Sheppard and Ors v North Shore City Council (HC, Auckland, M1791-SW00, 1 May 2001, Priestley J)

Notification; permitted baseline; holistic approach

1. In this case there was a proposal for a business park development on the edge of a lagoon, which was granted consent on a non-notified basis. Consent was required for a variety of activities, which ranged in status from controlled to non-complying. In particular there was an issue of a sign, and the bulk and location of the building.

2. Priestley J noted that a decision maker under the RMA was required to try to balance the interests of developers (to use their land) against the interests of neighbours and other interested groups. He stated that courts should be slow to allow section 94 to be used to limit public participation, and went on to cite a number of cases on this point, including Murray.

3. The legal tests that have been developed for assessing decisions on notification, including the permitted baseline test, the holistic approach and the thresholds for effects, were considered. While tests are a useful guide, it comes down to assessing the facts.

4. The building height, which was non-complying, was regarded as a technical matter only, which had no or only minimal effect on the overall height and bulk of the building. The consents required for the building and signage were regarded in a holistic way. The bulk and location of the building could be lawfully constructed on the site (in the main), so visual effects from it were to be expected under the plan, no people were adversely affected by it and the effects on the environment were minor.