Judge questions legality of zoning change
AN Environment Court judge says the way the Queenstown Lakes District Council handled part of its proposed district plan ‘‘may have been illegal’’.
Judge Jon Jackson granted an application by the Arthurs Point Outstanding Natural Landscape Society Inc for an enforcement order — opposed by the council and Arthurs Point landowners, Gertrude Saddlery Ltd and Larchmont Developments Ltd.
He also ordered the council to renotify submissions from the two landowners, essentially starting the process for them again, and directed rezoning of their land, to lowdensity residential, be suspended.
The council is still reviewing the decision and has not yet decided if it will appeal.
The issue stemmed from the first stage of the proposed district plan when the two companies sought to have their land, dubbed the Shotover Loop, rezoned and for the urban growth boundary to be moved.
However, it was not made clear by the council in its summary of requested decisions that involved moving the outstanding natural landscape boundary in Arthurs Point.
The commissioners accepted the submission and when the council ratified its decision on stage one of the proposed plan, the urban growth boundary had been moved to include the Shotover Loop and a second line, marking an outstanding natural landscape, had been added around the Arthurs Point suburb.
The commissioners used powers under the Resource Management Act enabling them to make ‘‘minor’’ changes to do so.
However, Judge Jackson said those powers were not intended to allow the council to make changes to information in a plan where, had that information been present, it might have drawn a submission.
In a complex 43page decision, Judge Jackson said the Arthurs Point society’s application to the court indicated inserting outstanding natural landscape lines — a matter of ‘‘national significance’’ — into planning maps ‘‘has a more than minor effect on members of the public’’.
He found the Gertrude Saddlery and Larchmont submission summaries ‘‘illogical (and therefore unreasonable) and misleading (and therefore unfair)’’.
The council argued granting the enforcement order would delay the first stage of the proposed plan becoming operative — Judge Jackson said that was a result of the ‘‘complexity of the process chosen’’, the approach to recognition and protection of the outstanding natural landscapes and the ‘‘unthinking’’ of the summaries.
‘‘If potential submitters have been unfairly misled (as I have held they have) on a matter of national importance, then the extra costs must be borne by the ratepayers.
‘‘The public interest is in getting a fair hearing of the issues.
‘‘Any extra costs which will be incurred arise from the council’s own actions.
‘‘If it seeks to conduct a review in too large, then this case demonstrates precisely the sort of problem that will arise.’’
If other parties sought to ‘‘relitigate’’ Arthurs Point matters that was ‘‘an unfortunate consequence of the process adopted’’, he said.
‘‘I do not feel too uncomfortable about that given my preliminary view that the . . . action taken by council may have been illegal.’’