Search Results

1. Nukutere Lands Trust v Trustees of Whitikau A1 – Opape 28 (2013) 70 Waiariki MB 272 (70 WAR 272) [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   70 Waiariki MB 272 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20030002687 A20050004880 A20050008626 UNDER Sections 9 and 326B, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Opape 28 (Whitikau A1) - Land Access BETWEEN NUKUTERE LANDS TRUST Applicant AND TRUSTEES OF WHITIKAU A1 First Respondent AND CJ PARKINSON Second Respondent Hearing: 24 March 2003, 81 Ōpōtiki MB 139-140 29 May 2003, 81 Ō

2. 19.-Evidence-of-Mr-Nick-Goldwater-Terrestrial-and-Wetland-Ecology.PDF [PDF, 622 KB]

   ...appropriately managed, including via the proposed construction noise and vibration conditions. a) Overall, free-range chickens should not be adversely affected during construction or operation of the Project. b) In terms of potential light disturbance, vehicles travelling past the chicken farm along the proposed state highway will essentially be moving in a straight line, (i.e., north-south parallel to the farm), which means the light emitted from vehicles at night cannot spill ov...

3. [2023] NZEnvC 249 Bayswater Marina Berth-Holders Association Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...out the procedures to be employed to ensure that the Site is managed safely and in a tidy condition throughout the Site Development Works. This section must provide details on the following: (a) The provision of any site office, parking for workers’ vehicles and workers’ conveniences (e.g., portaloos); (b) The location of construction machinery access, equipment unloading and storage areas during the various stages of the Site Development Works; (c) Procedures for controlling sediment ru...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 090 Pierau v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...6 days per annum (up to two lots of three day events) outside the main centres, with no limit on the number of people attending; that there are limitations on noise and lighting, and that Rule E40.6.2 provides that there can be no more than 500 vehicle movements per day on adjacent paragraph [21] of that decision. page 14 of her EIC. Macnicol, Rebuttal, para 3.3. para 3.4. 15 roads. She gave her opinion that such activities would not be fancifuf2 , because such events had...

5. [2017] NZEnvC 090 Pierau v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...6 days per annum (up to two lots of three day events) outside the main centres, with no limit on the number of people attending; that there are limitations on noise and lighting, and that Rule E40.6.2 provides that there can be no more than 500 vehicle movements per day on adjacent paragraph [21] of that decision. page 14 of her EIC. Macnicol, Rebuttal, para 3.3. para 3.4. 15 roads. She gave her opinion that such activities would not be fancifuf2 , because such events had...

6. [2019] NZEnvC 203 Director General of Conservation v New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 7.8 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Mt Messenger IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND AND AND AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 2 0 3 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of six appeals under s 120 and/or s 17 4 of the Act for Mount Messenger Bypass proposed State Highway 3 between Uruti and Ahititi, North Taranaki DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION (ENV-2019-WLG-000003) (ENV-2019-WLG-000004) TE RONANGA O NGATI TAMA TRUST (ENV-2019-WL

7. Final-Technical-Assessment-B-Noise-and-Vibration.pdf [pdf, 29 MB]

   ...NZS 6806, with input from other specialists, to develop what I consider to be the Best Practicable Option ("BPO"). 9. Recognising that annoyance from road-traffic noise often relates to noise with specific character or from individual vehicles, I have recommended the development and then adoption of design principles to avoid or reduce these effects (and they are contained in the Cultural and Environmental Design Framework ("CEDF"),2 attached as Appendix 3 to V...

8. LCRO 191/2019 UY v FB (26 November 2020) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...Mr UY’s perceptive analysis of the process adopted by the Complaints Service has assisted in identifying a significant and fundamental failure which, it could be expected, the Complaints Service would be alert to in the future. [125] I see negligible value for the parties in returning the matter to the Standards Committee. [126] As has been observed by the High Court, it is the task of a Review Officer when conducting a review, to look at matters “afresh”, and to bring a rob...

9. McElroy & Ors as Trustees of the Shona and Roger McElroy Family Trust v Lay [pdf, 284 KB]

   UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN SHONA KAY McELROY, ROGER IAN McELROY and RUSSELL STUART MELVILLE as Trustees of the Shona and Roger McElroy Family Trust Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liquidation

10. Regulatory Impact Statement: Second phase of reforms to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism regime [pdf, 1.6 MB]

    1 Regulatory Impact Statement: Second phase of reforms to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism regime Agency Disclosure Statement 1. This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The RIS provides an analysis of options to enhance and extend New Zealand’s anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. Previous decisions have limited the scope of the options considered 2