Friday, March 27, 2015

Urban Auckland Inc Vs POAL and Council

Yesterday, as reported in NZ Herald this morning, Urban Auckland served notice on POAL and Auckland Council that it would shortly be issuing High Court papers challenging the resource consent process for the proposed B2 and B3 wharf extensions to Bledisloe Wharf.

The letters to the Chief Executives of POAL and Auckland Council begin:

"...Urban Auckland places you on notice that it intends shortly to issue High Court proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of the decisions made by Auckland Council to process the multiple applications by Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) for its proposed B2 and B3 Bledisloe wharf extensions on a non-notified basis and subsequently to grant those applications...."

The letter summarises a range of errors, and states:

".... A consequence of those errors is that Council did not protect the Waitemata Harbour from the adverse effects of B2 and B3, despite this being our most iconic public domain asset, and “Auckland-defining”.... Rather than protect the Waitemata Harbour, Council has allowed POAL to take more for itself without any public input. Council should have intervened. It failed to require an integrated and holistic assessment of POAL’s expansion. That was unlawful. Council should have bundled the relevant consents together, and looked at the bigger picture. Integrated management requires nothing less. Further particulars are below...."

The full letter is available here.

And if you didn't get to attend the protest last Sunday, you can see video clips of what PJ Montgomery, Chris Dickson and Cllr Chris Darby said here.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the letter Joel, an interesting read.

While I don't want to see the port expand any further, I cant say I agree with the rationale presented in the letter. Without seeing all the applications, unbundling consent applications for a controlled activity (which cannot be declined)or even restricted-discretionary is fairly common. There is no point in carry out a much bigger assessment when the plan specifically limits those matters which are relevant. There also seems to be an inference in the letter that because the discharge permits have a more onerous consent status this can be used to justify greater scrutiny of the visual impacts. The effects a discharge permit are seeking to manage are very different from those a coastal permit seek to control and it seems entirely reasonable to separate consents out.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Urban Auckland Inc Vs POAL and Council

Yesterday, as reported in NZ Herald this morning, Urban Auckland served notice on POAL and Auckland Council that it would shortly be issuing High Court papers challenging the resource consent process for the proposed B2 and B3 wharf extensions to Bledisloe Wharf.

The letters to the Chief Executives of POAL and Auckland Council begin:

"...Urban Auckland places you on notice that it intends shortly to issue High Court proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of the decisions made by Auckland Council to process the multiple applications by Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) for its proposed B2 and B3 Bledisloe wharf extensions on a non-notified basis and subsequently to grant those applications...."

The letter summarises a range of errors, and states:

".... A consequence of those errors is that Council did not protect the Waitemata Harbour from the adverse effects of B2 and B3, despite this being our most iconic public domain asset, and “Auckland-defining”.... Rather than protect the Waitemata Harbour, Council has allowed POAL to take more for itself without any public input. Council should have intervened. It failed to require an integrated and holistic assessment of POAL’s expansion. That was unlawful. Council should have bundled the relevant consents together, and looked at the bigger picture. Integrated management requires nothing less. Further particulars are below...."

The full letter is available here.

And if you didn't get to attend the protest last Sunday, you can see video clips of what PJ Montgomery, Chris Dickson and Cllr Chris Darby said here.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the letter Joel, an interesting read.

While I don't want to see the port expand any further, I cant say I agree with the rationale presented in the letter. Without seeing all the applications, unbundling consent applications for a controlled activity (which cannot be declined)or even restricted-discretionary is fairly common. There is no point in carry out a much bigger assessment when the plan specifically limits those matters which are relevant. There also seems to be an inference in the letter that because the discharge permits have a more onerous consent status this can be used to justify greater scrutiny of the visual impacts. The effects a discharge permit are seeking to manage are very different from those a coastal permit seek to control and it seems entirely reasonable to separate consents out.