Waterfall Park Developments Limited v Hadley - [2022] NZHC 376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2021-425-26

[2022] NZHC 376

BETWEEN
WATERFALL PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Appellant

AND

JAMES and REBECCA HADLEY

First Respondent

AND

QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL

Second Respondent

Hearing: 14 December 2021

Appearances:

M G Colson QC for Appellant

P J Page and S R Peirce for First Respondent
M J Doesburg (via VMR) and K T Dickson for Second Respondent

Judgment:

7 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 March 2022 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WATERFALL PARK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v HADLEY [2022] NZHC 376 [7 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Waterfall Park Developments Ltd (Waterfall Park), owns a substantial tract of land in the Speargrass Flat area of the Wakatipu Basin. The western boundary of this property runs alongside the Queenstown Trail, a track developed as a pedestrian path and cycleway. In 2019 and 2020 Waterfall Park planted the boundary beside the track with evergreen tree species.

[2] The respondents, Mr and Mrs Hadley, also live alongside the Queenstown Trail. Mrs Hadley, drawing on her experience as a landscape architect and knowing Waterfall Park’s development aspirations for its land, considered the planting was not a permitted farming activity under the Queenstown Lakes District Council Proposed District Plan (PDP). Rather, it was “landscaping” as defined in the PDP and required resource consent. The Hadleys sought declarations in the Environment Court confirming those views.

[3] In a decision dated 5 March 2021 the Environment Court agreed with the Hadleys and made the following declarations:1

(a)[Waterfall Park’s] planting of trees (namely Leyland Cypress (Cupresses X Leylandii) Portuguese Laurel (Prunus lusitanica) and Mountain Beech (Fuscospora cliffortioides)) (‘Trees’) adjacent to the western boundary of Lot 4 Deposited Plan 540788 contained within Record of Title 929491 was and remains a non-complying activity by operation of rule 24.4.1 in proposed Chapter 24 of the Queenstown Lakes District Plan;

(b)the Trees were planted in breach of section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and remain in breach.

[4] Waterfall Park appeals that decision and contends the Environment Court made various errors of law in reaching its decision to make those declarations. The Hadleys, supported by the Queenstown Lakes District Council (the Council), say the Environment Court did not err and the decision was clearly correct.

1 Hadley v Waterfall Park Developments Ltd [2021] NZEnvC 18 at [61].

[5] At issue is whether the Environment Court erred in any of the ways alleged. If it did, the parties are agreed the matter should be referred back to the Environment Court for reconsideration.

Background

[6] In 2015 Waterfall Park purchased the remaining part of Ayrburn Farm following the farm’s subdivision in 2010. The approximately 42 hectare property is located in the Wakatipu Basin and is bounded by the Lake Hayes rural-residential area on its southern boundary, the Arrowtown-Lake Hayes Road on its eastern boundary, the…

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.

Continue reading Waterfall Park Developments Limited v Hadley

Details

AGLC: Waterfall Park Developments Limited v Hadley [2022] NZHC 376
Case: [2022] NZHC 376
Decision Date: 7 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Waterfall Park Developments Limited (Waterfall Park) appeals a decision of the Environment Court which found that it had planted trees in breach of the Queenstown Lakes District Plan (PDP) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Waterfall Park contends that the Environment Court erred in deciding that the planting was not a permitted “farming activity” and that any land use not listed in the PDP would default to a non-complying activity. The Hadleys, supported by the Queenstown Lakes District Council (the Council), say the Environment Court did not err and the decision was clearly correct. The High Court dismissed the appeal. In doing so, it found that the Environment Court correctly interpreted the definition of “farming activity” and that the planting was not a permitted activity. The planting defaulted to a non-complying activity as it was not listed in the PDP. The Environment Court’s interpretation of the PDP was also correct as it was consistent with the objectives and policies of the PDP. The High Court found the Environment Court was entitled to interpret the PDP provisions in light of their immediate context and did not need to consider the wider context of the PDP. The Court was also satisfied that the Environment Court’s approach did not result in absurd or anomalous outcomes.

Orders