21 Jul 2016
TASTI PRODUCTS LTD & ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL & ORS [2016] NZHC 1673
- Citation
- (2016) 19 ELRNZ 555
- Court
- High Court
The notification decision was legally flawed because the Council asked the wrong question by focusing on 'sites' rather than 'persons', applied an overly high 'preclusion' test for effects, failed to adequately consider reverse sensitivity effects beyond internal noise (including external noise, light, vibration and odour) and omitted consideration of relevant PAUP objectives and policies; accordingly the notification, consent and variation decisions were quashed and remitted to Auckland Council for reconsideration by independent planning officers.