New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restricted discretionary activity

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2022

DRIVE HOLDINGS LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 3620

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3620
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: no error of law was established. The Environment Court gave adequate reasons, appropriately derived and applied factors from the AUP, did not impose an extra justification test for height, correctly interpreted the occupiable (16 m) and total (18 m) height standards, appropriately weighed expert evidence and properly had regard to the Council decision under s290A; DHL's complaints amount to disagreement with planning judgments rather than legal error.
8 Sept 2022

IAN WALLACE LYSAGHT AND ADRIANNE JUNE LYSAGHT v WHAKATĀNE DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZCA 423

Citation

[2022] NZCA 423
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the council lawfully limited its assessment to r13.4.7.1 matters and there was adequate information and analysis in the Report to conclude the adverse effects on the appellants were less than minor for notification purposes; the condition precedent requiring road works is lawful because the consent does not authorise works on third-party land without agreement or separate statutory authority, so the appellants were not 'affected persons' under s95E RMA.
17 Nov 2021

WALLACE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3095

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3095
Court

High Court

Council erred as a matter of law by assessing effects against an environment that improperly included development requiring consent and by failing to specifically consider the effects of building intensity (number of dwellings and associated activities) on neighbourhood character and residential amenity under H4.8.1(2) and H4.8.2; those legal errors rendered the non-notification and substantive decisions unlawful and the Decisions and consents were quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
11 Oct 2017

SYDNEY ST SUBSTATION LTD v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2489

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2489
Court

High Court

The Council materially erred by relying on an 'anticipated development model' baseline to assess CADG and r 13.3.4 matters, by inadequately applying CADG guideline G3.5 and by unjustifiably downplaying the heritage advisor's conclusions; consequently the notification decision was flawed (SSL was an affected person and should have been limited notified) and the substantive resource consent decision was legally defective; the decisions dated 14 October 2016 were set aside.
17 Jul 2017

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 113

Citation

[2017] 1 NZLE 1008
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held rr 8.12.2.1 and 8.25.1.1 of the Manukau Operative District Plan encompass on-site parking and internal circulation effects as matters over which discretion is reserved, so such on-site adverse effects could not be disregarded under s 95E(2)(b); applying the Discount Brands adequacy standard the Council had, on the facts and material before it, engaged with on-site effects and had sufficient evidence to rationally conclude Wendy's adverse effects were less than minor, so the non-notification decision was lawful and the High Court judgment reinstated.
11 Mar 2010

STUART ALLAN INVESTMENTS LTD V TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS HC NEL CIV-2008-442-275

Citation

openlaw-9041d698_a38b_43b0_a9bb_25b59d93c164.pdf
Court

High Court

The authority erred in treating a controlled activity as if it were a permitted activity for the purposes of the permitted baseline and failed to specifically assess whether the plaintiff was an adversely affected person (conflating 'minor' and 'de minimis'); accordingly the non-notification decision and the land use consent were unlawful and must be set aside and reconsidered with notice to the plaintiff.
11 Jul 2008

MICHAEL SPACKMAN V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR CA CA193/07

Citation

openlaw-098206b0_ce70_4149_80ad_fe890d23d71e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court erred in severing lot two from the remainder of the subdivision and erred in effectively imposing clause 8(o) on the consent notice; however, in the exercise of this Court's discretion the appeal is dismissed because although the High Court's legal characterisations were incorrect, the Court will not remit the whole matter to the Council given significant delay, prejudice and financial hardship to the respondents and the practical consequences of titles having been issued.
19 Dec 2007

BLUESKIN PROJECTS LIMITED V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC DUN CIV-2007-412-669

Citation

openlaw-08c8ffa2_151b_4a8e_87fb_1ee674fa1dbb.pdf
Court

High Court

The amended proposal to replace a subdivision application with a land use consent for two large dwellings was materially different in substance from the original application; permitting that amendment on appeal would circumvent the statutory consents process and risk prejudice to the Council and public. Accordingly the Environment Court lacked jurisdiction to allow such a significant opposed amendment on appeal and correctly declined leave to amend; the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld that decision.
20 Nov 2007

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL V DURY & ORS CA CA198/06

Citation

openlaw-959d95f3_a601_4635_ab31_e08425b6e950.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the council reasonably concluded adverse effects would be minor and therefore lawfully declined to notify: the council could rely on the permitted baseline and on assurances of compliance with the plan noise standard absent evidence indicating non-compliance; post-decision evidence of effects after commencement was inadmissible to impeach the original non-notification decision; consequently the High Court's quashing of the first resource consent and its costs orders was wrongful and the first consent is restored and specified costs orders in the Court of Appeal are made.
14 Dec 2005

WISE AND NEBESKY V THAMES-COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2004-485-000278

Citation

openlaw-ee5a6fc4_a4a4_4271_9eee_280763a07a58.pdf
Court

High Court

The Environment Court's factual finding that the subdivision would adversely affect the area's character and amenity was supported by evidence and not a legal error; although the Environment Court did not explicitly identify or apply the permitted baseline (an error of law), that omission was immaterial given the expert evidence that the hypothesised permitted ancillary development was fanciful and would not alter the Court's assessment; consequently the appeal is dismissed.