Rangit�kei District Council - [2023] NZHC 2608

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2023-454-045

[2023] NZHC 2608

IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal under section 299 of the Resource Management Act 1991 from a decision of the Environment Court

BY

RANGITĪKEI DISTRICT COUNCIL

Appellant

AND
Interested Residents of Marton and

Rangitīkei Incorporated

Hearing: 28 August 2023

Appearances:

N Jessen and O E Sinnema for Appellant

M A Baker-Galloway and S T Schulte for IRO-MAR

Judgment:

19 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

[1] This is an appeal against a decision (the Decision) of the Environment Court dealing with an appeal from the Rangitīkei District Council (the Council).1 The appellant seeks that this Court quash the relevant parts of the decision and remit the matter back to the Environment Court for reconsideration.

1 Fraser Auret Racing v Rangitīkei District Council [2023] NZEnvC 71 [Environment Court decision].

RE RANGITĪKEI DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS [2023] NZHC 2608 [19 SEPTEMBER 2023]

[2] The appeal relates to the approval in the decision by the Environment Court of:2

(a)two rules for non-complying activities, proposed as “DEV-R5” and “DEV-R6”; and

(b)a rule requiring mandatory public notification for any resource consent application sought under Rules DEV-R3 to DEV-R6.

[3] The Interested Residents of Marton and Rangitīkei Inc (IRO-MAR) appeared as an “interested person” in the Environment Court process under s 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It has indicated that it does not oppose a finding that there was an error of law. However, it does not agree with all the reasons or grounds of appeal set out by the appellant in the notice of appeal.

Background

[4] Counsel for the appellant outlined the reasonably lengthy background to this matter. Ms Baker-Galloway for IRO-MAR in general terms agreed with the appellant’s summary. However, she emphasised that her clients had throughout been of the view that the community had been side-lined in relation to the proposed plan change. She said the nature, scale and scope had continued to change and public engagement had been “confusing and ineffective”.

[5] The Environment Court recorded the concerns of IRO-MAR about the process as well as the concerns expressed by IRO-MAR over the funding of the infrastructure required for the proposal. The Environment Court nevertheless noted that even if there had been shortcomings in the communication with the community, these would likely have “little if any bearing in assisting us with reaching our decision on the merits of the case”.3

[6] The proposed rezoning of farmland on the outskirts of Marton is to provide for an industrial development of a scale which the Council considered could not be

2 At [224] and [225].
3 At [46].

accommodated within existing vacant industrial zoned land in Marton.4 The land is situated close to State Highway 1 (SH1) and the main trunk railway line, which the Council considered made it a particularly appropriate site for industrial activities.

[7] The plan change known as Marton Industrial Development Area (MIDA)…

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 Rangit�kei District 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

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: [2023] NZHC 2608
Decision Date: 19 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns a decision of the Environment Court approving a plan change proposed by the Rangitikei District Council. The plan change involves rezoning land on the outskirts of Marton to enable industrial development. The Interested Residents of Marton and Rangitikei Incorporated (IRO-MAR) had opposed the plan change. The appeal focuses on two main issues: the approval of two new rules assigning a non-complying activity status to certain activities within the plan change area, and the approval of a mandatory public notification rule for resource consent applications under certain rules. The Environment Court's approval of these provisions was based on the absence of opposition by the Council, which had in fact opposed them. The appellant argues that the Environment Court erred in law by taking into account an irrelevant matter (the absence of opposition) and failing to take into account relevant evidence from various sources.

The Court found that the Environment Court indeed erred in law in approving the non-complying activity status and the mandatory public notification rule. The Court held that the Environment Court took into account an irrelevant matter and failed to consider relevant evidence when approving the non-complying activity status. The Court also found that the Environment Court erred by taking into account an irrelevant matter when it approved the mandatory public notification rule. The Court concluded that these were material errors that required the appeal to be allowed. The Court dismissed the other grounds of appeal as unnecessary. The Court quashed the relevant parts of the Environment Court's decision and remitted the matter back to the Environment Court for reconsideration in light of the findings in this judgment. The parties agreed that costs should lie where they fall.

Orders