Vining v Nelson City Council (HC, Nelson, CP 23/99, 16 November 2000, Gendall J)

Notification; holistic approach

1. This case involved a proposal to reconstruct a wharf in Nelson. Consent was required for drilling and construction.

2. This decision reiterates the fact that the RMA is based on a public participation premise. When assessing whether or not to notify a proposal, if there is any doubt then one should err on the side of notification.

3. Gendall J discussed the Bayley case and the post-Bayley debate led by Randerson J. He considered whether the consents should be regarded holistically or separately in this case, and decided that no purpose would be served in notifying a consent if the Council had no discretion in addressing its effects (i.e. the Council had restricted its discretion).

4. Gendall J drew a contrast between transitory effects and ongoing or existing effects.

5. The crux of the decision was that the Council could not decline the consents but could only put conditions on in a limited manner. This determined the limits of what effects could be considered.