Search Results

1. [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...

2. 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...

3. [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...

4. 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...

5. [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...

6. [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...

7. Environment Court Annual Review 2016 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...the risks to, species of fauna in New Zealand’s rivers. Water take and use — Water divert — River — Effect adverse — Earthworks This was an appeal about an application to take water from the Waimakariri catchment by obtaining a new permit to take water from the Cass River (“the river”) (a tributary in the upper catchment) which the applicant P and E Ltd (“PE”) proposed to substitute for existing permits in the lower catchment. PE had sought resource consent to take...

8. LCRO 201/2021 DK obo The LK Estate v BY and FM (31 July 2023) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...a person to use the complaints process under the Act to bring complaints against a lawyer on an evolving basis. The requirement for complaints to be dealt with expeditiously and the need for finality are both seriously compromised if a person is permitted to respond to an adverse finding simply by filing a further complaint. 13 Mr DK has submitted on the meaning of this word. In this context, it means just to pursue a legal dispute a second time, regardless of whether this is in a co...

9. [2017] NZEnvC 120 Housing New Zealand Corporation v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...development pathways in the single house zone creating additional dwellings using the density provisions. There is also potential for the conversion of existing dwellings into two, and for minor household units, which he believed would either be a permitted activity or require a low level consent. In addition, there is an integrated residential development pathway (with activity status of discretionary as amended by the Council from the Panel's restricted activity status.) [72]...

10. Appendix-M4-Economic-Impact-Report-on-the-New-Zealand-Sport-Horse-Industry-2012-.pdf [pdf, 695 KB]

    ...purchases of tack - Rugs and rug maintenance - Clipping or show prep - Clothing (for you)* - Lessons, Clinics etc* - Off the horse - Events, and Shows Books, videos, DVDs, magazine subscriptions etc* - Recreational Costs - Memberships, caps or permits* - Annual vehicle expenses - COF, WOF, RUC etc - Vehicle Maintenance These questions are directly related to costs associated with each activity, they can then be divided into specific categories such as Health and Wellbeing...