SPACKMAN V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000843

SPACKMAN V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000843

The Court held the Council committed material errors of law: it misclassified the application by failing to identify the part of the land in the Rural General Zone (thus treating it as a controlled activity rather than discretionary), conflated the s93 and s94 notification/service analyses, and approved building platforms abutting the Rural General Zone in breach of site setback requirements; these errors were material and the subdivision consent creating Lot 2 was set aside and remitted to the Council for reconsideration with fresh s93/s94 analyses, while consents for Lots 3 and 4 remained intact subject to an added consent notice.

Citation
openlaw-3856f1f5_d680_47c4_bc0a_d5fabf7c0236.pdf
Parties
Applicant: Michael Spackman; First Respondent: Queenstown Lakes District Council; Second Respondents: Raylene Jelley; William Jelley; Lyall William Jelley
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Subdivision consent creating Lot 2 quashed; consents for Lots 3 and 4 left intact subject to modification; matter remitted to Council to reconsider Lot 2 with fresh s93 and s94 analyses; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Public Notification, Resource Consent, Zoning, Subdivision, Site Standards, Building Platforms, Adverse Effects, Procedural Requirements, Consent Notices
Resource Management Administrative Law Planning Law Property Law Public Notification Resource Consent Zoning Subdivision +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Spackman

Applicant

Queenstown Lakes District Council

First Respondent

Raylene Jelley; William Jelley; Lyall William Jelley

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subdivision was misclassified as a controlled activity instead of discretionary due to part of the site being in the Rural General Zone
  2. 2 Whether the Council conflated s93 and s94 RMA tests when assessing notification and service and thus failed to consider who may be adversely affected
  3. 3 Whether approval of building platforms abutting the Rural General Zone breached the District Plan site standards (10m setback)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Council committed material errors of law: it misclassified the application by failing to identify the part of the land in the Rural General Zone (thus treating it as a controlled activity rather than discretionary), conflated the s93 and s94 notification/service analyses, and approved building platforms abutting the Rural General Zone in breach of site setback requirements; these errors were material and the subdivision consent creating Lot 2 was set aside and remitted to the Council for reconsideration with fresh s93/s94 analyses, while consents for Lots 3 and 4 remained intact subject to an added consent notice.

Court Disposition

Subdivision consent creating Lot 2 quashed; consents for Lots 3 and 4 left intact subject to modification; matter remitted to Council to reconsider Lot 2 with fresh s93 and s94 analyses; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • Set aside the Council's consent as to the subdivision creating Lot 2
  • Leave subdivision consent for Lots 3 and 4 intact and require addition of clause 8(o) to the consent notice on the title for Lot 3 specifying that any building within the building platforms on Lots 2 or 3 within 10m of the Rural Lifestyle/Rural General boundary requires a Restricted Discretionary Activity Consent