Abatement notices
Relevant sections of the Act
Abatement notices can only be issued by local authorities. An abatement notice is a warning to the recipient that he/she is contravening the provisions of the Act. The relevant sections of the Act are sections 322 to 325A.
Section 322
Section 322:
Case example A
Wislang v Rodney District Council and Others
Wislang sought an order from the High Court directing that the Rodney District Council enforce the provisions of its District Plan by taking steps, including the issue of an abatement notice, to ensure that Wislang’s neighbour, Mr Martin, did not interfere with or damage the roots of an oak tree on his property without first obtaining a resource consent.
A Rodney District Council enforcement officer gave evidence that there was no sign of damage to tree roots or of impending damage to tree roots. The officer determined that he did not have reasonable grounds under s 322(4) for believing that any of the circumstances in s 322(1) or (2) existed, and he therefore concluded that it was not appropriate to issue an abatement notice.
Evidence was also given that the Council did not believe that it would be appropriate for it to take other enforcement action against Mr Martin and that the Council will continue to review the position.
The High Court considered whether the Rodney District Council had refused to exercise a statutory power and whether there was a duty incumbent on it to do so. The High Court held that:
(a) it is not the Council but its enforcement officer who has the discretion to issue an abatement notice
(b) there had been no failure by the Council to take appropriate action
(c) the facts were such that the Court was satisfied that an enforcement officer would not have the power to issue an abatement notice.
CP485/96.
The abatement notice must specify the subsection of s 322 that is relied upon by the enforcement officer. Sometimes it is appropriate to rely on more than one subsection of s 322.
Section 323
Section 323 provides that:
Section 324
Section 324 sets out the contents of an abatement notice and provides that the notice shall be in the prescribed form. Form 48 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees and Procedure) Regulations 2003 is the correct form. (Refer to appendix 5A for a precedent for an abatement notice relating to unreasonable noise.)
Section 325
Warren Fowler Ltd v Manukau City Council
The Court tentatively adopted a principle that an application for stay should be based on the purpose of sustainable management, having regard to the consequences for the appellant of not granting a stay. The Court will weigh the adverse effects on the environment against the adverse effects on the appellant.
Judge Sheppard, AO71/98.
Warren Fowler Ltd v Manukau City Council was cited and followed by the Environment Court in Waimakiriri District Council v Canterbury Regional Council (13/03/01, Judge Smith, C30/2001,).
Section 325A
Section 325A provides for the following.
If the local authority, after considering an application to change or cancel the abatement notice, confirms the abatement notice or changes it in a way other than that sought, the person who applied for the cancellation or change may appeal to the Court in accordance with s 325(2).
Categories of abatement notices
There are two categories of abatement notices, as follows.
Category 1
An abatement notice can be issued within the scope of sections:
- 322(2)(b).
The period within which the action must be taken or cease must be a reasonable period and can be less than seven days.
Pursuant to s324(d), the period within which action must be taken must not be less than seven days if the abatement notice is within the scope of s322(i)(a)(ii) and the person against whom the notice is served is complying with the Act, any regulation, a rule in a plan, or a resource consent.
If an appeal is filed, the appeal does not act as a stay unless the abatement notice is within the scope of s 322(i)(a)(iii) and the person against whom the notice is served is complying with this act, any regulations, a rule in a plan or a Resource Consent, or a stay is granted by an Environment Court Judge. The recipient can apply to the Court for a stay.
Category 2
An abatement notice can be issued enforcing the s 17 duty requiring the recipient to cease, or prohibiting the recipient from commencing, anything done or to be done by or on behalf of the recipient:
(a) that in the opinion of the enforcement officer is or is likely to be noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable to such an extent that it has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the environment – s 322(1)(a)(ii), and
(b) the recipient is complying with the RMA, or any regulations made under the RMA, a rule in a plan, or a resource consent.
The recipient must be given at least seven days to comply. If the recipient files an appeal, the appeal acts as a stay.
What detail is required for the notice?
Location
The description of the location must be given with sufficient accuracy so that the recipient can identify the locality to which the abatement notice is intended to relate (See Dennis v Tauranga District Council (1992) 1 NZRMA 255 (PT). The most obvious way to identify the property is by physical address, but it may also be necessary to include the legal description and/or a New Zealand Map Series reference.
The description depends on the circumstances. For example, if the recipient is undertaking the activity on a particular lot of land and he/she owns a number of lots of land and the physical address is the same for all lots, the lot number should be stated in the abatement notice.
Reason for the notice
A clear explanation as to why the notice was issued need to be given.
Action required to be taken, or ceased, or not undertaken
Give precise details.
Case example B
Lendich v Waitakere City Council
Lendich Construction Ltd, an earthmoving and heavy haulage contracting company, and another party appealed abatement notices issued by the Waitakere City Council. The notices required that the property cease to be utilised as a storage and maintenance depot. The appellants had three grounds of appeal; one of these grounds was that there were existing use rights attached to the site as the activity had been carried on since 1956.
The Court found that existing use rights had been established. The Court also found that it had jurisdiction to amend the notice by imposing appropriate conditions to mitigate the adverse effects of the activities. The proceedings were adjourned to allow the parties an opportunity to agree on appropriate conditions.
The Council relied on s 17 of the RMA and this gave rise to two jurisdictional issues:
(i) Were the abatement notices worded adequately to allow the Council to rely on s 17?
(ii) Did the Court have jurisdiction to amend the abatement notices?
The Court considered three decisions: Rees v Whangarei District Council, Dunn v Clutha District Council and Zdrahal v Wellington City Council.
In Rees, Judge Treadwell held that it was “highly desirable” that an abatement notice should contain references to the precise subsections of s 322 which the appellant is alleged to have infringed. Judge Treadwell also said that the absence of such a reference should not necessarily be elevated to a status where such absence would cause the notice to become defective. The Court in Lendich agreed with Judge Treadwell.
In Dunn, Judge Jackson said:
Section 324 of the Act directs what the form and content of an abatement notice are to be. In particular, section 324(b) requires that the reasons for the notice are to be given. We hold that the obligation to give reasons is mandatory in a “summary judgment” proceeding such as an abatement notice which puts the onus on the appellants to take action to set it aside. In particular the appellants should not have to refute reasons not referred to in the notices. Accordingly we hold that we have no jurisdiction to support the abatement notices under section 17, because the wording in section 17(3) was not raised as a reason for the notice.
In Zdrahal, Greig J said that s 17(3) and s 322 needed to be read together to enlarge the application of s 322 to include a requirement to cease an activity which may have an adverse effect to the extent that may be offensive and:
The provisions of section 322 are to be given a fair, large and liberal construction to ensure the object and the purpose of the Act as a whole and are not to be narrowly construed as by a pedantic grammarian.
The Council in Lendich submitted that Judge Jackson in Dunn does not say that s 17 must be expressly referred to, and the tenor of that decision is that the grounds set out in s 17(3) must be identified in the reasons for the abatement notice to allow reliance on s 17.
The Council submitted that the abatement notices contained grounds which, taken collectively, address the substance of s 17(3)(b).
Clauses 2(vii) and 3(ii) of the abatement notice stated:
2 (vii) That use of the property as a depot results in actual or likely adverse effects on the environment, including-
(a) Noise and vibration from heavy vehicles including trucks entering and exiting the property;
(b) Visual/aesthetic impact on the amenity values of the environment;
(c) Use of the property as a depot being incompatible with the use of surrounding properties as a residential area;
(d) Dust generated by vehicular use of the property as a depot, particularly during summer months. 3(ii) This action is necessary to ensure compliance with rules 10 and 10.4 and rules 2, 8, 10.4 and 14.1 of the Proposed and Transitional District Plans respectively and to remedy the adverse effects and likely adverse effects referred to herein.
The Court in Lendich held that:
We consider that it is important for an abatement notice to fully and fairly inform the recipient not only of the action they are required to take, or refrain from taking, but also of the grounds upon which the notice is issued.
It is clear from the cases cited to us and other decisions of the Tribunal and this Court that Council s need to take considerable care in the drafting of their notices because of the consequences which flow from them. However, the Court should, in our view, take a robust attitude to objections and arguments based on technical and mechanical non-compliance with the form and the regulation without regard to the substance of the matter. It is a question in each case as to whether the notice taken in its entirety adequately complies with the regulation and the prescribed form and clearly and fairly inform the recipient of all necessary and relevant matters.
The Court held that the notices addressed the substance of s 17(3)(b) and also the substance of s 332(1)(a)(ii). The grounds contained in clause 2(vii)(a) to (e) all relate to adverse effects, and clause 3(ii) of the notices refers to the need to remedy adverse effects. The Court also held: “That the appellants have not been misled is shown and that they adduced evidence relating to the adverse effects and proffered conditions designed to mitigate them.”
Environment Court, A77/99, 20/07/99, Whiting J.
Case example C
Schmuck v Far North District Council
Schmuck appealed an abatement notice concerning the operation of his boat yard at Opua. The grounds of appeal included:
(i) the abatement notice was flawed and contradictory because it did not specify the particular rules in the plan which had been breached
(ii) the reference to the resource consent is misleading.
The reasons given in the notice were:
Your [sic] are undertaking activities on the esplanade [sic] reserve including but not limited to the following in breach of district plan rules and without having obtained the necessary resource consent. Work carried out on boats including...
Judge Sheppard did not accept the grounds of appeal and held:
(i) it is plain that reason (a) in the abatement notice is an assertion that the activities described are not authorised by the plan or by a resource consent
(ii) a copy of the consent was attached to the abatement notice and the reference to the consent was not misleading.
A26/2000.
Case example D
Oliver v Marlborough District Council
An abatement notice was issued by the Marlborough District Council to Oliver concerning a mooring laid by Oliver in Queen Charlotte Sound. Oliver appealed the notice. One of the grounds of appeal was that the notice was invalid because it did not state the section and subsection of 322 which the Council relied on. Oliver's lawyer relied on McNoe v West Coast Regional Council.
Judge Kenderdine:
(a) held that there is no requirement in s 324 and Form 24 to state the subsection of s 322 which is relied upon
(b) followed Zdrahal, in which the High Court held that the question is whether in its entirety the notice fully and adequately complies with the form and clearly informs the recipient of all necessary and relevant matters.
W126/99.
Case example E
Amor v Gisborne District Council
The Gisborne District Council issued an abatement notice to Amor, a poultry farmer, requiring removal of all poultry. The reasons for the notice were “to avoid and remedy the actual and adverse effects on the environment of the effects of the flies” caused by the operation of the poultry farm. Amor applied for a stay.
The Court granted the stay and held:
(a) it was unreasonable to require Amor to remove 17,000 birds
(b) the imposition of less extreme fly control measures would be more appropriate.
A145/99.
Deadlines – what time frame is reasonable?
The time frame depends on the circumstances. If the abatement notice is in the “first category” (refer Category 1), the recipient can be given less than seven days to comply, but must still be given a reasonable period to comply. If the abatement notice is in the “second category” (refer Category 2), the recipient has to be given at least seven days to comply.
Who should you issue the abatement notice to when there are multiple parties?
When a number of people are responsible for the activity, the notice should be issued to all parties who have been involved in causing the problem (eg, owners and occupiers, company directors, employees and contractors).
Standard of proof
At the hearing of an appeal against an abatement notice, the Court hears from the respondent (local authority) first because the local authority has the onus of establishing the grounds to support its abatement notice.
The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In Amor v New Plymouth District Council [ 2001] NZRMA 221 and also see CA9/01, AP34/02, NP335/99. the High Court said:
On the question of the standard of proof it was submitted that something more than proof on the balance of probabilities should have been required given the seriousness of the allegation. While it may perhaps be arguable that the outcome of a s 65(4) proceeding is so serious for an owner that something more than a balance of probabilities standard of proof should be contemplated, such is not necessarily the case.
The High Court held that balance of probabilities is the correct standard.
Statistics
Appeals against abatement notices
As at June 2000 there were 118 appeals filed against abatement notices where written decisions were issued by the Environment Court. (Note: there were a number of appeals against abatement notices that were settled by consent memorandum, for which there is no written decision.) Of the 118 appeals:
Prosecution for contravention of an abatement notice
As at June 2000 there have been 36 prosecutions for contravention of an abatement notice. Of these 36 prosecutions:
The penalties ranged from nil to $4,000 plus $3,881 costs in Auckland Regional Council v Mahurangi Duckling Ltd CRN 7044016074 and 76. In three cases the defendants were sentenced to community service. In nine cases an enforcement order was made requiring the defendant to comply with the abatement notice. In a number of cases the defendant had belatedly complied with the abatement notice prior to the hearing and an enforcement order was not required.
Which subsection of s 322 applies?
Section 322 allows for notices to be issued on a number of grounds. This section provides examples of the need to choose carefully between the grounds, test for what is offensive and objectionable and consider what needs to be the substance of the notice.
Case example F
Zdrahal v Wellington City Council
The Wellington City Council issued an abatement notice in October 1992 against Paul Zdrahal and Christine Moffat requiring them as owners of a property in Karori to remove an offensive and objectionable motif by taking all reasonable steps to paint out a swastika visible on the side of a house.
Zdrahal and Moffat appealed the notice. The Planning Tribunal dismissed the appeal (W10/93.). The Planning Tribunal in the decision queried why the Council chose to proceed under s 322(1)(a)(ii) of the Act instead of s 322(1)(a)(i). At page 2 of the decision:
We do not know why the Council chose to act in this way because rules in its Transitional Plan in relation to control of signs are clear and would not have required this Tribunal to enter into a subjective assessment as to whether the swastika is or is not objectionable.
The Tribunal held that subparas (i) and (ii) of s 322(1)(a) are in the alternative (they are written as so that either are grounds for issuing a notice) and the Tribunal does not have any inherent power to amend the notice. The Tribunal made it clear that on the evidence the appellants could not resist an abatement notice based on the rules in the Transitional District Plan.
Zdrahal appealed to the High Court. Zdrahal had five grounds of appeal. The appeal failed and the abatement notice was upheld.
One of the grounds of Zdrahal’s appeal was that because the two swastikas had already been painted, there was nothing that the abatement notice could require Zdrahal to cease or prohibit him from commencing and the action which was alleged to be offensive was completed and the words of the Act were not applicable. Nothing remained to be prohibited or that in ordinary use of the English language could cease.
The High Court held that ss 17 and 322 need to be read together to enlarge the application of s 322 to include a requirement to cease an activity which may have an adverse effect or which may be offensive to that extent. The Court held that the meaning of s 322 was plain and intended to apply to continuing effects and continuing activities.
Another ground of appeal was that the abatement notice was defective because it did not comply with reg 27 of the Resource Management (Forms) Regulations. The Court held that Zdrahal's objections:
... are based on a highly technical and mechanical application of the regulation and the form which insists upon an exact and complete compliance with the form without any regard to the substance of the matter. ... In its entirety the form fully and adequately complied with the regulation and the prescribed form and clearly informed the appellant of all necessary and relevant matters. It is important to note that the regulation itself permits a form “to the like effect”, thus emphasising the importance of the substance.
Another ground of appeal was that the swastikas were not offensive or objectionable in terms of s 322. If the swastikas were offensive or objectionable, they were not offensive or objectionable to such an extent that they had or were likely to have an adverse effect on the environment. The Court held:
What may be offensive or objectionable under this Act cannot, I think, be defined or prescribed except in the most general terms. Each case will perforce depend upon its own circumstances. What may be offensive or objectionable in a quiet suburban street may not be so in a busy commercial downtown area or in a zone where heavy industry is concentrated ... The test must be an objective one. ... In a sense the decision on matters such as this is must be subjective because it is what is perceived by the ears or the eyes and its effect on the individual and his personal well-being.
Offensiveness or objectionability cannot be measured by a machine or by some standard with arithmetical gradations. It is a matter of perception and the interpretation of that perception in the mind. The Tribunal in a case like this must transpose itself into the ordinary person, representative of the community at large, and so decide the matter.
Points to watch
Black v Southland Regional Council
The Southland Regional Council issued an abatement notice to the Blacks requiring them to lower the crest height of a stopbank and to remove a 53-metre extension to the stopbank. The Blacks appealed the abatement notice.
The Tribunal was unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the Blacks had added to the pre-February 1991 height of the stopbank. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the stopbank, whether it had been raised or not, was in any material way aggravating the effects of flooding on two other properties. Therefore, even if the Blacks had raised the height of their stopbank, the Tribunal would not be prepared to require the Blacks to lower it to mitigate adverse effects from flooding. The abatement notice was cancelled.
The Blacks applied for costs against the Council. Costs of $12,000 were awarded against the Council (C30/95). One of the arguments raised by the Blacks was that the enforcement officer did not have reasonable grounds for believing that the appropriate circumstances existed before serving the notice.
The Planning Tribunal determined the proceedings in favour of the Blacks on other grounds, but addressed the submissions made as to whether the enforcement officer had reasonable grounds for belief. The enforcement officer who issued the notice had not inspected the stopbank. The enforcement officer was briefed by operations staff, was present at a meeting of the operations committee of the Council, reviewed the file and discussed matters with another enforcement officer.
The Blacks argued that the enforcement officer who issued the notice was relying on hearsay evidence and this was insufficient. Counsel for the Blacks referred to various criminal law cases in support of his argument. The Court at page 18 held:
Section 322(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 does not prescribe any particular manner in which an enforcement officer is to be satisfied that he or she has reasonable grounds. It seems to us, however, that if, in the context of the criminal law, hearsay evidence can provide sufficient information upon which to obtain a search warrant or upon which the Commissioner of Police can issue a certificate, then, depending of course on the nature of that evidence, it should be sufficient to provide an enforcement officer with reasonable grounds for belief for the purposes of section 322(4) of that Act.
The Court found that the enforcement officer had sufficient information to issue the abatement notice.
9 /11/94, Judge Skelton, PT C104/94.
Despite the finding of the Tribunal in Black, we recommend that the enforcement officer who issues the abatement notice should:
- form his/her own opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to issue the abatement notice.
Points to watch
Cancellation of abatement notice after defended hearing (successful appeals)
McNoe v West Coast Regional Council
The first appeal of an abatement notice heard by the Planning Tribunal was McNoe v West Coast Regional Council. The Tribunal found that the abatement notice was fundamentally defective and allowed the appeal and cancelled the abatement notice without prejudice to the Council's right to issue a further abatement notice in respect of the same subject matter. The abatement notice which was issued and the defects identified by the planning tribunal are:
The West Coast Regional Council
Abatement Notice under Section 322 of the Resource Management Act 1991
To: David Murray McNoe
C/- Tasman Motorcycles Limited
130 High Street
Greymouth
1. Location in respect of which abatement notice applies:
130 High Street
Greymouth
2. The reason for this notice is:
To prevent air pollution from spray painting operations.
3. The action required to be not undertaken is: [Note: The appropriate action required is "The action required to be ceased".]
Spray painting outside workshop by you or your staff.
4. The date after which that action must not be undertaken is:
17 January 1992
[Note: The abatement notice was issued on 17 January 1992. The recipient had not been given seven days to comply. (The abatement notice was issued prior to the December 1997 amendment.)]
5. This notice relates to Section 322(1)(a)(i) of the Resource Management act 1991:
[Note: The abatement notice does not inform the recipient of the provision of the relevant subclause of s 322 which he was contravening and does not identify the subsection of the Act he was in breach of.]
6. Lodging an Appeal
As prescribed in the Act you may appeal to the Planning Tribunal against the whole or any part of this notice by lodging a notice of appeal with the Tribunal, in accordance with Section 325 of the Resource Management act 1991, no later than 24 January 1992. The lodging of a notice of appeal will act as a stay of this notice until the appeal is heard.
7. The name of the enforcement officer serving this notice is:
David Francis Coll
8. The authority under which the Enforcement Officer is acting is pursuant to Section 38 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and formal appointment as an Enforcement Office by the West Coast Regional Council.
9. Name and Address of Authority whose Enforcement Officer served this notice is:
West Coast Regional Council
PO Box 66
Greymouth
10. Consequences of Non-Compliance
If you not comply with this notice or lodge a notice of appeal with the Planning Tribunal in accordance with clause 7 above, you may be liable to prosecution under Section 338 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Figure: Abatement notice decision tree
See figure at full size, including text description
Unsuccessful prosecutions
Points to watch
Christchurch City Council v Blackett
An abatement notice was served on Mr Blackett informing him that he had been using land at Jessons Road as an engineering business and that this contravened the rules in the Rural 4 zone of the Paparua section of the Christchurch City Transitional District Plan relating to activities permitted in that zone.
The notice was served on 9 December 1992. The notice required Blackett to cease using the land for this purpose by 31 December 1992. Blackett did not appeal the notice.
On 12 January 1993 the enforcement officer found that the engineering business was still operating. The officer said he had observed the defendant, his brother John, and three other men in overalls in the workshop. He observed two men working on vehicles and he spoke to the defendant, who did not say much, except that a friend of his was working on his own vehicle.
The defendant said that before he received the abatement notice he had decided to move his business and had taken steps to do so. He said that when the enforcement officer visited his property in January 1993 he was not conducting the motor engineering business at all. Some engines were still there, but they were being progressively removed from the property. Indeed some were being removed on 12 January.
Blackett said that he did some work on his own Commodore that day and a friend of his was doing some work on his own Landrover. He explained that of the vehicles which the Council officer had photographed on 12 January, one belonged to his flatmate, another belonged to his uncle, a third belonged to his brother and others belonged to a friend of his. He denied completely that he had carried out any motor engineering work as a business since the end of December 1992. He called two witnesses, who confirmed his evidence.
Judge Skelton dismissed the charge because he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 12 January 1993 the defendant was acting in contravention of the abatement notice (ie, the defendant was not using his property at Jessons Road for a motor engineering business “Repowers”). The Judge said in his decision:
I am in no doubt that some motor vehicle repair work was being carried out at 37 Jessons Road on 12 January 1993, and that remnants of the engineering business were still on the property that day. However I cannot say that the business itself, and in particular the business relating to Repowers, was being carried out on that property at that time.
It may be of assistance for me to add that if the defendant intends to continue using the property for the purpose of repairing motor vehicles, or allowing his friends to do so, he will have to be very careful about the nature and extent of that activity. He could still be in breach of the Transitional District Plan. However, for present purposes I have to accept the explanation that he and his supporting witnesses have given and that being so this information is dismissed.
7/04/93, Judge Skelton, DC Christchurch CRN 3009007407.
Points to watch
Whakatane District Council v Byrne
Abatement notices were served on the Byrnes. The abatement notices required removal of a signboard which contravened the Transitional District Plan. The charges were dismissed because the abatement notices had the following defects.
17/09/93, Judge Bollard, DC Whakatane CRN 3087005974 and 6749.
Costs
The Court can award costs against the unsuccessful party in an appeal against an abatement notice. If the recipient appeals the abatement notice, the local authority should check the notice carefully to see if there are any defects and whether there are any other grounds for appeal. We suggest that if there are defects or grounds for appeal:
(a) leave should be sought from the Court to cancel the notice on the basis that no costs are awarded against either party and leave is reserved for the Council to take further enforcement action, including issue of further abatement notices (this can be done by consent memorandum if the appellant agrees)
(b) a fresh notice should be issued.
Case example G
Bolt v Northland Regional Council
The Northland Regional Council issued an abatement notice to the Bolts requiring removal of unauthorised fill. The Bolts appealed the notice. The Bolts were told by a Council officer that the notice would be cancelled on receipt of a resource consent application. The Bolts applied for a resource consent and the abatement notice was duly cancelled. The Bolts applied for costs against the Council. Judge Whiting refused the application and held:
(a) an award of costs would inhibit local authorities’ functions
(b) the Council was performing its statutory duty
(c) the Council did not act inappropriately.
A39/99
Advantages and disadvantages of abatement notices
Advantages
Disadvantages
Good practice tips
One option to avoid the disadvantages of abatement notices is to proceed as follows.
Issue an abatement notice.
| If the recipient... | and... | The Council can... | and... |
|---|---|---|---|
|
if the notice falls into “category 2” and the appeal acts as a stay |
|
|
Current approach of the Court
A restrictive approach was taken in the early decisions on abatement notices (eg, McNoe v West Coast Regional Council ). The High Court in Zdrahal took a more relaxed approach and the Environment Court has followed this approach. For example, the Environment Court in Lendich held:
However, the Court should, in our view, take a robust attitude to objections and arguments based on technical and mechanical non-compliance with the form and the regulation without regard to the substance of the matter. It is a question in each case as to whether the notice taken in its entirety adequately complies with the regulation and the prescribed form and clearly informs the recipient of all necessary and relevant matters.
Appendices
Appendix A: Abatement notices - Precedent
Precedent for abatement notice which is within the scope of sections
- 322(2)(b).
Form 48 Abatement notice: Precedent (Word document 28KB)
Appendix B: Abatement notices - Precedent where recipient complying
Precedent form for abatement notice within the scope of s 322(1)(a)(ii) and where the recipient is complying with the RMA, any regulation, a rule in a plan, or a resource consent (based solely on adverse effects, s 17 duty).
Form 48 Abatement notice: Precedent where recipient complying (Word document 27KB)
Appendix C: Abatement Notices: Precedent for cancellation
Precedent for Notice of Cancellation of Abatement Notice
Section 325A(2) and (3) provide that:
(2) Where a relevant authority considers that an abatement notice is no longer required, the relevant authority may cancel the abatement notice at any time.
(3) The relevant authority shall give written notice of its decision under subsection (2) to cancel an abatement notice to any person subject to that abatement notice.
Appendix D: Abatement Notices: Precedent for Notice of Council Decision
Precedent for notice of a council decision in response to an application for change or cancellation of abatement notice pursuant to s 325A(5) and s 325A(6)
