The Environment Court has made a decision to award costs of $44,199 against QLDC. This equates to approximately 30% of the costs sought by one of the parties involved in the appeal.

It relates to a legal case brought by Second Star Limited, a company associated with businessman Peter Thiel. It was an appeal against QLDC’s decision to refuse resource consent for a proposed luxury lodge at Damper Bay near Wānaka.

In this case the Court made a fresh decision on the development, as is usual, based on its own assessment of the proposal, which was amended during an appeal process to address concerns raised in the original Council decision.

The appeal was opposed by an entity (LET) founded by John May, another businessman and developer who owns neighbouring land. QLDC was the first respondent and LET joined the proceedings in opposition to the lodge.

In the final appeal decision, the Environment Court also refused the resource consent for the lodge. The Court criticised QLDC’s assessment that the proposal was more appropriate and potentially consentable after the appellant changes. The court considered QLDC did not have strong enough evidence to justify that conclusion and that it expected QLDC to defend its original decision to refuse resource consent.

As it was a case where two well-resourced neighbours, and other parties, were contesting a development proposal, QLDC adopted a pragmatic approach to a legal case in which it was required to participate.

At the end of the case, QLDC concluded its closing submissions to the Court with the following statement: “…Council neither supports nor opposes the granting of consent but is satisfied that the Proposal may be granted consent if the Court considers so, as long as it gives regard to the Council’s decision and provides reasons for its decision, and as long as appropriate conditions are imposed to manage effects, and that they are reasonable and enforceable.”

Whilst QLDC took a measured approach to these legal proceedings, including how much ratepayers’ money it spent on the case, it has noted the Court’s view that it should have defended its original decision and its District Plan more strongly.

© Scoop Media