Auckland Council v Ramsey: Court imposes NZD210,000 fine for deliberate RMA breaches

The case concerned 12 charges against an individual, Mr Ramsey, for offences under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) arising from earthworks and vegetation clearance in breach of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), including within wetland setbacks and the coastal marine area beside the Wairoa River in Auckland. The Court imposed a NZD210,000 fine for ‘brazen and deliberate’ offending.

 

The offending

Between 2020 and September 2023, Mr Ramsey personally undertook approximately 9,000 cubic metres of earthworks without resource consent within an area identified as a Significant Ecological Area in the AUP and within the coastal marine area. The works included constructing and expanding stopbanks, excavating drainage channels, installing culverts and flap gates, importing clay fill, removing mangroves, clearing vegetation, disturbing wetlands, reclaiming portions of the coastal marine area and driving machinery throughout protected coastal areas.

The offending occurred on a group of privately owned islands and adjoining coastal marine area southeast of Auckland. The site is ecologically significant, containing natural inland wetlands and providing habitat for threatened bird species.

Mr Ramsey pleaded guilty to all 12 charges.

 

Environmental effects

The Council argued that the environmental effects were very serious, including the decimation of 5.5 hectares of indigenous mangrove forest, reduced mudflat habitat, loss of saltwater species, physical and hydrological alterations to the terrestrial islands and desalination of the coastal marine area.

The works altered approximately 30 hectares of coastal environment and caused significant hydrological change. Stopbanks and drainage structures prevented normal tidal inundation, resulting in desalination of the coastal marine area and transformation of the site's ecological character.

Mr Ramsey argued that the works had created a valuable freshwater wetland and that the ecological value of the site had not diminished. The Court did not accept this argument.

The Court found that the environmental effects were significantly adverse, with extensive degradation of the coastal marine area. The Court also noted the relevant matters of national importance under the RMA, including the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, and the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna.

 

Culpability

The Council argued that the offending was deliberate and brazen because Mr Ramsey undertook the works himself and did so during the COVID-19 lockdown, when the works were less likely to be noticed.

Mr Ramsey focused on his motivation for the offending, being flood prevention, and his understanding that he was entitled to maintain existing stopbanks.

Although the Court was sympathetic to Mr Ramsey's concerns regarding flooding of his property, it found that the works went beyond flood prevention and noted that the RMA provides a mechanism for emergency works where necessary.

Ultimately, the Court found that Mr Ramsey should have been on notice that the works required resource consent, given three abatement notices had previously been issued. The Court found that his failure to make reasonable inquiries with a planner or the Council demonstrated a ‘cavalier attitude to compliance’.

The Court held that the offending was deliberate and brazen, and that Mr Ramsey showed a ‘cynical disregard for its ecological status and resultant harm’.

 

Starting point

The Council sought a global starting point of NZD350,000, arguing that the offending was among the most serious RMA prosecutions to come before the courts. The defence sought NZD150,000.

The Court adopted a starting point of NZD300,000, taking into account the serious environmental effects, the deliberate nature of the offending, the need for general deterrence and the matters of national importance under the RMA.

 

Discounts

The Court applied a total discount of 30% as follows:

• 20% for guilty pleas, reduced from the maximum 25% because, although guilty pleas were entered relatively early, agreement on the summary of facts took approximately 18 months.
• 5% for prior good character, reflecting Mr Ramsey's community contributions, charitable activities and lack of previous RMA convictions.
• 5% for age and stage, recognising that he is 85 years old.

The final fine was NZD210,000 after these discounts.

 

Takeaways

This case demonstrates that the Court has not shied away from handing down six-figure fines for serious RMA offending, particularly where offending is deliberate and causes significant environmental harm.

The offending in this case pre-dated the substantial increase in maximum RMA fines that applies to offending from 21 August 2025. The maximum fine is now NZD1 million for an individual and NZD10 million for a company. These increased fines have not yet come before the courts. When these increased fines are applied, perhaps we can expect six-figure fines to become the new normal.