Skip to main content.

4 Amenity findings

The following cases were reviewed that included references to the subject of amenity in an urban context:

  • Eldamos Investments Ltd and Gladiator Investments (Gisborne) Ltd v Gisborne District Council (W47/05)

  • Foot v Wellington City Council (W73/98)

  • Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc v Manukau City Council (A167/04)

  • Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd (W15/08)

  • Pick v Far North District Council (A64/06)

  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland v Franklin District Council (W61/04)

  • Urban Auckland–Society for the Protection of Auckland City and Waterfront Inc v Auckland City Council [2005] NZRMA 155 (High Court).

Some cases also referenced other urban subjects and, accordingly, may or may not be referred to under those subjects. Each case is summarised in Appendix 1.

4.1 Wide definition

Amenity is a subject commonly addressed by the Environment Court (the Court) relative to the other urban design subject headings. It provides (given the broad meaning – see section 2 of this report) a catch-all for a range of attributes, including the physical, functional, cultural and spiritual characteristics of a place that people enjoy (Eldamos Investments Ltd and Gladiator Investments (Gisborne) Ltd v Gisborne District Council and Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd).

‘Cross-boundary’ jurisdictional considerations will also need to be made between district and regional level planning as well as between districts where amenity is appreciated across a wide spatial area (views, for example).

4.2 Recognising amenity

A place-specific determination of amenity is an important component on which to base district plan provisions for those areas that have distinguishable amenity attributes. Without such a basis, the adequacy of simple ‘bulk and location’ rules to address amenity can easily be questioned. If councils have no policy on amenity, but can demonstrate that areas have high-value amenity attributes (commonly linked to character), the Court encourages those councils to purposefully and adequately provide for these attributes in their plans. (Foot v Wellington City Council; Pick v Far North District Council and Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd).

Further, councils are also expected to apply existing policies in their plans (Urban Auckland v Auckland City Council and Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc v Manukau City Council).

4.3 Defining amenity

There is no apparent ‘standard’ for determining the amenity or character of a place. There are, however, several techniques and levels of assessment and identification that have formed the basis for the district plan provisions referred to by the Court. At times, the Court will specifically note the process used to assess amenity and the relative weight it has given it in making its decision (Urban Auckland v Auckland City Council).

4.4 Distinguishing amenity and character

The distinction between amenity and character seems well understood by the Court, with references to the character of a place contributing to its amenity (Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc v Manukau City Council).

4.5 Amenity value

People place strong emphasis on amenity in terms of the attributes by which they determine where they want to live or the places they gain enjoyment from. It is important to ensure that communities of interest are engaged in the process of determining how these attributes are appropriately provided for in district plans, because these attributes will form the basis of future decision-making (Foot v Wellington City Council).

 

[ |