Park and (don't) ride

Park and (don't) ride
Thursday 9 June, 2022
Businesses along the route of a partly-built Wellington cycleway are taking Wellington City Council to Court to challenge the decision to install it. They were successful in halting construction until September, when their case will have a full Court hearing.
In granting the interim halt, the Court accepted that the impact of the removal of parking to install the cycleway would have a significant and immediate impact on most of the group of businesses. On the other hand, the impacts on the project from the delay were seen as reasonably negligible. WCC pointed to impacts including the loss of funding for staff, the risk of contractor unavailability, and the possible loss of contractor confidence in WCC. Interestingly, these are all council-centric impacts: it appears that WCC did not raise the impact of the delay on cyclist safety, nor the urgency of addressing climate change.
The businesses will present three arguments to Court in September: that WCC relied on the wrong power, that its decision-making was flawed, and that the consultation was inadequate. The most interesting of these in terms of LG law is the first point: that using the temporary prohibition of traffic power in Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974 is not appropriate for what is really a permanent change. It may be that the sections the LGA 1974 which empower councils to make cycleways on roads and determine what part of a road is roadway, footpath or cycleway will prove more suitable. The Judge observed that WCC is planning to use the temporary powers at scale for cycleway construction across the city and an early confirmation of whether or not that is a valid approach is desirable.
We note that this confirmation will be useful not only for WCC but also for other local authorities looking to make their cities more cycling friendly. We will provide an update following the outcome of the September hearing.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018
