DOCSLIB.ORG

NZHC 138 BETWEEN ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS Plaintiff A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NZHC 138 BETWEEN ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS Plaintiff A IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-2336 [2017] NZHC 138 BETWEEN ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant [Continued over page] Hearing: 28 November - 2 December 2016 Counsel: M Baker-Galloway for Albany North Landowers T Mullins for Auckland Memorial Park Ltd S Ryan for Franco Belgiorno-Nettis R Brabant and R Enright for Character Coalition Inc & Anor M Savage for Howick Ratepayers and Residents Assoc Inc & Anor R Enright for The Straits Protection Society Inc and South Epsom Planning Group Inc & Anor A A Arthur-Young and S H Pilkington for Strand Holdings Ltd R E Bartlett QC for Summerset Group Holdings Ltd A A Arthur-Young and D J Minhinnick for Valerie Close Residents Group H Atkins for Village New Zealand Ltd R Brabant for Wallace Group Ltd M Casey QC and M Williams for Man OʼWar Farm Ltd R J Somerville QC, K Anderson and M J L Dickey for Auckland Council C Kirman and A Devine for Housing Corporation New Zealand and Minister for the Enironment S F Quinn and A F Buchanan for Ting Holdings Ltd S J Simons and R M Steller for Property Council of New Zealand R M Devine for Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Ltd Judgment: 13 February 2017 JUDGMENT OF WHATA J ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 138 [13 February 2017] This judgment was delivered by me on 13 February 2017 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………… CIV-2016-404-2298 BETWEEN AUCKLAND MEMORIAL PARK LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2323 BETWEEN AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2333 BETWEEN FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTIS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2335 BETWEEN FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTIS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2351 BETWEEN BUNNINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2326 BETWEEN CHARACTER COALITION INC LTD & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2327 BETWEEN CHARACTER COALITION INC LTD & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2322 BETWEEN STEPHEN HOLLANDER Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2321 BETWEEN HOWICK RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2320 BETWEEN JPR ENTERPRISES & ORS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2324 BETWEEN NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2325 BETWEEN NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2349 BETWEEN THE STRAITS PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2350 BETWEEN STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2344 BETWEEN SUMMERSET GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2305 BETWEEN VALERIE CLOSE RESIDENTS GROUP Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2341 BETWEEN VILLAGE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2316 BETWEEN WALLACE GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2331 BETWEEN MAN O’WAR FARM LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2302 BETWEEN SOUTH EPSOM PLANNING GROUP INCORPORATED & ANOR Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction [1] A guide [3] PART A: THE PARTIES [5] Acknowledgment [9] PART B: BACKGROUND AND FRAME Establishment of Auckland Council, adoption of Auckland Plan [10] New legislation for development of the AUP [13] Notification of the draft PAUP [15] Section 32 Report [16] Notification of the PAUP [28] The IHP: Role, Function [31] The issue of scope emerges [34] The hearings on zoning and precincts [47] IHP Recommendations [52] Topic 013 – Urban Growth [59] Topic 016, 017 Rural Urban Boundary, 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographic Areas) [65] Topic 059-063 – Residential Zones [73] Appeal and review rights [84] Thresholds for appeal and review [90] PART C: THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS Did the IHP interpret its statutory duties contained in Part 4 of the [92] Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act) Lawfully, when deciding whether its recommendations to the Council Were within the scope of submissions made in respect of the first Auckland Combined Plan? The legislative frame [93] The IHP approach to scope [96] Argument (in brief) [99] Assessment [101] The statutory criteria [104] Policy of public participation [110] The scheme of Part 4 and the RMA [113] Orthodoxy [115] The Clearwater two step test [119] Summary [135] Did the IHP have a duty to: [137] (a) Identify specific submissions seeking relief on an area by area basis with specific reference to suburbs, neighbourhoods or streets (b) Identify when it was exercising its powers to make consequential alterations arising from submissions? Assessment [139] Was it lawful for the IHP to: [145] (a) Determine the scope of submissions by reference to another submission? (b) Determine the proper scope of a submission by reference to the recommended Regional Policy Statement? Assessment [148] To what extent are principles (regarding the question of scope) established Under the Resource Management Act 1991 case law relevant, when addressing scope under the Act [154] Did the IHP correctly apply the legal framework in the test cases? The test cases [155] Identification of relevant submissions [159] The Maps [161] Overview of test cases on residential zoning [162] The submissions on residential intensification [164] A helicopter view [165] Accessibility of Council website [171] The Council’s change of position [177] Mt Albert [180] Argument [187] Assessment [189] Glendowie [191] Argument [201] Assessment [203] Blockhouse Bay [210] Assessment [214] Judges Bay [217] Assessment [221] Wallingford St, Grey Lynn [224] Assessment [228] Howick [231] Assessment [233] The Viewshaft on the Strand [241] SHL’s claim [246] Argument [250] Assessment [252] 55 Takanini School Rd [257] Submissions identified by IHP [264] Preliminary issue [265] Assessment [268] The Albany North Landowners’ Group site [270] Argument [274] Assessment [276] Man O’War Farm [279] Argument [286] Assessment [288] Are the appellants/applicants’ allegations against the Council concerning the IHP’s determination on issues of scope appealable pursuant to the Act and/or reviewable? [291] Assessment [294] What relief can the High Court grant the appellants/applicants if the IHP and/or the Council acted unlawfully in respect of the IHP’s determination on an issue of scope under the Act? [300] Outcome [302] Effect of Judgment/Relief [303] Costs [305] APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Introduction [1] The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) is a combined 30 year plan, incorporating for the first time a regional policy statement, a regional plan and a district plan for Auckland in one document. It represents the culmination of a mammoth undertaking by the Auckland Council (the Council) and an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) over the span of several years. The scale of this task reflects the significance of the AUP to the people and communities of Auckland and beyond. [2] This Court’s relatively discrete involvement has been triggered by 51 appeals and judicial review applications. A central issue for 20 of those proceedings is whether the recommendations made by the IHP on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the PAUP) were within scope of the submissions. If they were not in scope, then affected persons have the right to appeal on the merits of the decisions of the Council based on those recommendations to the Environment Court. A guide [3] This judgment answers the following preliminary questions agreed by the parties: (a) Did the IHP interpret its statutory duties contained in Part 4 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act) lawfully, when deciding whether its recommendations to the Council were within the scope of submissions made in respect of the first Auckland Combined Plan? (b) Did the IHP have a duty to: (i) Identify specific submissions seeking relief on an area by area basis with specific reference to suburbs, neighbourhoods or streets? (ii) Identify when it was exercising its powers to make consequential alterations arising from submissions? (c) Was it lawful for the IHP to: (i) Determine the scope of submissions by reference to another submission? (ii) Determine the proper scope of a submission by reference to the recommended Regional Policy Statement? (d) To what extent are principles (regarding the question of scope) established under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) case law relevant, when addressing scope under the Act? (e) Did the IHP correctly apply the legal framework in the specified test cases? (f) Are the appellants’/applicants’ allegations against the Council concerning the IHP’s determination on issues of scope appealable pursuant to the Act and/or reviewable? (g) What relief can the High Court grant the appellants/applicants if the IHP and/or the Council acted unlawfully in respect of the IHP’s determination on an issue of scope under the Act? (The Preliminary Questions) [4] In order to properly understand the decisions made by the IHP and the Council, it is necessary to consider the full context within which they were made. Consequently, the judgment is divided into three key parts. It commences by describing the various parties to the proceeding and the characteristics of each of their particular claims – [5]- [9]. Part B provides the background to the current proceeding, tracing through both the legislative and factual context to the development of the AUP– [10]-[91]. With that background in mind, in Part C I address the Preliminary Questions in the order they are given above – [92]-[302]. PART A: THE PARTIES [5] The appellant/applicant parties actively involved in the preliminary question proceeding on scope are: (a) Albany North Landowners Group (ANLG).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No 38, 13 March 1986, 1113
    No. 38 1113 THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE Published by Authority WELLINGTON: THURSDAY, 13 MARCH 1986 CORRIGENDUM C.V.O. Notice of Approval of Sirens in Terms of the Traffic Regulations To be a Commander: 1976 Edward James BABE. L.V.O. N the notice with the above heading, which appeared in the New To be a Lieutenant: ~ealand Gazette, II April 1985, No.63, page 1588, line 3 of the ichedule, where it states: Miss Genevieve Margaret JORDAN, M.V,O. 2.12 volt 500 HZ 0320223002 'ead: M.V.O. 2.12 volt 500 HZ 0320223003 To be Members: (M.O.T. 17/13/6 and 17/13/6/1) Miss Helen Lorraine AITKEN. Ian Gordon Edward CODDINGTON, Chief Traffic 70 Superintendent, Ministry of Transport. Judith Anne, Mrs McCONWAY. CORRIGENDUM Lieutenant Anthony Jonathan PARR, R.N.Z.N. Ronald Edward TERRY. Declaring State Highway to be a Limited Access Road State THE QUEEN has been graciously pleased on the occasion of Her Highway No.2 Majesty's Visit to New Zealand, to approve the award of a Bar to the Royal Victorian Medal (Silver) to the undermentioned: N the notice with the above heading published in the New Zealand Bar to R.V.M. (Silver) ,azette, 16 January 1986, No.4, page 108, in title where "No.2" ppears, read "No. 29." Sergeant Peter Forbes ORR, R.V.M., Q.S.M., New Zealand Police. THE QUEEN has been graciously pleased, on the occasion of Her Dated at Wellington this 24th day of February 1986. Majesty's Visit to New Zealand, to award the Royal Victorian Medal (Silver) to the undermentioned: R.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule
    Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule [rcp/dp] Introduction The factors in B4.2.2(4) have been used to determine the features included in Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule, and will be used to assess proposed future additions to the schedule. ID Name Location Site type Description Unitary Plan criteria 2 Algies Beach Algies Bay E This site is one of the a, b, g melange best examples of an exposure of the contact between Northland Allocthon and Miocene Waitemata Group rocks. 3 Ambury Road Mangere F A complex 140m long a, b, c, lava cave Bridge lava cave with two d, g, i branches and many well- preserved flow features. Part of the cave contains unusual lava stalagmites with corresponding stalactites above. 4 Anawhata Waitākere A This locality includes a a, c, e, gorge and combination of g, i, l beach unmodified landforms, produced by the dynamic geomorphic processes of the Waitakere coast. Anawhata Beach is an exposed sandy beach, accumulated between dramatic rocky headlands. Inland from the beach, the Anawhata Stream has incised a deep gorge into the surrounding conglomerate rock. 5 Anawhata Waitākere E A well-exposed, and a, b, g, l intrusion unusual mushroom-shaped andesite intrusion in sea cliffs in a small embayment around rocks at the north side of Anawhata Beach. 6 Arataki Titirangi E The best and most easily a, c, l volcanic accessible exposure in breccia and the eastern Waitākere sandstone Ranges illustrating the interfingering nature of Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part 1 Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule the coarse volcanic breccias from the Waitākere Volcano with the volcanic-poor Waitematā Basin sandstone and siltstones.
    [Show full text]
  • 522 Bus Time Schedule & Line Route
    522 bus time schedule & line map 522 Schools View In Website Mode The 522 bus line (Schools) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Schools: 7:10 AM - 7:16 AM (2) Schools: 3:35 PM - 3:40 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 522 bus station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 522 bus arriving. Direction: Schools 522 bus Time Schedule 42 stops Schools Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 7:10 AM - 7:16 AM Stop B St Heliers 413 Tamaki Drive, Auckland Tuesday 7:10 AM - 7:16 AM Opp 81 St Heliers Bay Rd Wednesday 7:10 AM - 7:16 AM Saint Heliers Bay Road, Auckland Thursday 7:10 AM - 7:16 AM 124 St Heliers Bay Rd Friday Not Operational 124 St Heliers Bay Road, Auckland Saturday Not Operational Opp 151 St Heliers Bay Rd 151A St Heliers Bay Road, Auckland Opp 183 St Heliers Bay Rd 183 St Heliers Bay Road, Auckland 522 bus Info Direction: Schools 222 St Heliers Bay Rd Stops: 42 2 Ashby Avenue, Auckland Trip Duration: 50 min Line Summary: Stop B St Heliers, Opp 81 St Heliers 260 St Heliers Bay Rd Bay Rd, 124 St Heliers Bay Rd, Opp 151 St Heliers 260A St Heliers Bay Road, Auckland Bay Rd, Opp 183 St Heliers Bay Rd, 222 St Heliers Bay Rd, 260 St Heliers Bay Rd, 320 St Heliers Bay Rd, 320 St Heliers Bay Rd 358 St Heliers Bay Rd, 299 Kohimarama Rd, 255 320 St Heliers Bay Road, Auckland Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama Rd Opp Southern Cross Rd, Opp 198 Kohimarama Rd, 255 Kepa Rd, 358 St Heliers Bay Rd Kepa Rd Outside Eastridge, Opp 182 Kepa Rd, 358 St Heliers Bay Road, Auckland Coates Ave Near Nehu
    [Show full text]
  • TOP MEDIAN SALE PRICE (OCT19—SEP20) Hatfields Beach
    Warkworth Makarau Waiwera Puhoi TOP MEDIAN SALE PRICE (OCT19—SEP20) Hatfields Beach Wainui EPSOM .............. $1,791,000 HILLSBOROUGH ....... $1,100,000 WATTLE DOWNS ......... $856,750 Orewa PONSONBY ........... $1,775,000 ONE TREE HILL ...... $1,100,000 WARKWORTH ............ $852,500 REMUERA ............ $1,730,000 BLOCKHOUSE BAY ..... $1,097,250 BAYVIEW .............. $850,000 Kaukapakapa GLENDOWIE .......... $1,700,000 GLEN INNES ......... $1,082,500 TE ATATŪ SOUTH ....... $850,000 WESTMERE ........... $1,700,000 EAST TĀMAKI ........ $1,080,000 UNSWORTH HEIGHTS ..... $850,000 Red Beach Army Bay PINEHILL ........... $1,694,000 LYNFIELD ........... $1,050,000 TITIRANGI ............ $843,000 KOHIMARAMA ......... $1,645,500 OREWA .............. $1,050,000 MOUNT WELLINGTON ..... $830,000 Tindalls Silverdale Beach SAINT HELIERS ...... $1,640,000 BIRKENHEAD ......... $1,045,500 HENDERSON ............ $828,000 Gulf Harbour DEVONPORT .......... $1,575,000 WAINUI ............. $1,030,000 BIRKDALE ............. $823,694 Matakatia GREY LYNN .......... $1,492,000 MOUNT ROSKILL ...... $1,015,000 STANMORE BAY ......... $817,500 Stanmore Bay MISSION BAY ........ $1,455,000 PAKURANGA .......... $1,010,000 PAPATOETOE ........... $815,000 Manly SCHNAPPER ROCK ..... $1,453,100 TORBAY ............. $1,001,000 MASSEY ............... $795,000 Waitoki Wade HAURAKI ............ $1,450,000 BOTANY DOWNS ....... $1,000,000 CONIFER GROVE ........ $783,500 Stillwater Heads Arkles MAIRANGI BAY ....... $1,450,000 KARAKA ............. $1,000,000 ALBANY ............... $782,000 Bay POINT CHEVALIER .... $1,450,000 OTEHA .............. $1,000,000 GLENDENE ............. $780,000 GREENLANE .......... $1,429,000 ONEHUNGA ............. $999,000 NEW LYNN ............. $780,000 Okura Bush GREENHITHE ......... $1,425,000 PAKURANGA HEIGHTS .... $985,350 TAKANINI ............. $780,000 SANDRINGHAM ........ $1,385,000 HELENSVILLE .......... $985,000 GULF HARBOUR ......... $778,000 TAKAPUNA ........... $1,356,000 SUNNYNOOK ............ $978,000 MĀNGERE .............
    [Show full text]
  • Visitor Strategy Research: Phase 1 Report Ōrākei Visitor Strategy 2013-2015
    Visitor Strategy research: Phase 1 report Ōrākei Visitor Strategy 2013-2015 Prepared for Ōrākei Local Board The New Zealand Tourism Research Institute Auckland University of Technology www.nztri.org February 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 Method and Approach ............................................................................................................... 3 Local Tourism Audit ................................................................................................................... 4 Web audit ............................................................................................................................... 4 On-Site Experience audit ........................................................................................................ 8 Visitor Surveys – findings ......................................................................................................... 14 Tamaki Drive ........................................................................................................................ 14 Remuera ............................................................................................................................... 26 Ellerslie ................................................................................................................................. 37 Immediate opportunities ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • St Heliers Are Maintained and Enhanced
    BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081e Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report EVIDENCE REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS BY ROSS EDWARD COOPER FOR SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT 26 JANUARY 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 3 PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 6 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 6 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ........................................................................... 6 4. SCOPE ................................................................................................. 6 5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL ............................................ 7 6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS .................................................... 8 PART B: OVERVIEW OF SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ....................................................... 9 7. CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 9 8. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT .......................................................................................... 11 9. PAUP FRAMEWORK .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSLETTER – AUGUST / HERE-TURI-KŌKĀ 2019 Greetings from the President
    P.O. Box 87291, Meadowbank, Auckland, 1742. Email: [email protected] President: Gay Williams Secretary: Janet Crawford Ph. 524-7221 Ph. 948-1192 www.u3ameadowbank.nz NEWSLETTER – AUGUST / HERE-TURI-KŌKĀ 2019 Greetings from the President Our July meeting was well attended (despite being the morning after the overnight Cricket World cup final!). We had a fascinating visit to the Southern Ocean among whales, penguins, seals and icebergs with our Vice president Cecilie Rushton. What a wonderful part of the world to visit. Several members mentioned they were inspired to consider going on a trip there too! Our main speaker was Professor Helen Danesh-Meyer who presented a fascinating overview of diseases of the eye – especially Cataract, and Glaucoma. With the aid of beautiful slides, she outlined the causes and treatment of these common conditions – Cataract surgery - the safest eye surgery, and Glaucoma, the silent disease – the leading cause of preventable blindness in New Zealand. Helen outlined some risks and lifestyle activities we can all take to manage these conditions, and there were handouts to help us understand the main points. Of concern she mentioned that over 50% of the population are unaware that they have Glaucoma and we all need to have Glaucoma checks regularly especially if there is a family history of Glaucoma. There were several Questions from the floor, and many members commented on the value of the presentation. For further information go to www. glaucoma.org.nz and join Glaucoma NZ (for free) to keep up to date with developments. Remember the U3A network meeting on 30 August – sharing transport and supporting two of our members presenting at this event.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Restoration Times Over Next 24 Hours
    Northcote Point Bayswater L a Vauxhall k e ´ R o y a a d w Stanley Point r Stanley Bay Cheltenham o t o M Devonport n r e h t Browns Island (Motukorea) r o N et tre S r W e e s m t a h H av en Dr ive t e t e B e r t e e a r S t c Freemans Bay t S r h Mechanics Bay e CBD u e n R n b o l t o B e K s v A e a a b e t u d A r h o p H t n Mission Bay S e H e i Ponsonby o S P t c T k r S w e a a t o n m ve r i t Kohimarama e e a r A n e r ki D r Saint Heliers t e e e e s S Orakei T e u o u 6 t n t n r 1 e e e Q Parnell l T b il a v e h u y v ta A R t S n r et e o a i re r a l N S Towai S t a d ay G t oad rw d g R d oto a re tt il Glendowie M a e A tern io S t n Cres ro K r es o treet dde c p ik -w o en K i rth R G t S d o d ad o a S N Grafton llA Ro h t Arch Hill y a Kepa i o re e r o m R e rn S R a y t Newton a tre i r a B e Sho e a P t re k m B o t a s R r a r n e oa ie d d e d O R l a Newmarket r t e o Eden Terrace t e o R S d e H e S u a t c t a e n r r n d S ra a o t e e e u p e R S v d s p E t l r l A a a Meadowbank e e o A e De H c ll Avenue R p B W o n i e d r e h a n a a a n p r o i e a t Jo a S Wai o Taiki Bay M R t hns d c a S R e d a i o A u r u a h u v L n u o V Remuera a e a t e p R R l n l e e d R Glen Innes y v e a e Saint Johns u a m n o e r R g i A v t i o e P a ro o u v r s e N l pe a s S R d D ct r e T d e t a i a erra e i c K l o R u p l oa a M i g S d n il r n ton Mount Eden a G Ro a o a ad R u P M t t e h s e v Point England D a iv i D is Halifa e r r ex ra x Avenue r E D y ter el n e D i a Ave St an e n r n d e ue et
    [Show full text]
  • Business Special Character Overlay in Lieu of the Precinct Overlay Proposed by the PAUP
    BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP ), Topic 081 – Precincts __________________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF SALLY BARBARA PEAKE (LANDSCAPE – PRECINCTS TOPIC 081) ON BEHALF SAVE OUR ST HELIERS (SOS) INC AND ST HELIERS / GLENDOWIE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC 10 FEBRUARY 2016 __________________________________________________________________________ Introduction 1 My full name is Sally Barbara Peake. I am a landscape architect in private practice, and a Principal of Peake Design Limited. I have over 30 years experience in design, assessment, and preparation of landscape analysis and development projects. I have qualifications in landscape architecture (Diploma in Landscape Architecture from Leeds, UK) and urban design (Diploma in Urban Design from Oxford, UK), and a Master of Architecture degree from Unitec, NZ. 2 I am a Fellow and Registered landscape architect with the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, and immediate past -president of the institute. I am also a member of the Resource Management Law Association and Urban Design Forum (Auckland). 3 I am a former panellist on the Auckland City Urban Design Panel, and have represented the NZILA on a number of external advisory groups for the Auckland Plan and Proposed Unitary Plan. 4 This statement is prepared in support of the Save Our St Heliers (SOS) and St Heliers/ Glendowie Residents’ Association proposed Business Special Character overlay in lieu of the Precinct overlay proposed by the PAUP. 5 The statement is supplementary to my evidence provided to accompany the submission, dated 26 th February 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • NZHC 138 BETWEEN ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS Plaintiff A
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-2336 [2016] NZHC 138 BETWEEN ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant [Continued over page] Hearing: 28 November - 2 December 2016 Counsel: M Baker-Galloway for Albany North Landowers T Mullins for Auckland Memorial Park Ltd S Ryan for Franco Belgiorno-Nettis R Brabant and R Enright for Character Coalition Inc & Anor M Savage for Howick Ratepayers and Residents Assoc Inc & Anor R Enright for The Straits Protection Society Inc and South Epsom Planning Group Inc & Anor A A Arthur-Young and S H Pilkington for Strand Holdings Ltd R E Bartlett QC for Summerset Group Holdings Ltd A A Arthur-Young and D J Minhinnick for Valerie Close Residents Group H Atkins for Village New Zealand Ltd R Brabant for Wallace Group Ltd M Casey QC and M Williams for Man OʼWar Farm Ltd R J Somerville QC, K Anderson and W G Wakefield for Auckland Council C Kirman and A Devine for Housing Corporation New Zealand and Minister for the Enironment S F Quinn and A F Buchanan for Ting Holdings Ltd S J Simons and R M Steller for Property Council of New Zealand R M Devine for Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Ltd Judgment: 13 February 2017 JUDGMENT OF WHATA J ALBANY NORTH LANDOWNERS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 138 [13 February 2017] This judgment was delivered by me on 13 February 2017 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………… CIV-2016-404-2298 BETWEEN AUCKLAND MEMORIAL PARK LIMITED Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant CIV-2016-404-2323
    [Show full text]
  • Orakei-Ward-Map.Pdf
    Auckland Council Ward Boundary Map Map T E E R T T E S E Y T R TO E E O E T LE S R Y Achilles L S ST T REE A S T WE N Point H SHA FAN O B Ladies Bay S E Q A U B FO AY RT A C S O S EET H TR TR N E H ET Judges Bay Takaparawha Bastion Point T Z R A O E Mission Bay West Tamaki C A Point D E I R A K IV D R A E Point V E M T A N D S Auckland Central N G T D U RA T L E Okahu Bay T A N T S D E A A O E E Point Saint Heliers Bay O H O E T D R S E T GR R L S O L V Resolution I R T Gower Point FF ER R E I O E L AD E T S T C Karaka Bay E C E U G N O VAL O S U S R RONAKI E RO O N RO E A N K N K T N AD D E T E S N S U A T E I T E C E V R R T E E N E E IV A POLYG A V E N A O R T I R E E N R E R R D N R E E A NIHIL V O I E N A U P T IV ITA A L A R R O R AR M O E S D O T N V P R R S T C E F D O I E A Q I N D E B K A S A S R S Y 6 A Y T F S M K P T R M 1 A NTO O M D T N S E A K D E T E H D H F S W E C P E O N S A T C L R A E GL A O P A M D C A E E I T H EN O E E O T L E I Y N AN G A P E V A E S H T I S A T ES T M C Orakei A T U O R R T P IA L U T S R E D N R Y I U O E AL W R R C R R L E N E T R E A S A A E S E NG EE W O E M A STR E HITI D R E R D L T I OAR AD N I T V T Parnell A N R N O RD P H G A V E G E W O R A O L S R E I T O M P P E K A O N T A E E L I S 6 T L Hobson Point I T N LE A A R A E A D L E S L E E C F R A T R I 1 R I O R E E A U T E E S N Y A E I V P E L N T S R K D R N N A T N O R A R E O O P L T A N R A AU S O L E N T I D D T AU Mission Bay T U I E H G E A T T T S A D DR E A E R N R K V A S S E D D RO T L S E R I E L E T G M A N L S V R
    [Show full text]
  • Ōrākei Local Board Meeting Held on 3/08/2017
    FINAL REPORT – JULY 2017 Auckland Council Meadowbank, Remuera and Ōrākei Community Needs Assessment and Facilities Investigation Report Prepared by Mobius Research and Strategy Ltd. 1 PROJECT | Meadowbank, Remuera, Ōrākei Community Needs Assessment Table of Contents 1: Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background and objectives .................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Key conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Meadowbank Community Centre: summary oF key Findings, and considerations .................................. 4 1.5 Tahapa Crescent Hall – summary oF key Findings, and considerations .................................................... 4 1.6 4 Victoria Avenue – summary oF key Findings, and considerations ......................................................... 4 1.7 Ōrākei Community Centre – summary oF key Findings, and considerations ............................................ 5 2: Project Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6 3: Approach .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]