IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2012-485-2012 [2013] NZHC 1059
BETWEEN ALAN DENNIS JEFFERIES Appellant
ANDWELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent
Hearing: 3 October 2012
Counsel: F Geiringer (on instructions of P Morahan) for Appellant
T Gilbert for Respondent
Judgment: 10 May 2013
In accordance with r 11.5, I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 4:30pm on the 10th May 2013.
JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J
Solicitors:
Mr Geiringer, Barrister, Wellington, felix.geiringer@terracechambers.co.nz
Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington, tjg@lcc.co.nz
JEFFERIES V WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL HC WN CIV-2012-485-2012 [10 May 2013]
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Environment Court to uphold two Abatement Notices issued against Mr Jefferies. Notice 463 relates to a bund the appellant helped to build at the point where the Mangaroa River bed splits between the now largely dry eastern arm and the now running western arm. The split comes back together again 250 metres downstream forming a kind of small ‘island’. The bund was largely but not wholly successful in preventing the river from rerouting back through the eastern arm. This arm adjoins the rear of the appellant’s property. He and a neighbour, Mr Donald McNeil, placed the bund in order to stop the bank on his land eroding away. According to the abatement notice, the allegedly unauthorised activities included:
(a) deposition of material;
(b) placement of structures; and
(c) associated diversion of water.
[2] The notice was issued on 16 April 2010.
[3] Notice 477 related to the tipping of clean fill down a cliff at the rear of the
appellants’ land and onto a portion of the now dry bed of the eastern arm of the river.
[4] The notice formally described the breach of s 13 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) as “unauthorised discharges of contaminants onto the bed of the Mangaroa River”.
[5] That notice was issued on 28 May 2010.
The facts
[6] The appellant owns a property at 1102 Maymorn Road in Upper Hutt. It is used as a lumber yard. It backs on to the fluvial flats cut by the Mangaroa River.
His downstream neighbour is D A McNeill Limited at 1066B Maymorn Road. That site is used by Mr McNeill as a construction and demolition cleanfill.
[7] These two properties are located on the eastern arm of the river course. For a decade between 1999 and January 2010 (the month during which Mr Jefferies and Mr McNeill built the bund) the Mangaroa River flowed down that eastern arm. I understand that the western arm was for that period mostly dry. Prior to 1999, the river seemed largely to flow down the western arm. According to Council officers a tree fall in 1999 had caused the river to deviate. Certainly aerial photographs from the 1940s and 1950s show clearly that the western arm was the river’s preferred course in those days.
[8] With the course of the river flowing down the eastern arm during the decade to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jefferies v Wellington Regional Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] NZHC 1059
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court rejected the argument that the lawful excavation on the western arm caused the river's diversion, and the bund was merely a preventive measure. The court also found that the bund did not qualify as beach recontouring under the Regional Freshwater Plan, as it used non-natural material and formed a barrier to water movement. The court held that the 2009 consent did not authorise the construction of the bund, and the appellant's expectations based on discussions with the Council could not be taken into account in interpreting the consent. Finally, the court found that the 2001 consent from the Upper Hutt City Council for a silt trap was irrelevant, as the appellant would still be in breach of the Resource Management Act unless he had a consent from the Regional Council.
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the Environment Court's decision to uphold the Abatement Notices was affirmed. The court held that the appellant's activities were in breach of the Resource Management Act, and the appellant was liable for the breaches. The court reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.