Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 170 Director-General of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 11 MB]

   ...m3/day/property is a discretionary activity; and (b) by pNRP Rule C.5.1.15 taking of freshwater that would change the level of a dune lake as referred to in Policy H.4.2 “Minimum levels for lakes and natural wetlands” (refer above) and that is not permitted by a rule in the pNRP is a non-complying activity. The appeal The applicants sought consent to take groundwater from the deep shell bed of the Aupōuri Peninsula to primarily service proposed and existing avocado orchard...

2. 18.-Evidence-of-Dr-Alex-James-Freshwater-Ecology.PDF [PDF, 633 KB]

   ...Quarterly reporting of fish recovery data has been added to condition RFE1, however the requirement to enter data into the NZFFD has not as this is not directly related to effects management. Additionally, all fish relocations will require a permit from Wellington Fish & Game, in case sports fish are captured. In my experience their permits require entry of fish data into the NZFFD anyway. Culvert Design Peer Review and As Built Inspection 103. Mr Brown has suggested the...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 136 The Canyon Vineyard Ltd v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 507 KB]

   ...proper evaluation of the proposal in terms of its visual effects. [47] Profile poles depicting a corner of the building platform at the highest point on the slopes had been placed on each of the lots and were 6 m in height, being the maximum permitted height of each dwelling. However, the location of other elements of the proposal were not depicted on site, and that information had to be gleaned from the plans submitted in Bendigo’s evidence, which were not drawn to scale and...

4. Harris & Ors as Trustees of the Estuary Trust v Veltman [2010] NZWHT Auckland 19 [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...purchased three other sections, built a home on them and then sold them. The three previous properties had all been in Manor Park Drive. No 55 was purchased in 1992, a dwelling built on it and it was sold in 1994. In August 1994 a building permit was lodged for No 77 Manor Park Drive. That was sold in Page | 26 October 1995. In February 1996 a section at No 83 Manor Park Drive was purchased in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Chapman, a building permit was obtained in...

5. [2009] NZEmpC AC 52/09 Corrections Assn of NZ v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...circumstances such as damage to or loss of cells in other institutions, widespread civil disorder and like extraordinary circumstances. In what are known as these “contingent” circumstances, in which up to 20 per cent over- muster occupancy is permitted, second bunks are in storage and available to be installed at short notice in what are otherwise single occupant cells. [18] The design drawings and plans of the institutions include detail of where such second bunks and associat...

6. Masefield v CAC301 & Ors [2015] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...that in 2013 a house was built on No. 248 which partially obstructs the views from 234. He says that he is not a surveyor and did not ascertain the restriction on height of any future building on No. 248 at material times but is surprised at its permitted height. He presumes that the purpose of what he refers to as the No. 248 Wharau Road covenants was to protect the views from No. 234. He questions the adequacy of the calculations by the surveyor at material times for the purposes of...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 124 Allen v C3 Ltd [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...and the second respondent. [67] The Court in Chaplin relied on a decision of the Privy Council in Free Lanka Insurance Co Ltd v Ranasinghe. 26 That case involved the repeal of an ordinance requiring drivers to have third party insurance, and permitting persons to recover from the insurer by suing the insurer directly. An accident occurred before the ordinance was repealed. Following repeal, the respondent commenced an action to recover damages from the insurer. The appellant a...

8. Finn and Anor as Trustees of the Angela Poynter Trust v Chen [2011] NZWHT Auckland 40 [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...concern. Mr Taylor submitted that the Tribunal is not at liberty to consider Mr Finn‟s experiences with his former property in determining whether he and Ms Poynter, who is familiar with building survey reports as prudent purchasers. But, I am permitted to consider the circumstances of this purchase and how prospective buyers would ordinarily manage the risk with the purchase of such a home. Ms Poynter stated that she was not familiar with the leaky home problem in New Zealan...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 045 Gray v Dunedin City Council [pdf, 527 KB]

   ...considering loss of rural productivity, both in terms of the effects assessment and in terms of a relevant policy on rural productivity – Policy 16.2.4.2. Ms Peters excludes the planted area because the planting of indigenous vegetation is a permitted activity, although Ms Spalding says the planted area should be included when considering the area of land that would be displaced. Section 104(1)(b) plan provisions Strategic directions chapter [33] We were told that the 2GP polic...

10. [2023] NZREADT 17 - UM v REAA (26 July 2023) [pdf, 250 KB]

    ...the lease documentation because he thought that was what she was seeking. 5. As for whether the tenant stayed open during the lockdowns, Mr Gow said he told the purchaser that as a convenience store, it was deemed an essential service and was permitted to trade during the lockdowns. He did not say that the business had been open and trading during all the 2020 lockdowns. The statement was made while they inspected the property in August 2020 during Level 3 and the store was op...