Wellington Regional Council v Carterton District Council DC Wellington CRI-2011-035-1291 [2011] NZDC 2066 (8 December 2011)

Last Updated: 26 September 2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON

CRI-2011-035-001291

WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Informant

V

CARTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL
Defendant

Hearing: 8 December 2011

Appearances: T Gilbert for the Informant

P Churchman for the Defendant

Judgment: 8 December 2011

NOTES OF JUDGE C J THOMPSON ON SENTENCING

[1] It is to be emphasised, of course, that these are not formal sentencing notes,
but notes to, I hope, explain the view that I have formed about an appropriate way of dealing with this.
[1] I have to say that the standard of the works that were in place to deal with
even treated effluent strikes me as being, charitably expressed, inadequate. A piece of plywood held in place with sandbags does not sound like good engineering to me, and certainly not the sort of engineering that one would expect of a professional organisation such as a council. The expression, "Heath Robinson" was used by one of the consultants, and that sounds pretty apt to me.

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL V CARTERTON DISTRICT COUNCIL DC WN CRI2011-035-001291 [8 December 20111

[3] That said, I recognise that this is a small council trying to deal with a problem
in the most economic way it can, and attempting to get through the process a resource consent to enable a fully treated land-based system to be put in place which hopefully, once done will avoid any repetition of this.
[3] Even though this was treated sewage, it was a discharge from three different
points which again emphasises the fact that the system seems to be quite inadequate, and it was plainly in breach of the resource consent which prohibited the discharge of any effluent, treated or not, over the course of the summer months.
[3] I have to say that if this organisation had been a commercial operation, I
would have thought that the suggested start point of $30,000 or thereabouts would be very modest. I would have been inclined to be thinking of a figure significantly more than that.
[3] That said, however, it seems to me now and always has seemed to me to be
somewhat futile to impose a fine on a local authority which effectively is taking the money from the control of one set of ratepayers and giving it to another set of ratepayers, when the District Council ratepayers are ratepayers of the Regional Council in any event. To deal with it by way of some process that would give the general public benefit in the area seems to me to be much more appropriate.
[3] I agree with the suggestion that has been made about this joint scheme for the
improvement of the Mangatarere Stream. That seems to me to be a very appropriate way of dealing with this.
[3] My view is that a figure of the order of $20,000 would be appropriate.
As I say, had this been a commercial operation, and had it breached its resource consent in a similar way, then the fine would have been substantially more than that.
[3] My suggestion, therefore, is that I will adjourn the hearing of the Information

arrangement has been made and the money has been paid, then as a matter of

formality I will simply convict and discharge the defendant Council.

[101 I will deal with the matter on that basis, and I look forward to receiving

confirmation from you that that arrangement has been confirmed. If it has then that

will be the outcome.

*

Ir

.410 -41P

C J Thompson

District Court Judge/Environment Judge