[Full Judgment: UrbanAucklandvAkCouncil.pdf]

URBAN AUCKLAND v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1382 [19 June 2015]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2015-404-000719

[2015] NZHC 1382

[…]

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Introduction

[1] Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) sought, and was granted on a non-notified basis, resource consent by Auckland Council (Council) to extend the existing Bledisloe Wharf into the Waitemata Harbour. Urban Auckland, the Society for the Protection of Auckland City and Waterfront Incorporated (Urban Auckland) challenges the Council’s decisions and the process it adopted in granting POAL the consents. It seeks to review the Council’s decisions not to notify the public and to grant the consents. It also says POAL requires a further consent before it can carry out the extension.

[…]

Summary

[190] The decision to proceed without notification was flawed for two reasons:

(a) The applications for consent should have been bundled which would have required notification, as the most restrictive activity was a discretionary activity. The adverse effects identified by Urban Auckland will fall to be considered.

(b) Alternatively, special circumstances existed which required notification in this case. The Commissioners fell into error in determining that because the extension was a controlled activity and an expected development no special circumstances existed so that it was unnecessary to notify in any event.

Result

[191] The consents issued on a non-notified basis are set aside.

[192] I decline Urban Auckland’s application for a declaration. I confirm there is no need for the POAL to obtain any further consent under 3.I.6.1.10 of the Proposed Plan.

Costs

[193] I will receive memoranda on costs.

[Full Judgment: UrbanAucklandvAkCouncil.pdf]

© Scoop Media