Recall that Urban Auckland argued that the consent applications to extend Bledisloe Wharf (B2 and B3) should have been notified, and also that the various consents that made up each of these applications should have been bundled and decided together (among other things).
In summary, Justice Venning judged (with my emphasis in bold:
 The decision to proceed without notification was flawed for two reasons:
(a) The applications for consent should have been bundled which would have required notification, as the most restrictive activity was a discretionary activity. The adverse effects identified by Urban Auckland will fall to be considered.
(b) Alternatively, special circumstances existed which required notification in this case. The Commissioners fell into error in determining that because the extension was a controlled activity and an expected development no special circumstances existed so that it was unnecessary to notify in any event.
 The consents issued on a non-notified basis are set aside.
Of interest, in response to POAL's submissions that costs would be incurred should the court decide to set aside the resource consents (and which POAL is relying upon right now to extend B2), Justice Venning judged:
 Mr Farmer then made a number of submissions emphasising the cost and commercial imperative in this case and the effect on third party contractors. I accept the significance of that to the POAL. He also referred to a number of matters which have been discussed above and submitted that there would be little point achieved by notification. However, the same reasons which support notification in this case, also support the grant of relief. I accept there would be no point in setting the consents aside and requiring notification if there is no purpose to it, but for the reasons given above I consider there will be purpose. It may well be that ultimately the consents are granted but that should follow the proper process contemplated by the RMA on the facts of this case.
 To the extent that there will be further delay and cost to POAL it has to a degree brought that on itself in the way that it urged the Council to proceed on the non-notified basis in the knowledge of the reaction that was likely to engender. In doing so it took a commercial risk in proceeding in that way.
 The cost and commercial imperative in requiring notification is a significant factor, but it cannot override the legal requirement for non notification which the Court has concluded is applicable in this case.
A great result for the public of Auckland, and for public participation.
Download the full decision here.