COD Crown Projects Limited (COD) has been fined $48,750 after pleading guilty to two charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for unlawful earthworks at two North Shore properties.
The charges relate to unauthorised earthworks and sediment discharges from sites in Browns Bay and Northcross, which resulted in significant sediment discharge and breaches of the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Auckland Council’s Team Leader Investigations Paul Cowling says this case shows the courts do not take breaches of the Resource Management Act lightly.
“It’s a clear signal for property owners, individuals and businesses to make sure they’re compliant with consent conditions and environmental rules. These rules exist for good reasons, to protect the public from nuisance and harm, and to stop damage to our environment.”
The Auckland Unitary Plan requires all earthworks to comply with strict erosion and sediment control standards. These measures must be installed before work starts, maintained during construction, and kept in place until the site is stabilised.
COD were granted resource consent in November 2020, subject to conditions including proper erosion and sediment management, stabilisation of bare areas, and prevention of discharges onto public roads or neighbouring land.
However, council inspections found ongoing non-compliance between January and August 2023, despite repeated warnings and the issue of an Abatement Notice in May 2023. Sediment from the sites flowed onto neighbouring properties and into waterways, with one neighbour’s garage was damaged by runoff.
Unconsented earthworks at 85 John Downs Drive in Browns Bay.
In her decision, Judge Dickey found that the unlawful discharge had “significant effects on neighbouring properties and the broader environment,” noting that sediment deposits were found downstream and contributed to the “cumulative ‘death by a thousand cuts’ that results from uncontrolled discharges.”
The court rejected COD’s claim that it was only minimally responsible because contractors had carried out the work. Judge Dickey ruled that COD, as the landowner and an experienced property developer, had “turned a blind eye” to what was happening on its land and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.
“It would not have taken a great effort to visit and check [the properties],” the Judge said. “An experienced company could be expected to know that land cannot be left open, exposed and unchecked for any period of time.”
Mr Cowling says the outcome reinforces the responsibility that all landowners must actively manage their sites to mitigate the impacts on others and the environment.
“You can’t simply hand over a property and walk away; ultimately, the owner is accountable. This decision reinforces the importance of good oversight, proper controls, and compliance with the RMA.”
