New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Zoning

Legal area

Court

2 May 2018

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 916

Citation

[2018] NZHC 916
Court

High Court

Summons for the planner's report was not invalid in substance and, even if technically defective, the report was properly before the Panel; reliance on that material was not unfair given parties' responsibilities to monitor materials and the Panel's procedures; the Panel's zoning and precinct recommendations were rational and supported by evidence and proper consideration; the Council was not required to reconsider post-Panel Environment Court decisions when adopting recommendations; and transferring the MCI from a non-statutory to a control layer was within scope and supported by the plan co…
9 Feb 2018

SAMSON CORPORATION LTD & OR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2018] NZHC 97

Citation

[2018] NZHC 97
Court

High Court

The Panel had admissible evidence and a rational basis for concluding the Special Character Overlay and the Residential – Single House Zone should apply to the site; the Panel's general approach to overlays did not amount to a rule that overlays must be disregarded when zoning and did not preclude the Panel from applying the Single House Zone here; therefore the Panel's recommendation and the Council's acceptance were options open on the evidence and did not amount to an error of law, so the appeal is dismissed.
11 Oct 2017

HOLLANDER v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2487

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2487
Court

High Court

The Panel acted within its statutory mandate to consider rezoning on a grouped, region‑wide basis and provided adequate high‑level reasons tailored to that process; the Panel's Mixed Rural recommendation was reasonably open on the evidence in light of its Rural Urban Boundary and capacity findings, the Council lawfully accepted the recommendation, and the appellant's legal challenges fail; appeal dismissed.
25 Sept 2017

ARENA LIVING LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 2311

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2311
Court

High Court

The Court found the Independent Hearings Panel erred by failing to have specific regard to the Knightsbridge site's special characteristics and the uniform planning evidence supporting a more liberal height regime; that error materially affected the Unitary Plan zoning for the site and justification existed to rezone the site to Mixed Housing Urban (MHU), so the consent amendment to the Plan is granted.
22 Jun 2017

SAMSON CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOR v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1392

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1392
Court

High Court

The Panel and Council committed a material error of law by failing to have regard to the agreed joint memorandum and by omitting the Additional Zone Height Control without providing required reasons; because the error was conceded, the relief is narrow, unopposed and of limited effect, the Court substituted the Council's decision and approved the agreed GIS amendments by consent.
26 Aug 2013

FOWLER DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AUTHORITY (QUAKE OUTCASTS) [2013] NZHC 2173

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2173
Court

High Court

The Court held the creation and announcement of the red zone and the subsequent 50% offer decision were not made according to law because the Act provided express statutory mechanisms (including s27, s53 and s10) that displaced any non-statutory route; accordingly the declaration that the red zone decision did not lawfully affect the applicants' property rights was made, the 50% offers to the applicants were set aside, and the Minister and chief executive were directed to reconsider purchase decisions in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 201…
27 Aug 2008

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL V EMMA JANE LIMITED AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2008-485-000280

Citation

openlaw-5bd61adc_3f74_483b_b810_5490cffb7318.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court found no material error of law: the Environment Court's interpretation of Variation 86 and its conclusion that some localised traffic increases are an inevitable and acceptable consequence of a centres-based approach had evidential basis; the High Traffic Generator Rule, read with assessment criteria b and j, legitimately enabled consideration of network traffic effects; the Environment Court was not required to adopt the appellant's formulaic s76(3) comparison and made lawful planning judgments on heights and density; the alleged failure to guard against uniform 20m developmen…
13 Feb 2008

SCHWEDER AND ANOR V FRANKLIN DISTRICT COUNCIL HC AK CIV 2007-404-003613

Citation

openlaw-95257311_1174_4395_ba14_aa69987b039a.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the appellants did not demonstrate a legal error: the Environment Court had already determined the substantive zoning and policy framework in its 11 August 2006 decision, the 1 June 2007 decision concerned finalising drafting and fine‑tuning not requiring detailed reasons on every drafting choice, the appendix amounted to non‑mandatory suggestions, and therefore no failure to give adequate reasons or breach of procedural fairness was established; appeal dismissed.
15 May 2007

PLAIN SENSE (TAIERI PLAINS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOCIETY) INC V DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000903

Citation

openlaw-01524349_eb9d_4910_bca2_a235a677251b.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court committed a procedural error of natural justice by either overlooking the parties' agreed statement that East A contained high class soils or failing to give parties opportunity to address the apparent contradiction; s299 includes procedural points of law; accordingly the Environment Court's interim decision insofar as it related to East A was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration on the basis that East A mostly contains high class soils as defined in the District Plan.
4 Apr 2007

SPACKMAN V QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000843

Citation

openlaw-3856f1f5_d680_47c4_bc0a_d5fabf7c0236.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council committed material errors of law: it misclassified the application by failing to identify the part of the land in the Rural General Zone (thus treating it as a controlled activity rather than discretionary), conflated the s93 and s94 notification/service analyses, and approved building platforms abutting the Rural General Zone in breach of site setback requirements; these errors were material and the subdivision consent creating Lot 2 was set aside and remitted to the Council for reconsideration with fresh s93/s94 analyses, while consents for Lots 3 and 4 remained i…