North Canterbury Clay Target Association Incorporated v Waimakariri District Council

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA21/2015
[2015] NZCA 225

BETWEEN	NORTH CANTERBURY CLAY TARGET ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Applicant
AND	WAIMAKARIRI DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing:	8 June 2015
Court:	Randerson, French and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:	P A Steven QC for Applicant A J Prebble for Respondent
Judgment:	10 June 2015 at 10:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is granted under s 308 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the following questions:

Does rule 31.11.1.2 of the Waimakariri District Plan require compliance with specified noise limits at the notional boundary of any dwellinghouse in the Rural zone in existence from time to time, notwithstanding that the dwellinghouse was not in existence at the time the permitted activity was established?

Where a certificate of compliance has been issued under s 139 of the Resource Management Act, is the holder of the certificate subject to a continuing obligation to abide by the noise limitations specified in Rule 31.11.1.2, notwithstanding the changing surrounding physical environment?

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Corcoran French, Kaiapoi for Applicant
Cavell Leitch, Christchurch for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application by North Canterbury Clay Target Association Incorporated for leave to appeal against a decision of the Waimakariri District Council. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of noise limits in the Waimakariri District Plan and the obligations of the Association, which holds a certificate of compliance under the Resource Management Act 1991. The applicant sought clarification on whether the noise limits apply to a dwellinghouse that was not in existence when the permitted activity was established and whether there is a continuing obligation to adhere to the noise limits despite changes in the surrounding environment.

The legal issues before the court were two-fold. Firstly, the court needed to determine if Rule 31.11.1.2 of the Waimakariri District Plan imposes noise limits that must be complied with at the boundary of any dwellinghouse in the Rural zone, regardless of when the dwelling was constructed relative to the establishment of the permitted activity. Secondly, the court was asked to decide whether the holder of a certificate of compliance is required to adhere to the specified noise limitations even if the physical environment around the permitted activity changes over time.

In granting leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that both questions presented significant legal issues that warranted further examination. The court recognised the importance of clarifying the obligations of those holding certificates of compliance under the Resource Management Act, particularly in light of potential changes in the surrounding environment. The judges determined that the questions were of sufficient public importance to warrant an appeal and that the clarification sought by the applicant would contribute to the proper administration of the Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed that the questions be answered in the affirmative. The court's decision provided much-needed clarity on the application of noise limits in the Waimakariri District Plan and the obligations of entities holding certificates of compliance under the Resource Management Act. The outcome ensures that the Association and others in similar positions are aware of their responsibilities under the law, even as the physical environment evolves over time.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established