.
[21] But I accept the essential point advanced by Mr Williams in response. The rezoning of land is not itself a public or local work, and neither is it part of it. It is a separate statutory process under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA). The RMA has separate provisions that address the potential impacts of rezoning.6 The fact that rezoning is a necessary prerequisite to the pursuit of a public work or a local work does not mean that the rezoning is itself a work or part of a work. Neither has that been suggested in any of the authorities.
[22] I do not accept that the definitions limit the concept of a work to things that are constructed as Mr Williams argued, however. There is an extended meaning to the definition of “work” captured by the additional words “construct, undertake, establish, manage, operate, or maintain …”. But the key feature of this extended meaning is that it is something that the Crown or local authority itself does. Here it is not the Council that will undertake the residential subdivision. This will likely be undertaken by a property developer. The rezoning of the land is something that Council does, but that is simply enabling. It allows a residential subdivision to be undertaken by others. The roading and stormwater requirements are different, however. The road and stormwater management area will be managed, operated or maintained by the Council, and the compulsory acquisition of the land for those purposes qualify as local works. So the establishment of roading and stormwater infrastructure are local works for which land is being compulsorily acquired under s 189 of the Local Government Act. But the rezoning of the land as residential land is not.
6 For example under s 10 existing uses are preserved, and under s 85(1) the rezoning of land is not regarded as adversely affecting it for the purposes of compensation.
[23] This is confirmed when the more specific definition of “local work” is considered. The roading and stormwater areas will be constructed under the control of the local authority. The creation of the residential zone does not fall within this definition.
[24] There can be situations where the public body will be the developer, and accordingly where the overall development involving the rezoning and subsequent construction may all be part of one public or local work. For example that is contemplated by the Urban Development Act 2020 where Kāianga Ora can both rezone land and undertake a development on it. But that is not the situation here. The only relevant “work” involved is the establishment of roading, stormwater and other infrastructure, where compulsorily acquiring powers have been utilised.
[25] I do not accept that anything changes as a consequence of the fact that s 62 refers not only to the “work” but also “the prospect of the work”. These additional words merely capture work that is anticipated. It does not change what is meant by “work” and “local work”. It merely increases the reach of the section to what is planned or anticipated. That will frequently be relevant — indeed this is the case here as the construction of the road, and creation of the stormwater detention area, had not taken place and the time of acquisition, but they were squarely in prospect.
[26] For these reasons I accept the applicant’s argument that the work contemplated by s 62 does not include the residential rezoning. It follows that declarations of the kind sought by the applicant may be appropriate, and the Council’s counterclaim should be dismissed.
Section 61(1)(e): Is the increase in value caused by the work?
[27] As indicated the oral submissions of the parties focused in a different point. This turns on a question of causation. I first deal with it in the context of s 61(1)(e) before returning to how it affects the application of s 61(1)(c). The key issue here is whether there is an increase in value in the land Dr Cooper retains arising from the public work — that is whether there is betterment.
[28] As explained, the Council contends that the rezoning of the land was inextricably interlinked with the establishment of the roading and stormwater required for residential development. Mr Casey argued that because the two were inherently interlinked the increase in the value to the balance of Dr Cooper’s land needed to be deducted from the amount of compensation under s 62(1)(e).
[29] I accept Mr Casey’s submission that the rezoning and the roading and stormwater requirements are inherently interlinked. Once the land was rezoned it was inevitable that roading and stormwater detention areas to serve the contemplated subdivision would be required. Mr Casey took me to the provisions of the (non- statutory) Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy and the (statutory) Regional Policy Statement. They specified that Structure Plans would be required for such residential growth, including roads and connections for relevant infrastructure, and land for stormwater detention. He also took me to the report provided in accordance with s 32 of the RMA concerning the development identifying the Structure Plan requirements. It is clear that the requirements were necessary, and that the location of the roading and stormwater areas was always part of the rezoning proposal in Variation 3. Dr Cooper originally appealed against these Variation 3 provisions, although her appeal was resolved.
[30] But what s 62(1)(e) refers to is “any increase in the value of … any other land in which the claimant has an interest, caused … by the … prospect of the work”.7 As indicated above, the relevant “work” is the establishment of the roading and stormwater infrastructure for the residential subdivision. The critical question is one of causation. In Auckland Council v Green & McCahill Holdings Ltd the Court of Appeal said:8
The first point to note is the reference in s 62(1)(e) to a causative link. Specifically, s 62(1)(e) provides for the deduction, from the total compensation otherwise to be awarded, of any increase in the value of the land of the claimant or in the value of other land in which the claimant has an interest “caused before the specified date or likely to be caused after that date by the work or the prospect of the work”. The words “caused” and “likely” indicate the need for a proven causative connection arising out of the public work. In other words, betterment must be established as a matter of fact.
7 Emphasis added.
8 Auckland Council v Green & McCahill Holdings Ltd [2015] NZCA 20 at [29]. See also Green & McCahill Holdings Ltd v Auckland Council, above n 4, at [80].
[31] The fact that matters are inherently interlinked does not mean that causation is established. I accept Mr Williams’ argument that the requirement for internal roading and stormwater detention was caused by the residential rezoning and not the other way around. It is not correct to say that the establishment of a stormwater detention area and of roading to service the residential subdivision caused the rezoning of the land as residential land.
[32] That contrasts with the situation in the other cases referred to by the parties. The most relevant case is Napier City Council v Marist Holdings (Greenmeadows) Ltd.9 This was an appeal from a decision of the Land Valuation Tribunal. Fifty hectares of the respondent’s land had been zoned as deferred residential land by Napier City Council. The respondent then proposed residential development of the land by proposing the widening of the road which bordered it. This improved access allowed residential development to proceed, and the land was rezoned residential as a consequence. When assessing compensation for the land taken for the realignment of the road the Tribunal made no allowance for the betterment to the respondent’s other land arising from the rezoning. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in this respect, and remitted the matter to it for assessment. The Court held:
There was reason to suppose that the value of the respondent’s land and in particular the 50 hectares identified for potential subdivision may have increased in value as a result of the provision of the road. Puketitiri Road provided proper and adequate access for the proposed subdivision. This in turn was sufficient to satisfy the Council that the deferred residential status should be lifted and that the land would become formally zoned as residential. That was a substantial change in the status of the land. While the formal change did not occur until 2007 we are satisfied the well informed observer would have known in January 2004 that with the realignment of Puketitiri Road the deferred zoning would inevitably have been lifted. The change in status would have allowed subdivision as of right subject to obtaining consent to infrastructure requirements such as stormwater. We consider this was easily sufficient evidence of a likelihood of an increase in value of the land to require a full before and after valuation pursuant to s 62(1)(e). It follows, therefore, we consider Mr Spencer’s rejection of betterment was premature, based on irrelevant matters, failed to adequately consider s 62(1)(e), and therefore was in error. In this conclusion we differ from the Tribunal.
9 Napier City Council v Marist Holdings (Greenmeadows) Ltd [2012] NZHC 658.
[33] The key aspect of these findings is that the public work — the realignment of the road — caused the respondent’s retained land to be rezoned as residential land. So it is an illustration of the requirement for causation. That case is different from the present because here the requirement for internal roading and a stormwater detention area in the subdivision did not cause the land to be rezoned as residential land. It was the other way around.
[34] A similar position arises from some of the other authorities referred to by the parties. In Barkat v Roads and Maritime Services the New South Wales Court of Appeal addressed an appeal from the Land and Environment Court relating to the quantum of compensation for land taken for a new roading corridor where land had been rezoned as a consequence.10 The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower Court that the rezoning was caused by the public work, and so it needed to be ignored for the purposes of the statutory equivalent of s 61(1)(c).11 It applied a “but for” test of causation. It is a further example of a public work driving a rezoning. Similarly in MMTR Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales held that an increase in value of retained land consequent on a rezoning required by a new highway needed to be deducted as betterment under the equivalent of r 61(1)(e).12 Again it was the public work — the new highway — that caused the rezoning, and accordingly the betterment.
[35] This approach is also broadly consistent with other New Zealand decisions. In Silverwood Corp Ltd v Minister for Land Information the Land Valuation Tribunal found that the loss caused by the taking of land for Transmission Gully was offset by the increase in value of retained land caused by the Transmission Gully project.13 On appeal the High Court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish causation of the kind explained by the Court of Appeal in Green & McCahill.14 Other decisions have also involved findings that alleged betterment from the public work have not been established as a matter of causation.15
10 Barkat v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWCA 240.
11 At [78]–[79].
12 MMTR Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWLSC 177 at [142] and [151].
13 Silverwood Corp Ltd v Minister for Land Information [2022] NZLVT 1.
14 Silverwood Corp Ltd v Minister for Land Information [2022] NZHC 3483 at [74]–[93].
15 Middle Hill Ltd v Minister for Land Information [2022] NZLVT 010 at [113], [124]–[125], and [133]; Lui Sai-Hwa Lien v Auckland Council [2021] NZLVT 004 at [104]–[105].
[36] All of the authorities I have referred to are also consistent with the principle that was identified by the Privy Council in Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Corporation Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands that a landowner cannot claim compensation when the value of the land is increased by the very scheme of which compulsory acquisition forms a part.16 But it is the manifestation of that principle in the New Zealand legislation that is decisive, including the important requirement for causation.
[37] In his reply submissions Mr Williams accepted that there might be some relevant betterment caused to Dr Cooper’s land by the public works in the present case, and he sought to adjust the proposed declarations as a consequence. In particular he indicated that there might be some betterment arising from the fact that her residentially zoned land was better off because the roading and stormwater needs had been addressed by the public works. That is a subtle point and it may well be correct. But there are limits on how far the Court should go in a declaratory judgment proceeding given the role of the Land Valuation Tribunal.17 I do not have valuation evidence, or the views of the Tribunal, or fuller argument addressing this more subtle point. I do not consider it appropriate to address these complexities at this stage.
Section 61(1)(c): Is the taken land assessed as PPZ or residential?
[38] The second related issue is whether the land compulsorily acquired from Dr Cooper and the Masters should be valued as residential land or rural (PPZ) land. For similarly reasons I accept the arguments by Mr Williams and Mr Lawson that it should be valued as residential land. I see that as a consequence of the analysis outlined above.
[39] There is no dispute that the land to be taken is to be valued under s 62(1)(b) ignoring the fact that it is to be used for roading and stormwater detention. That involves disregarding the effects of the public works in accordance with s 62(1)(c).
16 Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Corporation Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565, 572 (PC); Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111 at 136 (PC); Waitemata County v Hughes [1967] NZLR 344.
17 See Marsden City Ltd Partnership v Whangarei District Council [2022] NZHC 2823 (staying declaratory judgment proceedings) and New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc v Gisborne District Council [2021] NZHC 2198 (staying judicial review proceedings).
But the Council argued that the residential zoning also had to be ignored, and the land valued in accordance with its previous zoning. Dr Cooper and the Masters argued that it needed to be valued as residential land as this was not to be disregarded under s 62(1)(c).
[40] Again, the Council originally argued that the residential rezoning was itself part of the “work”, and accordingly it had to be disregarded under s 62(1)(c) for that reason. But as explained that argument was not maintained at the hearing. For the reasons I have already outlined I accept that the relevant “works” are limited to the prospect of the internal roading and the stormwater detention area.
[41] Section 61(1)(c) does not itself use the words “caused … by the work”. But that is nevertheless what the section means through use of the words “increased or reduced by the work”. The word “by” introduces the same causation requirement. For that reason any increase or decrease in value caused by the roading and stormwater requirements are to be ignored. The reduction in value to Dr Cooper’s and the Masters’ land being acquired caused by the requirement that it be taken to establish the internal roading and stormwater requirements for residential subdivision are accordingly to be disregarded.
[42] Mr Casey argued at the hearing that the rezoning also had to be ignored under s 62(1)(c) as it was inherently interlinked with the public works. But for the same reasons that I have addressed above the residential zoning was not caused by these public works. It was the other way around. The public works became necessary because of the residential rezoning. For that reason the fact that this land has been zoned residential is not to be ignored under s 61(1)(c). The valuation exercise proceeds under s 62(1)(b) on the basis that this land was zoned residential at the time of the acquisition.
[43] Once again Mr Williams advanced a more elaborate argument that it was not just the physical works required for the internal roading and the stormwater detention area that were relevant but also the terms of Variation 3 which made provision for those works. He again sought to adjust the proposed declarations to cater for this more sophisticated point. For the same reasons as addressed at [37] above I do not think it
appropriate to address those complexities at this stage. If they have any significance they can be addressed after valuation evidence and fuller legal argument are available.
[44] I also note that Mr Williams and Mr Lawson argued that the greater cost to the Council arising from the approach to compensation they advocated for could be addressed by development contributions under sub-part 5 of Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2002. That might be so, but this is not ultimately relevant to the interpretation issues.
Outcome
[45] For the above reasons I have essentially accepted the submissions advanced by the applicant and the interested parties. The land taken from the Dr Cooper and the Masters is to be valued as land that has been rezoned residential, and any increase in value to land retained by them arising from the rezoning is not treated as betterment under s 61(1)(e).
[46] The formal declarations sought in the statement of claim were not squarely focused on the dispute between the parties as it emerged at the oral hearing. Rather they were focused on whether the rezoning was treated as the “work” or part of the work under s 62(1)(c) and (e).
[47] Declarations along the lines pleaded, particularly declaration (a) and (b) in the statement of claim could still be made. But I hesitate to do so simply because they are not formulated to address what is now the real dispute. Indeed I wonder if formal declarations are truly necessary. I apprehend that I have addressed and answered the questions that are now in issue, and that the precise formulation of declarations is neither here nor there. The judgment itself may provide the necessary answers at this stage. In the end the true dispute between the parties turns on questions of fact as much as a questions of law. I will, however, dismiss the counterclaim. I will not otherwise make formal declarations at this stage, but reserve leave to all parties to apply by the filing of memorandum (and potentially consent memoranda) to seek formal declarations. Any such memorandum seeking a formal declaration(s) must be filed within 20 working days, and responded to 10 working days thereafter.
[48] As to costs I can also receive memoranda if the position cannot be agreed. My preliminary view is that the applicant and the interested parties are entitled to costs on a 2B basis. Any memoranda seeking costs must be filed within 10 working days, and responded to within 10 working days thereafter. Memoranda are to be no longer than five pages plus a schedule.
Cooke J
Solicitors:
S J Scannell & Corporation, Hastings for the Applicant Lawson Robinson, Napier for the Interested Party
7
0