8 Jun 2018
The court identified and expressly incorporated the previously omitted appendices (Appendix A: AUP maps of significant ecological areas; Appendix B: new Quarry Zone vegetation activity and related criteria) into the judgment and was satisfied the attachments are now included, exercising its power to correct the record.
18 May 2018
The Panel erred in law by deleting or modifying the SEA overlay on the basis of other planning imperatives; identification of SEAs under s6(c) requires a factual ecological assessment independent of planning outcomes, and consequently the SEA overlay must be reinstated for the affected areas with consequential determinations of management and activity status to be addressed in the Environment Court where necessary.
15 May 2017
There was an error on the face of the IHP recommendations and Council decision because Policy 11 NZCPS protections were not explicitly implemented in the overlay (D9) and coastal chapter (F2) for marine SEAs; given unanimous agreement of parties and that the amendments follow the IHP's reasoning, the Court will grant the consent order to amend Chapters D9, E15 and F2 to give effect to Policy 11 and RPS B7.2.2(5).
17 Feb 2017
The Court declined to approve the parties' proposed settlement and amendment to the Unitary Plan because it was not satisfied, on the materials before it, that the Council's decision involved an error of law; the Court's powers under r20.19 (applied via s158(5)) to amend or direct amendments to planning documents can only properly be exercised where the Court is first satisfied that an error of law has occurred.