Have your say: do you support neighbours taking legal action against developments with resource consent?

The report said Auckland High Court Justice Gerard Van Bohemen had allowed a public challenge to Auckland Council's approval of resource consent for the apartment development at 44 Ventnor Rd. The judge ruled: 'The council failed to consider the effects of the building's high density on neighbourhood character and residential amenity.' The 1600-square-metre site previously contained just one house and would become a substantial development of 13 apartments. 'Such a significant development proposal was not properly assessed.' Failing to notify neighbours of the plans for the site or consider their views was seen as depriving them of their rights.

{ad}

The judge acknowledged that stopping work would harm the developer's interests and expressed disappointment with the council. Its planners had failed to consider the impact of 13 apartments, more than four times the number of homes permitted in the Mixed Housing Suburban zone!

The decision came before the implementation of government policies intended to allow higher-density housing in certain residential areas. The court's task was to apply the law as it stood to ensure significant effects were properly assessed. Asked about construction having already begun, the judge said that was not his concern.

Kurt Gibbons, founder of Viaduct Harbour-based developer Gibbons Co, said the project was two months from completion. The company had pre-sold all 13 apartments for between NZ$1,090,000 and NZ$1,330,000, collected 10% deposits and hoped to receive the remaining balances once code compliance certificates were issued shortly. Now, however, everything was uncertain...

'It's really sad. These homes sold within hours to first-home buyers, the very people we wanted to help. The project is high quality and built to a high specification, but reasonably priced, so buyers flocked to enquire at the time.'

Interestingly, those challenging the developer and council included resource management lawyers, commercial property developers and real estate agents. Richard Brabant, one of Auckland's most experienced RMA barristers, welcomed the ruling. He said: 'It's an absolutely dreadful place. It looks like a motel. The council must reconsider the application, and the developer's work must stop.'

YIJU believes the outcome reported here is one that neither the developer, council, buyers nor neighbours would have wanted. However, it raises concerns about the proposed MDRS (Medium Density Residential Standards) legislation that may soon take effect. What changes would MDRS bring to new-home design? Height limits, particularly for homes with sea views, recession planes, site coverage and floor area ratios all raise questions. If homes designed to comply with MDRS planning rules no longer require resource consent, will neighbours lose their right to be informed and to object? Could removing recession-plane requirements cause disputes between neighbours? All of these could spark conflict between neighbours and developers. As more medium- and high-density developments begin, disputes can be expected to increase. The news we are discussing today may provide a useful reference when similar cases reach court in future.

As soon as the news broke, social media comments erupted:

 'With more apartment developments soon to be completed under government policy, the lack of adequate supporting infrastructure will quickly become apparent.'

 'This is the sort of knee-jerk response you get when Auckland Council panics and reacts. With no leadership and inadequate infrastructure, it wastes ratepayers' money without knowing how to plan for the city's future development. Long Bay park is a good example: a new footbridge across a stream small enough to walk over cost more than NZ$80,000 and was refurbished three months after completion. Perhaps whoever designed it couldn't even be bothered visiting the site to see what was actually needed...'

'Greedy developers tear down beautiful homes, shut local people out, do nothing for their tenants, fail to help them understand or become part of the community, contribute nothing to improving the neighbourhood, and extract more money by abusing sunset clauses. They should be driven out by every possible means...'

'Sadly, this will become the new building norm: no garages, one house turned into 13 homes and sold 13 times...'

'Well done, neighbours. You've stopped construction before the project was finished, so now you can look at a half-finished building for years, until people can fight over it at a huge price a few years down the track...'

'We hope all the contractors on the project get paid. Otherwise, we'll see more small businesses collapse. These things always have a knock-on effect...'

'Fantastic. We successfully stopped a three-storey development right next door. Go, neighbours!'