13 Dec 2018
The High Court struck out the judicial review proceeding because s 296 RMA precluded High Court review where an appeal right existed and was not exercised by Sheffield; alternatively, even if s 296 did not apply, the proceeding was brought with undue delay and was an abuse of process predominantly motivated by trade-competitive aims, justifying strike-out.
6 Sept 2017
The Court allowed the consent settlements: it found the Panel's recommendation for arterial roads in the Redhills Precinct lacked adequate scope and set aside the Panel decision (restoring a right of appeal to the Environment Court); it accepted the Council had erred in its treatment of prohibited activity status in the Waitākere Ranges and ordered the agreed amendments prohibiting subdivision in specified sensitive areas subject to notice to affected submitters under s156(1); and it accepted that the Samson rezoning was not supportable on the evidence and ordered rezoning to Business – Mixed…
31 Oct 2007
Prohibited activity status is not confined to cases where an activity is absolutely forbidden for the life of the plan; a planning authority must determine under s32 whether prohibited status is the most appropriate classification, including where a precautionary, staged or resource‑allocation approach is justified; the High Court's restrictive gloss was rejected and the question answered in the affirmative, with remittal for reconsideration.
6 Apr 2006
The Court granted leave to appeal limited to the specific legal question because it raised a genuinely arguable point of law of general and public importance; it granted intervention to the two councils because they demonstrated distinct interests and potential value to the appeal; it declined leave on a ground not pursued by counsel.
7 Dec 2005
Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed question was insufficiently framed for s144 purposes, the issue was not shown to be of sufficient public or general importance given the council's non-involvement and absence of evidence of wider impact, and the applicant's position was not capable of serious argument in light of prior Environment Court and High Court findings limiting use of prohibited activity status to activities that should in no circumstances be allowed during the life of the plan.