Shelly Bay development comes one step closer

Shelly Bay development comes one step closer
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
The decision by Wellington City Council (“Council”) to develop Shelly Bay, on the coast of Miramar, Wellington, has long been surrounded in controversy. Prominent opponents to the development include Sir Peter Jackson, local iwi Taranaki Whaanui, and Wellington City Mayor, Andy Foster. The main criticism by opponents has concerned how the Council has handled the process of development.
The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (“HAASHA”)
The process of seeking to develop Shelly Bay began when the Minister for Housing and Council signed a housing accord in 2014 under the HAASHA. HAASHA creates a streamlined process for obtaining resource consents in residential areas with housing supply and affordability issues. The Minister subsequently approved a number of sites within Wellington for ‘special housing areas’, including the Shelly Bay site. The Council, which owns the site, has agreed to sell a portion of it to Wellington Company Limited (“Company”), a developer, and to lease another portion to the Company for a 125-year term for residential purposes.
The first judicial review - resource consent quashed
When Council granted resource consent to the Company in 2018, Enterprise Miramar, a society representing members of the business community with the object of promoting and fostering the welfare of Miramar, succeeded in having the consent quashed.[1] The key reason the Court of Appeal found that the consent could not stand related to how the Council had treated the interplay between the HAASHA and the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).
The key provision for considering a resource consent under HAASHA is section 34. Under this section, Council must take into account a number of relevant considerations (s 34(1)). One of these considerations is certain sections of the RMA. In granting the first consent, Council failed to give adequate consideration to those sections of the RMA. Instead of treating the purpose of the HAASHA as the most important and influential matter to be weighed in comparison to other factors, Council used the purpose to eliminate or greatly reduce its consideration and weighing of the other factors, including the RMA sections. Council did not give any substantive consideration to the principles and purpose of the RMA (Part 2), as it should have done.
The Court of Appeal suggested the Council consider using a panel of commissioners to re-make its decision. In November 2020, a panel of three independent commissioners (“Panel”) granted resource consent to the Company. Enterprise Miramar again challenged the decision by way of a judicial review.[2]
The second judicial review – resource consent stands
This time, when assessing the s 34(1) considerations, the Panel had considered the RMA sections. Nevertheless, Enterprise Miramar argued that the Panel’s decision to conclude that the traffic effects of the new development would be ‘no more than minor’ was either an error of law or unreasonable; if the assessment of the traffic effects had occurred under the RMA, it could not be found that the effects were no more than minor. The High Court agreed that this would have been the conclusion under the RMA, which provided for a more rigorous test. However, the Court found that the HAASHA’s requirement of ‘taking into account’ a section of the RMA did not equate to having to meet the test in the RMA. As the Panel only had to take into account how the traffic effects would be assessed under the RMA, it was not fatal to the assessment under HAASHA that the traffic effects would not meet RMA test. What was important was that the Panel could demonstrate that it had considered and weighed all the factors in s 34(1).
Enterprise Miramar also made a number of other, technical, challenges, for example that the Panel asked whether roading infrastructure could be supported rather than using the correct terminology of would be supported. The Court rejected these challenges.
Substance over form
The case is a good reminder that, in judicial review, substance tends to matter over form. The first judicial review turned on a point of substance (whether the Council had given the proper consideration to the RMA). Once the decision was re-taken on the proper substantive basis, the highly technical challenges made by the claimant failed to move the Court.
Repeal of HAASHA
We note that the provisions of HAASHA to commence the process of establishing a special housing area were repealed on 16 September 2019, as required by HAASHA when it was enacted. This means no more special housing area processes could start from that date onwards. On 16 September 2021 HAASHA will be repealed in its entirety (pursuant to s 3).
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Author
Related Articles

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

Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 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

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

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

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
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

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 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

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

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

How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 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

Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018

Tendering pitfalls: the importance of "no process contract" clauses
Friday 15 September, 2017
