BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2019] NZCA 175

BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2019] NZCA175 [22 May 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA645/2017CA184/2018[2019] NZCA 175BETWEEN FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTISAppellantAND AUCKLAND UNITARY PLANINDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANELFirst RespondentAUCKLAND COUNCILSecond RespondentHearing: 11 and 12 February 2019 (further submissions on 22 February2019)Court: Asher, Brown and Williams JJCounsel: S J Ryan and R H Ashton for AppellantNo appearance for First RespondentM C Allan for Second RespondentC E Kirman and A K Devine for Housing New ZealandCorporation as IntervenerR E Bartlett QC for Emerald Group Limited as IntervenerJudgment: 22 May 2019 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The appeal against the refusal to grant judicial review is allowed.B The application for judicial review is granted.C The application for leave to appeal is declined.D The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel is ordered to givereasons for its recommendations to the Auckland Council relating tothe zoning and height requirements for the Promenade and Lake RoadBlocks in Takapuna.E The respondents are to pay one set of costs for a standard application on aband A basis with usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.F The High Court costs orders in favour of the respondents andthe Housing New Zealand Corporation are quashed.G The High Court is to make the appropriate order for costs in the High Courtin the light of this judgment.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Asher J)Table of ContentsPara NoIntroductionThe Combined Unitary PlanThe PanelBackground to this appealThe Proposed PlanCreation of the PanelSubmissionsHearingsThe Panel recommendations(i) General(ii) The Promenade Block(iii) The Lake Road BlockThe High Court judgmentThe issueThe obligation to give reasonsWhat reasons were given?The impracticality argumentReliefJurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to this Court?ResultCosts[1][5][11][15][15][17][20][27][31][31][35][38][40][44][46][66][91][102][111][114][118]Introduction[1] This appeal concerns the Auckland Unitary Plan. The appellant,Franco Belgiorno-Nettis, challenges recommendations by the first respondent,the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) to the secondrespondent, the Auckland Council (the Council), and the Council's decision based onthose recommendations. He submits that neither body gave reasons or adequatereasons for the recommendations and the decision. His submissions and those of otherparties focused on the Panel's recommendations, which in relation to the issue relevantto this appeal were adopted by the Council. The lawfulness of the Council's decisiontherefore rests on the Panel's recommendations.[2] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis seeks relief by way of an order quashing or setting asidethe Panel's zoning and building height recommendations as they relate to certain partsof the Takapuna area, and an order remitting those matters back to the Council fora rehearing and reconsideration of submissions.[3] This appeal comes to us through two routes. First it comes as an appeal againsta refusal by Davison J to grant judicial review of the recommendation and decisionsin question.1 Second it comes as an application for leave to appeal the determinationof a point of law of the High Court, and if leave is granted the determination of thatpoint of law in the appellant's favour. Davison J determined this point in a separatejudgment, dismissing the application for leave to appeal.2 An issue arises whetherthere is jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the point of law, which we refer to at the endof this judgment.[4] There was a statement of agreed facts filed in the High Court which agreedvarious background matters, some of which we include in this judgment. The Paneltook no steps in the proceeding and abided the decision of the Court, and the Councilwith the interveners took the burden of responding to the appeal.1 Belgiorno-Nettis v Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel [2017] NZHC 2387 [HighCourt Judgment].2 Belgiorno-Nettis v Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel [2018] NZHC 459, (2018)20 ELRNZ 335 [Leave Judgment].The Combined (Unitary) Plan[5] The Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010 by the LocalGovernment (Auckland Council) Act 2009.3 Part 4 of the Local Government(Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Transitional Provisions Act) wasadded in 2013,4 and set out the process for the preparation, consideration andfinalisation of a "first combined plan for Auckland Council". Section 3(2)(d) providedthat the Act's purpose was to provide "a process for the development of the firstcombined planning document for Auckland Council under the Resource ManagementAct 1991". This document has become known as "the Unitary Plan" and we will adoptthat name.[6] The Unitary Plan was not simply a consolidation of the existing District Plans ofthe old pre-amalgamation cities and districts. It also brought together the land useplanning functions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) controlled byDistrict and City Councils and the coastal, river and lake beds, water use and contaminantdischarge powers vested in Regional Councils.5 This made Auckland City a UnitaryAuthority.6[7] The Unitary Plan process involved five steps. The first stage of the processinvolved the preparation and notification of the Proposed Unitary Plan.7 The secondstage involved a process of receiving and processing submissions. Then the Panel wasto be established to carry out the third stage.8 At the third stage, the Panel was toconsider the submissions on the content of the Proposed Unitary Plan as notified.9The Panel was required to make recommendations no later than "50 working daysbefore the expiry of 3 years from the date on which the Council has notifiedthe proposed plan".10 In the fourth stage the Council was to make decisions3 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, ss 2 and 6.4 Inserted by s 6 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act2013.5 Resource Management Act 1991, ss 9–15.6 Local Government Act 2002, s 5(1).7 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, s 127(1)(a) [TransitionalProvisions Act].8 Section 161.9 Section 128(1).10 Section 146.considering those recommendations within a further 20 working days.11 The fifthstage was the appeal phase.[8] Clearly prompt decision-making was important. The Hon Amy Adams MP,stated in the first reading:12I am concerned that under existing law Auckland Council estimates that itsfirst Unitary Plan could take up to 10 years to become operative. No onebenefits from long, drawn-out, and expensive processes, during which timeAuckland's development stagnates in a cloud of uncertainty.Auckland's economy is too important to New Zealand for us to wait up to adecade for the plan to be implemented. Auckland represents some of our mostpressing housing affordability issues, and the council needs to be able to makechanges to address this issue without long delays.[9] The Council was responsible for stages 1, 2 and 4. The expectation was that underthe new process the Unitary Plan would become operative within three years fromnotification, instead of the six to 10 years likely under the first schedule process ofthe RMA. This was reflected in the provisions of the Act. There is provision in s 147 ofthe Transitional Provisions Act for an extension.[10] Apart from the timeframes and the more limited appeal rights, the structure ofthe Unitary Plan process was not greatly different from the process set out in the firstschedule of the RMA. The process was for the preparation of a draft, the giving ofnotice, the receiving of submissions, provision for hearings, and a decision. However,the decision of the Panel was a recommendatory decision, and the ultimate decisionwas for the Council.The Panel[11] Section 115(1)(g) of the Transitional Provisions Act describes the Panel as"specialist". Under s 161 the Minister for the Environment and Minister ofConservation were to appoint a chairperson and three to 10 other members. The Panelmembers were required collectively to "have knowledge of, and expertise in relationto" the RMA; district and regional plans and policy statements prepared under the Act;Tikanga Māori (as applied in Tāmaki Makaurau); the Auckland region, the people and11 Section 115(1)(k).12 (11 December 2012) 686 NZPD 7331.mana whenua groups of Auckland; and the management of legal proceedings.Ultimately 11 members were appointed, consisting of an Environment Court Judge asChair and senior lawyers, planners, independent hearings commissioners, and otherexperts in local government and economics. There was a team of support staffincluding a Hearings Team that over the period employed eight people (not all at once)and a Planning Team of fourteen planners (again not all at the same time). As wellthere were various support persons and consultants.[12] Section 164 of the Transitional Provisions Act set out the Panel's functions:164 Functions of Hearings PanelThe Hearings Panel has the following functions and powers forthe purposes of holding a Hearing into the submissions onthe proposed plan and any variation permitted by section 124(4):(a) to hold hearing sessions; and(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a),—(i) to hold or authorise the holding of pre-hearing sessionmeetings, conferences of experts, and alternativedispute resolution processes; and(ii) to commission reports; and(iii) to hear any objections made in accordance withsection 154; and(c) to make recommendations to the Auckland Council onthe proposed plan and any variation; and(d) except as expressly provided by this Part, to regulate its ownproceedings in the manner it thinks fit; and(e) to carry out or exercise any other functions or powersconferred by this Part or that are incidental and related to, orconsequential upon, any of its functions and powers under thisPart.[13] Following the hearing of submissions the Panel was obliged to makerecommendations to the Council under s 144(4) of the Transitional Provisions Act.Section 144(4)–(6) provides:Scope of recommendations(4) The Hearings Panel must make recommendations on any provisionincluded in the proposed plan under clause 4(5) or (6) of Schedule 1of the RMA (which relates to designations and heritage orders), asapplied by section 123.(5) However, the Hearings Panel—(a) is not limited to making recommendations only withinthe scope of the submissions made on the proposed plan; and(b) may make recommendations on any other matters relating tothe proposed plan identified by the Panel or any other personduring the Hearing.(6) The Hearings Panel must not make a recommendation on any existingdesignations or heritage orders that are included in the proposed planwithout modification and on which no submissions are received.The section set out other important requirements for the Panel's process whichwe traverse later.[14] The Panel was to remain in existence "until it has completed the performanceor exercise of its functions and powers".13 This included the completion of "anyappeals in relation to the Hearing that are filed in any court".Background to this appealThe Proposed Plan[15] The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the Proposed Plan) was publicly notifiedfor submissions on 30 September 2013. A report evaluating the Proposed Plan waspublished at the same time as the Proposed Plan, in accordance with s 32 of the RMA.The report included sections dealing with, among other topics, urban form and landsupply, residential zones, business zones, including the Metropolitan Centre andMixed Use zones, and building heights. The submission period closed on 28 February2014.[16] In the Proposed Plan the zoning and height limits in relation to the PromenadeBlock and the Lake Road Block facilitated further residential intensification.13 Transitional Provisions Act, s 166.In relation to the Promenade Block it proposed Terrace Housing and ApartmentBuildings (THAB) zoning, the most intense zoning form in this area. The ProposedPlan also contained an additional specific height control of 20.5 metres in relation tothat Block. In relation to the Lake Road Block the Proposed Plan zoned propertiesfronting Lake Road as Mixed Use business zoning with properties on the western sidebehind the Mixed Use zone, zoned THAB.Creation of the Panel[17] Following the enactment of the Transitional Provisions Act, the Panel wasappointed by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation.14The Panel's task was massive and unprecedented in New Zealand. It involved makingdetailed recommendations for the whole of the Auckland area, easily the largestmetropolitan area of New Zealand.[18] A separate Panel was set up to deal with the North Shore and Rodney districts,known as the North Panel. The matters that the Panels were to consider were dividedinto various topic headings which were given numbers. Of the 80 odd topics, those ofrelevance to this appeal were Topic 013: Urban Growth, Topic 078: Additional HeightControls and Topics 080 and 081: Re-zoning and Precincts.[19] The statement of agreed facts recorded that the Council received 9,400 primarysubmissions. 93,600 primary submission points were identified by the Council andsummarised in the Summary of Decisions Requested Report (SDR Report).The SDR report was published on 11 June 2014 (followed by an Errata report on15 August 2014). The period for lodging further submissions in support or oppositionclosed on 22 July 2014. The Council received 3,800 further submissions. The furthersubmissions contained 1,400,000 submission points in support of or opposition tothe primary submission points. The Council received over 20,000 re-zoning requestsin relation to more than 80,000 properties.14 Transitional Provisions Act, s 115(1)(g).Submissions[20] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis was one of thousands of persons who made submissionsto the Panel. His submissions principally related to the proposed zoning and buildingheight controls on properties located in Takapuna, but he also made submissionsregarding zoning in Devonport and Grey Lynn. This appeal relates only to two aspectsof his submissions and the recommendations and Council decision on those two issues.The first aspect was the zoning and height limits of a block of predominantlyresidential land in Takapuna which we will refer to as the "Promenade Block".The second aspect was the zoning and height limits of another block of land in adifferent part of Takapuna known as the "Lake Road Block". The factual submissionsbefore us focused on the Promenade Block.[21] In accordance with the timetable set by the Panel, Mr Belgiorno-Nettisprovided submission points regarding the Promenade and Lake Road Blocks.Mr Belgiorno-Nettis' primary submission included the following relief relevant toTakapuna:Zoning(a) remove the Metropolitan Centre (MC) zone from the west side ofLake Road from Bracken Avenue to Byron Avenue;(b) remove the THAB zone on the properties bounded by the Promenade,Alison Avenue, Earnoch Avenue and Hurstmere Road (the PromenadeBlock), and replace that zone with the Mixed Housing Urban (MHU)zone;Additional Zone Height Control(c) remove the Additional Zone Height Control (Additional HeightControl) from the Mixed Urban zoned properties on the west side ofLake Road in Takapuna from Bracken Avenue to Esmonde Road; and(d) alter the Additional Height Control for the Mixed Urban zonedproperties on the east side of Lake Road in Takapuna from BlomfieldSpa to Park Avenue to a maximum height of three stories.[22] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis supported a freeze on THAB zoning in Takapuna and thatall THAB zoned land be zoned Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) pending a fullprecinct urban design study. He opposed the THAB zoning for the Promenade Blockand any Additional Height Control for that land. In relation to the Lake Road Block,he supported a MHU zoning. He relied also on the evidence of an expert planner,Ms Ogden-Cork, and filed a statement by her setting out in detail why that should beso. There were a considerable number of other submissions in opposition tothe proposed THAB zoning for the Promenade Block.[23] As is the case under the RMA, the Council was entitled to make submissionsand call evidence on the Proposed Plan.15 The Council engaged fully in stages twoand three as was its right, in the matters at issue in this appeal, the Council filedevidence by (among other witnesses) Mr Nicholas Roberts, an independent townplanning expert. In his evidence-in-chief he ultimately proposed that for part ofthe Promenade Block there should be an Additional Height Control of 22.5m forthe Promenade Block which was higher than that in the proposed plan. He alsoproposed such an increase in the THAB zone in specific locations adjacent to centres.[24] Later in the process the Council filed further evidence including a jointstatement of evidence from two Council planners, Ewen Patience and Emily Ip.They did not support the proposed zoning or Mr Roberts' recommendations for thetwo areas, save for the retention of THAB over part of the Promenade Block.They proposed two zonings for the Promenade Block, being MHU and THAB,together with the re-zoning of land north of Earnoch Avenue from Single House zoneto MHU. They ultimately recommended the removal of the Additional Height Controlfrom the Promenade Block. This meant that the Promenade Block in its south-westernpart would be THAB, but the north-eastern parts facing Earnoch Avenue and15 Transitional Provisions Act, s 123(2) provides that the Auckland Council must initially preparethe Auckland combined plan in accordance with clauses 1 to 8A of Schedule 1 of the RMA.Clause 6(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA provides that the local authority in its own area may makea submission.Alison Avenue would be zoned MHU and would be in a L-shape configuration aroundthe THAB area.[25] The Housing New Zealand Corporation (the Corporation) filed submissions inrelation to the region as a whole following the Corporation's wish to provide for moreintensive development in Auckland to respond to population growth. As they relatedto the Promenade Block, the Corporation maps proposed THAB for all the PromenadeBlock without proposing any Additional Height Controls, and THAB extendingfurther out again towards Milford. There were other submissions including that ofEmerald Group Ltd which owned land in the Promenade Block, that supportedproposed zonings of greater density and height.[26] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis' primary submission points and further submission pointsregarding zonings in Takapuna were allocated initially to Topic 81, and laterreallocated to Topic 81(c). Mr Belgiorno-Nettis' submission points in relation toAdditional Height Controls in the Takapuna area were allocated as follows:(a) His primary submission points relating to land zoned Mixed Use onthe east and west sides of Lake Road were allocated to the businesszone topics.(b) His further submission points responding to the submissions of anothersubmitter and relating to the Additional Height Control onthe Promenade Block were allocated to Topic 078.Hearings[27] A prehearing meeting was held for Topic 078, following which the Panelreleased a Pre-Hearing Meeting Report which recorded:The Panel acknowledges linkages between Topic 078 and the residential andbusiness zone topics. Accordingly, the Panel considers it appropriate thatevidence submitted in Topic 078 can discuss other relevant provisions whichput the relief sought in context.[The] Council has already submitted evidence in topics 051-054 whichaddresses its position on the Additional Zone Height Control. This evidencediscusses all of the sites submitted on in Topic 078. Parties are encouraged toreview this evidence. [28] A similar statement was included in the Parties and Issues Report issued bythe Panel prior to the hearing of Topic 078 and in a memorandum filed on behalf ofthe Council.[29] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis filed evidence and appeared at hearings on Topics 078and 081. The North Panel heard submissions on Topic 081 centre by centre and soheard the Takapuna height and zoning submissions together. Mr Belgiorno-Nettismade submissions to the North Panel during the Takapuna hearing on 28 April 2016in which he presented detailed evidence regarding both business and residentialzonings and height controls applicable in the Takapuna area.[30] In addition to submissions on zoning, the Panel heard submissions on specificproposed Takapuna and Milford precincts. Precincts enable local differences to berecognised by providing detailed place-based provisions which can vary the outcomessought by the zone or Auckland-wide provisions.16The Panel recommendations(i) General[31] The Panel process proceeded and was completed, and the Panel presented itsOverview Report on 22 July 2016.17 In the foreword to the report the Panel notedthat following notification of the Proposed Plan on 30 September 2013 the Panel hadreceived the Proposed Plan together with over 13,000 submissions. The Panel statedthat having conducted an extensive hearing process, by May 2016 it had consideredover 10,000 items of evidence presented during 249 sitting days involving 70 hearingtopics, with in excess of 4000 appearances by submitters before the Panel.16 Auckland Council Auckland Unitary Plan Operative (15 November 2016) at 7.17 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Report to Auckland Council: Overview ofRecommendations on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (22 July 2016) [Overview Report].[32] In the Overview Report the Panel gave a general description of how it wentabout its task. It stated:18Because of the scale and range of matters raised in submissions, the Panelchose to structure the hearing according to topics based on the way the Councilgrouped submission points in its Summary of Decisions Requested andFurther Submissions Report. This resulted in approximately 80 hearingtopics, though as the hearing progressed some topics were combined and heardtogether and some were superseded. The approach was generally to deal withtopics moving from the general to the specific. Topics dealing withthe regional policy statement were heard first, by the full Panel. Topicsconcerned with the core text of the regional coastal and district Plan were thenheard, in many cases by four or five Panel members. After the core topics hadall been heard, the Panel then heard submissions on zoning and precinct issuesaffecting specific sites and the location of the Rural Urban Boundary. Thesehearing sessions were usually conducted by three or four Panel members.[33] One of the most important issues confronting the Panel was how toaccommodate, through land use planning policies and rules, the projected populationgrowth for Auckland. The Panel heard and accepted expert estimates of long-termhousing demand of an additional 400,000 dwellings by 2041. The Panelrecommended intensification around "centres and corridors" to assist in meeting thatdemand. It recommended that most of the additional housing capacity be located onor near main road corridors and railway stations.[34] The most intensive residential zones of Residential THAB zone andResidential MHU zone are clustered around centres, transport nodes and alongtransport corridors, while the lower intensity zones of Residential MHS zone,Residential Large Lot zone, are generally, located at a greater distance from theseplaces.19(ii) The Promenade Block[35] Ultimately the recommendation made by the Panel did not follow exactly anyof these specific recommendations. It divided the Promenade Block into two zones asproposed by Mr Patience and Ms Ip (THAB and MHU), but incorporated the 22.5mAdditional Height Control (proposed by Mr Roberts for a part of the Block) overthe proposed THAB portion of the Block. There was no Additional Height Control18 At 23.19 At 57.for the L-shaped MHU portion. The Panel also recommended applying the MHU zoneas proposed by Mr Patience and Ms Ip.[36] The Council issued its decision on the Panel's recommendations withinthe required time. On the issues relevant to this appeal, the Panel's recommendationswere accepted.[37] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis did not therefore succeed in his submissions aimed atlimiting the density and height in the areas, although the Council also did not get whatit sought.(iii) The Lake Road Block[38] The history of conflicting submissions in relation to the Lake Road Block ismore complex than that for the Promenade Block and we will not set it out in detail.As with the Promenade Block, the evidence featured recommendations fromthe Council officers, Mr Patience and Ms Ip, which varied from the original evidenceprovided by the Council, and the evidence from another Council officer and consultantplanner, together with other interested persons including Mr Belgiorno-Nettis.The Lake Road Block was an area of land positioned on both the eastern and westernsides of Lake Road and Takapuna. Like the Promenade Block it was in the outskirtsof the existing central business zone of Takapuna. The Panel recommendation, andthe Council decision, was to:(a) Retain Mixed Use zone on both eastern and western sides of Lake Road(recommended by Mr Patience/Ms Ip);(b) Decrease the height of the Additional Height Control applying tothe land zoned Mixed Use to the west of Lake Road from 24.5m to 21m (asrecommended by Mr Moffatt who gave evidence-in-chief for the Council);(c) Decrease the height of the Additional Height Control applying tothe land zoned Mixed Use zone to the east of Lake Road from 24.5m to 18m(as recommended by Mr Moffatt);(d) Rezone part of the MHS to the east of the land zoned Mixed Use onLake Road to MHU (as recommended by Mr Patience and Ms Ip); and(e) Increase the height of the Additional Height Control for the THAB landto the west of the Mixed Use zone land on Lake Road from 20.5m to 22.5m(as recommended by Mr Roberts who also gave evidence as a consultantplanner for the Council).[39] The Council's decision was released on 19 August 2016. Mr Belgiorno-Nettisthen filed these proceedings in the High Court without delay on 16 September 2016.The High Court judgment[40] The Judge dealt with the merits of the judicial review application and the pointof law appeal together. The Judge was right to do so, given that they both raisedthe same point of failure to give reasons, and because if an application for judicialreview and appeal are lodged together, the High Court must try to hear the proceedingstogether.20 The Judge noted that it was not disputed before him that the Panel wasrequired to give reasons for its recommendations and that the Council was required togive reasons when rejecting the recommendations.21 As he observed, that wasprescribed by the Transitional Provisions Act.[41] The Judge referred to leading decisions relating to the duty to give reasons, andthen considered "[h]aving regard to the purposes that reasons serve" the statutory andfactual context of the reasons given.22 The Judge analysed the reasons actually givenand concluded that the Panel's reasons were clearly expressed in its reports andconclusions. In his view any reasonably informed reader of the Panel's reports incombination with the planning maps the Panel produced, would have no difficultyidentifying and understanding the Panel's reasons for its recommendations. The Judgeheld:20 Transitional Provisions Act, s 159(3).21 High Court Judgment, above n 1, at [99].22 At [105].[125] While the Panel's reasons for zoning and height controlrecommendations are set out in a number of places in its Overview Report,topic reports and maps, the reports are clearly organised by subject matter asenables a reader to locate parts of particular relevance. Given the approach ofgrouping the submissions, it is inevitable that individual submitters must lookto the Panel's reasons as expressed in general terms, and apply that reasoningto the zoning and height controls as appear in the Panel's version ofthe planning maps, in order to determine the Panel's reasons.[42] The Judge concluded that neither the Panel nor the Council made any error oflaw in relation to their interpretation or application of the Transitional Provisions Act.The Panel was not required to address submissions in any more detail than wasappropriate to explain its reasons in relation to topics within which issues and mattersraised in the submissions were grouped.23 The Panel and the Council therefore hadmade no error of law.[43] The Judge also dismissed the judicial review application, and found that therehad been an observance of the requirements of natural justice.24 Therefore, foressentially the same reasons in respect of both the appeal on a point of law and judicialreview, he dismissed both claims.The issue[44] The Council and other interveners did not dispute that the Panel in a generalsense had a duty to give reasons. As we set out later in this judgment, we considerthat that was the correct position for the respondents to take. Instead the contest beforeus focused on whether the Judge was right in concluding that adequate reasons weregiven by the Panel.[45] The starting point must be to consider the ambit of the duty of the Panel to givereasons in all the circumstances, and then what reasons if any were in fact given bythe Panel, and whether they were adequate. We consider this in the context of judicialreview.23 At [130].24 At [133].The obligation to give reasons[46] It was stated in Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd that there is no invariable rule inNew Zealand, outside of specific legislation, that courts must give reasons fortheir decisions.25 However, where a body is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial rolethe provision of reasons can be seen as an aspect of the principle of open justice.26In that judgment three reasons for this view were discussed, which we traverse.[47] Open justice, the ability to see and understand the court process, is critical tothe maintenance of public confidence in our court system. If no reasons are given forjudicial and quasi-judicial authority being exercised in a particular way, an aspect ofopen justice is lost. The parties cannot be sure why they won or lost and the party wholost will be left wondering about the efficacy of participating in a process where if youlose, you do not know why. The rule of law is not seen to be working. Thus inR v Awatere the Court declined to lay down "an inflexible rule of universalapplication", but recognised that "it must always be good judicial practice to providea reasoned decision".27[48] As an aspect of this, the giving of reasons is important also because if reasonsare not given, it is not possible to know whether there has been an error or mistakemade by the decision-maker. A party is obliged to guess or infer. When a decisiondoes not accord with submissions received it is a possible inference that this is becausenone of the submissions have been found to be satisfactory and the decision-makerhas found its own path. However, there are always other possibilities, for instance thatthe decision-maker has misunderstood or overlooked a submission or perhaps actedentirely capriciously. As was stated in Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd "[j]udicialaccountability, which is maintained primarily through the requirement that justice beadministered in public, is undermined."2825 Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3 NZLR 546 (CA) at [75].26 For an example of the importance of the principle of open justice, see Erceg v Erceg [Publicationrestrictions] [2016] NZSC 135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [2].27 R v Awatere [1982] 1 NZLR 644 (CA) at 648–649. But see also R v MacPherson [1982] 1 NZLR650 (CA) at 652; and R v Jefferies [1999] 3 NZLR 211 (CA).28 Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd, above n 25, at [79].[49] On this topic, Somers J stated in R v MacPherson that the Judge is under a dutyto make "such findings or express such reasons or conclusions as in the particularcircumstances are necessary to render the right of appeal effective".29 The importanceof this was summarised by Lord Donaldson MR in R v Civil Service Appeal Board,ex parte Cunningham:30 the board should have given outline reasons sufficient to show to what theywere directing their mind and thereby indirectly showing not whethertheir decision was right or wrong, which is a matter solely for them, butwhether their decision was lawful. Any other conclusion would reducethe board to the status of a free-wheeling palm tree.[50] Finally, it is important that reasons be given, because this provides a disciplinewhich will require a judge to formally marshal reasons. It will ensure considereddecision-making. Requiring reasons is in itself is a way of forcing the observation ofnatural justice.[51] In Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd the Court recognised that on occasions reasonsmay be abbreviated and that, in some cases, they will be evident without expressreference.31[52] The duty to give reasons is expressly placed on the Panel by the TransitionalProvisions Act. Section 144(1)–(3) requires the Panel to make recommendations tothe Council on the Proposed Plan. The Panel must make recommendations on anyprovisions included in the Proposed Plan, but it is not limited to recommendationswithin the scope of the submissions made, and may make recommendations on anyother matters.32 It can provide a number of reports, but they must include the Panel'srecommendations on the topic or topics covered by the report and identify anyrecommendations that are beyond the scope of the submissions made in respect of thattopic. Specifically in relation to reasons s 144(7)–(10) provides:29 R v McPherson, above n 27, at 652.30 R v Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310 at 319, quoted inLewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd, above n 25, at [81].31 Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd, above n 25, at [81].32 Transitional Provisions Act, s 144(4)–(6).144 Hearings Panel must make recommendations to Council onproposed plan(7) The Hearings Panel must provide its recommendations to the Councilin 1 or more reports.(8) Each report must include—(a) the Panel's recommendations on the topic or topics coveredby the report, and identify any recommendations that arebeyond the scope of the submissions made in respect of thattopic or those topics; and(b) the Panel's decisions on the provisions and matters raised insubmissions made in respect of the topic or topics covered bythe report; and(c) the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions and, forthis purpose, may address the submissions by grouping themaccording to—(i) the provisions of the proposed plan to which theyrelate; or(ii) the matters to which they relate.(9) Each report may also include—(a) matters relating to any consequential alterations necessary tothe proposed plan arising from submissions; and(b) any other matter that the Hearings Panel considers relevant tothe proposed plan that arises from submissions or otherwise.(10) To avoid doubt, the Hearings Panel is not required to makerecommendations that address each submission individually.(Emphasis added.)[53] This section reflects the importance attached to the giving of reasons bythe common law. The application of it lies at the heart of the issues to be answered inthis appeal. Critically under s 144(8)(c) it provides that while the submissions may begrouped according to the provisions of the proposed plan to which they relate andthe matters to which they relate, the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions orgrouped submissions "must" be included.[54] This requirement to give reasons is similar to the scheme in the RMA.Clause 10(2) of sch 1, using the same words as the Transitional Provisions Act,provides that a local authority "must" include reasons for accepting or rejectingthe submissions, and allows grouping. There is provision made for a Review Panel insch 1. Like the Panel in this case, a Review Panel "must" include in its report itsreasons for accepting or rejecting submissions, and may group them for that purpose.33In all three models, that which applies here, and the two in the RMA, grouping is onlyan aspect of giving reasons, as is the provision permitting the Local Authority orReview Panel to not address each submission individually.34 The obligation to givereasons can be seen as reflected in these RMA provisions.[55] The Panel was chaired by an Environment Court Judge and had some featuresof a court hearing process, including notification of interested persons, electronicexchanges of relevant submissions and evidence, and limited evidence hearings.In deciding on its recommendations it had to objectively determine multiple issueswhich were often contentious. Its function could be fairly described as quasi-judicial.[56] The rights of appeal are circumscribed. A submitter has a right of appeal tothe Environment Court under s 156(1) of the Transitional Provisions Act in respect ofa provision or matter relating to the proposed plan that the person addressed intheir submission. Before this right arises, it is necessary however under s 156(1)(b)for the Council to have rejected a related recommendation of the Panel, and to havedecided on an alternative solution which resulted in the provision being included inthe Proposed Plan or a matter being excluded from the Proposed Plan. If the Council'salternative solution included elements of the Panel's recommendation, the right ofappeal is limited to the effect of the differences between the alternative solution andthe recommendation.35 There is also a right of appeal if, alongside other requirements,the Panel has identified a recommendation as being beyond the scope ofthe submissions made on the Proposed Plan,36 but only if the submitter "is, was, orwill be" unduly prejudiced by the inclusion or exclusion.[57] There is also a right of appeal to the High Court on a question of law, which isthe course of action taken by Mr Belgiorno-Nettis in the High Court, together with33 Resource Management Act, sch 1 cl 54(2)(a).34 Schedule 1 cls 10(3) and cl 54(7).35 Transitional Provisions Act , s 156(2).36 Section 156(3).his judicial review application. We address this later in this judgment whenwe determine the application for leave to appeal.[58] In practical terms these limited appeal rights mean that the merits of asubmission will be considered only once. It might be thought that this in some wayindicates that reasons are less important, as factual determinations cannot bechallenged save in limited circumstances so the reasons for the factual determinationsdo not need to be stated. It is true that this aspect of the need for reasons may applywith less force, but it is more than counteracted by the even greater need for justice tobe seen to be done by the public, with the reasons for the unchallengeable decisionsbeing apparent. Otherwise the reasons could be entirely arbitrary and no-one wouldknow or be able to challenge recommendations or the decision by judicial review, aremedy expressly recognised as still applicable under the Transitional ProvisionsAct.37 In our view the very limited rights of appeal weigh in favour of the giving ofdiscernible reasons, rather than against it. An unsuccessful submitter should be ableto understand why the submission has failed. A submitter who cannot understand whya submission has been rejected, and who has no right of appeal against the decision ismore likely to be left nursing a sense of uncertainty and unfairness.[59] It has been a theme of the respondents' submissions that given the process,the statements of general principle, and the results, reasons can be inferred. We dealwith this specifically later, but as a general proposition excusing the giving of reasonson this basis should be done with considerable caution. Inferences drawn fromthe result because there is no other way to discern why the result has been reached canbe wrong, and tantamount to guess work. That is why the authorities we havementioned have placed such importance on the giving of reasons.[60] The Panel is not a decision-making body as its task is limited to makingrecommendations. However, the Panel was chaired by an Environment Court Judge.It was of a multi-disciplinary character and it was made up of persons whose broadexperience would make them suited for the difficult task ahead. The timeframe forthe Council to accept or reject the Panel's recommendations was extremely tight.37 Section 159(1).The structure created inevitably left it for the Panel to do most of the effectivedecision-making, with the Council itself having a far more Olympian role. It wassimply not possible for the Council to analyse all the submissions in any detail.That was the task of the Panel.[61] The decision of Hollander v Auckland Council was relied on by the Council insupport of its submission that adequate reasons were given. 38 The question of reasonsarose in that case as part of multiple challenges to the relevant parts of the Council'sdecision on the Unitary Plan. One of the grounds was that inadequate reasons weregiven. It was stated by the High Court that the nature of the Council's functions wassuch as to engage the legal obligations to provide reasons that are cast upon judicialand quasi-judicial bodies. However, it was held that the reasons for the Council'sdecision could be discerned from the text of the relevant reports.39 Heath J wasultimately satisfied that the Panel had given adequate reasons to supportits recommendation that the land in question be zoned mixed rural.40 There had beena grouping of submissions but the Judge referred to specific statements aboutthe zoning in question in the Panel recommendations. The zoning issues were muchbroader in that case than in the present, and there was reference to them in the text ofthe decision. We do not find the case to be of assistance in the analysis that we haveto undertake relating as it does to reasons for these specific zoning and heightdecisions.41[62] The Council also relied on the High Court decision of Albany NorthLandowners v Auckland Council.42 That decision concerned whetherthe recommendations of the Panel to the Council were within the scope of submissionsmade in respect of the Proposed Plan. There were issues as to whether the Panel hada duty to identify specific submissions and to deal with submissions directly ratherthan indirectly, amongst other issues. The question of giving reasons did not arisedirectly. However the giving of reasons was touched on in the course of Whata J's38 Hollander v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 2487.39 At [65]–[72].40 At [73].41 The decision was not subjected to analysis before us, and we make no comment on whether it wasrightly decided.42 Albany North Landowners v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 138.assessment of the Panel's duties. He referred to s 144(8), and held in a passage reliedon by the Council in this case:[143] Approaching the issue purposively and in light of the scheme ofPart 4, it is, as Mr Somerville QC submitted, unrealistic to expect the IHP tospecify and then state the reasons for accepting and rejecting each submissionpoint. As Ms Kirman helpfully noted there were approximately 93,600submission points in respect of the PAUP. It would have been a Herculean taskto list and respond to each submission with reasons, especially giventhe limited statutory timeframe to produce the reports (3 years). Furthermore,the listing of individual submissions and the reasons given would inevitablyhave involved duplication, adding little by way of transparency or utility tointerested parties, provided the issues raised by the submissions are addressedby topic in the reasons given by the IHP. Accordingly I can see no proper basisfor reading into s 144(8) a mandatory obligation for greater specificity thanthat adopted by the IHP, namely to identify groups of submissions on a topicby topic basis.(Emphasis added.)[63] This statement does no more than correctly apply s 144(10). The issue referredto in the quoted extract was whether there should be reasons for each submission point,rather than grouping. That is not the issue in this case. It is not suggested that reasonsshould be provided in relation to each submission, and indeed the emphasised clausein the quote shows an expectation that reasons will be given in the particular matterby topic. Mr Ryan's submission for Mr Belgiorno-Nettis here is not aboutthe grouping or non-grouping of submissions and reasons, but that there were noreasons at all.[64] In the present case Davison J quoted the above statement from Albany NorthLandowners v Auckland Council, and referred to the scale of the Panel's task.The Judge noted that the Panel, while required to include reasons, was specificallyempowered to address submissions by grouping them according to the provisions ofthe Unitary Plan to which they related, or according to the matters they related to.The Judge held:[111] In this statutory context, I consider that it would be sufficient forthe Panel to group submissions by reference to the issues, relief or "topics" towhich the submissions were directed. There was in my view, no criteria forthe grouping of submissions that would require the Panel to group submissionson the basis of their connection to a specific site, or by reference tosite-specific issues.[65] We accept the Judge's observation that it would be sufficient for the Panel togroup submissions by reference to "matters" if particular features arising fromsubmissions were stated and submissions on those topics grouped, and reasons on eachtopic given.43 Accepting this, there is still a duty to give reasons for accepting orrejecting submissions on a topic even if those submissions are grouped, andthe reasons be of a summary nature. If the Judge is indicating otherwise,we respectfully disagree with him. While grouped and summarised reasons could besufficient in the context of the particular process, some articulation of the Panel'sthinking was required. A reader should understand why a decision such as the zoningand height levels for a significant block of land has been made. This can be in shortform, and depending on the circumstances a few paragraphs or even a few sentencesmay be enough. But the "why" should be stated.What reasons were given?[66] The Panel report consisted of an Overview Report and separate reports ontopics. Readers were encouraged to read the Overview Report and then readindividual topic reports.[67] The Judge held:[118] In the Overview Report the Panel clearly expressed its reasons foradopting an approach to both zoning and height controls that would enableintensification of development in and around metropolitan and town centresand transport corridors. The rationale was that such an approach wouldrespond to the rapid population growth that has occurred in the region andwhich is anticipated to continue. [68] At the outset of the hearing we asked Mr Allan, for the Council, to identify inthe recommendations the reasons that were given for the zoning and height levels ofthe two areas that were the subject of Mr Belgiorno-Nettis' submissions. It is fair tosay that he could not point to any articulated reasons for the acceptance or rejection ofMr Belgiorno-Nettis' submission specifically. The submission is not mentioned inthe Panel recommendations.43 High Court Judgment, above n 1, at [112].[69] However, as we have said, this is not necessarily a failure, if the submissionshave been grouped under s 144, and reasons for accepting or rejecting them can befound in relation to grouped submissions. We accept that reasons may be abbreviatedor on occasions self-evident.[70] Mr Allan relied on various statements in the Overview Report whichhe submitted were "high level" reasons that amounted to adequate reasons. The Panelstated that to enable greater capacity as required it identified areas at the edges ofthe existing metropolis as being suitable for urbanisation, but also by allowing greaterintensification of existing urban areas with a strong focus on the existing centres suchas Takapuna. Mr Allan submitted that the Panel report explained clearly andconsistently the need to focus intensification and growth around centres and corridors,to implement the growth strategy in the Unitary Plan and to promote a compact urbanform. The Panel referred in its topic reports to having pursued a "centres and corridorstrategy". This is a consistent theme. Mr Allan submitted that these were reasons forthe Panel's rejection of Mr Belgiorno-Nettis' submission.[71] More specifically Mr Allan asserted that while the Panel did not providereasons which expressly addressed the specific zoning height limits contested byMr Belgiorno-Nettis, it was not required to do so. The reference to a "centres andcorridors" approach provided clear reasoning and justification for the heightprovisions that were ultimately recommended. He also referred to the variousdocuments that followed the Overview Report.[72] We have examined the Overview Report. It is an extensive document.Counsel made reference to the Executive Summary where it is stated:44The recommended response to this issue is to enable greater capacity both byidentifying areas at the edges of the existing metropolis which are suitable forurbanisation and by allowing greater intensification of existing urban areaswith a strong focus on the existing centres. By utilising several methods forgreenfield development and brownfield redevelopment, this responseprovides multiple ways of accommodating growth. It also protects existingvalues of significant areas and items of natural and historic heritage and ofecological value, the taonga held closely by Mana Whenua, volcanicviewshafts and the maunga themselves, air and water quality, the naturalcharacter of the coastal environment and the special character of many places.44 Overview Report, above n 17, at 9.[73] It is stated that the Panel's recommended response to this involves manyelements which, implemented together, can improve the Unitary Plan's approach tomanaging growth. In summary, the recommendations for managing use anddevelopment to provide for growth included:45i. Affirming the Auckland Plan's development strategy of a qualitycompact urban form focussed on a hierarchy of business centres plusmain transport nodes and corridors.ii. Concentrating residential intensification and employmentopportunities in and around existing centres, transport nodes andcorridors so as to encourage consolidation of them while:a. allowing for some future growth outside existing centresalong transport corridors where demand is not well served byexisting centres; andb. enabling the establishment of new centres in greenfield areasafter structure planning.[74] The Panel goes on to refer to the need to ensure capacity to meet the next sevenyears' demand:46A reasonable estimate of residential demand over the next seven yearsincludes a current shortfall of around 40,000 dwellings and annual demand inthe order of 13,000 dwellings or 91,000 over the seven years.(Citations omitted.)[75] A Plan is attached to the Overview of the Report showing high density forthe Takapuna area (amongst a number of areas) which would appear to includethe Promenade and Lake Road Blocks. It is stated:47The spatial pattern of enabled residential capacity can also be observed fromthe zoning maps. The more intensive residential zones of Residential-TerraceHousing and Apartment Buildings Zone and Residential-Mixed HousingUrban Zone are clustered around centres, transport nodes and along transportcorridors, while the lower intensity zones of Residential-Mixed HousingSuburban Zone, Residential-Single House Zone and Residential-Large LotZone are, generally, located at a greater distance from these places.45 At 10.46 At 52.47 At 57.[76] We agree that the Overview Report sets out a general approach to zoning andheight controls which would enable intensification of development in and aroundmetropolitan and town centres and transport corridors. The reason for that approach,evident from the Overview Report, is that the Proposed Plan envisaged the need forapproximately 400,000 additional dwellings in the Auckland region by 2041 toaccommodate between 700,000 to 1,000,000 more residents over that period.48[77] We do not see these general statements as providing any sort of a reason forthe acceptance or rejection of a specific submission or group of submissions whenthey are competing. It is no more than a statement of principle or approach. We areunable to agree with the submission that this was a reason for the rejection ofMr Belgiorno-Nettis' submission. The competing evidential positions onthe Promenade and Lake Road Blocks are not mentioned at all. There is not sufficientmaterial to be able to say why the Panel made its recommendations concerning thoseBlocks. It is not self-evident.[78] We cannot agree with the assumption of the Judge that by making variousoverview statements of policy, the Panel was providing reasons for the acceptance orrejection of submissions or groups of submissions. The Panel did explain inthe Overview Report that site-specific topics were included in its re-zoning andprecincts reports. There were reasons given for Precinct recommendations. They werereasons given directly relating to specific zoning areas or maximum heights or groupsof or individual submissions. But there were no reasons either grouped or otherwise,that could explain the Promenade Block and Lake Road Block decisions.[79] To give a specific example, in one of the paragraphs put forward by Mr Allanas being a reason, it is stated:6.2.3. Enabling feasible capacity for at least seven yearsThe Panel has recommended in the regional policy statement that the Councilbe required to ensure on an ongoing basis there is sufficient feasible enabledcapacity to meet at least the next seven years' demand, and that the Councilundertakes periodic market studies to test the extent to which this requirementis being met. It is also appropriate that this recommended regional policy48 At 47.statement requirement is used to test the sufficiency of the Panel'srecommended Unitary Plan.A reasonable estimate of residential demand over the next seven yearsincludes a current shortfall of around 40,000 dwellings and annual demand inthe order of 13,000 dwellings or 91,000 over the seven years.6.2.4. Recommended Unitary Plan promotes centres and corridorsstrategyThe Panel has been careful to recommend a spatial pattern of capacity thatpromotes the centres and corridors strategy and a more compact urban form.This pattern is a prerequisite to the success of public transport and the efficientfunctioning of the city.(Citations omitted).[80] All that can be taken from this, if Mr Belgiorno-Nettis is looking for reasons,is that these very broad principles that are outlined have in some general way beenpreferred to his specific submission. However as we have set out, his submission wasnot entirely rejected, and none of the Council recommendations were entirelyaccepted, and the Panel ultimately recommended densities and heights in betweenthe extremes in the submissions. How the submissions and evidence worked toachieve this result is left unstated. It is unknown, and a reader is left to speculate abouta compromise.[81] The maps attached to the Overview Report show areas for greater density andthese include the Takapuna area. There had been general references to the need to usea number of areas listed, including Takapuna, to achieve the necessary urban growth.However, there is nothing at all in the Overview Report relating to a specific Takapunaarea.[82] In relation to heights there is this statement:49We suggest that such a bold and innovative approach within the key 'urban'zoned locations, which will provide for residential activities and development,would need to include:49 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Report to Auckland Council: Hearing Topics059–063 Residential Zones (July 2016) at 12.• Moderate increases to the permitted height limits in appropriatelocations (being in and around centres, and within walking distanceof public transport facilities and other recreational, community,commercial and employment opportunities and facilities);• Significant reductions in, or removal of, land use density controls(particularly in the Residential-Mixed Housing Suburban andthe Residential-Mixed Housing Urban zones);• A reduction in the currently proposed extensive suite of quantitativedevelopment controls, such that a limited number of quantitativecontrols are retained to address the key matters which havethe potential to create adverse effects external to a site, most notablyin relation to amenity effects (such as retention of building height,height in relation to boundary and yard, building coverage,impermeable surface controls for instance); with the remainder ofcontrols which relate to potential effects internal to a site beingaddressed in a more flexible way through the use of design-relatedmatters of discretion and assessment criteria; and• A simplified yet potentially strengthened, suite of matters ofdiscretion and assessment criteria, particularly in relation todevelopment control infringements (in order to address concerns ofneighbours in relation to amenity impacts, and provide clear guidanceto processing planner to assist in their assessment), as well as designassessment. (Paragraphs 27 to 30.4).The Panel in general agrees with the evidence presented by HousingNew Zealand, as set out above. In response to Housing New Zealand'sevidence and other submitters' evidence (addressed below) the Panel hasamended the residential provisions to enable greater residential capacity.At the same time the Panel believes the amended provisions will also enablegood urban design and planning outcomes. This is necessary to give effect tothe regional policy statement and to have due regard to the Auckland Plan.Other provisions have also been included to enable greater capacity and moreflexibility in the supply of housing. These include the provision of minordwellings in the Residential-Large Lot Zone, Residential-Rural and CoastalSettlement Zone and the Residential-Single House Zone. It is not necessaryto have these as a class of activity in the Residential-Mixed HousingSuburban, Residential-Mixed Housing Urban and Residential-TerraceHousing and Apartment Buildings zones as these zones provided for a numberof dwellings as of right. The conversion of dwellings is provided for in allzones except the Residential-Large Lot Zone, and a purpose statement hasbeen included for this activity/rule.[83] These comments are not site or area specific, and we are unable to see this asa statement of reasons that in any way explains the Council zoning and heightdecisions in relation to the Promenade and Lake Road Blocks. They are statements ofprinciple that may guide the Panel in reaching specific decisions, but they do notexplain why individual height decisions in the face of competing submissions, weremade for particular areas.[84] There is a zoning and precincts report that the Panel prepared which explainsthe changes it recommended.50 In an annexure to the Panel's rezoning and precinctsreport the Panel explained the reasons for its recommendations regarding TakapunaPrecincts 1 and 2. The Panel explained that the Takapuna Precinct 1 wasrecommended for inclusion in the Plan as it provides for a more nuanced building andheight outcome and that it considered the Precinct appropriate:51 because it provides for an urban design outcome in regard to buildingheights that will better maintain the amenity values of the coastal environmentand the existing developments than the default heights in the underlyingBusiness-Metropolitan Centre Zone. The precinct will provide for a graduatedincrease in building heights from four to five storeys on the coastal edge tounlimited heights mid-block to the west of Lake Road. The Panel relies onthe modelling evidence of Mr Sills for the Council that demonstrated thatthe shadowing and dominance effects of the precinct heights on the coastalreserve would be acceptable.[85] And in relation to Takapuna Precinct 2 the Panel said:52Having reviewed the evidence, the Panel finds that the precinct is no longernecessary with the changes recommended to the general provisions forthe Residential-Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone andthe associated Business-Metropolitan Zone, along with other Auckland-widerequirements. It agrees with those submitters [details omitted] whorecognised that Takapuna is a key metropolitan centre around whichintensification must follow in order to give effect to the compact quality urbanform principle. Concerns regarding urban design and spatial form can andwill be addressed through the relevant provisions.[86] These statements were referred to by the Judge and he observed thatthe rationale for the Panel's zoning and height control recommendations are evidentand clearly expressed in these statements. We agree. In our view what these extractsserve to demonstrate is how it is possible to give general reasons for groupedsubmissions.50 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel Report to Auckland Council – Changes tothe Rural Urban Boundary, Rezoning and Precincts: Hearing Topics 016, 017 Rural UrbanBoundary 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and 081 Rezoning and Precincts (GeographicAreas) (July 2016) [Rezoning and Precincts Report].51 Annexure 4 at 128.52 Annexure 4 at 195.[87] No such reasons grouped or otherwise were given for the ultimate decisions asto the planning of the Promenade and Lake Road Blocks. The decision itself onthe zone and heights can only be discerned from an examination of the maps that wereattached to the report. It is these maps which show the ultimate recommended zoningand height controls that we have summarised earlier in this judgment. Clearly therewill have been a reasoning process carried out by the Council for it to have reachedthis decision. However, no reasons are given as to why the Panel re-drew the maps toshow the particular zonings and height restrictions. The reader is left to infer that therehas been some reasoning process that presumably involved the application ofthe principles set out in the Overview Report. But which principles and to whatextent?[88] In the Overview Report it is stated by way of explanation of the approach toreasons:53Given the large number of submitters (9,361 primary submitters and 3,915further submitters) and the volume of individual submission points (nearly100,000 primary submission points and over one million further submissionpoints), the Panel has grouped all of the submissions ... While individualsubmissions and points may not be expressly referred to in the reports andrecommendations, all points have nevertheless been taken into account bythe Panel when making its recommendations (see section 2.2 for more detailof the Panel's process).[89] We have no hesitation in accepting this statement by the Panel. Indeed as wewill set out, the process of considering submissions carried out by the Panel was onits face proper and thorough. However, a statement that submissions have been takeninto account cannot be seen as the provision of reasons. It certainly cannot satisfythe underlying policy requirement of transparent and challengeable reasoning.[90] We conclude that while broad policies governing the Panel's decision makingprocess can be discerned from the Overview and the particular reports, there are noreasons given for the recommendations made for the Promenade and Lake RoadBlocks.53 Overview Report, above n 17, at 16.The impracticality argument[91] The factor underlining the High Court decision and the approach ofthe respondents has been the massive task faced by the Panel. The respondentsstrongly defended the Judge's use of the word "impossible" to describe the scale ofthe task if the Panel had had to give reasons. The Judge said:[116] That conclusion is reinforced when one considers the detailed natureof the submissions made by [Mr Belgiorno-Nettis]. The Panel was dealingwith thousands of submissions, including many of a similar nature, directed atsite-specific relief. The numeric volume of the submissions was such aswould have made it simply impossible for the Panel to respond to evengroupings of site-specific submissions and complete its task within the tighttimeframe prescribed by the Act. That situation informs a purposiveinterpretation of Part 4 and the requirements of s 144(8). The fact thatthe Panel was empowered to gather submissions together by reference toprovisions of the proposed plan or other matters that that they related to, andthereby manage and process the volume of material included inthe submissions, is in my view a significant factor indicating the legislativeintent.(Emphasis added.)[92] We do not accept that if a task required by Parliament is extremely difficult, anunambiguous legislative direction can be ignored by a purposive interpretation.Under s 144(8) reasons "must" be given for accepting or rejecting submissions, andfor the explanation we have given for the common law requirement, it is easy to seewhy this requirement was imposed. It is not possible to read the section as requiringanything other than the giving of those reasons.54 In any event, as we will now discuss,we do not accept that the giving of reasons was impossible.[93] In defending the Judge's approach Mr Allan pointed out that there were 20,000re-zoning requests affecting 80,000 properties. The Panel was reporting on far morethan just zoning and height matters. It was required to consider 93,600 primarysubmission points and 1.4 million further submission points in total.[94] In our view the task of responding to these submissions if they were groupedwas plainly not impossible. The Panel specifically said in its Overview Report that allpoints had been "taken into account". What the Panel said it did is supported by54 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Auckland Harbour Board [2001] 3 NZLR 289 (PC) at [9].the exhibits that have been provided. Included in those exhibits are spreadsheetswhich show the listing of all submissions. These show:(a) a summary of what the submitter wanted and a submission theme;(b) a statement as to the properties subject to the submission and theirlocality and zoning;(c) a statement of the requested zone and relevant overlays, precincts andcomplaints;(d) a statement of the planners' proposed position and the reasons forthat planners' proposed position; and(e) a statement of the zone change proposed by the planner, whether therewas a GIS map change and any consequential amendments.[95] The spreadsheet in question was given by the Council planners, Mr Patienceand Ms Ip in their joint evidence report dated 26 January 2016. We attach as ourAppendix A a page of Attachment C to their report, which shows, amongst othersubmission summaries, the submission of Mr Belgiorno-Nettis in relation tothe Takapuna, Milford and Smales Farm areas. His submission on the PromenadeBlock is set out, together with the planners' comments. A less detailed analysis wasattached as Attachment B in relation to the Lake Road Block. We attach a copy ofthe relevant pages as Appendix B. In Attachment B the submissions are groupedwhereas in Attachment A they are not. It can be seen that the evidence has alreadybeen sorted into topics by area, and into topics by theme.[96] We are unable to see why a document like this could not have been adopted oradapted by the Panel, with general reasons shown as part of it. There could have beena further box or area on the spreadsheet in which the Panel expressed its reasons forits decision on the competing positions. Their expression could have been in summaryform, grouping the submissions and giving general reasons. It would not have neededto refer to particular submissions. This is effectively what the Planners did in relationto the Lake Road Block where they grouped the submissions and their summaryresponse to the Panel. More generally it was done in relation to the Precincts.The Panel could have followed the same abbreviated process in stating its decision,with brief reasons. Of course that was not the only reasons methodology that couldhave been adopted. There may well be others. But it would have had the advantageof using an existing format.[97] For the same reasons, we cannot agree with the categorisation of the task ofgiving reasons as quite overwhelming.55 We make it plain that we do not considerthat it was necessary for each submission point to be dealt with by the Panel. Groupingof submissions and general reasoning by geographic area or zoning or height could bepermissible, providing the reason for the zoning or other conclusion reached bythe Panel was clear. A few paragraphs, sometimes a few sentences, per issue could besufficient.[98] Possibly if the Council submission was accepted in preference to othersubmissions, a short statement to this effect, relating it back to the Overview, couldhave been enough. However, as it was, particularly in relation to these areas, whereno particular submission is reflected in the end result, reasons have to be inferred andin the circumstances they are not sufficiently discernible to be capable of analysis andcriticism. As we have set out the requirement of s 144(8) is the same as the generalrequirement for the consideration of preparation, changes and review of policystatements and plans under cl 10 of sch 1 of the RMA. There "must" be reasons foraccepting or rejecting the submissions (allowing grouping).56 All the more so here,where the Panel is quasi-judicial and there is no general right of appeal. Reasons arenot given by declaring a set of overview principles that will be applied, and thenproviding the decision by a zoning map or otherwise without explaining, at least on ageneral or grouped basis, the reasons for that decision. There was a failure to givereasons in breach of s 144(8). It was not possible for the Panel to ignorethe requirement for some issues and not for others.55 High Court Judgment, above n 1, at [114].56 Resource Management Act, sch 1 cl 10(2).[99] Clearly we are unable to fully comprehend or answer all the practical problemsthat the Panel would have faced if it had endeavoured to give reasons on groupsubmissions. We accept the task was considerable, and would have involved asignificant amount of work in summarising and collating. But we have seen enoughto satisfy ourselves that it would not have been an impossible task or if managed fromthe outset overwhelming. After all, the Panel said that it had considered allsubmissions. The articulation of reasons may have involved the employment of morestaff, although there was already a considerable body of expert staff. It may haveinvolved having to ask for some more time to finish the process. What we are clearabout is that the practical difficulties did not entitle the panel to ignore the legislativerequirement for reasons. Parliament had turned its mind to the issue and reasons wererequired. The practical compromise taking account of the practical issues was thatsubmissions could be grouped and reasons given for a decision on a particular topic.In the end the Panel did not so group them in relation to Mr Belgiorno-Nettis'submissions, and other similar submissions. It did not give any reasons.[100] We emphasise that our conclusion only applies to the submission ofMr Belgiorno-Nettis on the Promenade and Lake Road Blocks. These are the onlyrelevant areas that have been the subject of argument. In some areas ofdecision-making, submissions were grouped or even dealt with individually, andreasons were given. The precincts are an example of this. But not in this case. We addthat we see no distinction in relation to the need to give reasons between submissionswhere there was or was not a hearing.[101] It follows that there has been a reviewable error by the Panel, and we allowthe appeal and we uphold the essential ground upon which the application for judicialreview was based, that there was a failure to give reasons. A failure to give reasons,given the express statutory provisions that we have referred to requiring reasons to begiven, must be seen as an error of law. For reasons that we have set out it can also beseen as procedural unfairness.Relief[102] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis seeks an order quashing the Panel's recommendations andthe Council's decisions for the particular sites and for a reconsideration. The Councilsubmits that should the Court be minded to allow the appeal, such an order isunnecessary. Under s 166 of the Transitional Provisions Act the Panel "exists until ithas completed the performance or exercise of its functions and powers in relation tothe Hearing, including any appeals in relation to the Hearingthat are filed in any court". The Panel therefore remains in existence.57 The Councilsuggests that the appropriate relief should the appellant be successful is to remitthe zoning and Additional Height Control provisions for the two sites in question tothe Panel for further reasons to be provided. Mr Ashton for Mr Belgiorno-Nettisaccepted that this was a form of relief that could be provided, but submitted thatquashing the decision was the better and more practicable outcome.[103] In assessing this question we bear in mind that there has been no allegationmade of a breach of natural justice by the Panel, beyond the failure to give reasons.The material that we have traversed at some length in this decision shows a verythorough analysis of the submissions, and that hearings were conducted whenrequired. Putting to one side the question of reasons, there is nothing that gives uscause for concern about the process undertaken. We also take into account that if therewas a reconsideration of the issues by the Panel, it may be that all those interestedwould have to be given notice. There may have been intervening new relevant events.Any re-hearing could be a significant exercise.[104] In Marshall Cordner & Co v Canterbury Clerical Workers Union it was statedby Cooke P: 58If no reasons are given or apparent, or if such reasons as are given aredeficient, there are various ways in which the matter can be put right onappeal, including directing the Court appealed from to reconsider. 57 This was also the conclusion reached in North Eastern Investments Ltd v Auckland Council [2018]NZCA 629 at [69].58 Marshall Cordner & Co v Canterbury Clerical Workers Union [1986] 2 NZLR 431 (CA) at 434.[105] In R v Awatere in the criminal context Woodhouse P commented that while noadequate reasons were given the court on appeal could be moved:59 to order a rehearing or to rehear the case itself or to make an order thatproper and adequate reasons are to be supplied or even to quash the verdictoutright.Orders have been made in various High Court cases ordering a decision-maker to givereasons.60 However, it is stated in De Smith's Judicial Review that:61Usually, the remedy given in a case of breach of duty to give reasons oradequate reasons is an order quashing the unreasonable decision, rather thanan order to require provision of the reasons. The former remedy is usuallydeemed preferable as it reflects the purpose of reasons to encourage focusseddecision-making and avoids the risk of reconstruction of reasons afterthe decision.(Citations omitted.)The learned authors also observe that where the subject matter is less important thanhuman rights, for example, the court may be more ready to accept subsequentreasons.62[106] Given the nature of this quasi-judicial process chaired as it is by a Judge ofthe Environment Court, the danger of new reasons being composed to supportthe decision does not in our view arise. The indications in the material before us arethat the decision of the Panel was thorough, and that it did consider individualsubmissions (although no conclusion can be reached on this until reasons are given).There is no suggestion that the appropriate Panel cannot be brought together again toreport on the reasons. The Panel, consisting as it does of a judge and a number ofsenior professional persons, will need to confer before it summarises its reasons forreaching the two decisions.[107] Section 303(1) of the RMA provides that the High Court may on applicationor its own motion, make an order directing the Environment Court to lodge with59 R v Awatere, above n 27, at 649.60 Clark v Wellington Rent Appeal Board [1975] 2 NZLR 24 (SC) at 32 and Minister of Conservationv Tasman District Council HC Nelson CIV-2003-485-1072, 9 December 2003 at [117].61 Harry Woolf and others De Smith's Judicial Review (8th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2018) at[7-115].62 At [7-116].the Registrar various things including at s 303(1)(c), a report setting out, so far as isreasonably practicable and in respect of any issue or matter the order may specify, anyreasons or considerations to which the court had regard but which are not set out in itsdecision or report and recommendation. Although this power appears to be designedfor the interlocutory context, it is an indication that Parliament has confidence inthe ability of the Environment Court to give a report on its reasons. The Panel forthe reasons we have discussed, is a body not far removed from the status ofthe Environment Court by dint of its quasi-judicial function, and the identity of itschair.[108] The Transitional Provisions Act expressly provides, under s 166, for the Panelto remain in existence until the performance or exercise of its functions and powersare completed, including in relation to any appeals that are filed in any court.Parliament contemplated that, upon determination of an appeal, it may be necessaryfor the Panel to perform further work.[109] Balancing these factors we consider that the interests of justice can be met bythe Panel being required to provide its reasons. The position can then be reassessedby the parties. If it is considered that there is a basis for a claim, new proceedings canbe filed.[110] We will direct the Panel in respect of the zoning and height decisions relatingto the Promenade and the Lake Road Blocks, to set out the reasons which led it torecommend to the Council the zoning and height requirements for the Promenade andLake Road Blocks. The Panel may address Mr Belgiorno-Nettis' submissionspecifically or may group his submission with others in responding.Jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to this Court?[111] As we have set out, the appeal came to us through two routes, judicial reviewand an application for leave to appeal. In respect of the application for judicial review,it is stated at s 159(1) of the Transitional Provisions Act, that nothing in that part ofthe Act limited or affected any right of judicial review a person may have in respect ofpt 4 of the Act. No issue was taken as to the existence of a right of appeal againstthe judicial review decision.[112] Part 4 of the Transitional Provisions Act contains no specific provision for anappeal to the Court of Appeal of a High Court decision determining an appeal fromthe Panel. Davison J in his separate decision on whether leave should be granted tothis Court, accepted there was jurisdiction to appeal a determination of the High Courtto the Court of Appeal, but refused leave.63[113] Before us the respondents, who had submitted there was no jurisdiction to grantleave in the High Court, did not pursue that submission and focused argument onthe merits of the appeal. Therefore the jurisdiction issue (on which we express noview), was not argued. In the circumstances it is unnecessary for us to determine theissue of leave to appeal. If there was jurisdiction and leave was granted, theconsiderations and decision would have been in substance the same as in relation tojudicial review. For these reasons, not connected to the merits, we will dismissthe application for leave to appeal.Result[114] The appeal against the refusal to grant judicial review is allowed.[115] The application for judicial review is granted.[116] The application for leave to appeal is declined.[117] The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel is ordered to givereasons for its recommendations to the Auckland Council relating to the zoning andheight requirements for the Promenade and Lake Road Blocks in Takapuna.Costs[118] Mr Belgiorno-Nettis, although he has not got the orders he sought, has largelysucceeded on his substantive arguments. The appeal has been allowed and a report ofreasons ordered. This was the respondents' preferred option should the appellantsucceed but argument on the point did not occupy much time. The Council's generalposition was to seek to have the appeal dismissed.63 Leave Judgment, above n 2, at [44] and [62].[119] We regard Mr Belgiorno-Nettis as the successful party. He is entitled to costsin this Court for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements,certified for two counsel, and payable by the respondents. We exclude the Corporationas it played only a small part in the proceeding, and focused on relief, where it was toa degree successful, although not to the extent in all the circumstances that entitles itto costs.[120] The cost orders made by the High Court in favour of the respondents andthe Corporation are quashed. Costs are to be determined afresh in the High Court, inthe light of this judgment.[121] Dr Kirman for the Corporation submitted that even if the appeal was allowed,the costs order in her client's favour in the High Court should stand, as inthe High Court hearing the appeal still related to some land in which the Corporationhad an interest, and so the Corporation was obliged to take steps. We are notsufficiently familiar with what transpired in the High Court to rule on that.So the Corporation costs order is quashed, and it is to be reconsidered bythe High Court in the light of this judgment with the other costs orders.Solicitors:Daniel Overton & Goulding, Auckland for AppellantBrookfields, Auckland for Second RespondentEllis Gould, Auckland for Housing New Zealand CorporationMacDonald Lewis Law, Auckland for Emerald Group LimitedAppendix A64TAKAPUNA, MILFORD AND SMALES FARMAttachment C: Zoning Analysis and Position for each Submission PointNotes: The black text in the "summary" column of this Attachment is as notified. Occasional amendments have been made in red to take account of any re-notified SDR points and also for clarity where necessary.Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings PanelSubmission Point Pathway ReportAuckland Council EvidenceAnalysis Planners' PositionSUBPOINTSUBMITTERNAMETOPIC SUBAREAUNITSUMMARY PROPERTIESSUBJECT TOSUBMISSIONSUBMISSION THEME LOCALITY PAUPZONEREQUESTEDZONERELEVANTOVERLAYS,PRECINCTSANDCONSTRAINTSPLANNERS'PROPOSEDPOSITIONREASONS PROPOSEDZONECHANGEGIS MAPCHANGECONSEQUENTIALAMENDMENTS1744-1 Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezone 5BlomfeldSpa,Takapuna,from MixedUse toMixedHousingSuburbanzone.5 BlomfieldSpa,TakapunaCentres/TerraceHousing ApartmentBuildings (THAB)/MixedUseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna MU MHS N/A DO NOTSUPPORTCHANGE;SUPPORTRETENTIONOFNOTIFIEDZONEDo not support change from MU to MHS.The extent of the MU zone on Lake Rdrecognises theexisting characteristics of a range of non-residential and residential uses. Theproperty is adjacent tothe MC zone with good access to the RFN.Retention of the MU zone is the mostappropriate way to achieve the objectivesof the zone and giveseffect to the RPS.No change No No2800-2 Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezone westside of LakeRoadfrom BrackenAve to ByronAve,TakapunafromMetropolitanCentre toMixed Usewithout anadditionalheightoverlayWest side ofLakeRoad fromBrackenAvenue toByronAvenue,TakapunaCombined rezoning andprecinct submissionsTakapuna MC MU Takapuna 1precinctDO NOTSUPPORTCHANGE;SUPPORTRETENTIONOFNOTIFIEDZONEDo not support change from MC. Takapunais a sub-regional centre and the scale andintensity ofactivities provide for growth and expansion.MC has been applied to Takapuna inaccordance withethe centres strategy/hierarchy under theAuckland Plan and the RPS. The MC zonefor the blockrecognises the long-standing operativebusiness zone and expectation for theblock's developmentpotential.The retention of the zone gives effect to theRPSNo change No No2820-17Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 RezoneAnzac StareabetweenAuburn Stand theTerrace,TakapunafromTerracedHousingandApartmentBuilding andMetropolitanCentre toMixed UseandMetropolitanCentreAnzac StreetbetweenAuburn Streetand TheTerrace,TakapunaCentres/TerraceHousing ApartmentBuildings (THAB)/MixedUseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna THABMCMUMCN/A DO NOTSUPPORTCHANGE;SUPPORTRETENTIONOFNOTIFIEDZONEDo not support change from THAB/MC toMU/MC on Anzac St between The Terraceand Auburn St.A school, office building and residentialcurrently occupy this block. With theexception of the officebuilding site which is already zoned MC, itis appropriate to retain the THAB zoningalong other partsof this block.MU has been established on Lake Rdadjacent to the THAB and MC zones andalong Taharoto Rd,to recognise the mix of commercial andresidential activities occurring at theselocations. A new MUzone along The Terrace may diminish thefunction, role and amenity of the MC zone(particularlyalong Hurstmere Rd) and therefore is notsupported.The retention of the notified zones is themost appropriate way to achieve theobjectives of the MCNo change No No64 Note all names, save that of Mr Belgiorno-Nettis have been redacted.and THAB zones and gives effect to theRPS1667-3 FrancoBelgiorno-NettisTakapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezone thepropertiesbound byThePromenade,Alison Ave,Earnoch AveandHurstmereRoad,Takapuna,from TerraceHousing andApartmentBuildingto MixedHousingUrban.Blockbounded byThePromenade,AlisonAvenue,EarnochAvenue andHurstmereRoad,TakapunaCentres/TerraceHousing ApartmentBuildings (THAB)/MixedUseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna THAB MHU N/A SUPPORTIN PART;PARTIALCHANGESupport partial change of the blockbounded by The Promenade, HurstmereRd, Earnoch Ave andAlison Ave. THAB is appropriate forproperties adjacent to the MC zone.However, taking intoaccount the proximity of the coast andlower density residential to the north,properties on EarnochAve, Alison Ave and 187, 187A HurstmereRd are better suited for MHU, providing abetter transitionbetween the THAB zone and the lowerdensity zones to the north. This is shownon the proposedzoning map for the Takapuna, Milford andSmales Farm topic area in Attachment E.THAB isproposed to be retained for the remainderof the block.The proposed zone change to MHU andthe retention of THAB are the mostappropriate ways toachieve the objectives of the MHU andTHAB zones and gives effect to the RPS.MHU Yes Yes - AZHC(remove fromentireblock)2969-1 Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezone 1KowhaiStreet,Takapunafrom SingleHouse toMixedHousingSuburban.1 KowhaiStreet,TakapunaMixed HousingUrban/Mixed HousingSuburban/Single HouseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna SH MHS N/A SUPPORTIN FULL;CHANGEOF ZONESupport zone change from SH to MHS.There are no site/environmental constraintsat 1 Kowhai St.MHS is consistent with the area's plannedsuburban built character. It is appropriate toonly retain SHon the northern side of Lake View Rd(adjoining Rangitira Ave) which is subject tothe Lake PupukeONF.The zone change is the most appropriateway to achieve the objectives of the MHSzone and giveseffect to the RPS.MHS Yes No3251-2 Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezone 5BlomfieldSpa,Takapunafrom MixedUse toMixedHousingSuburbanzone5 BlomfieldSpa,TakapunaCentres/TerraceHousing ApartmentBuildings (THAB)/MixedUseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna MU MHS N/A DO NOTSUPPORTCHANGE;SUPPORTRETENTIONOFNOTIFIEDZONEDo not support change from MU to MHS.The extent of the MU zone on Lake Rdrecognises theexisting characteristics of a range of non-residential and residential uses. Theproperty is adjacent tothe MC zone with good access to the RFN.Retention of the zone is the mostappropriate way to achieve the objectivesof the MU zone and giveseffect to the RPS.No change No NoSH(inferred) NTakapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezone sitesin AlisonAvenueand Southside ofEarnochAvenue,Takapuna, tohave samezone asadjacentland,northernside ofEarnochAvenue,Brett,Blockbounded byThePromenade,AlisonAvenue,EarnochAvenue andHurstmereRoad,TakapunaCentres/TerraceHousing ApartmentBuildings (THAB)/MixedUseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna THAB SH(inferred)NN/A DO NOTSUPPORTCHANGE;SUPPORTALTERNATIVE ZONEDo not support change from THAB to SH(inferred) for the block bounded by ThePromenade,Hurstmere Rd, Earnoch Ave and AlisonAve. THAB is appropriate for propertiesadjacent to the MCzone. However, taking into account theproximity of the coast and lower densityresidential to thenorth, properties on Earnoch Ave, AlisonAve and 187, 187A Hurstmere Rd arebetter suited forMHU, providing a better transition betweenthe THAB zone and the lower densityzones to the north.This is shown on the proposed zoning mapfor the Takapuna, Milford and Smales Farmtopic area inMHU Yes Yes - AZHC(remove fromentireblock)O'Neill's, andMinehahaAvenues.Infer SingleHouse zoneAttachment E. THAB is proposed to beretained for the remainder of the block.The proposed zone change to MHU andthe retention of THAB are the mostappropriate ways toachieve the objectives of the MHU andTHAB zones and give effect to the RPS.2237-1 Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Rezonepropertiesbounded byThePromenade,AlisonAvenue,EarnochAvenue, andHurstmereRoadTakapunafrom TerraceHousing andApartmentBuildingszone toMixedHousingUrban.Blockbounded byThePromenade,AlisonAvenue,EarnochAvenue andHurstmereRoad,TakapunaCentres/TerraceHousing ApartmentBuildings (THAB)/MixedUseExpansion/ContractionTakapuna THAB MHU N/A SUPPORTIN PART;PARTIALCHANGESupport partial change of the blockbounded by The Promenade, HurstmereRd, Earnoch Ave andAlison Ave. THAB is appropriate forproperties adjacent to the MC zone.However, taking intoaccount the proximity of the coast andlower density residential to the north,properties on EarnochAve, Alison Ave and 187, 187A HurstmereRd are better suited for MHU, providing abetter transitionbetween the THAB zone and the lowerdensity zones to the north. This is shownon the proposedzoning map for the Takapuna, Milford andSmales Farm topic area in Attachment E.THAB isproposed to be retained for the remainderof the block.The proposed zone change to MHU andthe retention of THAB are the mostappropriate ways toachieve the objectives of the MHU andTHAB zones and give effect to the RPS.MHU Yes Yes - AZHC(remove fromentireblock)Takapuna,Milford andSmalesFarmN5 Retain MixedUse andMixedHousingSuburbanzones thatapply toSmalesQuarry, 2Cand2D NorthcoteRoad and 4and 6RangitiraAvenue,Takapuna.[RENOTIFIEDWORDING]2C, 2DNorthcoteRoad; 4, 6RangitiraAvenue,Takapuna.Combined rezoning andprecinct submissionsTakapuna MUMHSMUMHSSignificantEcological Area(SEA); Smales2precinctSUPPORTIN FULL;RETENTIONOFNOTIFIEDZONESupport retention of MU and MHS asunderlying zones for the Smales 2 precinct.MU is appropriatefor sites close to Taharoto Rd (RFN) andMHS is the most appropriate underlyingzone for the siteadjoining Lake Pupuke. Comprehensivedevelopment is enabled by the precinctprovisions.Retention of the MU and MHS zones is themost appropriate way to achieve therelevant objectivesof the precinct and objectives of the zonesand gives effect to the RPS.MUMHSNo NoAppendix B.