New Zealand: Environmental And Public Law Bulletin

Last Updated: 25 January 2007

Case note: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry v Waikato Regional Council

This case concerned an appeal by Crown Forestry against the Waikato Regional Council’s decision not to grant resource consent for the harvesting and replanting of state pine forest on four blocks of land historically identified as waahi tapu. The four blocks were originally set aside as urupa (burial grounds) by the Crown, and Te Iwi O Ngati Te Ata Waiohua (Ngati Te Ata) had buried their dead on the site up until 1966.

On the basis of the evidence provided, the Environment Court determined that the subject blocks of land were waahi tapu and that the proposed forestry operation would cause both physical damage to urupa, and damage to less tangible aspects of the waahi tapu sites. The decision also thoroughly considered the adequacy of Crown Forestry’s consultation with iwi and the cultural impacts resulting from the proposal.

Section 8 - Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

The decision highlights three Treaty principles: consultation, partnership, and active protection and preservation. The Court observed that this ‘list’ of principles must be kept in perspective, in that it would be incorrect to rely on a paraphrased list of Treaty principles in place of the spirit of the Treaty or it’s actual words. The Court preferred to approach section 8 in a broad way, rather than listing each principle and considering the case in relation to each one (see also Waikanae Christian Holiday Camp v Kapiti Coast District Council (HC Wellington, CIV 2003-485-1764, 27 October 04, MacKenzie J)).

Adequacy of consultation - Is a ‘cultural values assessment’ always necessary?

Ngati Te Ata challenged the adequacy of consultation undertaken by Crown Forestry.

The long - and not very fruitful - consultation process between Crown Forestry and Ngati Te Ata is fully described in the decision. After three years, very few of the proposed offers to consult with representatives of Ngati Te Ata had resulted in meaningful discussion. In particular, Crown Forestry had become frustrated with the terms offered for preparation of a cultural values assessment (such as scope, size, and cost). It appears the Iwi participated very little in the process - a Council Officer gave evidence that he had not been able to evaluate cultural effects in the absence of proactive participation by the Iwi. Ultimately Crown Forestry commissioned an independent report concerning effects on archaeological matters. A formal ‘cultural values assessment’ was not prepared.

Crown Forestry accepted that in making the application they were acting on behalf of the Crown and were bound by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. They contended they had been fair, acted in the utmost good faith, and had fulfilled their commitments to the greatest extent possible.

The Court found that there is no universal requirement as to the form of consultation, and in respect of this ‘... the law does not make commissioning tangata whenua to prepare a cultural values report essential to adequate consultation.’ While recognising the value of any such report, the Court noted that there were other ways Ngati Te Ata could have communicated information about the cultural impacts of the proposal. What was important for the Court was ‘... that Ngati Te Ata were given reasonable opportunity in which to state their views.’ The Court also noted there are further opportunities for Iwi to make their position clear at council hearings, and any subsequent Environment Court hearing, if they do not wish to participate at the consultation stage of an application.

On the facts of the case, Crown Forestry demonstrated to the Court that during the consultation process they had been open to information expressing views of the local iwi and the way the proposal would affect their interests. On that basis, the Court concluded that Crown Forestry had satisfied its consultation obligations.

A proposed protocol to deal with dispersed and unidentified Waahi Tapu within the site

The Court discussed a proposed protocol for dealing with waahi tapu and other archaeological features discovered on the site. As formulated, the protocol was not considered to adequately recognise and provide for Ngati Te Ata’s cultural and traditional relationship with their waahi tapu. In trying to deal with the effects on the dispersed archaeological sites (including individual urupa and shell middens), the applicant was caught in a vicious circle. Discrete identifiable archaeological grounds could have been excluded from the forestry activity and thus better catered for in a consent conditions. But in this case the archaeological sites were yet to be found, and in trying to provide for this the Court was not happy with the uncertainty the protocol created. By requiring the consent holder to consult after finding an archaeological site, the Court found that the protocol left the consent-holder with the final decision about whether to harvest and so did not appropriately recognise and provide for Ngati Te Ata’s relationship with the site. However the alternative - that the protocol confer veto power on Ngati Te Ata in respect of any burial sites discovered - was found to be unlawful. In these circumstances, the proposed protocol was discarded as unworkable.

Evaluation under Part 2

The Court ultimately declined the appeal on an overall ‘Part 2’ evaluation. While there were positive benefits arising from the removal of mainly unsafe, unhealthy, and unthrifty trees on the site, on an overall evaluation, those benefits were found to be slight. In contrast, the extent of the adverse cultural effects were found to be considerable for the following reasons:

  • the proposal did not recognise or provide for the relationship of Ngati Te Ata and their waahi tapu;
  • the proposed conditions would not protect any physical remains of burials, or provide for the intangible aspect of the Iwi’s relationship with the land;
  • the cumulative effects on waahi tapu of harvesting, earthworks, and replanting would be significant;
  • harvesting would conflict with the cultural provisions of the relevant planning instruments;
  • the proposal would not discharge the duties imposed by s6(e) and (f), and would hinder the ability of Ngati Te Ata to exercise kaitiakitanga provided for in s7(a).

Article by Shelley Chadwick

Refresher: Giving Weight To Different Plans

It is now over 15 years since the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) passed into law. In that time planning instruments have evolved from transitional district plans rolled-over from pre-RMA times into the first suite of plans wholly devised and promulgated under the RMA. Many local authorities are now well advanced in the preparation of ‘second generation’ plans, building on the lessons learned during the first round of RMA plan development.

In some cases, the revision of plans is occurring through a quiet revolution of plan changes and variations. This can leave the local planning landscape in something of a state of flux. In such circumstances, it is important to remain aware of the correct approach for balancing different planning instruments when dealing with resource consent applications.

Part 6 of the RMA

Part 6 of the RMA refers to proposed plans (defined to include plan changes or variations) in relation to several different stages of the consent process: determining activity classifications; notification; and the substantive decision. The focus of this ‘refresher’ is the last of these elements - the weight to be given to proposed plans when making a substantive decision under section 104 of the RMA.

Section 104

Section 104(1)(b)(iv) provides that a Council must, when considering an application for resource consent and subject to Part 2, have regard to ‘a plan or proposed plan’.

Several notable points arise in relation to this provision:

  • First, notwithstanding the ‘or’ in section 104(i)(b)(iv), a Council has to consider the provisions of both the operative plan and the proposed plan (TV3 Network Services v Waikato District Council [1997] NZRMA 539). As soon as a proposed plan is created (i.e. the day it is notified under clause 5 of the First Schedule to the RMA) it becomes a relevant consideration, regardless of whether the consent application was lodged before or after that date.
  • Second, neither plan has more importance over the other. Both have to be considered (i.e. had regard to). However, that does not mean that the provisions of both must be given effect to. When there is a conflict between the provisions, or at least an inconsistency, judgements will need to be made.
  • Third, the requirement relates to the operative plan and the proposed plan as a whole - not just the objectives and policies.
  • Finally, under clause 10(3) of the First Schedule a Council’s decision on submissions is deemed to amend the provisions of a proposed plan. Therefore, as from the date of a Council’s decision under clause 10, the provisions must be considered and applied under section 104(1)(b) in their amended form.

Principles relevant to weight

In the light of the above, it is important to know how much weight should be put on an operative plan relative to a proposed plan under s104(b)(iv), when the two plans are not consistent. A large body of caselaw developed on this issue during the 5-10 year period of replacing transitional plans with the ‘first generation’ proposed plans under the RMA. Although there has been little judicial comment since then, these cases do provide useful guidance. Several relevant factors are discussed below.

Stage in First Schedule process

In general, the weight to be given to the proposed plan will be greater ‘the further the relevant provisions have been exposed to testing along the statutory course prescribed by Part 1of the First Schedule’ (Hanton v Auckland CC [1994] NZRMA 289). This should be considered on a case by case basis (and provision by provision) basis. In other words, as each of the provisions of the proposed plan become increasingly settled through the First Schedule process, they should be afforded more weight. Matters that can also be considered in this respect are the number and nature of submissions on a provision, as this will indicate the degree of community acceptance of a proposed plan and how susceptible a provision may be to modification throughout the First Schedule process.

However, in certain circumstances a proposed plan that has reached a very early stage in the First Schedule process will prevail in the event of an inconsistency with an operative plan. This is illustrated by the examples below.

Policies of the proposed plan

The Courts have held that ‘where there has been a significant shift in Council policy ... we can give considerably more weight to the provisions of the proposed plan’ (Lee v Auckland City Council [1995] NZRMA 241). In the Lee case, the proposed plan was at the stage where submissions were still being received, and no decision had yet been made on them by the Council. However, the Court gave the proposed plan considerable weight because (of relevance):

  • it stems from Part 2 of the RMA, rather than previous planning legislation;
  • it reflects a paradigm shift in Council’s policy; and
  • changes to the proposed plan had been brought about following ‘exhaustive professional research’ into special character residential zones.

Similarly, the Court has held that the implementation of a coherent pattern of resource management objectives and policies through a proposed plan would also be relevant to the issue of weighting. An example is the case of Gargiulo v Christchurch City Council (C137/2000, 21August 2000) where the proposed plan was considered more consistent with the Regional Policy Statement in its protection of Christchurch International Airport, whereas the transitional plan was ‘a confusing, inconsistent and out-of-date document’.

Part 2 of the RMA

A proposed plan will be worthy of greater weight where it reflects greater alignment with Part 2 of the RMA (Wyatt v Auckland City Council, EnvC W86/95, 5 July 1995). Cases that have considered the weight to be given to proposed plans relative to plans that were developed under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977 (TCPA) stress the importance of plans that stem from the provisions of Part 2, rather than the old regime of the TCPA (for example, Lee v Auckland City Council). In light of the additions to Part 2 brought about by the 2003 amendments of the RMA, where a proposed plan gives greater protection to historic heritage (s6(f)), or reflects a concern for renewable energy and climate change (s7(i),(j)) it is deserving of more weight than would otherwise be the case.

In addition, should a proposed plan address a significant environmental issue that is not dealt with at all in the operative plan, then the proposed plan’s provisions in relation to that issue should be given substantial weight.

Finally, it is important to stress that all these considerations under section 104(1)(b)(iv) are secondary to the overriding assessment under Part 2 of the Act.

Article by Melanie Gordon

Choosing The Defendant: Enforcement Against Corporate Entities

The High Court’s recent decision in Cometa United Corporation & Tradewood Shipping Company v Canterbury Regional Council (HC Christchurch, CRI 2006-409-000128, 6 October 2006, Fogarty J) helpfully clarifies the types of entity that can be prosecuted under section 338 of the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA).

The High Court’s discussion of this issue in the enforcement context is welcome, in light of the Supreme Court’s discussion of the RMA’s definition of a ‘person’ in Discount Brands Ltd v Northcote Mainstreet Inc [2004] 3 NZLR 619 (SC).

Cometa concerned an appeal against convictions for discharges of contaminant to water in the coastal marine area. The discharges issued from a ship which was forced to stop in Lyttelton Harbour by bad weather. In the course of refuelling, a total of 300 litres of fuel escaped into the harbour through rust holes in the ship.

The appellants challenged their convictions on two grounds:

  • First, that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the two defendants were in fact bodies corporate.
  • Second, that unincorporated bodies of persons could not be prosecuted under the Summary Prosecutions Act 1957 (SPA), which applies to informations laid under section 338 of the RMA.

In relation to the first issue, some difficulties arose on the facts of the case as the registered owner of the ship in question was a foreign entity of uncertain legal standing (i.e. there was no evidence as to the nature of the entity under the laws of its home jurisdiction). However, that difficulty was overcome by the Court’s conclusion that formal incorporation of a non-natural person (i.e. not a real person) doesn’t need to be proved. In this regard, the High Court applied the definition of a ‘person’ discussed by the Supreme Court in Discount Brands.

The High Court also referred to a passage in Discount Brands that states a society of persons is not a body of persons under the RMA, unless the regulation of their internal affairs can be said to be a structure. On the facts of Cometa this requirement was satisfied, as the appellants respectively owned and managed the relevant ship, and had a separate name by which they identified themselves when acting as a body.

As to the second issue, the High Court concluded that Parliament must have intended that section 338 should be able to be invoked against an unincorporated body of persons, otherwise ‘... there would be a gaping loophole in the RMA’.

This interpretation of who may be a defendant for the purposes of the RMA does carry a proviso - namely, it must be possible for any penalty that is imposed to be enforced against the defendant. In Cometa this was not an issue, as the RMA expressly provides that any fine imposed is payable by the local agent of a ship’s manager and owner.

Article by Shelley Chadwick

Phillips Fox has changed its name to DLA Phillips Fox because the firm entered into an exclusive alliance with DLA Piper, one of the largest legal services organisations in the world. We will retain our offices in every major commercial centre in Australia and New Zealand, with no operational change to your relationship with the firm. DLA Phillips Fox can now take your business one step further − by connecting you to a global network of legal experience, talent and knowledge.

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances and no liability will be accepted for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this publication.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions