Order calls for preparatory and stabilisation work to address erosion
As agreed by the parties, New Zealand’s Environment Court issued an interim enforcement order under ss 279(1)(b), 314, and 319 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) against the respondents at a site on Brookby Road, Auckland.
On an ex parte basis, the Auckland Council – the applicant in Auckland Council v Brookby Landfill Limited [2026] NZEnvC 4 – applied for interim enforcement orders against the respondents in connection with the site. The applicant wanted the respondents to:
The respondents learned about the application on a Pickwick basis. On 11 November 2025, the court issued an interim enforcement order via consent. On 5 December 2025, a review of the orders proceeded.
On 17 December 2025, the court granted a second interim enforcement order by consent. The court directed the respondents to:
These orders would remain in effect until 23 January 2026, at which point a review would occur.
On 19 December 2025, the court received an engineer’s report on erosion and sediment controls, which estimated the recommended preparatory and stabilisation works as 95 percent complete. The report stated that any remaining areas impacted would be monitored, completed when conditions permitted, and maintained afterward.
On 22 January 2026, a review of the interim order occurred during a judicial teleconference.
The Environment Court of New Zealand ordered the respondents to:
The court ordered the parties to provide an update if there were changes to the status of the site’s registered owner. The orders would remain in effect until 22 June 2026, at which point a review would take place.
The court reserved leave for any party to apply under s 321 of the RMA to change or cancel any of these orders, as long as reasonable grounds existed for such an application. It also reserved costs.
The court found the renewed interim enforcement orders, as agreed between the parties, appropriate in the context of the relevant unitary plan provisions.
Given the respondents’ confirmation, the court acknowledged that the site had stopped operations and largely complied with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. The court added that the respondents were preparing an application for resource consents for the site.
