R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council

In the matter of R J Davidson Family Trust versus Marlborough District Council, the court was tasked with interpreting the meaning and application of Section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991. The dispute arose from an application for resource consent, and the key issue was whether the Marlborough District Council, as the consent authority, was required to consider specific provisions from Part 2 of the Act when assessing the application. The applicants argued that the Council should have considered the broader environmental and cultural principles outlined in Part 2, while the Council maintained that it was only necessary to consider those provisions that were directly relevant to the specific application.

The court examined the language of Section 104(1), particularly the phrase "subject to Part 2," to determine its scope and application. It was held that the phrase indicated that Part 2 provisions should be considered when appropriate, thereby preserving the prominent role of Part 2 which includes the statement of the Act's purpose and principles. The court found that there was no dispute between the parties regarding the authority of the consent body to refer to Part 2 in suitable circumstances.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Marlborough District Council, as the consent authority, was indeed required to have regard to Part 2 provisions when it was appropriate to do so, in line with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act. This decision reinforces the importance of considering broader environmental and cultural factors in resource consent applications.

The court made no further orders beyond the clarification of the legal position as described above.