Flight or fight: Does a promise to the community matter?

Flight or fight: Does a promise to the community matter?
Tuesday 5 October, 2021
A local resident’s association recently appealed the “roll-over” of the Glenorchy Aerodrome designation during the review of the Queenstown Lakes District Plan. Queenstown Lakes District Council was the responsible requiring authority for the designation and as the aerodrome was a local purpose reserve, the Council also the administering body under the Reserves Act. The case highlights the interrelationship of the different legislative regimes of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Reserves Act (RA) when rolling over a designation in a proposed district plan. The case also demonstrates why local authorities must implement applicable statutory instruments when fulfilling multiple roles as a territorial and planning authority, requiring authority, and administering body.
Background
The Glenorchy Aerodrome designation rollover was appealed by Wyuna Preserve Residents Association Incorporated (WPRA), an association representing the owners of dwellings in an “exclusive lifestyle subdivision” that overlooked the Aerodrome. WPRA did not oppose the designation rollover outright but sought “more stringent control of use and development of the Aerodrome and its effects” as well as “better protection of their residential amenities.” WPRA also claimed that the designation roll-over should be consistent with the Glenorchy Airstrip Reserve Management Plan (RMP), which would restrict future growth for aircraft movements.
Which matters apply in the rollover of a designation (in addition to Schedule 1)?
Once a designation is given effect to, it remains until the requiring authority removes or alters the designation by using Part 8 of the RMA. A designation must also be rolled over into a new district plan under Schedule 1 in order to continue having effect. This process provides for modifications to the designation which must be notified.
Usually, a designation and its effects will be strictly determined under the RMA. However, in this case, the Council made a specific direction in the RMP for the Aerodrome reserve so that the existing designation must align with the RMP within a certain time period. It was open to the Court whether to modify the designation to ensure alignment with the RMP. The Court decided it was appropriate to give significant weight to the RMP because of the Council’s intention to align the designation with the RMP. As such, local authorities should carefully consider any representations or objectives made under one statutory document which may have a consequence under another legislative regime.
This finding had repercussions for future growth of aircraft movements. Again, the Court found in favour of “community confidence” over the Council’s mitigation of adverse effects, based upon the representations made by the Council in the RMP. This resulted in modifications to the designation to prevent future growth of aviation activities. As the Court noted, an option for local authorities restrained in their capacity as requiring authorities is to make an alteration to the designation under Part 8. If a statutory instrument under another statute was limiting the alteration of a designation, then it would be appropriate to review the statutory instrument and alter the designation together.
On the remaining matters, most of WPRA’s appeal points could be addressed by modifications to the conditions of the designation. These conditions included the adoption of a Noise Management Plan, restricting hours of operation, modifying the purpose of the designation, and restraining growth until the RMP was reviewed.
Further thoughts
Many of the Court’s modifications to the designation were to ensure that it was appropriately aligned with the RMP. Had the Council not made representations to the Glenorchy community of preserving aircraft movements when adopting the RMP, then the modifications to the designation would have been assessed in accordance with the RMA and how the designation would promote the sustainable management purpose. In this case, the Council must complete its review of the RMP by engaging the community under the RA as an administering body, then either simultaneously, or shortly afterwards, alter its designation as a requiring authority.
This decision highlights how vital it is for local authorities to maintain objectivity, avoid conflicts and obtain legal advice when acting in multiple roles for the same land area or project.
If you have any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
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
