Environment Court surprise

Environment Court hearings
Latest update 26 May
We have had 3 days of evidence presented by the developer so far, and this has helped clarify the core issues in dispute. Judge Smith and the two supporting commissioners (Mr Mabin and Mr Kernahan) have visited the area to get a feel for the type of development already in the area, and to check the various viewpoints that have been used to develop before and after photo montages. They also visited three private houses that have been used for photo montages.

As the hearings have proceeded, and particularly following the site visit, it has become apparent that the panel have identified concerns over the excess height represented by levels 6-8. Drive Holdings have recognised that such concerns might damage their chances, and this afternoon announced to the court that they intended to submit another revised proposal. They have given no indication of what changes might be coming, but it can be reasonably inferred that they will be reducing the height.

Drive Holdings have undertaken to get the revised design to us by 5pm on Tuesday 1 June. Until then we will have no idea what changes will be proposed, and therefore no idea how this might impact our case. We don't even know whether this will replace the original proposal or simply be an alterantive, a Plan B in case the court doesn't accept Plan A. The court will convene again next Thursday to consider the implications arising from the changes and how this might affect the ongoing hearings.

While we welcome the developer's rather delayed recognition that the full 8 storeys might not be a good fit for Mission Bay, a potentially major change at this late stage of proceedings makes life very difficult for us. Potentially, our entire evidence may need to be reevaluated and rewritten to reflect the new design, and given that the Urban Designer's evidence alone amounts to some 80 pages, this is not a trivial task. While the Judge is hopeful that we can simply resume the hearings on Thursday, this is heavily dependent on the degree of change proposed. Anything other than just a minor change or, alternatively, a comprehensive change meeting all of the Unitary Plan controls, is likely to result in substantial work for our team. This work cannot realistically be accommodated within just a few days. We would therefore have to ask for an adjournment, delaying the hearings substantially. 

This is sort of good news overall indicating that we are less likely to be stuck with an inappropriate 8 storey building, but it may also make our job harder going forward.
​