Consent conditions

The conditions that the EPA may impose include: 188

  • providing a bond for the performance of any condition
  • obtaining and maintaining public liability insurance of a specified value
  • monitoring and reporting on the consent and the effects it authorises
  • appointing an observer to monitor the activity and its effects
  • making records related to the activity available for audit

Marine consent conditions will need to satisfy the Newbury principles (which are applicable to resource consent conditions) to be valid. These principles state that, to be valid at law, a condition must: 189

  • Be for a resource management purpose, not an ulterior one;
  • Fairly and reasonably relate to the development authorised by the consent to which the condition is attached; and
  • Not be so unreasonable that a reasonable planning authority, duly appreciating its statutory duties, could not have approved it.

In addition, marine consent conditions will be invalid if they are not certain and enforceable and within the consent authority’s power to impose. 190

Conditions also need to have an evidential basis and be able to be reasonably achieved and monitored. 191  The first Trans-Tasman Resources Decision-Making Committee was concerned that the extent of changes made to the proposed conditions throughout the hearing (with the final set provided with the closing submissions) meant that it was uncertain whether there was an evidential base for the conditions and whether they could actually and reasonably be achieved and monitored.

  1. Section 63 Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

  2. Newbury DC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 and Housing NZ Ltd v Waitakere City Council [2001] NZRMA 202 (CA)

  3. See for example Mount Field Ltd v Queenstown Lakes DC [2012] NZEnvC 262 at [77]

  4. First Trans-Tasman Resource Marine Consent Decision (June 2014), at [783]

Last updated at 4:36PM on December 28, 2017