The Environment Court has recently confirmed that a reasonable compliance timeframe is the time required to take the specified step – not the time required to advance a resource consent application.
The Environment Court has recently confirmed that a “reasonable” compliance timeframe in an abatement notice is directed to the practical time needed to cease unlawful activities or take the specified steps—not the time required to regularise the activity via a resource consent.
Valder v Auckland Council [2026] NZEnvC 168 involved appeals by the recipient of three abatement notices issued in relation to an unauthorised civil contracting depot and earthworks being undertaken on rural productive land in Pukekohe. Although a number of issues were raised through the appeals, the central appeal point related the compliance timeframe in the abatement notice. Was the timeframe reasonable, or should it allow time for the appellant to regularise the unlawful activities by applying for a resource consent?
The appellant’s argument on appeal was that compliance should be deferred, and the activities allowed to continue, until the consent process had run its course. This was rejected by the Court – who accepted that the four-month compliance period in the abatement notices was appropriate and provided a reasonable timeframe for the appellant to relocate machinery and equipment, remove the hardstand areas, and cease operating.
A key aspect of the decision is the Court’s endorsement of the principle that a reasonable compliance period under s 324(d) of the Resource Management Act 1991 does not ordinarily include time to obtain a resource consent.
Importantly, the Court found that the appellant had not challenged the practical adequacy of the four-month period itself. Rather, the complaint was that the timeframe was unlikely to be sufficient for the resource consent applications to be determined. In that respect, the Court ultimately held that the compliance timeframe was reasonable. It considered that requiring abatement notices to allow sufficient time for resource consent processes to be completed would “significantly diminish” their effectiveness, undermining both public confidence in the resource management system and the statutory enforcement purpose of abatement notices.
The Court also found there were no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension to the compliance timeframe. While it acknowledged the commercial consequences for the appellant and its employees, those considerations did not justify delaying compliance where the breach of the Auckland Unitary Plan and s 9(3) of the RMA was clear and largely undisputed.
Key takeaway?
A “reasonable” compliance period will generally be assessed by reference to the time reasonably required to cease an unlawful activity, or take the specified action – not the time needed to obtain a resource consent. The existence of a pending consent application will not ordinarily justify extending compliance dates, except in exceptional circumstances.
Reach out to Laura if you would like to discuss the implications of this decision for your council’s enforcement activities.
