New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restricted discretionary activities

Legal area

Court

2 May 2014

LAMBTON QUAY PROPERTIES NOMINEE LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 878

Citation

[2014] NZHC 878
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed: Environment Court applied an incorrect test by requiring alternatives to demolition to be "exhaustively and convincingly excluded" rather than assessing whether it was convinced there was no reasonable alternative, and failed to reconcile and take adequate account of the Building Act earthquake-prone regime and the realistic public safety risks of leaving the building in situ; matter remitted for rehearing with directions to apply correct test and consider public safety and surrounding building risk.
22 Sept 2008

THE PETONE PLANNING ACTION GROUP V HUTT CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2008-485-1112

Citation

openlaw-469abf6e_1f4f_4332_85c9_766486565a42.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court correctly interpreted Rule 14H 2.1.1 as providing two alternative means of addressing fault risk (demonstrate >20m separation OR demonstrate necessary engineering precautions) and retained a true restricted discretion on engineering precautions; the Building Code and building consent processes appropriately cover detailed safety matters; the evidence showed the application was skimpy but adequate under s88; the permitted baseline was misidentified but the error was not material to the outcome; cumulative effects and plan integrity challenges were considered and did not e…
31 Jan 2008

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL V THE JOHN WOOLLEY TRUST AND S J CHRISTMAS HC AK CIV 2004-404-3787

Citation

openlaw-2bd70f5f_5900_4aad_89c8_6131871a2623.pdf
Court

High Court

Part 2 applies to resource consent applications for restricted discretionary activities by virtue of s104(1), but Part 2 matters cannot be used to decline consent or to impose conditions beyond the matters specified in the plan under s77B(3) and s104C; Part 2 may, subject to those limits, be taken into account when deciding to grant consent.
16 Nov 2007

OFFICIAL BAY HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR CA CA489/07

Citation

openlaw-b9aef722_c6f5_434f_9179_14ffc308e2ae.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The heritage criterion 'frontage height and design' refers to the height and design of a building's frontage not the building's overall height or bulk; height and bulk remain governed by Part 6 development controls, and the Council lawfully concluded there were no special circumstances and that the effects of the consented aspects were minor so notification or service was not required; the grant of resource consent was therefore lawful.
16 Jul 2007

OFFICIAL BAY HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-005947

Citation

openlaw-1c7c0d33_4147_46d4_8034_a2310332e57b.pdf
Court

High Court

Plan Change 2's restricted discretionary rule and assessment criteria relate to design and street frontage matters and do not convert overall height and bulk into matters for which discretion is restricted; Rule 15.3.2.6 applied to permit consideration without public notification or service; the Council was entitled to disregard height and bulk effects under ss 94A and 94B and therefore was not required to notify or serve and the subsequent grant of resource consent was lawful.

New Zealand Case Law

LAMBTON QUAY PROPERTIES NOMINEE LIMITED v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 878

THE PETONE PLANNING ACTION GROUP V HUTT CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2008-485-1112

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL V THE JOHN WOOLLEY TRUST AND S J CHRISTMAS HC AK CIV 2004-404-3787

OFFICIAL BAY HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR CA CA489/07

OFFICIAL BAY HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-005947