New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rural urban boundary

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2022

GOCK GOCK v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 3126

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3126
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Environment Court's 2020 decision: (1) the Environment Court correctly adopted Muir J's construction of Policy B2.2.2(2)(j) and did not treat all elite soils as automatically 'significant for their ability to sustain food production'; (2) a purely quantitative/percentage comparator was an inappropriate sole test and the Environment Court reasonably rejected the appellants' quantitative/de minimis approach; (3) on the evidence (including updated FARMLUC data, soil expert concurrence on contiguous LUC1/LUC2 soils, and commercial viability evidence) the subject soils ar…
28 May 2020

AHUAREKA TRUSTEES (NO 2) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 191

Citation

[2020] NZCA 191
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the High Court did not err in law: the Environment Court permissibly weighed the RPS and district provisions in the AUP, distinguished the Kumeu decision, and reasonably discounted the Waikopua enhancement as insufficiently certain and inadequate to meet precinct requirements; the issues do not raise matters of general or public importance nor a real risk of miscarriage of justice.
26 Sept 2019

GOCK v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1603

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1603
Court

High Court

Although the Environment Court erred in its construction of RPS B2.2.2(2)(j) regarding soils, the ultimate determination of the Rural Urban Boundary location on the Pūkaki Peninsula requires specialist planning judgment considering multiple statutory factors and possibly further evidence; therefore the appropriate remedy is remission to the Environment Court with leave to consider further evidence on RPS B2.2.2(2)(f).
11 Oct 2017

HOLLANDER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2487

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2487
Court

High Court

The Panel acted within its statutory mandate to consider rezoning on a grouped, region‑wide basis and provided adequate high‑level reasons tailored to that process; the Panel's Mixed Rural recommendation was reasonably open on the evidence in light of its Rural Urban Boundary and capacity findings, the Council lawfully accepted the recommendation, and the appellant's legal challenges fail; appeal dismissed.
13 Feb 2017

ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 138

Citation

[2017] NZHC 138
Court

High Court

The IHP lawfully applied a 'reasonably foreseen logical consequence' test, consistent with the RMA scope orthodoxy and statutory scheme in Part 4 LGATPA; it was not required to identify every supporting submission area-by-area, s32 does not rigidly limit scope in a full unitary plan review, and most contested rezonings were within scope; however discrete disenabling changes that directly affect non-participants (Strand Holdings and Wallace Group examples) required clearer notice and were outside scope.

New Zealand Case Law

GOCK GOCK v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 3126

AHUAREKA TRUSTEES (NO 2) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZCA 191

GOCK v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1603

HOLLANDER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2487

ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 138