Wednesday , December 19 2018
Home / Offsetting Behaviour / Every time a NIMBY cries…

Every time a NIMBY cries…

Summary:
How do you get a housing crisis? One blocked building consent at a time.  The Court of Appeal has quashed resource consents granted for a 0 million development in Wellington at Shelly Bay.The Court found the Wellington City Council made an error of law when determining whether or not to grant resource consent."As a result of the error, matters such as the environmental effects of the proposed development were not given appropriate consideration and weight by the Council," the judgement said.The Wellington Company Limited applied for consent in September 2016.The original proposal at Shelly Bay would have involved the construction of 12 apartment buildings hosting 280 apartments, 58 townhouses and 14 individual homes.A 50-room boutique hotel, an aged care facility and buildings for

Topics:
Eric Crampton considers the following as important: ,

This could be interesting, too:

Eric Crampton writes Where’s my hockey rink?

Eric Crampton writes Afternoon roundup

Eric Crampton writes Vacancy rates

Eric Crampton writes The market’s a harsh mistress

The Court of Appeal has quashed resource consents granted for a $500 million development in Wellington at Shelly Bay.

The Court found the Wellington City Council made an error of law when determining whether or not to grant resource consent.

"As a result of the error, matters such as the environmental effects of the proposed development were not given appropriate consideration and weight by the Council," the judgement said.

The Wellington Company Limited applied for consent in September 2016.

The original proposal at Shelly Bay would have involved the construction of 12 apartment buildings hosting 280 apartments, 58 townhouses and 14 individual homes.

A 50-room boutique hotel, an aged care facility and buildings for commercial and community activities were also planned.

The original consent application was over two years ago. Everything since then has been consent process and litigation. 

Dom Post covers it here:

The Court found that the council had misinterpreted the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. The act had more permissive rules for housing consents, and was intended to be used to increase the supply of houses, and housing affordability, in areas with a housing shortage.

The city council did not notify the application for public consultation and did not hold a hearing.

The court said the council had used the housing accord law to effectively "neutralise" all other considerations. Had the correct approach been adopted there might have been a different outcome, the court said.

Usual planning considerations were still relevant and the Court of Appeal found the council failed to properly consider matters such as the preservation of the natural character of that part of the coast and the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate use and development.

The council had also used the need to increase housing supply to make a finding that the environment effects of the development were "no more than minor".

The aim of increasing housing was not logically relevant to deciding whether an environmental effect was more than minor, the court said.

 The SHAs were supposed to get around this kind of red tape.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *