Search Results

1. [2018] NZEnvC 038 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 534 KB]

   ...gardens. The zone enables intensification, while retaining a suburban built character. Development within the zone will generally be two storey detached and attached housing in a variety of types and sizes to provide housing choice. The height of permitted buildings is the main difference between this zone and the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone which generally provides for three storey predominately attached dwellings. Up to three twa dwellings are permitted as of right subject...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 226 Scaife v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...provided for in the RLZ, this is on a more qualified basis than in the RVZ. For example, visitor accommodation (including the construction or use of buildings) is classed as a discretionary activity (r 22.4.10) (whereas the RVZ classes it as a permitted activity). The qualified provision for visitor accommodation in the RLZ is also reflected in rules on matters of control and discretion and associated standards and in a lack of any signal that consent applications for such activit...

3. Federated Farmers of New Zealand.pdf [pdf, 395 KB]

   ...Council will in conjunction with certified sector schemes where available: Support Federated Farmers encourages Waikato Regional Council to work in conjunction with certified sector schemes where this is possible. Rules Rule 3.11.4.2 Interim Permitted Activity – Farming prior to obtaining consent Amended to align with the amendments proposed to other rules. Amend Rule 3.11.4.2 as follows: Except as permitted by Rule 3.11.4.1 or 3.11.4.3, or as regulated by Rule 3.11.4.9...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 188 Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust v OBrien Pichler [pdf, 487 KB]

   ...abatement notices had been served on the second or third respondents. I am not sure how substantial a difference that is. The first respondents, as the owners and occupiers of the site, are in control of who may come onto the site. If they were to permit the second or third respondents to undertake earthworks in breach of the abatement notice that has been served on them, then that permission would likely constitute an offence under section 338(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, any earth...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 76 George v Auckland City Council and vice versa [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...v Jesudhass. 4 The Court of Appeal (Wilson J) wrote as follows: [41] We now return to the question of public policy considerations. As the Employment Court stated, it may be that such considerations require s 148 be interpreted so as to permit evidence of serious criminal conduct during a mediation to be called, including evidence from the mediator. [42] An example given by Sinclair J in Milner v Police (1987) 2 FRNZ 693; (1987) 4 NZFLR 424 (an authority to which Mr Corkil...

6. Apostolakis v Public Trust (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...litigants such as Ms Mackrell, and it was made by the Tribunal here. But lay litigants, like litigants who are professionally represented, are required to comply with the pleading rules and procedures of Tribunals and Courts. They are not to be permitted to file incomprehensive claims, because that only visits prejudice and injustice upon the respondent, not to mention enormous inconvenience to the Court or Tribunal. [22] A statement of claim drafted in compliance with these requireme...

7. [2021] NZEnvC 101 Close v Wellington City Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...Space B under the District Plan. The planning "vitnesses (Mr T Anderson for WZAL and Mr P N Thomas for the Appellants) agreed that the proposal required consent as a discretionary activity because the proposed platform structures exceeded permitted activity standards. The zipline activity itself ( considered in isolation) would be permitted as a recreation activity was it not for the non-compliance of the platforms and the fact that operation of the zipline would exceed a permi...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 039 Waterfront Watch Incorporated v Wellington City Council [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...13.4.5 The development of new, or the modification of existing open spaces in the Lambton Harbour Area is a Discretionary Activity (Unrestricted). Except that this Rule does not apply to: • the maintenance of existing open space (which is a Permitted Activity). 13.4.7 The construction of new buildings and structures, or the alteration of, and addition to existing buildings and structures in the Lambton Harbour Area which: • do not satisfy any of the criteria for minor additions...

9. Staite v Greenville - Paeroa East 4B2C2 (2002) 264 Rotorua MB 132 (264 ROT 132) [pdf, 711 KB]

   ...began to upgrade the bridge. They were concerned as to the sag under load and believed it was unsafe in that it had no handrails. They also believed that the abutments had begun to rot. Greenville and McMillan continued to use the bridge and were permitted to do so, but were impeded for long periods when the bridge '(Vas out of action due to the repairs that Staite and others had commenced. Staite began to reform the abutments by creating a reinforced pad and the bridge was m...

10. BORA Resource Management Amendment Bill [pdf, 332 KB]

    ...types, or classes, of activ- ities, or to prescribe information requirements for fast-track applications, by regula- tion. Reversing the change to subdivision presumption Under the original RMA, subdivision was presumed to be restricted unless explicitly permitted by a district plan rule. The RLAA reversed this, so that subdivision would be permitted unless explicitly restricted by a district plan. This Bill reinstates the ori- ginal presumption, which existing district plans were initially fo...