在新西兰
在中央政府大力推动奥克兰城市高密度建设的同时，一群Remuera居民却成功阻止13套联排继续开发，即便已近竣工。
此前，奥克兰市议会曾向位于44 Ventnor Rd的联排项目发放资源许可，然遭附近多户居民反对，其中包括资源管理律师Richard Brabant及妻子Eleanor，商业开发商David Pederson及妻子Tracy，Bayleys地产中介Wallace夫妇。
为此，居民提起诉讼并经奥克兰高等法院受理，法官裁定认为，市议会在发放资源许可时并未考虑建筑密度增加对社区特色和住宅舒适度的影响。
联排项目动工前，1600平米的土地上仅有一套住宅，动工后的场景却让Richard Brabant忧心忡忡。
“绝对可怕，看上去像是一座汽车旅馆，主体结构已经搭好，外部覆层也近乎完工。”
在他看来，市议会必须要重新考虑资源许可申请，项目应该停工。
法官认为，如此规模的项目未能在动工前展开适当评估，周边住户可能已被剥夺知情权，无法对项目提出建议并被纳入考虑。
值得一提的是，法院作出裁定时正逢中央政府发布城市高密度发展方案，鼓励城市建设集约化。即便如此，判决似乎未受影响。
法官表示，法院的任务是以现行法律保障重大影响可以得到适当评估。
判决下达后，开发商和市议会必须重回商议，哪怕工程已经启动。
对此，法官表示这并不在其关心范围之内。
“44 Ventnor公寓项目在获得许可后动工，不存在任何过错。”
“然而，开发商明知许可可能受阻却仍冒着商业风险动工，这一事实不应该妨碍附近居民质疑项目的权利。 ”
法官认为市议会规划人员没有充分考虑新增13套住宅所产生的影响，已超过混合住宅郊区允许数值的4倍，此外还提到采光、视野、隐私和街景等问题。
据悉，联排项目由Kurt Gibbons负责开发。据OneRoof上月报道，他和妻子刚刚斥资$2350万在Herne Bay购入一套海滨新宅。
Brabant指出，在项目拿到资源许可前13套公寓就已经预售一空，说明开发商对资源许可高度自信。
责编：番茄捣蛋
评论
Remuera....難怪
评论
666666
这个判决先例一开，以后联排项目即使快完工也一样可以被邻居起诉推倒重建
评论
"并未考虑建筑密度增加对社区特色和住宅舒适度的影响"---这些词里有多少是主观性的东西！
我只是一个旁观者。这么多年看了多少这种有权、有钱、有所谓法律知识就可以改变别人的事。什么民主、专制都是一团乱麻。全世界哪里都一样，说法不一变罢了
评论
放心，这块地捂的越久，以后开发出来的密度越大
评论
以前那个什么漏水房，政府赔的钱建新房都多多有余了，结果呢，砸进去象个无底洞，最后还不是你我买单，连象征性的追责都没有。
注：凡是抬杠说让回国的，一律不回复。您自己喜欢抬就自己抬。
评论
这就是资本的力量……
评论
责编：番茄捣蛋.. 这名字真有特点
评论
白boomer就是厉害
评论
“法官表示，法院的任务是以现行法律保障重大影响可以得到适当评估。”
这个其实说的还是挺清楚的，法官不是法律制定者，他们只能按现行法律解读。真要是怪还得是怪规则制定者。。
评论
你大爷永远是你大爷
评论
https://gibbonsco.co.nz/projects/44-ventnor-road-remuera
不吹不黑，这房子设计的确实他妈丑，卖这价格的房子确实值得好好设计考虑下人居环境和aesthetic
评论
卖多少钱啊
评论
老板，别关心房产了，有人叫你去北岸开一家德州炸鸡。。。他说开车一小时去西区吃炸鸡太辛苦了。。。
评论
不是我开的，我是爱吃
评论
比郑老板的房子如何？
评论
既然项目符合市政府的unitary plan而且得到RC批准。法管不能够推翻它了吧？
法官叫停可以，老百姓有反对的权利，开发商有建房的权利，最后看谁的腰包雄厚了。开发商会化大钱打赢这个官司，市议会也会出钱打赢这官司，最后就是还是纳税人掏钱，哎
评论
请问有这个事的英文报导吗？看了herald一圈没看到
评论
"已超过混合住宅郊区允许数值的4倍" - 目測沒有符合 還超4倍（雖然不知道超什麼） 看來有點太誇張了 可不太像是中區Graham Street 的風格 他們一向都比較嚴的 更不用說是Remuera 這些地方
雖然我也沒看到原文 因為不是Herald 訂戶 看不到文章
补充内容 (2021-11-18 14:10):
Council 中區Graham Street office
评论
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/busin ... N6P72XO5KJY4MM3OII/
nz herald上面有的，但是属于付费内容。
评论
Just as the Government and Labour move to allow mass Auckland intensification, a group of Remuera neighbours have won a court battle to halt work on an under-construction 13-unit apartment project that is almost completed.
Justice Gerard van Bohemen in the High Court at Auckland allowed an appeal against Auckland Council's resource consent for the apartment scheme at 44 Ventnor Rd.
Resource management lawyer Richard Brabant and wife Eleanor, commercial developer David Pederson and wife Tracy and Bayleys agents Vicki and Gary Wallace were among the applicants who challenged developer Kurt Gibbons and the council's non-notification and resource consent granting.
"The council did not turn its mind to the effects of building intensity on neighbourhood character and residential amenity," the judge ruled.
The 1600sq m site had only one house on it before work started there.
"It is absolutely horrific. It looks like a motel block," said Richard Brabant who lives two doors away. "The structures are all up and all the outside cladding is nearly done."
The council now has to consider the application again and work there has to stop, he said.
The proposal for such a significant development had not been properly assessed, Justice van Bohemen said in his decision out today.
Brabant said the parties would make a separate injunction stop-work application if work continued tomorrow. But he said work should stop immediately if the developer took advice from his lawyers at Simpson Grierson.
The judge said the neighbours might have been deprived of their rights to be notified of the scheme for the land and to have their views taken into account.
He even cited the Government's intensification moves on Auckland to allow more houses on sites here in the case whose respondents included developers 44 Ventnor.
"I recognise that there will be prejudice to 44 Ventnor and disappointment to the council that a proposal for a more intensive use of a large site in a residential zone in Auckland is being held up when there is a strong policy impetus in the National Policy Statement - Urban Development and the Auckland Unitary Plan for more intensive development in residential zones," he said.
The decision was also issued at a time when the Government was looking to enable even greater intensification of certain residential areas than that currently provided for in the National Policy Statement, the judge noted.
The irony was not lost on him.
But he said it was the court's task to apply the law as it stood today to ensure major implications were properly assessed.
Not only does the developer and council have to return to the drawing board, but building work on the site has already started.
On the matter of building work having already started, the judge said that wasn't his concern.
"44 Ventnor cannot be faulted for choosing to exercise its legal rights once the consents had been granted.
"However, the fact it chose to take the commercial risk of commencing construction knowing that the consents might be set aside should not deprive long term full-time residents in the vicinity of their rights to have the question of whether they are adversely affected by a significant development properly determined," he said.
The council's planner did not consider the effects of the 13 dwellings which was more than four times the number permitted as of right in the mixed housing suburban zone, the judge said.
He did refer to shading, visual dominance and privacy as well as streetscape but didn't consider the relevance of those matters to the number of buildings proposed for the site or activities on the site.
44 Ventnor's director is Kurt Gibbons. He and his wife paid $23.5m for a new Herne Bay property on the waterfront at Marine Pde, according to OneRoof last month.
Brabant said all 13 units were pre-sold before the application for resource consent was even lodged "which indicates a degree of confidence that the council would just sign it off. I asked for limited notification to the neighbours."
评论
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/remuera-neighbours-halt-nearly-finished-apartments/WUF4SI2ZN6P72XO5KJY4MM3OII/
评论
感谢贴文
评论
绝对正确的判例！我一个房子的后面，属于THAB区，5家共用一条6米宽车道，title上车道的土地是5家各1/5。现在其中一家要盖公寓，他说不需要其他邻居同意，他就可以盖，council 会直接批准。这TMD太扯淡了。
一条共用车道，你只有1/5所有权，凭什么你可以带50户人来用这个大家的车道！告他！！！
评论
判的好， 最好把龅牙判下台
评论
你家邻居这个争议和人家这个不一样
人家这个并不share车道，房子临街，地大，所以可以盖很多，其实看图片，这房子盖的相对于一般垃圾区的联排还好一些
不过具体什么情况咱们不知道，但从字面上看，人家可是好像没有违法，唯一的问题就是，这个地方周围的人都是财大气粗，人家告你，你就得接着，换句话，这房子盖在别的地方也就盖了，但在这边，邻居就是律师大中介什么有头有脸的人物，所以这官司有的打估计
评论
我的意思是council 现在有点太乱来了。我这个邻居比那个离谱多了，明明是5家共用的车道，为什么没有邻居们签字同意，council 会直接批准他盖公寓？我就不服这个理。现在有了这个判例，告他没商量！
评论
所以抢大地还是穷人区好呀，穷人巴不得自己的破房子大地升值，有钱人就很矫情，开发商来帮助大家发财都不愿意。glenfiled sunnynook 那些居民为邻居拍出天价喜极而泣，有些地方的人却把财神告上法庭，做人真是令不清z
评论
每个人的需求并不一样，我就不喜欢周围太密集。当年咨询的时候，改THAB区，我是投了反对票的。
评论
告的对，毕竟是suburban，我觉得户数确实是值得限制的，不然都盖的和鸡笼一样。