Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
A requiring authority can issue a notice of requirement over land that is required for a public work to stop the land being used in a way that would prevent the proposed public work. Aokautere gives important guidance on whether to consider notices of requirements when deciding resource consent applications. Consent authorities can misunderstand the consequence of a designation (or notice of requirement prior to a confirmed designation) on land when considering a third-party resource consent application. If a consent authority does not appreciate the purpose of a notice of requirement (or designation), it can mistakenly grant resource consent for an activity which will hinder or prevent the public work for which the notice/designation was issued.
In Aokautere, the Council was considering a resource consent application for subdivision/land use in Palmerston North. The Council declined the application because part of the land was subject to a notice of requirement for a public road project to connect an unformed road to an intersection. The Council was also the requiring authority and formed the view that the proposed subdivision would prevent the roading project.
The applicant could not appeal the council’s decision because it did not have standing under section 120(1A) of the RMA, which removes appeal rights on a decision concerning a boundary activity application unless that activity is non-complying. As a result, the applicant applied to the Environment Court under s 310 for declarations that granting its application would not breach or contravene the notice of requirement nor breach ss 176 and 178 of the RMA.
The Court agreed with the Council that the key issue was whether a decision-maker can have regard to a notice of requirement when making a decision under s 104. The Court held that it was lawful for the council to consider it, particularly under s104(1)(c), which directs that a decision-maker must have regard to an “other matter” that is relevant and reasonably necessary to determine a resource consent application. The restrictions under ss176 and 178 also support this, as they state that proposed activities cannot proceed if they will hinder or prevent a public work, unless with the requiring authority gives permission. The Court refused to make the declaration sought.
Conclusion
If a consenting authority determines that a notice of requirement for a designation is relevant and reasonably necessary to its considerations under s104 when considering an application, then it must have regard to that notice of requirement’s existence (subject to Part 2). The consent authority will decide what weight to give to the notice of requirement, but if it decides that the consent would prevent or hinder the public work, that is likely to be decisive in determining the application.
Our team is experienced in the interplay between notices of requirements and designations and resource consent applications and can assist in making or assessing applications.
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

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
