Carter Holt Harvey HBU Ltd v Tasman District Council

COURT OR TRIBUNAL

Environment Court of New Zealand

DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)

31/10/2012

LITIGATION TYPE

Project Approval - Adaptation

SUBJECT MATTER

Coastal hazard

REVIEW TYPE

Merits review

SUMMARY

(Linxplus case summary from Lexis)

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - appeal against a decision of the Council declining a discretionary activity application for: (1) a subdivision consent to create eight residential lots together with various reserve lots; (2) a land use consent to erect a dwelling on each of the proposed residential lots; and (3) a land disturbance consent to carry out earthworks - the site of the proposed development is a property owned by the appellant in the Kina Peninsula - the evidence established that a proposed esplanade reserve would be completely consumed by the sea within 50 years, together with parts of the proposed residential lots themselves - half of the causeway used to access the proposed site is highly vulnerable to coastal processes: the appellant was prepared to contribute $200,000 towards the retention of the causeway as a condition of the subdivision consent - whether the Kina Peninsula was an outstanding natural feature

HELD: the appellant's approach to access to the subdivided land if the road was closed (as appears highly likely if not inevitable) was casual to say the least: it put forward an unsupported contention that access would be available by use of the beach at certain stages of the tide, or alternatively by boat from the sea - the Court heard no evidence as to whether any infrastructure would exist to enable sea access - the proposed development will diminish the existing natural character of the site, the Peninsula and the wider outstanding natural feature of the Moutere Inlet in a significantly adverse manner - the evidence of the coastal witnesses conclusively established that lots created by the subdivision will be subject to material damage by erosion or inundation, and well within the 100 year period that the New Zealand Coastal Policy Standard took into account - the damage to the proposed esplanade reserve restricts or precludes the use of it for the purpose for which it was vested, can properly be described as both significant and relevant - no conditions have been proffered by the appellant to remedy or mitigate the insufficiency of access - the proposal is in direct conflict with a number of the provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Standard and the District Plan - the appeal is declined - costs are reserved in favour of the successful party

CASE DOCUMENTS

Carter Holt Harvey HBU Ltd v Tasman District Council [2013] NZEnvC 25