Te Runanga a Iwi O Ngati Kahu v Far North District Council

[2013] NZSC 134

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 66/2013
[2013] NZSC 134

BETWEEN

TE RŪNANGA-Ā-IWI O NGĀTI KAHU
Applicant

AND

FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL
First Respondent

CARRINGTON FARMS LIMITED
Second Respondent

CARRINGTON ESTATE LIMITED
Third Respondent

CARRINGTON RESORT LIMITED
Fourth Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	J D K Gardner-Hopkins and D J Minhinnick for Applicant M E Casey QC for First Respondent R B Brabant, I M Gault and A M Glenie for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment:	2 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.Leave to appeal is granted.

B.The approved grounds of appeal are:

(a)In relation to the land use consent application:

(i)Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;

(ii)Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and

(iii)What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.

(b)In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:

(i)The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or

(ii)The permitted baseline under s 104(2).

(c)Whether the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Court wishes the parties to address in their submissions the question of the sequencing of the land use and the subdivision applications.

Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Applicant
Law North Limited, Kerikeri for First Respondent
Bell Gully, Auckland for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents