Local council ordered to pay costs!

Local council ordered to pay costs!
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
It is rare for the Environment Court to awards costs against a council, particularly when it has been acting in its regulatory role. However, the Court recently held that it was just and fair to award costs against Gisborne District Council because of missteps in the way it had approached an appeal to its review of the Gisborne Pistol Club’s resource consent conditions.
Following noise complaints, the Council had reviewed the conditions but declined to impose a noise limit. Local residents appealed the Council’s decision but the Council maintained on appeal that no noise limit should be imposed on the gun club’s conditions. The Environment Court disagreed with the Council and found the adverse effects of the gun club’s activity were “highly” significant on the receiving environment, so the local residents were successful and sought costs.
The Court found costs could be awarded against the Council because of its approach to the appeal. The first misstep was running a “no noise limits” case against the advice of the Council’s own noise expert, who advised that the gun club’s noise was unreasonable and recommended that a noise limit be imposed. The Court said the Council had ignored its duties to prescribe noise limits and focused too much on the gun club’s viability, when it should have realised this consideration was outweighed by the adverse effects on the receiving environment.
The Council had also:
- granted the gun club a resource consent in the rural residential environment which provided for development;
- failed to impose a noise limit in the original conditions of the Club’s resource consent;
- failed to fulfil its territorial authority functionsenvi when granting resource consent for subdivision in the surrounding area;
- failed to recognise the potential for reverse sensitivity effects;
- granted a renewal of lease to the Club after granting resource consent for subdivisions on adjacent land; and
- contributed to ongoing delay and adverse effects on the local residents by putting its review of the gun club’s conditions on hold for three years whilst the gun club searched for alternative premises.
The Court accepted that the Council had acted diligently by initiating the review and delegating its decision-making powers to consultants and independent commissioners. The Council had also called the noise witness and been accommodative in facilitating mediation between the parties, however, this was insufficient to avoid a costs award, as the Council was found to be blameworthy in its pursuit of an unreasonable case.
The Council was ordered to pay to the local residents $16,000 in costs, which was about one third of the total costs incurred by the successful parties.
When defending an appeal, councils need to take care that their approach to the appeal and their dealings as both a consenting authority and landowner in related matters are reasonable and take account of all relevant duties. If councils’ processes are not reasonable, they risk having costs awarded against them. If you have any concerns, our Local Government experts can help.
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
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

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
