Strand Holdings Limited v Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel
[2017] NZHC 371
•8 March 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2016-404-2350 [2017] NZHC 371
BETWEEN STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND
THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL First Defendant
AUCKLAND COUNCIL Second Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
A A Arthur-Young and S H Pilkinton for Plaintiff
M G Wakefield and C J Brown for DefendantssJudgment:
8 March 2017
JUDGMENT OF WHATA J
This judgment was delivered by me on 8 March 2017 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ………………………….
Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, Auckland
Auckland Council, Auckland
STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2017] NZHC 371 [8 March 2017]
[1] In Albany North Landowners v Auckland Council1 I found that the Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendation to relocate the Dilworth Terraces View Protection Plane to the Strand (“the IHP recommendation”) was procedurally unfair and outside the scope of submissions. I stated at [303] that the substantive issues raised by Strand Holdings Limited (SHL) in these proceeding should now be referred to the Environment Court for resolution. I now have a joint memorandum of counsel endorsing this approach. Accordingly I make the following orders:
(a) I declare that the IHP recommendation was outside the scope of submissions but not identified as such for the purpose of s 144(8) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act);
(b)I declare that the Auckland Council decision to adopt the IHP recommendation was a decision to adopt a recommendation beyond the scope of submissions for the purpose of s 156(3)(b) of the Act; and
(c) SHL may lodge an appeal to the Environment Court pursuant to s
156(3) on the recommendation within 20 working days.
[2] There is no question as to costs.
1 Albany North Landowners v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 138.
0