Search Results

1. 2023-09-26-SOE_Stuart-Farrant_Stormwater.pdf [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...the confirmation provided in my s87F Report that I have read and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2023. This evidence has been prepared in accordance with that Code. Statements expressed in this evidence are within my area of expertise. C. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE [7] My report will cover the following: P a g e | 2 (a) The extent to which issues identified in my s87F Report have been resolved through...

2. 2020-02-19 Simon Wilson Reply [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...[99]. 2 Statement of Evidence of Tom De Pelsemaeker dated 7 December 2020 at [59]-[75]. 3 potential to undermine the reliability of water supply actually available to other users. 12 As outlined in Mr Leslie’s evidence in chief, the ORC Consents Team, when allocating volume limits under the current water plan, generally consider historic use and numbers recommended by Aqualinc and use the lesser of the maximum historic use or the volume recommended by Aqualinc.3 13 M...

3. [2023] NZEnvC 265 Gibbston Vines Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...necessary findings on the Modified Proposal [60] The Modified Proposal materially differs from the original Proposal in the fact that it is a non-complying activity (rather than discretionary). Apart from the fact that this requires the s104D consentability threshold to be met, this change is significant in terms of whether the grant of consent would offend PDP integrity. [61] In addition, the various changes in reconfiguring the proposal to a simple two-lot subdivision, without id...

4. 2023-09-26-SOE_Jon-Williamson_Hydrogeology-and-Groundwater.pdf [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...within 100 metres of any material supply sites or site where dewatering is occurring”. [27] I would recommend that the precise location within the 100 m radius be agreed in advance with the Regional Councils. This could occur now, as part of the consenting process, or through a peer review of the locations to be provided to the Council. The important thing is to ensure the monitoring devices are positioned where the greatest potential magnitude of effect is anticipated, given up...

5. [2019] NZEnvC 033 Liu v Auckland Council [pdf, 457 KB]

   ...Epsom, Auckland (the Property), in 2013. The Property has an area of 2302m2. There was an existing house on it at the time the Appellant acquired it. [6] The Appellant intended to redevelop the site. To that end he obtained a series of resource consents: (i) 8 August 2013: external additions and alterations to the existing dwelling; (ii) 24 July 2015: additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, construction of two new dwellings on adjacent sites and subdivision of the...

6. [2021] NZEnvC 182 Country Lifestyles Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...of any assistance to the Court. [25] The Council pointed to one of the reasons given for the return of CLL’s application as incomplete in its letter of 22 January 2021; that the application did not contain an assessment of district land use consenting as they relate to earthworks. [26] Ms Hartley advised that Mr Hassall was not involved in CLL’s application or the decision to return CLL’s application as incomplete, including in relation to the view expressed in the Council...

7. [2022] NZREADT 10 – HD v REAA and LD (18 May 2022) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...included the “agency file” (see the agency’s response of 5 August 2021 to the Committee at 103 of the bundle). 8 [42] There is a checkbox answer section, with templated questions. This includes a question as to whether there were any statements/discussions about “Resource Consent and Use”, against which the “yes” box is marked with a cross. This begs the question as to what was said. The licensee does not deny that the issue of consent was raised. In answer...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 117 High Quality v Auckland Council [pdf, 885 KB]

   ...lighting, as required by E27.6.3.7(1), is a restricted-discretionary activity pursuant to E27.4.1(A2). It is common ground that overall the proposal is to be considered as a discretionary activity. It was agreed in the planning joint witness statement that consent is not required under Rule E36.4.1(A36) because the site is located within a Flood Prone Area not within a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) Floodplain, and that earthworks consent has been granted to enable constru...

9. ORC - Statement of Evidence - Felicity Boyd - 3 September 2021 [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...significance directed by the Minister for the Environment to be referred to the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA AND IN THE MATTER of an application under section 149T of the RMA OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Applicant STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FELICITY BOYD ON BEHALF OF THE OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL PLAN ARCHITECTURE - PRIMARY SECTOR PROVISIONS 3 September 2021 Applicant's Solicitor PO Box 4341 CHRISTCHURCH 8140 DX WX11179...

10. RC - Felicity Boyd - Statement of Evidence - 17 December 2021 [pdf, 3.4 MB]

    ...significance directed by the Minister for the Environment to be referred to the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA AND IN THE MATTER of an application under section 149T of the RMA OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Applicant STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF FELICITY BOYD ON BEHALF OF THE OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL PC8 URBAN PROVISIONS 17 December 2021 Applicant's Solicitor PO Box 4341 CHRISTCHURCH 8140 DX WX11179 Tel +64 3 379 7622 F...