Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019
And what must a local authority do when acting as the Minister’s Delegate?
In Douglas Craig Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Society Incorporated [2019] NZSC 118 the Supreme Court considered whether the easements granted to the appellant, Schmuck, over an esplanade reserve were valid, as well as the role of a local authority acting as the Minister’s Delegate.
Schmuck operates a boatyard business in Opua and, as part of his business, hauls boats from the sea up over an esplanade reserve onto his land. The esplanade reserve is administered by the Far North District Council, who is authorised under the Reserves Act to grant easements over reserves for several different activities. The Minister of Conservation is required to consent to those easements, as the Reserves Act is administered by the Department of Conservation. However, in 2013, the Minister delegated this power to all local authorities for the reserves that they administered. The effect of this delegation is that the Far North District Council may grant easements over a reserve in its capacity as a local authority and then, as the Minister’s Delegate, consider whether to consent to those same easements.
The Supreme Court first examined the nature of the easements that the Far North District Council granted to Schmuck over the esplanade reserve, including the right to haul and wash down boats before or after a service, and when a boat was too big to fit entirely on Schmuck’s land, carry out works on that boat from a small part of the reserve. The Court commented that while the easements weren’t elegantly drafted, each set of terms were clear enough when read alongside the other easements in conjunction with the associated resource consents and management plan. The reason why the Court found all easements were valid was because each easement created a direct benefit to Schmuck’s land through use of the adjacent esplanade reserve.
The Supreme Court then examined the role of the Minister of Conservation (or its Delegate) when consenting to easements granted by a local authority over a reserve. The requirements of that role include ensuring that the local authority followed the correct easement process, gave effect to the functions and purposes of the Reserves Act, properly considered any submissions or objections from affected parties, and that the grant of easements was a reasonable decision.
The Court found that the Council had fulfilled the requirements of the role of the Minister’s Delegate when consenting to the easements it had granted to Schmuck in its capacity as a local authority. Schmuck now has property rights of access and use of the adjacent esplanade reserve. The decision shows that local authorities can, in appropriate circumstances, grant easements for commercial activities to third parties over a public reserve.
For assistance with questions relating to this article, please contact Theresa Le Bas
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
