The public also in my view had a reasonable opportunity to present their views
here in a manner and format that was appropriate to their preferences. Both written
and oral submissions were heard and considered. I am satisfied there is a clear record
of the Council’s decision as well as explanatory material relating to that decision. This
supporting material took the form of Mr Singh’s report recommending the adoption of
the traffic resolution, an analysis of the relevant parking data, an analysis of the
submissions received, copies of all those submissions, and accurate minutes of the
meeting as well as a transcript.
 Finally, there is nothing before me to suggest that the Council received the
presented views other than with an open mind. The Council held two public meetings
to discuss the proposed changes to Thorndon Quay generally.
acknowledges that the two meetings that took place between LGWM officers and the
applicant might be considered now as unsatisfactory for both sides. However, there is
nothing to suggest this represented a “closed mind” on the part of the Council. The
officers present at those meetings were not the decision-makers. The decision-makers
were the members of the Committee, who, as noted, were all elected Councillors.
 I am satisfied there has been nothing put before the Court to suggest that the
Councillors themselves approached the question with predetermination91 or with
anything other than an open mind. They listened to submitters, considered their views,
and, as evidenced by the transcript of the hearing, questioned and tested Mr Singh in
terms of the work he and his team had done in recommending the change to parallel
parks. In Friends of Turitea Reserve Society Inc v Palmerston North City Council,
Baragwanath J held that “open minded” in a consultation context did not mean
“without predisposition”, but rather, “prepared, despite predisposition, honestly to
consider whether to change its mind”.92 On one view of matters, this may well have
represented the situation here. Though the Council initially might have had a preferred
option, namely changing the angled parking to parallel parking, I am satisfied the
Pre-determination on the part of the Council was raised before me as an issue on behalf of the
applicant TQC, but it does not appear to be part of its pleadings here. Further, the Council and the
Committee, as decision-makers, resolved to approve the Decision only by a 10 – 5 majority vote
of councillors, which itself might be seen at one level as indicating the extent to which the
councillors in their deliberations fully grappled with all the issues here.
Friends of Turitea Reserve Society Inc v Palmerston North City Council, above n 58, at .