North Canterbury Regional - [2013] NZHC 3196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV 2013-409-00980 [2013] NZHC 3196

BETWEEN NORTH CANTERBURY FISH AND GAME COUNCIL
Appellant

ANDCANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

CIV 2013-409-000974

BETWEEN HURUNUI WATER PROJECT LIMITED Appellant

ANDCANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

CIV 2013-409-000984

BETWEEN THE AMURI IRRIGATION COMPANY Appellant

ANDCANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

Hearing: (On Papers) and 2 December 2013 (by telephone) Counsel: E Chapman for Hurunui Water Project Ltd
KGR Reid for Amuri Irrigation Company Limited
M A Baker-Galloway for North Canterbury Fish & Game
Council
PAC Maw for Canterbury Regional Council
P Anderson for Royal Forest and Bird
R Gardner for Federated Farmers
F MacKenzie for Irrigation NZ and also appearing on behalf of M J Sleigh for Upper Waiau Independent Irrigators Incorporated
J M Appleyard for Ngai Tahu Property Limited

Judgment: 2 December 2013

NORTH CANTERBURY FISH AND GAME COUNCIL v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 3196 [2 December 2013]

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

[1] This judgment deals with the resolution of all of the appeals in relation to the proposed Hurunui and Waiau River Regional Plan (PHWRRP). I am grateful for the assistance of counsel, particularly counsel for the respondent, for their detailed memorandum outlining the basis of settlement for all of the appeals.

[2] I am satisfied that the appeals should be granted on the consent order basis sought. The amendments sought are set out in Appendices A and B. I set out the narratives of the background, relief and reasons for relief in this judgment for the record. I am satisfied that the consent orders reflect the proper resolution of issues of law raised by various appellants in their respective appeals and that their resolution will better achieve the sustainable management purpose. More specifically, I am satisfied the orders should be made for the following reasons:

(a) The proposed amendments and the expeditious resolution of the appeals is consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA, including in particular Part 2.

(b)I am satisfied that r 20.19 of the High Court Rules, and s 300-307 (which apply with necessary modification under the provisions of the ECan Act) of the RMA empower me with the necessary jurisdiction to make the orders sought. This is consistent with the approach taken by
Ronald Young J in Re Mackenzie Irrigation Company Limited,1 and

by me in Meridian Energy Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council.2

(c) I am satisfied that the consent orders are within the scope of the appeals.

1 Re Mackenzie Irrigation Company Limited HC Wellington CIV 2005-485-2192, 27 June 2006 and Re Mackenzie Irrigation Company Limited HC Wellington CIV 2005-485-2192, 3 July
2006.
2 Meridian Energy Limited v Canterbury Regional Council HC Christchurch CIV 2010-409-
002604, 23 May 2011.

(d)I am also satisfied, as recorded by counsel, that given the breadth of participation in these appeals, the wider public interest is best served by the consensus achieved.

Appeal Number CIV-2013-409-00984

Procedural Background

[3] Amuri Irrigation Company Limited (AIC) lodged a submission on various aspects of the PHWRRP.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read North Canterbury Regional 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 3196
Decision Date: 2 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns three separate appeals against the Canterbury Regional Council's proposed Hurunui and Waiau River Regional Plan (PHWRRP). The appellants in each case were the North Canterbury Fish and Game Council, Hurunui Water Project Limited, and Amuri Irrigation Company Limited. The appeals related to alleged errors of law in the PHWRRP concerning the minimum flows for certain drains, the monitoring of effects of increased nutrient discharges on water quality, the prohibition of damming the Hurunui mainstem and south branch, and the objectives and policies of the plan relating to existing irrigation activities.

The court granted the appeals and made orders amending the PHWRRP in accordance with the parties' consent orders. The amendments included changes to the minimum flows for certain drains, the addition of a State of the Environment monitoring programme, clarification of the prohibition on damming the Hurunui mainstem and south branch, and revisions to certain policies and rules relating to water storage and nutrient limits. The court found that the proposed amendments were consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 and would better achieve the sustainable management of natural resources in the Canterbury region.

Orders