Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019
The Environment Court in Tauranga City Council v Minister of Education [2019] NZEnvC 32 has confirmed that a local authority has the power to recommend, and that the Environment Court has the power to impose, conditions requiring monetary contributions on designations in circumstances where the requiring authority has not offered such conditions on an Augier basis. This clarifies the position that the application of the general principles of section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to designations includes financial contribution conditions.
Background
The Minister of Education (“the Minister”) lodged a notice of requirement to designate land in Tauranga for primary school and early childhood education purposes. Tauranga City Council (“the Council”) recommended a condition requiring the Minister to pay financial contributions in accordance with the Tauranga District Plan, unless a separate funding agreement was reached. The Minister rejected the condition and the Council subsequently appealed to the Environment Court.
The parties agreed that the Environment Court should address, as a preliminary issue, the following question of law: “Do sections 171 or 174 of the Resource Management Act 1991 allow a territorial authority to recommend, and the Environment Court to propose conditions requiring monetary contributions on designations (in circumstances where the requiring authority has not offered such conditions on an Augier basis)?”
The Council argued that the general power it has to recommend conditions under section 171 RMA includes the power to recommend conditions requiring the payment of money similar to the power to require financial contributions under section 108 RMA and consequently, that the power of the Court under section 174(4)(c) RMA includes the power to impose such a condition. The Minister argued that the inclusion of a specific power in section 108 RMA to impose a financial contribution on a resource consent, and the absence of any corresponding specific power in section 171 or 174, excludes any such condition from being recommended by the Council or imposed by the Court.
The Court held that it is difficult to identify any reasons why the powers to impose conditions in resource consents and notices of requirement should be substantially different in any way and that schools are not exempt from development contributions under the Local Government Act 2002. While there are numerous differences between Parts 6 (relating to resource consents) and Part 8 (relating to designations and heritage orders) of the RMA, the essential powers in relation to the imposition of conditions are very similar, and the limits on them are the same.
The reasons cited by the Court were:
- Section 108(2) RMA is enacted to clarify the essential power to impose conditions in section 108(1) by stating particular types of conditions that come within it rather than extending it by stating types of conditions that go beyond it.
- There are no relevant differences between section 108 and 171 and 174 that supports a difference in the extent to which conditions may be imposed on them. It is appropriate to interpret the two provisions in a way that makes their operation consistent according to the purpose of the Act. While designations mean works can be undertaken that does not comply with the District Plan, they do not reduce the considerations to which the territorial authority or the Court must have regard to under section 171 and 174.
- The frameworks are the same in that resource consents and designations both require consideration by the district council with full rights of appeal to the Environment Court.
In that regard, the Court held that designations should be subject to having conditions imposed on them on the same basis and for the same reasons as for resource consents, including conditions requiring financial contributions where provided for in the district plan. Sections 171 and 174 are to be read to incorporate the provisions in section 108(2)(a), (9) and (10).
While this decision is a win for local authorities, the opportunity to impose financial contributions is short lived. From 18 April 2022, there will be no ability to impose a financial contribution under the RMA. However, any financial contributions condition imposed before 18 April 2022 will remain in force and payments due after that date will continue to be owed.
For assistance with questions relating to this article, please contact Bridget Parham or Kirsty Dibley.
Author
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

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
