"The council failed to perform its duties to the public . . . by demonstrating a lack of neutrality on what was an unmeritorious appeal," she said in a judgement on costs about a proposed luxury lodge.
"The council adopted a position that failed to enforce its own district plan," she also said.
The court’s scathing reproach reflects a failure by the council on several levels. The optics are worsened by the fact that the original application and appeal were for a lodge proposed by billionaire, high-profile and influential Peter Thiel.
Further, the council failed to own its faults in its media release after the court decision became public at the end of last week. The begrudging comments are not even attributed to anyone at the council.
Does that mean the mayor stands behind it? The councillors, the chief executive, the planning section? Does it mean all the above?
Mr Thiel’s entity, Second Star Ltd, wanted to develop a grass-roofed complex, to accommodate up to 30 guests, on a site overlooking Glendhu Bay, about 7km from the Wānaka town centre.
The 193ha site is within two outstanding natural landscape (ONL) areas.
In their 2024 appeal decision, Judge Steven and Commissioner Mark Mabin said the lodge’s design was "attractive and responsive to its setting".
However, its glazing would stretch "nearly the length of two football fields" across the site, introducing "straight lines into a landscape that does not have them at present".
The proposal failed the district plan’s test for development in ONLs, which required it to be "reasonably difficult to see" from outside the site’s boundary.
Planned planting would not adequately screen the buildings from some viewpoints on a nearby public trail.
At the March appeal hearing, the QLDC said it had a neutral position on the proposal.
In their ruling, Judge Steven and the court commissioner said the council took an active and supportive approach to Second Star’s position and was "hardly neutral".
A council officer had also held meetings with the company to discuss how amendments could enable consent to be granted.
The discussions had occurred without the involvement or knowledge of the interested parties, which breached the council’s duty to be "fair and fully transparent" to all parties.
Judge Steven said orders of costs usually were not made against a public body when its decisions were appealed, but costs could be awarded if a council failed to perform its duties properly or acted unreasonably.
She ordered the council and Second Star Ltd to pay $44,199 each to staunch opponent, the Longview Environmental Trust. Behind it is Wānaka businessman John May.
He pointed out the council had invested heavily in the district plan, especially protecting outstanding natural landscapes. Yet, at the first opportunity to apply the new plan it had completely failed to do so.
"The council had been exposed doing ‘backroom deals with influential developers’," he said, leaving other parties to do its job.
The council statement said it had assessed the changed Second Star proposal as "more appropriate and potentially consentable". The judge, however, said: "The arguments presented by the appellant and the council were untenable and lacked proper expert evaluation."
The council claims it took "a measured approach", including how much ratepayers’ money it spent. It "noted the court’s view" that it should have defended its original decision and its district plan more strongly.
Simply "noting" a view is insufficient. Will the council now truly stand up for outstanding landscapes?
The council also said it was a case of two well-resourced neighbours, and other parties, contesting the proposal. It had adopted a pragmatic approach.
While prudence should be encouraged at the debt-laden QLDC, the council failed to back both its independent commissioners who made the original decision and its district plan.
It has now compounded matters by failing to accept properly the Environment Court’s criticisms."
