Consent to consenting: The limits of written approval

Consent to consenting: The limits of written approval
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Even the best-laid plans can change and a resource application may go through multiple changes before the final version is lodged with Council. But things can get tricky if the changes mean that the lodged application is different to the application approved by affected parties. Applicants seeking to avoid notification frequently obtain written approval from affected parties. But how far does this approval stretch when the resource consent application has changed?
Two recent High Court judicial reviews have explored the relationship between written approvals and resource consent applications as lodged by the applicants. In both these cases, Council officers failed to notice that the applications exceeded the level of activity (and therefore adverse effects) given written approval. This resulted in Council processing the applications on a non-notified basis and granting the resource consents. In one case, the neighbours approved a children’s playground when what was applied for was in fact a ninja warrior course designed for teenagers/adults. In Colley, written approval was given for an equestrian centre for small events with approximately 50-100 horses and 100-150 people, however the application lodged with Council sought double this. In each case, the High Court found that the mismatch amounted to an error of law. Given that a mere comparison of the application and approval would have avoided each situation, the Courts were critical of Council’s lack of oversight.
What we can take from these decisions is that any changes to an application that result in a significant increase in adverse effects will not be covered by previous written approvals. In those cases, applicants may need to have further discussions with a potentially affected party in order to update the written approval. However, what the Courts do not address in these cases is situations where there is an increase in adverse effects which is not ‘significant’. This leaves Council officers to grapple with questions such as does an applicant need to obtain updated written approval from a party for any increase to the level of adverse effects they have previously approved, even if these are minor? Or is it only if the adverse effects are more than minor? What happens in the event the changes to an application result in a reduction or avoidance of adverse effects to which a party has previously given their written approval? Council officers will need to be careful that they do not treat written approval as merely a box to be ticked. This advice is equally as important for planners to keep in mind when they are working through the application process and substantial changes to the original application are proposed.
Talk to one of our Environment and Local Government experts listed below for advice on assessing whether fresh written approval is required and how Councils can better protect themselves from the risk of any decision made in these circumstances being judicially reviewed.
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

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

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
