REA V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-0162

REA V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2007-485-0162

The Council's decision to treat the application as non-notified and to give no notice to the plaintiff was unlawful and is quashed because the Council did not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied under s 93 that adverse effects would be minor and erred in concluding under s 94 that the plaintiff would not be adversely affected (the material failed to address sunlight/shading, bulk and dominance, traffic and noise adequately); the matter must be reconsidered and the plaintiff must be treated as potentially adversely affected for purposes of s 94 if the Council again seeks non-notified processing.

Citation
openlaw-cdd8f1e8_7917_41c6_9c52_f51ee502f8e3.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Rea; First Defendant: Wellington City Council; Second Defendant: Seatoun Bowling Club Incorporated
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Resource Consent Decision Under the Resource Management Act 1991 / High Court Judgment (final)
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; Council's decision dated 21 February 2006 quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Notification of Resource Consent Applications, Ss 93 and 94 RMA, Adverse Effects Assessment, De Minimis, Judicial Review Standard of Review
Resource Management Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Notification of Resource Consent Applications Ss 93 and 94 RMA Adverse Effects Assessment De Minimis Judicial Review Standard of Review

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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Rea

Plaintiff

Wellington City Council

First Defendant

Seatoun Bowling Club Incorporated

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Resource Consent Decision Under the Resource Management Act 1991 / High Court Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council was entitled to decide the application could be dealt with on a non-notified basis under s 93 RMA
  2. 2 Whether the Council was entitled to decide no person (specifically the plaintiff) would be adversely affected under s 94 RMA
  3. 3 Whether the material before the Council was sufficient to be satisfied adverse effects were minor

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's decision to treat the application as non-notified and to give no notice to the plaintiff was unlawful and is quashed because the Council did not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied under s 93 that adverse effects would be minor and erred in concluding under s 94 that the plaintiff would not be adversely affected (the material failed to address sunlight/shading, bulk and dominance, traffic and noise adequately); the matter must be reconsidered and the plaintiff must be treated as potentially adversely affected for purposes of s 94 if the Council again seeks non-notified processing.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; Council's decision dated 21 February 2006 quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • Quash the decisions contained in the Notice of Decision dated 21 February 2006
  • Direct Wellington City Council to reconsider the application having regard to this judgment