In 2017-18, QLDC incurred $1.259 million in costs defending proposed district plan and resource consent appeals.
Costs had risen to $1.498 million for the year ended June 30, 2022.
In the first two months of this financial year, costs were $167,000.
The figures were approximate, according to the council’s official information and governance adviser Poonam Sethi.
"The PDP appeals consume a considerable portion of council resources (including internal legal counsel, policy and planning staff, and expert witness) and expenditure.
"PDP costs in 2021-2022 were higher than in previous years as many of the more complex appeals reached the stage of the legal proceeding where considerable legal work was required in relation to hearings, mediation and evidence. This was to be expected.
"Appeals against resource consent decisions are a feature of the workload of council’s planning staff, and these are growing incrementally rather than exponentially.
"In many cases, landowners have concurrent appeals under both the PDP appeals process and under challenges to resource consent decisions. This adds to the resourcing and costs of council," Ms Sethi said.
Some of the PDP topics had numerous appeals.
PDP Topic 2 [rural land strategic] is one of the most expensive group of appeals at $590,000 over the years the PDP process has been running.
Appeals in this topic address rural landscape regulation, including outstanding natural landscapes, outstanding natural features and amenity landscapes.
Costs of other PDP topics were:
PDP Wakatipu Basin appeals on text: $314,000 (including mediation and hearings)
PDP Wakatipu Basin appeals seeking rezoning: $590,000
PDP Jacks Point group of appeals: $189,000
PDP appeals on rural zone framework: $133,000
PDP appeals on regulatory approach to regionally significant infrastructure (amount not given).
The QLDC did not want to comment on which single recent case had the highest Environment Court costs, because of the complexity involved.
The Environment Court also awards costs to the council from unsuccessful appellants.
In the first two months of this year, the council has successfully claimed $50,000.
Last year, the council was awarded $165,000.
Some of that was claimed after the Bridesdale Development Farms Ltd’s unsuccessful plan change appeal.
The QLDC’s costs were $67,000, the QLDC claimed $33,000 and won $20,000.
Environment Court judge John Hassan rejected Bridesdale’s submission that costs should fall between $2000 — $4,500.
The Bridesdale plan change appeal was site specific and not so much concerned with public interest considerations, he said.
The award was "fair and just", was not a penalty and compensated the successful party and its ratepayers, Judge Hassan said.
