Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Barbara made this Official Information request to Canterbury Regional Council
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Barbara to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Barbara
Dear Canterbury Regional Council,
Kia ora,
I am seeking clarification on how Environment Canterbury is interpreting and applying the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, particularly with respect to the status of water takes in the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region.
Relevant Provisions from the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.33 states:
The taking and using of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region, including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone, is a restricted discretionary activity, provided the following conditions are met:
1. The proposed take, in combination with all existing resource consented takes, does not result in any exceedance of any of the allocation limits in Tables 11(e), 11(f), and 11(g).
Rule 11.5.37 further clarifies:
The taking and use of surface water or groundwater in these zones that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
This seems unambiguous; where allocation limits have already been exceeded, any new water take should be classified as prohibited and therefore not consent-able under the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.
Interpretation of Rules and Legal Status
Section 2.3 of the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (“How the Plan Works”) states that:
• The rules have the force and effect of regulations, meaning they are legally binding.
• An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.
• Activities classified as prohibited are “not appropriate in any circumstance,” and no resource consent application may be made for such an activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded
Further, under the Resource Management Act 1991:
84 Local authorities to observe their own policy statements and plans
(1) While a policy statement or a plan is operative, the regional council or territorial authority concerned, and every consent authority, shall observe and, to the extent of its authority, enforce the observance of the policy statement or plan.
(2) No purported grant of a resource consent, and no waiver or sufferance or departure from a policy statement or plan, whether written or otherwise, shall, unless authorised by this Act, have effect in so far as it is contrary to subsection (1).
Questions
1. Why is Environment Canterbury granting consents for water takes in zones where the plan classifies such activities as prohibited due to exceeded allocation limits?
2. How many such consents have been granted in over-allocated zones?
3. What is the legal status of those consents?
4. Has ECan obtained legal advice to support the granting of such consents, and if so, is that advice available for public scrutiny?
These questions are raised to better understand how ECan is interpreting its obligations under the RMA, particularly in the face of ongoing community concern around over-allocation and water resource sustainability.
I would appreciate a detailed response.
Yours faithfully,
Barbara
From: LGOIMA
Canterbury Regional Council
Kia ora Barbara
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA): Request for information
I refer to your email sent 28/7/25, received 29/7/25.
As you might be aware, LGOIMA applies to all requests for information that we receive. We are able to respond immediately to some requests, but in instances where we need to collate information we do so and respond in accordance with our specified process.
Under LGOIMA, Environment Canterbury has 20 working days to respond to your request. Your request has been passed to the person(s) responsible for responding and you will be contacted as soon as possible but no later than 26/8/25.
Your LGOIMA reference number is 3178C
Ngā mihi
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara <[FOI #31795 email]>
Sent: Monday, 28 July 2025 9:18 pm
To: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
[You don't often get email from [FOI #31795 email]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
Caution: This is an email from an external party. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear Canterbury Regional Council,
Kia ora,
I am seeking clarification on how Environment Canterbury is interpreting and applying the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, particularly with respect to the status of water takes in the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region.
Relevant Provisions from the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.33 states:
The taking and using of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region, including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone, is a restricted discretionary activity, provided the following conditions are met:
1. The proposed take, in combination with all existing resource consented takes, does not result in any exceedance of any of the allocation limits in Tables 11(e), 11(f), and 11(g).
Rule 11.5.37 further clarifies:
The taking and use of surface water or groundwater in these zones that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
This seems unambiguous; where allocation limits have already been exceeded, any new water take should be classified as prohibited and therefore not consent-able under the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.
Interpretation of Rules and Legal Status Section 2.3 of the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (“How the Plan Works”) states that:
• The rules have the force and effect of regulations, meaning they are legally binding.
• An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.
• Activities classified as prohibited are “not appropriate in any circumstance,” and no resource consent application may be made for such an activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded
Further, under the Resource Management Act 1991:
84 Local authorities to observe their own policy statements and plans
(1) While a policy statement or a plan is operative, the regional council or territorial authority concerned, and every consent authority, shall observe and, to the extent of its authority, enforce the observance of the policy statement or plan.
(2) No purported grant of a resource consent, and no waiver or sufferance or departure from a policy statement or plan, whether written or otherwise, shall, unless authorised by this Act, have effect in so far as it is contrary to subsection (1).
Questions
1. Why is Environment Canterbury granting consents for water takes in zones where the plan classifies such activities as prohibited due to exceeded allocation limits?
2. How many such consents have been granted in over-allocated zones?
3. What is the legal status of those consents?
4. Has ECan obtained legal advice to support the granting of such consents, and if so, is that advice available for public scrutiny?
These questions are raised to better understand how ECan is interpreting its obligations under the RMA, particularly in the face of ongoing community concern around over-allocation and water resource sustainability.
I would appreciate a detailed response.
Yours faithfully,
Barbara
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #31795 email]
Is [ECAN request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Canterbury Regional Council? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOIMA
Environment Canterbury
[Environment Canterbury] <https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
<tel:>
<tel:>
[ECAN request email]<mailto:[ECAN request email]> PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140
Customer Services: 0800 324 636<tel:0800324636>
24 Hours: 0800 76 55 88<tel:0800765588>
ecan.govt.nz<https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
[Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/EnvironmentCant...> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ECan> [YouTube] <https://www.youtube.com/user/ECanGovt> [Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/environment_ca...>
hide quoted sections
From: LGOIMA
Canterbury Regional Council
Kia ora Barbara
Please find attached Environment Canterbury’s response to your request for information.
Ngâ mihi
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara <[FOI #31795 email]>
Sent: Monday, 28 July 2025 9:18 pm
To: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
[You don't often get email from [FOI #31795 email]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
Caution: This is an email from an external party. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear Canterbury Regional Council,
Kia ora,
I am seeking clarification on how Environment Canterbury is interpreting and applying the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, particularly with respect to the status of water takes in the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region.
Relevant Provisions from the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.33 states:
The taking and using of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region, including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone, is a restricted discretionary activity, provided the following conditions are met:
1. The proposed take, in combination with all existing resource consented takes, does not result in any exceedance of any of the allocation limits in Tables 11(e), 11(f), and 11(g).
Rule 11.5.37 further clarifies:
The taking and use of surface water or groundwater in these zones that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
This seems unambiguous; where allocation limits have already been exceeded, any new water take should be classified as prohibited and therefore not consent-able under the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.
Interpretation of Rules and Legal Status Section 2.3 of the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (“How the Plan Works”) states that:
• The rules have the force and effect of regulations, meaning they are legally binding.
• An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.
• Activities classified as prohibited are “not appropriate in any circumstance,” and no resource consent application may be made for such an activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded
Further, under the Resource Management Act 1991:
84 Local authorities to observe their own policy statements and plans
(1) While a policy statement or a plan is operative, the regional council or territorial authority concerned, and every consent authority, shall observe and, to the extent of its authority, enforce the observance of the policy statement or plan.
(2) No purported grant of a resource consent, and no waiver or sufferance or departure from a policy statement or plan, whether written or otherwise, shall, unless authorised by this Act, have effect in so far as it is contrary to subsection (1).
Questions
1. Why is Environment Canterbury granting consents for water takes in zones where the plan classifies such activities as prohibited due to exceeded allocation limits?
2. How many such consents have been granted in over-allocated zones?
3. What is the legal status of those consents?
4. Has ECan obtained legal advice to support the granting of such consents, and if so, is that advice available for public scrutiny?
These questions are raised to better understand how ECan is interpreting its obligations under the RMA, particularly in the face of ongoing community concern around over-allocation and water resource sustainability.
I would appreciate a detailed response.
Yours faithfully,
Barbara
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #31795 email]
Is [ECAN request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Canterbury Regional Council? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOIMA
Environment Canterbury
[Environment Canterbury] <https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
<tel:>
<tel:>
[ECAN request email]<mailto:[ECAN request email]> PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140
Customer Services: 0800 324 636<tel:0800324636>
24 Hours: 0800 76 55 88<tel:0800765588>
ecan.govt.nz<https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
[Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/EnvironmentCant...> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ECan> [YouTube] <https://www.youtube.com/user/ECanGovt> [Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/environment_ca...>
hide quoted sections
From: Barbara
Dear LGOIMA,
Thank you for your response of 20 August. Unfortunately, the response is factually incorrect.
Your statement was:
“The starting rule is 11.5.33. Activities are required to comply with (among other conditions) condition 1 or 2 of that rule to not be considered as prohibited activities under Rule 11.5.37.”
This contains several errors:
a) There is no “starting rule”. Section 2.3 of the Plan is clear: “An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.”
b) Nowhere in Rule 11.5.33 does it state that Rule 11.5.37 does not apply when condition 1 or 2 are met.
c) The wording of Rule 11.5.37 is contrary to the LGOIMA response:
11.5.37: The taking that does not meet Condition 1 or 2 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Accordingly, your explanation does not align with the plain wording of the Plan.
Questions for Clarification
We request that you reconsider the LGOIMA and respond to the following, noting that they are not answered in your prior reply:
1. Why does Rule 11.5.37 not apply to applications in over-allocated zones? (This question is not whether the activity complies with Rule 11.5.33.)
2. How can Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 be met in over-allocated zones?
Policy Alignment
We agree that there are specific rules and policies, and that Rule 11.5.37 gives effect to Policy 11.4.24. However, Rule 11.5.33 is contrary to Policy 11.4.24 and does not implement it, which is inconsistent with Section 2.3 of the Plan and with section 67(1)(c) of the RMA (“the rules in the Plan implement the policies”).
As written, if any of Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 are not met, the activity is prohibited by Rule 11.5.37. There is no exclusion of Rule 11.5.37 in either Rule 11.5.37 or Rule 11.5.33. Therefore, if Condition 1 is not met, the activity is prohibited.
Paul Hulse has already stressed to us how important it is that the Rules be applied as written. The only way consents in over-allocated zones are not prohibited is if Policy 11.4.24, Rule 11.5.37, and the explicit instructions in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan are set aside.
On what grounds is this occurring? Is ECan simply choosing not to implement its own Plan?
Regards,
Barbara
Excerpts: Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.37 The taking and use of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region and including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded.
From: LGOIMA
Canterbury Regional Council
Kia ora Barbara,
Thank you for your email regarding the application of Rules 11.5.33 and 11.5.37 and Policy 11.4.24 in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.
To ensure we correctly process your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), we would appreciate clarification on the following points:
1 - Are you requesting existing records, advice, or documentation explaining why Rule 11.5.37 is not applied to applications in over-allocated zones?
2 - Are you seeking records or examples that demonstrate how Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 can be met in over-allocated zones?
3 - Regarding consents in over-allocated zones, are you requesting existing documentation or records that show the grounds for allowing these consents, or are you asking for a new explanation or opinion?
Please note that under LGOIMA, we are only required to provide information that is already held by Environment Canterbury. The Act does not require us to create new information or provide legal or policy opinions. Where relevant, we may provide context or explanatory material from existing records.
Once we receive clarification on the specific information you are requesting, we will be able to proceed with processing your request.
Ngā mihi,
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara <[FOI #31795 email]>
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2025 12:26 pm
To: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Re: ECan Response LGOIMA 3178C - Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Caution: This is an email from an external party. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear LGOIMA,
Thank you for your response of 20 August. Unfortunately, the response is factually incorrect.
Your statement was:
“The starting rule is 11.5.33. Activities are required to comply with (among other conditions) condition 1 or 2 of that rule to not be considered as prohibited activities under Rule 11.5.37.”
This contains several errors:
a) There is no “starting rule”. Section 2.3 of the Plan is clear: “An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.”
b) Nowhere in Rule 11.5.33 does it state that Rule 11.5.37 does not apply when condition 1 or 2 are met.
c) The wording of Rule 11.5.37 is contrary to the LGOIMA response:
11.5.37: The taking that does not meet Condition 1 or 2 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Accordingly, your explanation does not align with the plain wording of the Plan.
Questions for Clarification
We request that you reconsider the LGOIMA and respond to the following, noting that they are not answered in your prior reply:
1. Why does Rule 11.5.37 not apply to applications in over-allocated zones? (This question is not whether the activity complies with Rule 11.5.33.)
2. How can Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 be met in over-allocated zones?
Policy Alignment
We agree that there are specific rules and policies, and that Rule 11.5.37 gives effect to Policy 11.4.24. However, Rule 11.5.33 is contrary to Policy 11.4.24 and does not implement it, which is inconsistent with Section 2.3 of the Plan and with section 67(1)(c) of the RMA (“the rules in the Plan implement the policies”).
As written, if any of Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 are not met, the activity is prohibited by Rule 11.5.37. There is no exclusion of Rule 11.5.37 in either Rule 11.5.37 or Rule 11.5.33. Therefore, if Condition 1 is not met, the activity is prohibited.
Paul Hulse has already stressed to us how important it is that the Rules be applied as written. The only way consents in over-allocated zones are not prohibited is if Policy 11.4.24, Rule 11.5.37, and the explicit instructions in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan are set aside.
On what grounds is this occurring? Is ECan simply choosing not to implement its own Plan?
Regards,
Barbara
Excerpts: Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.37 The taking and use of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region and including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded.
-----Original Message-----
Kia ora Barbara
Please find attached Environment Canterbury’s response to your request for information.
Ngâ mihi
Environment Canterbury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #31795 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOIMA
Environment Canterbury
[Environment Canterbury] <https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
<tel:>
<tel:>
[ECAN request email]<mailto:[ECAN request email]> PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140
Customer Services: 0800 324 636<tel:0800324636>
24 Hours: 0800 76 55 88<tel:0800765588>
ecan.govt.nz<https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
[Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/EnvironmentCant...> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ECan> [YouTube] <https://www.youtube.com/user/ECanGovt> [Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/environment_ca...>
hide quoted sections
From: LGOIMA
Canterbury Regional Council
Kia ora Barbara
We are following up on our request for clarification sent 1 Sept 2025.
If you could please advise so we can see how best we can respond that would be appreciated.
Ngā mihi,
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: LGOIMA
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2025 9:15 am
To: [FOI #31795 email]
Cc: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Clarification - LGOIMA Feedback and Follow up Questions: ECan Response LGOIMA 3178C - Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Kia ora Barbara,
Thank you for your email regarding the application of Rules 11.5.33 and 11.5.37 and Policy 11.4.24 in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.
To ensure we correctly process your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), we would appreciate clarification on the following points:
1 - Are you requesting existing records, advice, or documentation explaining why Rule 11.5.37 is not applied to applications in over-allocated zones?
2 - Are you seeking records or examples that demonstrate how Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 can be met in over-allocated zones?
3 - Regarding consents in over-allocated zones, are you requesting existing documentation or records that show the grounds for allowing these consents, or are you asking for a new explanation or opinion?
Please note that under LGOIMA, we are only required to provide information that is already held by Environment Canterbury. The Act does not require us to create new information or provide legal or policy opinions. Where relevant, we may provide context or explanatory material from existing records.
Once we receive clarification on the specific information you are requesting, we will be able to proceed with processing your request.
Ngā mihi,
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara <[FOI #31795 email]>
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2025 12:26 pm
To: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Re: ECan Response LGOIMA 3178C - Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Caution: This is an email from an external party. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear LGOIMA,
Thank you for your response of 20 August. Unfortunately, the response is factually incorrect.
Your statement was:
“The starting rule is 11.5.33. Activities are required to comply with (among other conditions) condition 1 or 2 of that rule to not be considered as prohibited activities under Rule 11.5.37.”
This contains several errors:
a) There is no “starting rule”. Section 2.3 of the Plan is clear: “An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.”
b) Nowhere in Rule 11.5.33 does it state that Rule 11.5.37 does not apply when condition 1 or 2 are met.
c) The wording of Rule 11.5.37 is contrary to the LGOIMA response:
11.5.37: The taking that does not meet Condition 1 or 2 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Accordingly, your explanation does not align with the plain wording of the Plan.
Questions for Clarification
We request that you reconsider the LGOIMA and respond to the following, noting that they are not answered in your prior reply:
1. Why does Rule 11.5.37 not apply to applications in over-allocated zones? (This question is not whether the activity complies with Rule 11.5.33.)
2. How can Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 be met in over-allocated zones?
Policy Alignment
We agree that there are specific rules and policies, and that Rule 11.5.37 gives effect to Policy 11.4.24. However, Rule 11.5.33 is contrary to Policy 11.4.24 and does not implement it, which is inconsistent with Section 2.3 of the Plan and with section 67(1)(c) of the RMA (“the rules in the Plan implement the policies”).
As written, if any of Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 are not met, the activity is prohibited by Rule 11.5.37. There is no exclusion of Rule 11.5.37 in either Rule 11.5.37 or Rule 11.5.33. Therefore, if Condition 1 is not met, the activity is prohibited.
Paul Hulse has already stressed to us how important it is that the Rules be applied as written. The only way consents in over-allocated zones are not prohibited is if Policy 11.4.24, Rule 11.5.37, and the explicit instructions in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan are set aside.
On what grounds is this occurring? Is ECan simply choosing not to implement its own Plan?
Regards,
Barbara
Excerpts: Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.37 The taking and use of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region and including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded.
-----Original Message-----
Kia ora Barbara
Please find attached Environment Canterbury’s response to your request for information.
Ngâ mihi
Environment Canterbury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #31795 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOIMA
Environment Canterbury
[Environment Canterbury] <https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
<tel:>
<tel:>
[ECAN request email]<mailto:[ECAN request email]> PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140
Customer Services: 0800 324 636<tel:0800324636>
24 Hours: 0800 76 55 88<tel:0800765588>
ecan.govt.nz<https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
[Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/EnvironmentCant...> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ECan> [YouTube] <https://www.youtube.com/user/ECanGovt> [Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/environment_ca...>
hide quoted sections
From: LGOIMA
Canterbury Regional Council
Kia ora Barbara,
We are following up regarding your request to our earlier emails requesting clarification.
Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA), requests need to be sufficiently specific to enable us to provide the information. If we do not hear back from you to clarify this request by 28 September, we will close it.
You are welcome to contact us in the future if you wish to submit a clarified or new request.
Ngā mihi,
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Sent: Monday, 15 September 2025 8:24 am
To: [FOI #31795 email]
Cc: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Follow up: Clarification - LGOIMA Feedback and Follow up Questions: ECan Response LGOIMA 3178C - Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Kia ora Barbara
We are following up on our request for clarification sent 1 Sept 2025.
If you could please advise so we can see how best we can respond that would be appreciated.
Ngā mihi,
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: LGOIMA
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2025 9:15 am
To: [FOI #31795 email]
Cc: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Clarification - LGOIMA Feedback and Follow up Questions: ECan Response LGOIMA 3178C - Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Kia ora Barbara,
Thank you for your email regarding the application of Rules 11.5.33 and 11.5.37 and Policy 11.4.24 in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.
To ensure we correctly process your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), we would appreciate clarification on the following points:
1 - Are you requesting existing records, advice, or documentation explaining why Rule 11.5.37 is not applied to applications in over-allocated zones?
2 - Are you seeking records or examples that demonstrate how Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 can be met in over-allocated zones?
3 - Regarding consents in over-allocated zones, are you requesting existing documentation or records that show the grounds for allowing these consents, or are you asking for a new explanation or opinion?
Please note that under LGOIMA, we are only required to provide information that is already held by Environment Canterbury. The Act does not require us to create new information or provide legal or policy opinions. Where relevant, we may provide context or explanatory material from existing records.
Once we receive clarification on the specific information you are requesting, we will be able to proceed with processing your request.
Ngā mihi,
Environment Canterbury
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara <[FOI #31795 email]>
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2025 12:26 pm
To: LGOIMA <[ECAN request email]>
Subject: Re: ECan Response LGOIMA 3178C - Official Information request - Clarification Requested Regarding Granting of Water Take Consents in Over-Allocated Zones
Caution: This is an email from an external party. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear LGOIMA,
Thank you for your response of 20 August. Unfortunately, the response is factually incorrect.
Your statement was:
“The starting rule is 11.5.33. Activities are required to comply with (among other conditions) condition 1 or 2 of that rule to not be considered as prohibited activities under Rule 11.5.37.”
This contains several errors:
a) There is no “starting rule”. Section 2.3 of the Plan is clear: “An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.”
b) Nowhere in Rule 11.5.33 does it state that Rule 11.5.37 does not apply when condition 1 or 2 are met.
c) The wording of Rule 11.5.37 is contrary to the LGOIMA response:
11.5.37: The taking that does not meet Condition 1 or 2 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Accordingly, your explanation does not align with the plain wording of the Plan.
Questions for Clarification
We request that you reconsider the LGOIMA and respond to the following, noting that they are not answered in your prior reply:
1. Why does Rule 11.5.37 not apply to applications in over-allocated zones? (This question is not whether the activity complies with Rule 11.5.33.)
2. How can Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 be met in over-allocated zones?
Policy Alignment
We agree that there are specific rules and policies, and that Rule 11.5.37 gives effect to Policy 11.4.24. However, Rule 11.5.33 is contrary to Policy 11.4.24 and does not implement it, which is inconsistent with Section 2.3 of the Plan and with section 67(1)(c) of the RMA (“the rules in the Plan implement the policies”).
As written, if any of Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 are not met, the activity is prohibited by Rule 11.5.37. There is no exclusion of Rule 11.5.37 in either Rule 11.5.37 or Rule 11.5.33. Therefore, if Condition 1 is not met, the activity is prohibited.
Paul Hulse has already stressed to us how important it is that the Rules be applied as written. The only way consents in over-allocated zones are not prohibited is if Policy 11.4.24, Rule 11.5.37, and the explicit instructions in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan are set aside.
On what grounds is this occurring? Is ECan simply choosing not to implement its own Plan?
Regards,
Barbara
Excerpts: Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan:
Rule 11.5.37 The taking and use of surface water from a river, lake or wetland or groundwater within the Selwyn Te Waihora sub-region and including all areas within the Little Rakaia Combined Surface and Groundwater Allocation Zone that does not meet Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 5 of Rule 11.5.33 is a prohibited activity.
Policy 11.4.24 Prohibit the allocation of surface or groundwater which may either singularly or cumulatively result in the allocation limits within Tables 11(e), 11(f) or 11(g) being exceeded.
-----Original Message-----
Kia ora Barbara
Please find attached Environment Canterbury’s response to your request for information.
Ngâ mihi
Environment Canterbury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #31795 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOIMA
<tel:>
<tel:>
LGOIMA
Environment Canterbury
[Environment Canterbury] <https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
<tel:>
<tel:>
[ECAN request email]<mailto:[ECAN request email]> PO Box 345, Christchurch 8140
Customer Services: 0800 324 636<tel:0800324636>
24 Hours: 0800 76 55 88<tel:0800765588>
ecan.govt.nz<https://www.ecan.govt.nz/>
[Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/EnvironmentCant...> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/ECan> [YouTube] <https://www.youtube.com/user/ECanGovt> [Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/environment_ca...>
hide quoted sections
From: Barbara
Dear LGOIMA,
for clarification
We are seeking records or examples that demonstrate how Condition 1 of Rule 11.5.33 can be met in over-allocated zones.
We are seeking examples where both 11.5.37 and 11.5.33 have been considered ( as required by the plan)
If possible please provide the number of grants that have not, vs the number that have.
Pleas read these in context with the previous requests, and please explain the response, the was contrary to the plan. i.e. "starting point" vs “An activity needs to comply with all relevant rules in the Plan, unless the rule itself states otherwise.”
Yours sincerely,
Barbara
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request