Here are all the practical details about NZTA’s High Court appeal of the Board of Inquiry decision to decline resource consent for a Basin Reserve flyover. Starts: Monday 20 July Where: High Court, 2 Molesworth St, Court No. 6 (Downstairs). When you enter the building, you will need to go down the lift to find the courtroom and viewing gallery. Ends: The hearing is set down to end on Friday 31 July. However, it may well finish earlier Times: Standard session times are 10am-5pm, with the following breaks: – 11.30-11.45am Morning tea – 1-2.15pm Lunch – 3.30-3.45pm Afternoon tea The judge may decide to vary these times, but will give notice before doing so. There is a cafe in the building. Connectivity: Phones are not allowed on in the courtroom, and unfortunately, there is no free wi-fi in the building. Members of the public: There is public seating in the courts. When you arrive, court officials will give you directions. Please note: there are only around 18 public seats in Court No. 6, so you will need to arrive early, especially on Monday, to ensure you get a seat. Do’s and don’ts Do: Come along when you can. It does make a difference, and you don’t have to stay for a whole day Do: Bring some reading matter for breaks and delays Do: Wear smart casual clothing Do: Rise to your feet when directed, or when the judge rises Don’t: Wear your “Save the Basin” T-shirt – it’s not appropriate for High Court (but we encourage you to wear it everywhere else!) Don’t: Talk, make exasperated faces etc. when in the courtroom Don’t: Have your phone turned on when in the courtroom Don’t: Bring food or drink into the courtroom – but remember, there are plenty of breaks during the day and a cafe nearby You can: Enter and leave the courtroom during sessions, as long as you do so quietly. What to expect – structure of the case How the case proceeds is up to the judge, so what follows is purely indicative, based on experience of similar cases. NZTA will present its case first. This may take up to three days. During this period, interactions will be between NZTA’s lawyer and the judge – don’t expect it to play out like a John Grisham novel, with dramatic cries of “Objection!” Next, the lawyers representing parties opposing NZTA’s case will present their case. At minimum, this will include:
- Matthew Palmer QC, for Save the Basin Campaign and Mount Victoria Residents’ Association
- Philip Milne, for The Architectural Centre
Finally, NZTA, as the appellant, will have the right of reply before the case concludes. Media coverage We understand that the Dominion Post, Radio NZ and Newstalk ZB plan to cover the case. Other media may also cover it. There was a preview of the case in the Dominion Post of Saturday 18 July: http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/69988680/basin-reserve-flyover-battle-set-to-ignite-again-in-the-high-court When we might get a decision There is no fixed date for the judge’s decision, and we probably won’t get any advance warning of the decision release date. As a very rough rule of thumb, a decision during the final quarter of 2015 would not be unexpected. See you at the High Court – and please get in touch if you have any questions via stoptheflyover@gmail.com.
Hello, I don’t know if this is of any use to you. I saw the reference in the Dominion Post to NZTA making a big thing out of the lack of identification of the area around the Basin as a heritage area in the District Plan. As a town planner, I thought I would point out that how reliable a District Plan is and how much faith should be put on it, depends on the level of investigation which has gone into it. If Wellington City Council has done a comprehensive review of heritage, and previously considered the concept of creating a heritage area around the Basis and dismissed this, it would not be good for the case. However, I am aware that for at least one other Council in the Wellington region – there has been little investigation of heritage resources. Several Councils in NZ have adopted a stance of a great reluctance to list heritage and environmental resources in District Plans, without landowner agreement.
NZ Councils have generally adopted a less proactive approach to heritage management, than Councils I worked for in Wales and England. The 1996 Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment, released a very scathing report about how badly heritage resources were being managed.
I believe WCC has been more active than most in its heritage investigations. I just wanted to say – that the absence of heritage listing in a District Plan – is not proof positive that an item doesn’t have heritage value . All the best in your campaign. Its a tough fight and I admire community groups which fight for what they believe in.