A Queenstown property owner who’s triumphed over the council in an Environment Court case is querying its competency — and doesn’t believe it should keep secret the costs it’s paying out to him.
Pursuant to the Public Works Act 1981, the council placed a designation over 39 square metres on the corner of Man and Brecon Sts — part of land belonging to a large block owned by John Thompson’s Macfarlane Investments.
Council wanted to take the land for streetworks and intersection improvements, as part of its huge and prolonged upgrade project.
Down the track, it also sought the land for the second Man St stage of the arterial project, should it receive funding for it.
Macfarlane lodged an objection to council’s land grab, which the Environment Court heard over two days in September.
The court, in its decision, said it’s not satisfied ‘‘that the taking [of the land] would be fair, sound or reasonably necessary to achieve [its] objectives’’.
Council, it found, hadn’t made a convincing enough case it needed that 39sqm parcel.
Partly that was because council had made a design change — relocating a kerb 1.4m to the west — which meant it didn’t need any Macfarlane land.
It also hadn’t done any design work for the Man St arterial route.
Council had a November 15 deadline to appeal the Environment Court decision, but didn’t exercise that option.
Thompson calls the decision ‘‘an emphatic judgement’’.
It’s also led him to query the competence of council managers/consultants, whom he alleges didn’t engage with him and were ill-informed during the court hearing as they didn’t know about the design change.
He told council he’d incurred costs of $231,000 on legal fees and consultants.
Council agreed to pay a percentage of his legal fees but insisted the figure be kept confidential.
Thompson says he’s bound by that, but believes ‘‘council should be more transparent with ratepayers’’ and says he’d have no problem if that figure was disclosed.
‘‘Don’t forget, they had to pay their lawyer and their people.
“I’d say the total exercise would be close to $500,000 — what a disgrace.’’
Council boss Mike Theelen says because the Macfarlane land had been ‘‘legally designated’’ for public works, ‘‘I think we were a little surprised by the result’’.
‘‘But that’s why you have court processes for, and we don’t always win every court case we enter.
‘‘I don’t know the judgment fully, but the court found we hadn’t demonstrated we needed the exact amount of land we wanted, and the court felt we had already shown we could do some of what we were trying to do there without having to acquire John’s land.’’
Theelen says further design work might suggest council still needs some Macfarlane land.
He adds he doesn’t think it’s fair of Thompson to be alleging staff are incompetent.
He also defends council keeping confidential what it’s paid him by way of costs as a result of a negotiated settlement.
‘‘Because costs come up in every case, we want to protect how we’ve reached settlement and how we’ve determined how we reached settlement.’’
