Search Results

1. Parihaka Te Kawanata o Rongo Deed of Reconciliation [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...standards. Administration of civil works contracts on behalf of Parihaka. In-kind Environmental Services Concept Plan Continue to work with the Parihaka community to give effect to the concept plan within the Proposed South Taranaki District Plan which permits a range of activities. Consenting under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Provide assistance to identify resource consent requirements under the RMA in relation to development plans for Parihaka. TE HUANGA O RONGO APPENDIX...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 064 New Zealand Transport Agency v Waikato Regional Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...Council hereby grants consent to: Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Regional Office) PO Box 973 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240 (hereinafter referred to as the Consent Holder) Consent Type: Discharge permit Consent Subtype: Water- Stormwater Activity authorised: To discharge of stormwater in association with the SH1/SH29 Intersection Upgrade Project. Location: Intersection of SH1/SH29, Piar...

3. CAC402 v Dunham [2016] NZREADT 26 [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...on top of it. [36] Mr Ogilvy said he had a very clear recollection of his discussions at material times and what was said to him by the licensee. He said he had mistakenly assumed that the amount of land available for building works would only permit a single storey double garage. Mr Ogilvy is a project manager and a builder by trade. He assumed that the neighbour would need to get consents from neighbours especially if views were to be affected but Mr Ogilvy was not aware of Counci...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 073 Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 28 MB]

   ...container vessel that ran aground on Astrolabe/Otaiti reef (Otaiti) on 11 October 2011. The application was originally to dump the remains (as that term is defined under the RMA). However the Applicant now seeks to "abandon" the remains and permit future discharges of identified contaminants subject to comprehensive conditions of consent. [2] The Applicant is not the owner of the vessel. The intention is to transfer the vessel to the Applicant and to place the Applicant in f...

5. [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...

6. 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...

7. [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...

8. 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...

9. [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...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 291 Strain v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.2 MB]

    ...Proposed Moderate Capacity Area Proposed Moderate Capacity Area Key Landscape Character Units boundaries A B C Appendix 1 – Agreed final drafting3 27.5 Rules - Subdivision 27.5.1 All subdivision requires resource consent unless specified as a permitted activity. The abbreviations set out below are used in the following tables. Any activity which is not permitted (P) or prohibited (PR) requires resource consent. Subdivision Activities - District Wide Activity Status 27.5.19...