Kapiti District Council was ordered to reconsider roading access for a new subdivision after a narrow majority of councillors voted down a pro forma request for state highway access; arguing that there was no community need for further housing and that developers were interested only in profit.
High Court ruled this decision was premised on a false fact: that a Council ‘green belt’ policy operated to protect community values. There was no such policy.
In 2007, what became known as the Fleming subdivision was formed at Otaki, bordering state highway one. What is Lot 72 at the end of Moy Place was vested in the Council as a local purpose ‘road’ reserve. No road was actually formed. The reserve was planted in trees and grass, becoming a playground.
In 2021, property developer Wakefield Group commenced work on a neighbouring 137 lot subdivision. This development required road access through the reserve. Moy Place residents objected. What is currently a quiet cul-de-sac would become a through road.
The High Court was told Moy Place had been constructed wider than otherwise necessary to allow for future use as a through road.
Without road access being opened, Wakefield’s project would stall.
The High Court was told of a Kapiti District Council meeting in late 2024 where Wakefield Group submitted formal request for the existing road reserve to be dedicated as a road.
Resource management consent had been granted some six months previously, fast-tracked through the Environmental Protection Agency as part of covid-19 recovery legislation.
Final steps required Council to formally agree to dedication of lot 72 as a legal road.
Five councillors voted in favour; six against.
Wakefield Group claimed in the High Court this narrow majority were using a power to approve roading for an ulterior purpose; blocking a planned subdivision.
It asked for a High Court review. Judicial review does not reconsider merits of a Council decision; it looks at the process by which the decision was reached.
Justice Gendall ruled the Council decision was marred by an error of fact: speakers for the majority justified their vote against as preserving community benefits through enforcement of a Council ‘green belt’ policy. Since there was no such policy in place, votes against were made on the basis of a factual error.
Land set aside under the Reserves Act for use as a ‘road’ can only be formally designated as some form of road, accessway or service lane, Justice Gendall ruled. It was an error of law for councillors to consider extraneous political issues in deciding alternative uses for the designated land.
Council’s decision was quashed.
It was ordered to look again at the question of redesignating Moy Place road reserve as a legal road.
Wakefield Group Holdings Ltd v. Kapiti Coast District Council – High Court (21.11.25)
26.019