Laserfiche WebLink
[21] The Court could approach this matter by imposing a condition requiring a <br /> covenant to prevent subdivision and requiring only one property owner. However none <br /> has been proffered. Our conclusion is that any subdivision application should not be <br /> considered in isolation for two reasons: <br /> (a) The application now before the Court is for a fundamentally different <br /> activity than that applied for. The construction of a dwelling was not part <br /> of the application for subdivision and was to be considered subsequently <br /> by the Council if consent was granted. It would be a controlled activity <br /> and issues of conditions would then be addressed. As now proposed, there <br /> is no application for subdivision, only the question of dwellings on the site. <br /> Although there is an overlap between the two, the Plan identifies these as <br /> completely sepazate consents; <br /> (b) Many of the conditions proposed by the applicant and/or necessazy for <br /> consideration of this dwelling would require ongoing actions by owners in <br /> the future. It is unclear as to how such conditions could be enforced if <br /> there was to be any application for subdivision. <br /> [22] Even in the absence of such subdivision, it is difficult to see how, in practical <br /> terms, any conditions of consent (for example as to pasture forms, rehabilitation and <br /> mitigation planting and maintenance, cartilage areas and the like) would be enforced. <br /> For example, it is almost inevitable that there would be exclusive use azeas between the <br /> two parties. Far example, it would not be possible to require the owner of the house on <br /> A to undertake work on or around house B to comply with conditions. <br /> [23] However, for current purposes the Court will proceed to consider the application <br /> on the basis that a covenant were proffered against further subdivision or that it is <br /> «nnecessazy to deal with any subdivision issues. This is on the basis that the Court may <br /> be wrong in its primary holding and that subdivision is either not the eventual aim or is <br /> irrelevant. <br /> "~gtAL OFTH <br /> ~'V <br /> P t( F <br /> <br /> In ~ .tt~~~~~~p~~~3 Z <br /> / l1! <br /> ~~'~'fIMI ~}i <br /> <br />