Mr Thiel was turned down by a panel of independent commissioners in 2022 and turned down again by the Environment Court in May 2024.
Between the two hearings, the council changed its stance from being opposed to being neutral, despite the proposal being substantially the same.
That led to an allegation the council changed its stance to save the cost of defending the commissioners' decision and that it "window shopped" for a landscape architect who would support its new stance.
In June, the Otago Daily Times made an Official Information Act request seeking, among other things, all correspondence between council management, its resource consents team and Thiel's company, Second Star.
None made reference to the change of stance.
Some documents were withheld as "one or more" of the parties asserted they were "privileged", and documents in the Environment Court's dispute resolution process are confidential.
In response to the witness shopping allegation, a council spokesman told the Otago Daily Times last month all parties in an Environment Court case "produce the evidence that supports their case, which council did".
The spokesman defended the change of landscape architect, from one who opposed the proposal to one who supported it, describing the latter as "... an experienced, senior, professional registered landscape architect who complied with the court’s code of conduct and was not subject to criticism by the court’’.
"Like all witnesses, he was provided with the information required for him to consider, and his evidence was focused on the issue of concern to the court.
"The evidence was independent and well within his expertise."
As for the council's change of stance — from opposed to neutral — the spokesman said the council resolved many appeals through the court and "in accordance with its rules".
In this case, its position was "based on a sound belief the court could decide for itself the issues".
And the spokesman said saving money was not the prime objective of the change.
"In terms of costs, these are always one of a number of factors for council to consider as part of its litigation strategy because it is spending ratepayers’ money and needs to account for this.’’
As reported previously, in rejecting Thiel's appeal, Environment Court Judge Prudence Steven said she had "measures of discomfort" over the council's position.
"The council took an active and supportive approach of the appellant's position in court and was hardly neutral.
"The council's case focused on the reasons why consent could be granted ..."
Asked to respond to the judge's comments, the spokesman said it was not appropriate to respond to the court's decision except by appeal.
Thiel has not appealed to the High Court.
