Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated v Bay of Plenty Regional Council

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA280/2018
[2018] NZCA 202

BETWEEN	NGAI TE HAPU INCORPORATED AND NGA POTIKI A TAMAPAHORE TRUST Applicants
AND	BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL First Respondent THE ASTROLABE COMMUNITY TRUST Second Respondent

Hearing:	11 June 2018
Court:	French, Cooper and Brown JJ
Counsel:	T L Hovell for Applicants M E Casey QC for Respondents
Judgment:	18 June 2018 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BThe applicants are to pay the respondents one set of costs as for a standard application for leave to appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Atkins Holm Majurey Limited, Auckland for Applicants
Lowndes, Auckand for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated v Bay of Plenty Regional Council was brought before the Court by Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated and Nga Potiki a Tamapahore Trust. They sought leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court regarding a resource consent application. The respondents were the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and The Astrolabe Community Trust, who had opposed the consent application.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Bay of Plenty Regional Council had correctly exercised its discretion under the Resource Management Act 1991 in declining to grant a resource consent for a proposed development. Specifically, the applicants challenged the Council's decision to refuse consent for the subdivision and development of a piece of land, arguing that the Council had failed to adequately consider certain statutory provisions and the potential environmental effects of the proposed development.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council had properly exercised its discretion in declining the resource consent application. The Court held that the Council had considered all relevant factors and statutory provisions in making its decision, and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the Council's decision was in any way unreasonable. The Court also noted that the environmental effects of the proposed development had been adequately assessed by the Council, and that the applicants had not established that the Council's decision had caused them any harm.

As a result of the Court's decision, the application for leave to appeal was declined. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents one set of costs as for a standard application for leave to appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established