Strand Holdings Limited v Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-2350 [2017] NZHC 371

BETWEEN
STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL First Defendant

AUCKLAND COUNCIL Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A A Arthur-Young and S H Pilkinton for Plaintiff
M G Wakefield and C J Brown for Defendantss

Judgment:

8 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 March 2017 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, Auckland
Auckland Council, Auckland

STRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED v THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2017] NZHC 371 [8 March 2017]

[1] In Albany North Landowners v Auckland Council1 I found that the Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendation to relocate the Dilworth Terraces View Protection Plane to the Strand (“the IHP recommendation”) was procedurally unfair and outside the scope of submissions. I stated at [303] that the substantive issues raised by Strand Holdings Limited (SHL) in these proceeding should now be referred to the Environment Court for resolution. I now have a joint memorandum of counsel endorsing this approach. Accordingly I make the following orders:

(a) I declare that the IHP recommendation was outside the scope of submissions but not identified as such for the purpose of s 144(8) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (the Act);

(b)I declare that the Auckland Council decision to adopt the IHP recommendation was a decision to adopt a recommendation beyond the scope of submissions for the purpose of s 156(3)(b) of the Act; and

(c) SHL may lodge an appeal to the Environment Court pursuant to s

156(3) on the recommendation within 20 working days.

[2] There is no question as to costs.

1 Albany North Landowners v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 138.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Strand Holdings Limited brought an action against the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel and the Auckland Council in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The dispute centered on the Independent Hearings Panel's recommendation to relocate the Dilworth Terraces View Protection Plane to the Strand. Strand Holdings Limited argued that this recommendation was procedurally unfair and outside the scope of submissions, and sought a declaration that the Panel's recommendation and the Council's decision to adopt it were beyond the scope of submissions under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. Additionally, the plaintiff requested permission to appeal the recommendation to the Environment Court.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Independent Hearings Panel's recommendation to relocate the Dilworth Terraces View Protection Plane to the Strand was procedurally fair and within the scope of submissions. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the Auckland Council's decision to adopt this recommendation was within the scope of submissions as defined by the Act. The court also needed to determine whether Strand Holdings Limited was entitled to lodge an appeal to the Environment Court.

The court found that the Independent Hearings Panel's recommendation was outside the scope of submissions but not identified as such for the purpose of section 144(8) of the Act. The court declared that the Panel's recommendation was outside the scope of submissions but did not identify it as such. The court also declared that the Auckland Council's decision to adopt the recommendation was a decision to adopt a recommendation beyond the scope of submissions for the purpose of section 156(3)(b) of the Act. The court granted Strand Holdings Limited permission to appeal the recommendation to the Environment Court within 20 working days. There was no question as to costs.

In summary, the court declared that the Independent Hearings Panel's recommendation was outside the scope of submissions and that the Auckland Council's decision to adopt it was also beyond the scope of submissions. The court granted Strand Holdings Limited permission to appeal the recommendation to the Environment Court within 20 working days. There was no question as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	A A Arthur-Young and S H Pilkinton for Plaintiff M G Wakefield and C J Brown for Defendantss
Judgment:	8 March 2017