I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 30 July 2015

9.30am

Council Chamber
Civic Building, Level 2
6 Henderson Valley Road
Henderson

 

Governing Body

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Len Brown, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Penny Hulse

 

Councillors

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Cr Calum Penrose

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

 

27 July 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

 

(a)     the power to make a rate; or

(b)     the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)     the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term council community plan; or

(d)     the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)     the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f)      the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g)     the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

 

(a)     approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b)     approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation

(c)     resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d)     adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e)     relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees.

(f)      approval of the Unitary Plan

(g)     overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 

 

 


Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Affirmation                                                                                                                      7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Acknowledgements and Achievements                                                                      7

6          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

7          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

8          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

9          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

10        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

11        Decisions on Remaining Legacy Bylaws - Recommendation from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee                                                                                                         9

12        Report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2015           155

13        2019 Elections - Review of Representation Arrangements                                  235

14        Audit and Risk Committee Chairperson                                                                 241  

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               243

C1       Special Housing Areas - Further recommendations on a Tranche 4 request    243

C2       Special Housing Areas - Deferred from 14 May 2015 Auckland Development Committee                                                                                                                                     243

C3       Special Housing Areas Tranche 7 - 7 July 2015 Auckland Development Committee Recommendations                                                                                                     244  

 


1          Affirmation

 

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

 

2          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr CE Fletcher has been received.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Governing Body:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 June 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Acknowledgements and Achievements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

6          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

7          Public Input

 

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

8          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.


 

9          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

10        Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 

Decisions on Remaining Legacy Bylaws - Recommendation from the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee

 

File No.: CP2015/13831

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt the Statement of Proposal: Confirmation of Legacy Bylaws 2015.  

Executive Summary

2.       At its 8 July 2015 meeting, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee resolved to recommend the adoption of the Statement of Proposal: Confirmation of Legacy Bylaws 2015 to the Governing Body, for the purposes of public consultation on confirming the legacy bylaws (or parts thereof) on six topics (resolution number RBC/2015/23):

·             freedom camping

·             electric and barbed wire fences on property next to public land

·             wharves

·             construction activities in the road corridor and public places

·             on-site wastewater

·             billboards in the former Auckland City area. 

3.       The Statement of Proposal: Confirmation of Legacy Bylaws 2015 is attached to this report (Attachment A), together with the original report from the 8 July 2015 Regulatory and Bylaws Committee agenda (Attachment B).

 

Recommendation

That the Governing Body:

a)      adopt the Statement of Proposal: Confirmation of Legacy Bylaws 2015, for the purposes of consulting with the public on the following proposals: 

i)        the proposal to confirm the legacy bylaws (or parts thereof) on freedom camping, electric and barbed wire fences on property next to public land, wharves, construction activities in the road corridor and public places and on-site wastewater until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws (or residual parts thereof) will be automatically revoked. 

ii)       the proposal to confirm Auckland City Council Bylaws: Bylaw No. 27B Billboards 2007, until the relevant signage provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan become operative, at which time this bylaw will be automatically revoked.

 

 


Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Statement of Proposal: Confirmation of Legacy Bylaws 2015

11

bView

8 July 2015 Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Agenda - Item 10 - Decisions on Remaining Legacy Bylaws

141

      

Signatories

Authors

Jaimee Maha - Democracy Advisor

Helgard Wagener - Team Leader Policies and Bylaws

Authoriser

Phil Wilson – Acting Chief Executive (14 July 2015)

 


Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 


































































































































Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 














Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 

Report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2015

 

File No.: CP2015/14733

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt the new Stormwater Bylaw 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       On 28 August 2014, the governing body adopted the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2014 for public consultation along with a statement of proposal that explained the background and rationale for adopting a new stormwater bylaw. 

3.       A hearings panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the governing body on the proposed stormwater bylaw (GB/2014/89). The hearings panel consisted of Councillors Wood (Panel Chairperson), Penrose, Cashmore, Darby, Filipaina and Member Glenn Wilcox (Independent Māori Statutory Board).

4.       Auckland Council’s proposed Stormwater Bylaw was notified on 8 September 2014; submissions were received over the period 8 September – 8 October 2014.  Oral submissions were heard at a meeting of the Stormwater Bylaw Hearings Panel on 10 November 2014.

5.       At the close of the submission period on 8 October 2014, 43 submissions had been received. Three late submissions were received shortly after the close of the submission period. Of the total of 46 submissions received, 36 submitters spoke to their submission at the hearings.

6.       Due to the complexity of the issues and the issues raised by the submitters, the hearings panel requested staff to meet with the submitters to address concerns and enable the staff to provide clarification and recommendations to the hearings panel.  Following a workshop on 4 March 2015 held by staff with 37 submitters, recommendations were made by the staff to the hearings panel in the subsequent deliberations report.  The deliberations meeting was held on 28 May 2015.

7.       As a result of the submissions and the recommendations, the hearings panel is recommending amendment of some clauses to clarify the scope and types of activities the bylaw intends to manage and to correct errors and typographical edits subsequently identified in the notified version of the bylaw. The hearings panel is also recommending the deletion of superfluous clauses in the notified version of the bylaw, based on the submissions and staff advice. 

8.       The bylaw is proposed to come into effect from 1 November 2015 to enable the council to conclude the development of the proposed Stormwater Code of Practice.  The revocation of Auckland’s legacy bylaw clauses relating to the management of stormwater takes effect from that date. 

9.       The proposed amended Auckland Council bylaw is attached to this report as Attachment A. 

10.     A table that compares the notified version of the proposed bylaw and the recommended amendments to the proposed bylaw is attached as Attachment B. 


 

 

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a)      receive and adopt the recommendations of the hearings panel on the Stormwater Bylaw 2015.

b)      confirm that pursuant to section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2015 is the most appropriate way for managing the stormwater network, and that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c)      make the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2015 (Attachment A to the agenda report) pursuant to Sections 145,146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002 with effect from 1 November 2015.

d)      revoke in full the following legacy bylaws relating to the management of stormwater with effect from 1 November 2015:

·        Auckland City Council Bylaw No 18 Stormwater Management 2008; 

·        Papakura District Council Stormwater Bylaw 2008; and

·        Chapter 21 (Stormwater drainage) of the Rodney District Council General Bylaw 1998.

e)      confirm the delegations proposed in Section 3 of the part entitled “Additional information to Stormwater Bylaw 2015” in Attachment A to the agenda report.

f)       authorise the Manager, Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with Councillor Wood, as chair of the hearings panel, to make any minor edits or amendments to the Stormwater Bylaw 2015 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the governing body.

 

 

Comments

11.     On 28 August 2014, the governing body adopted the proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2014 for public consultation along with a statement of proposal that explained the background and rationale for adopting a new stormwater bylaw (GB/2014/89).  A hearings panel, consisting of Councillors Wood (Panel Chairperson), Penrose, Cashmore, Darby, Filipaina and Member Glenn Wilcox (Independent Māori Statutory Board) was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the governing body on the proposed stormwater bylaw (GB/2014/89).

12.     The proposal was publicly notified with a submission period of 8 September to 8 October 2014.  Public notification included public notices in the New Zealand Herald, in the suburban newspapers and on the council’s website.  A summary and a link to the full statement of proposal, including the proposed bylaw, were sent directly to the stakeholders previously identified during the development of the proposal. This included local boards, mana whenua, the council-controlled organisations and industry associations.

13.     All relevant documents, including the statement of proposal, summaries, frequently asked questions and freepost submission forms were made available on the council’s website and at libraries and service centres across Auckland.


 

14.     At the close of the submission period on 8 October 2014, 43 submissions had been received. Three late submissions were received shortly after the close of the submission period. Of the total of 46 submissions received, 36 submitters spoke to their submission at the hearings held on 10 November 2014. 

15.     Due to the complexity of the issues and concerns raised by the submitters, the hearings panel requested staff to meet with the submitters to address concerns and enable the staff to provide clarification and recommendations to the hearings panel. 

16.     Following an invitation to all the submitters, a workshop was held by staff on 4 March 2015 with 37 submitters. Following the workshop, staff provided all the submitters (including those that did not attend the workshop) with a table of the proposed changes to the notified version of the proposed bylaw that the staff proposed to recommend to the hearings panel.  Submitters were given the opportunity to make written comments on the proposed recommended changes until 15 May 2015.  

17.     A deliberations report was considered by the hearings panel on 28 May 2015 during the public deliberation process. The deliberations report included the submissions and oral representations made by submitters at the public hearing, further submitter comments received by 15 May 2015 and the staff’s advice. 

 

Deliberations on written and verbal submissions 

18.     The hearings panel deliberated on the views of the submitters and acknowledged both the written and verbal submissions and the subsequent advice from the staff.

19.     To prepare this report, the matters deliberated on by the hearings panel have been categorised into eight topic areas (Table one).  

20.     The recommended amendments to the proposed Stormwater Bylaw, with the specific reasons for changes, are outlined in Attachment B of this report.

 

Table one: Deliberations topics

Topic

Topic 1 – General comment on the bylaw

Topic 2 – Duplication of the Resource Management Act and other regulatory powers

Topic 3 – Stormwater Code of Practice

Topic 4 – Utility providers

Topic 5 – Application of the bylaw to rural land

Topic 6 – Development of the bylaw

Topic 7 – Implementing and enforcing the bylaw

Topic 8 – Approval processes

 

Deliberations Topic 1 – General comment on the bylaw

Matters raised in submissions

21.     There were 23 general submission points on the bylaw that did not relate to any specific proposed provision in the draft bylaw. 

22.     While some submitters support the elements of the bylaw that fill the gaps in the existing framework as primarily enabled through the Resource Management Act 1991 and Building Act, others were of the view that the bylaw should have greater emphasis on the protection of natural waterways and aquatic ecosystems.  Some submitters submitted that the bylaw should:

·      include provisions for community partnerships and local initiatives as important stakeholders in stormwater management address

·      improve the quality of stormwater and reusing stormwater

·      require separated systems in new development and all intensification 

·      maintain and upgrade the stormwater system projects, and  

·      require public stormwater networks to not cause adverse effects on private property

23.     Opposing these views were submitters that stated that

·      the proposed bylaw adds another level of regulation that adds to the complexity and cost associated with land management and development

·      the Code of Practice has not been subject to adequate consultation or governing body oversight.  

Hearings Panel deliberations

24.     Following deliberations, the panel recommend that some bylaw provisions be amended or deleted to acknowledge that stormwater management is primarily the function of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the Resource Management Act 1991. The proposed bylaw is intended to provide supplementary measures for the protection of the council’s public stormwater network. These amendments, plus the specific reasons for changes, are outlined in Attachment B to this report.

Deliberations Topic 2 – Duplication of Resource Management Act and other regulatory powers

Proposal as publicly notified

25.     In the notified version of the proposed bylaw the following clauses regulated issues that are included in the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (The clause number are those of the notified bylaw, these have been amended as a result of the changes recommended by the hearings panel):

·     clause 11(1) - obstructions and diversions of stormwater:  A watercourse, flood plain, overland flow path, drain, wetland, or receiving waters must be kept free from obstruction to avoid adverse effects.  The clause also prevented the discharge stormwater from a premise with an impervious area greater than that permitted in the Unitary Plan or an operative resource consent.

·     clause 13 - alterations or damage to natural stormwater network: The clause prevents the removal or damage of vegetation in any wetland on a premises that the person owns, occupies, or manages if the removal or damage is likely to adversely affect the ability of the wetland to contribute to the performance of the stormwater network;

·     clause 14(3) - ground soakage systems: The clause prevents discharge of a contaminant into a ground soakage system if the discharge is likely to cause nuisance or adversely affect the operation of the ground soakage system, unless the council approves or expressly authorised by an operative resource consent.

·     clause 15 - discharge of contaminants to the stormwater network: The clause provides that no person may discharge a contaminant into the stormwater network if the discharge is likely to cause nuisance or adversely affect the operation of the stormwater network unless the council approves or that person is expressly authorised by an operative resource consent.

·     clause 19 - hazardous materials: The clause provides that no person may store, transport, handle, or use, or cause or allow to be stored, transported, handled, or used, any hazardous materials in a way which results or may result in the materials entering the stormwater network or causing nuisance.

Matters raised in submissions

26.     A total of 75 submission points were received relating to duplication of the Resource Management Act 1991 and other regulatory powers.

27.     Submitters requested that:

·      duplication with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan or other legislation should be removed from the bylaw

·      the bylaw provisions should be limited to those matters that are not addressed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

·      activities permitted in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan should be excluded from the bylaw

·      allow the legacy bylaws to lapse and not be replaced with a bylaw at all. 

Hearings panel deliberations

28.     The statement of proposal and the proposed bylaw state that the bylaw is supportive of and supplementary to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and conflict with other regulatory measures are to be avoided.  It is not the council’s intent to duplicate regulation but to ensure no regulatory “gaps” exist.  The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is currently in the process of hearings but may not be finalised and become operative before 31 October 2015 when the legacy bylaws lapse.  The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan does not provide comprehensive regulation for all the issues and a bylaw is necessary. 

29.     The panel recommend that bylaw provisions be amended or deleted to remove duplication with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions or other regulation. These amendments, plus the specific reasons for changes, are outlined in Attachment B to this report.

Deliberations Topic 3 – Stormwater Code of Practice

Proposal as publicly notified

30.     The notified proposed bylaw enables the council to develop and approve codes of practice and guidelines.  It prescribes the consultation requirements and requires approval by resolution of any code of practice or guideline enforced by the bylaw.  The notified version of the proposed bylaw refers to, and requires compliance with standards in the council’s Stormwater Code of Practice for several stormwater management issues (for example, in clauses 6, 9, 10, 14 and 17). 

Matters raised in submissions

31.     There are 19 submission points that relate to the Stormwater Code of Practice.  Submitters stated that the council should delay the enactment of the bylaw until consultation on the Stormwater Code of Practice has been completed or include the Code of Practice as part of the bylaw. 

Hearings panel deliberations

32.     After consideration of the submissions and advice from the staff, the hearings panel consider that the wording of the bylaw around the Stormwater Code of Practice could be clarified to convey that the requirements of the Code of Practice could only apply to public stormwater infrastructure or private infrastructure that is to be vested in the council, and to private soakage systems (under clause 14).  

33.     The council does not intend applying its Stormwater Code of Practice retrospectively to old private infrastructure while it remains in private ownership, except for existing private soakage systems: 

·        In the case of ground soakage systems, clause 14(4) of the proposed bylaw is intended to provide standards for new ground soakage systems. 

·        Clause 16 enables the council to review the performance of an existing private soakage system where it creates a nuisance for neighbouring properties or contributes to nuisance issues for the public stormwater network or the wastewater network.  Where that is the case, the council may require an existing private soakage system to be upgraded (to an approved standard). 

34.     The hearings panel recommend the following amendments to the proposed bylaw:  

·        references in the proposed bylaw to the standards in the Stormwater Code of Practice applying to the ‘stormwater network’ be amended to the ‘public stormwater network’, except where the provisions apply to private soakage systems (under clause 14). 

·        the wording of the proposed bylaw and/or the relevant explanatory notes are amended to more clearly communicate the requirements for new ground soakage systems and for existing ground soakage systems (under clause 14).  

35.     New explanatory notes are included in clauses 14 and 16 to explain that:  

·        standards in the council’s Stormwater Code of Practice will not be applied retrospectively to old private infrastructure while it remains in private ownership, except where provisions apply to existing private soakage systems.  

·        where Building Code standards for soakage systems cannot be achieved due to local ground conditions, the council may agree to a lesser standard. 

36.     The hearings panel recommend that the reference in the bylaw to the Code of Practice be retained but that the bylaw comes into effect on 1 November 2015 to enable consultation of the Code of Practice to be concluded.

Deliberations Topic 4 – Utility providers

Proposal as publicly notified

37.     The notified proposed bylaw does not make specific provision for utility providers and the bylaw clauses apply to utility providers without exception. 

38.     In the notified version of the proposed bylaw the following clauses affect utility providers (The clause numbers are those of the notified bylaw, these have been amended as a result of the changes recommended by the hearings panel):

·     clause 10 - works and activities in close proximity to the stormwater network: A person must obtain approval from the council before access the public stormwater network or doing any activity that places the network at risk.

·     clause 11 - obstructions and diversions of stormwater:  A person must obtain approval from the council to stop, obstruct, alter, interfere with, or divert any part of the stormwater network and must not leave any material on the premises or a public place that may obstruct or divert stormwater. 

·     part 4 – approvals, permits and administrative matters: This part applies to clauses 10 and 11 as it provides for the application process and the criteria the council will apply when considering applications by utility providers.

Matters raised in submissions

39.     There are seven submission points that specifically relate to utility providers.  Submitters stated that the council should:

·        delay the bylaw until informal consultation to address issues specific to network operators has been undertaken

·        exempt utility providers from certain clauses of the bylaw that directly affect them.

Hearings panel deliberations

40.     While acknowledging that utility providers are significantly affected by the proposed bylaw, the hearings panel recommend that all the bylaw provisions should apply to utility providers to ensure the purpose of the bylaw is achieved. 

41.     One of the purposes of the bylaw is to protect the public stormwater network and as utility providers are frequently, and on an ongoing basis, working on, or in close proximity of the public stormwater network, it is appropriate that the bylaw applies to them.  The council has numerous examples of damage to the public stormwater network as a result of work done by utility providers.

42.     The concerns of utility providers will be met by providing general approvals to utility providers (subject to appropriate conditions).  This approach will ensure that utility providers are not unduly hampered in their activities by having to obtain specific approvals for each task, but will also retain the necessary protection of the public stormwater network envisaged by the council.  It will also avoid the council having to process a large number of ongoing and repetitive applications for similar work by the same utility provider in the public stormwater network.  However, where work is likely to cause damage, utility providers will be required to consult with the council to ensure the best solution. 

43.     Staff are in ongoing discussion with utility providers to develop the terms and conditions of the general approvals and these will be published with the bylaw on the council’s web site.

44.     The hearings panel recommend that the bylaw applies to utility providers with the recommended amendments. 

Deliberations Topic 5 – Application of the bylaw to rural land

Proposal as publicly notified

45.     The notified proposed bylaw does not make specific provision for rural land and the bylaw clauses apply to rural land without exception. 

46.     In the notified version of the proposed bylaw the following clauses affect rural land due to the reference to the stormwater network (that includes private stormwater devices and the public stormwater network):

·     clause 10 - works and activities in close proximity to the stormwater network: Any structure within the proximate distances from the stormwater network specified in the Code of Practice must comply with the Code of Practice, including that part of the stormwater network that is under private ownership. 

·     clause 11 - obstructions and diversions of stormwater:  A person must obtain approval from the council to stop, obstruct, alter, interfere with, or divert any part of the stormwater network and must not leave any material on the premises or a public place that may obstruct or divert stormwater, including that part of the stormwater network that is under private ownership. 

Matters raised in submissions

47.     There are seven submission points that relate to the application of the bylaw provisions to rural land.  Some submitters stated that land zoned for rural production purposes should be managed exclusively under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. 

48.     Some submitters that own rural land are concerned that the notified proposed bylaw required them to obtain the council’s approval to engage in normal farming activities that happen to occur to privately owned streams and water courses on their land.

Hearings panel deliberations

49.     The panel recommend amendments to the proposed stormwater bylaw to make the bylaw applicable to the public stormwater network and not the full stormwater system (with limited minor exceptions).  This will address the concerns of the rural land owner submitters. 

50.     However, the panel recommend retaining the specific bylaw provisions that apply to private property (urban or rural) where these measures protect the public stormwater network or enable the council to meet its discharge consent requirements. 

Deliberations Topic 6 – Development of the bylaw

Proposal as publicly notified

51.     The notified proposed bylaw has been developed to come into effect before the automatic revocation of the legacy bylaws on 31 October 2015, well before the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan becomes operative.  

52.     In the notified version of the proposed bylaw the following clauses enable the council to make controls under the bylaw:

·     clause 6 - controls and code of practice: The council may specify controls for the maintenance and construction of any work that affects the stormwater network by either guidelines and/or codes of practice. 

·     clause 7 - controls specified under the bylaw: Controls must be made by resolution that is publicly notified after the council has given consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the particular control.

Matters raised in submissions

53.     There were 19 submission points on the development of the bylaw. The submitters stated that the adoption of a stormwater bylaw should be delayed until the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions are operative.  Submitters requested that: 

·        a robust cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken before implementing the bylaw

·        guidelines or principles should be created against which the bylaw controls will be assessed 

·        specific controls should be subject to public consultation and input before adoption.

Hearings panel deliberations

54.     The panel noted the comments from the submitters (both written and verbal submissions.  Under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 the legacy stormwater bylaws will lapse on 31 October 2015 unless the council revokes, replaces or confirms these bylaws. To avoid creating a regulatory gap the council has to replace the legacy bylaws with an Auckland-wide bylaw before 31 October 2015.

55.     The proposed bylaw provides that controls have to be made following public consultation commensurate with Subpart 1 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.  The requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 are summarised in new clause 6 that requires that a control must only be made by the council after giving consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the particular control, be made by a council resolution that is publicly notified. 

56.     The controls are limited to the following clauses that contain guidance on the extent and purpose of any control that the council adopts: 

·        clause 8 (maintenance and construction of any work that affects the public stormwater network and access to the built components of the public stormwater network )

·        clause 14 (ground soakage systems)

·        clause 15 (discharge of contaminants to the stormwater network)

·        clause 16 (maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems).

57.     The hearings panel recommend that the bylaw provisions are approved, subject to the recommended amendments.

Deliberations Topic 7 – Implementing and enforcing the bylaw

Matters raised in submissions

58.     Eight submission points were received relating to the implementation of the bylaw and not to any specific part or clause in the bylaw.

59.     These submitters stated that the council should:

·        ensure that sufficient resources are provided to implement and enforce the proposed bylaw

·        factor in that property owners may not be aware of their responsibilities for stormwater issues.

Hearings panel deliberations

60.     The panel noted the comments from the submitters (both written and verbal submissions). 

61.     Measures will be taken to publish the bylaw on the council’s website and inform the submitters of the adoption of the bylaw. 

62.     Staff will maintain an ongoing relationship with utility providers and the council controlled organisations to facilitate the implementation of the bylaw.

Deliberations Topic 8 – Approval processes

Proposal as publicly notified

63.     The proposed bylaw states the circumstances where an approval may be required.  In particular, Part 4 of the proposed bylaw outlines approval processes and criteria for decision-making by the council under the bylaw.  

Matters raised in submissions

64.     There are 60 points in the submissions that relate to approval processes under the proposed bylaw. These submitters stated that the council should: 

·        align approvals under the bylaw with existing approvals under the resource consents, engineering approval and building consents

·        amend the bylaw to be more specific about relevant strategies, policies and guidelines

·        rationalise the matters for consideration  to relate only to the effects of the works and stormwater management

·        include a provision that the matters for consideration of application should be commensurate with the scale and nature of the operation for which approval is sought

·        restrict council discretion in assessing applications and ensure conditions are relevant to the proposal when imposing conditions Include provisions around timeframes for the approval process

·        establish a review process in the bylaw for resolving disputes between the council and property owners, in a timely way. 

Hearings panel deliberations

65.     The bylaw is enabling and provides guidance on how affected persons may meet their obligations.  In limited circumstances affected persons have to obtain the council’s approval to undertaken activities that affect the public stormwater network or deviate from the requirements of the bylaw. The approval process under the proposed bylaw is not expected to be more onerous than under the legacy stormwater bylaws.  Going forward, approvals under the new stormwater bylaw would be aggregated into one Auckland-wide approval process. 

66.     It is anticipated that the bylaw approval process will, to the extent practicable, be undertaken in conjunction with the stormwater-related elements of the council’s resource and building consent processes. 

67.     However, there may be instances where an approval is required under the bylaw even though a building consent or resource consent is not required.  In these instances, there would be a separate approval process for the bylaw-related issue.     

68.     A new explanatory note is proposed for inclusion in the bylaw (new clauses 7 and 18) to explain that approvals, to the extent practicable, will be incorporated into the stormwater management aspects of concurrent building or resource consent processes. 

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

69.     The views of the local boards were sought through 21 local board workshops in August 2013 to discuss the review and obtain feedback on the Issues and Options paper presented to the local boards. Local boards supported the outlined approach for regulation of the issues through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the proposed bylaw.  Local boards provided views on the use of the Code of Practice, management of surface water, the environmental considerations and private land owner responsibilities.  However, input often focused on local operational issues of concern and staff of the Stormwater Unit (Infrastructure and Environmental Services department) present at the workshops responded to these concerns.

70.     No submissions were received from local boards during the consultative process.

Māori impact statement

71.     Stormwater management is critical to Māori as kaitiaki who are culturally responsible for the well-being of the mauri of freshwater, the sea and other receiving waters. The council recognises these kaitiaki responsibilities and wants to ensure an outcome where kaitiaki concerns are addressed where possible in the management of the public stormwater network.  Areas of concern to Māori as kaitiaki include water quality monitoring and treatment, pest control, waste disposal and stormwater treatment.  

72.     Council staff presented at two hui held in Manukau and Orewa in October 2013 to discuss the management of stormwater through a bylaw and were able to hear the views of the iwi representatives that attended.  The two hui were part of the ongoing engagement by staff with mana whenua on stormwater management and input by Māori to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has been considered in the drafting of the proposed bylaw.

73.     One submission was received from mana whenua representatives during the submission process.

74.     Input from mana whenua into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and during the early consultation process for the proposed stormwater bylaw indicates that land-based treatment systems are the generally preferred option for stormwater treatment and purification.  Mana whenua support policies and practices that ensure stormwater systems are discharged via land-based designs rather than directly into waterways.  Preference is given to measures that separate stormwater treatment and purification systems from wastewater systems.

75.     Mana whenua representatives advised that the preservation and addition of appropriate vegetation in riparian areas assists in enhancing water quality and purity and that they will support measures that clean up pest plants in or alongside waterways. Council staff were also advised of concerns about the effects of run-off, silting and sedimentation build-up in waterways and for measures that prevent or avoid erosion and the discharge of sediment and pollutants in waterways. 

76.     The importance of wetlands to mana whenua was emphasised and support expressed for measures that protect wetlands and that sustain appropriate water levels in their rohe. Water levels should be sustained to ensure the avoidance of negative effects on wetlands, creeks, rivers, lakes and the species that inhabit them. These water bodies are the spawning grounds and nurseries for many species.  Tangata whenua support measures to ensure fish can maintain traditional migratory routes and there is a healthy flow of water maintained to feed the river and ephemeral streams. Blocked waterways and drains must be kept clear.

77.     There was support for ensuring mana whenua access to the natural stormwater network for the sustainable harvesting of natural resources such as flax and food.

78.     The input of tangata whenua is generally commensurate with input from the local boards and community and environmental groups that have been consulted and has been accommodated within the provisions of the proposed bylaw.

General

79.     The proposed bylaw has been developed through consultation with political, internal and external stakeholders, including elected members of the Governing Body (Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Working Party), Auckland Transport, the local boards, iwi, council departments and units, utility providers, key industry and community stakeholders and the public.

80.     The panel would like to thank all those who contributed to the consultation process. The contributions from submitters and other stakeholders have been greatly appreciated.

81.     The panel recommend the proposal as amended in Attachment A. 

Implementation

82.     The proposed Stormwater Bylaw 2015 consolidates existing practices and procedures currently used by the council to manage the public stormwater network and will be implemented using the available resources.

83.     The council is completing further work on the Code of Practice and documenting its approval processes over the period May-October 2015, in preparation for 1 November 2015 when the new Stormwater Bylaw 2015 will come into force. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Attachment A - Stormwater Bylaw 2015
Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015

167

bView

Attachment B - Summary of changes recommended by the Hearings Panel – 28 May 2015

195

     

Signatories

Author

Councillor George Wood – Hearings Panel Chairperson

Authoriser

Sue Tindal – Acting Chief Executive (27 July 2015)

 


Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 




























Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 








































Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 

2019 Elections - Review of Representation Arrangements

 

File No.: CP2015/06676

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To consider the findings of the Representation Review Political Working Party.

Executive Summary

2.       On 25 September 2014, the Governing Body established the Representation Review Working Party to look at whether legislative change is required prior to the next council conducting the review of representation in preparation for the 2019 elections.  The key concerns are:

i)     unlike other councils, the Auckland Council is unable to review the number of councillors (“governing body members”) because the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets this number at 20

ii)     the law requires that ward boundaries should, as far as practicable, coincide with local board boundaries; if ward boundaries need to change to achieve fair and effective representation across the whole region, the process for aligning local board boundaries requires a local government reorganisation and cannot be undertaken through the representation review.

3.       The working party recommends there should be legislative change to allow Auckland Council to review the number of governing body members.  While the fixed number of 20 members (plus the mayor) may currently work well, it is important that future councils have the ability to review this.

4.       The working party also recommends seeking legislative change to allow the Local Government Commission to deal efficiently with any proposed changes to local board boundaries, where the key purpose is to achieve alignment with ward boundaries that are changed as a result of a representation review.  This streamlined process would be permitted if changes were very minor.  If changes were not minor, they would need to:

i)    ensure effective representation of communities of interest within both the local board area and the ward,

ii)   be supported by the affected local boards, and

iii)   be publicly notified as part of the representation review.

5.       A resolution of the governing body on these matters will provide a mandate to staff to raise these issues with government officials, with a view to seeking the appropriate legislative changes.


 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      seek legislative change to remove the set membership of the governing body so that any future council has the opportunity to review the number of members on the governing body, as is the case with other councils.

b)      seek legislative change that provides the Local Government Commission the power to determine a change to a local board boundary where the key purpose is to achieve alignment with a ward boundary that is changed as a result of a review of representation; provided that either the change is minor or, if not minor, the change:

i)        ensures effective representation of communities of interest within both the local board area and the ward, and

ii)       is supported by the affected local boards, and

iii)      was publicly notified as part of the representation review.

c)      ask staff to initiate discussions with the Department of Internal Affairs to promote these changes and report back on progress.

 

Comments

Background

6.       At its meeting on 25 September 2014, the Governing Body resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a)      approve the recommendations from the Auckland Development Committee and:

i)       establish a working party to look at options for conducting the next representation review and whether legislative changes are warranted, particularly in regard to the fixed membership of the Governing Body and processes for aligning local board boundaries with ward boundaries

ii)       approve the appointment of Governing body members Cooper, Filipaina, Quax and Wood to the working party

iii)      invite the Local Board Chairs Forum to nominate four local board members to the working party

iv)     invite the IMSB to nominate two members to the working party

v)      request the working party report back by 30 June 2015

vi)     take no further action on the matter of Māori wards until after the working party has reported back.

 

7.       The working party met on 17 February 2015 and appointed Cr Dick Quax as chair.  It met again on 5 May 2015 and 9 June 2015.

8.       The local board members were Shale Chambers (Waitemata chair), Mike Cohen  (Devonport - Takapuna chair), Brenda Steele (Rodney chair), Fa'anānā Efeso Collins (Otara-Papatoetoe chair).  Andy Baker (Franklin chair) attended for Brenda Steele at the second meeting.

9.       The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) members were David Taipari and Josie Smith. 

10.     A workshop with governing body members was held on 23 June 2015.

Working Party Terms of Reference

11.     The next council will conduct Auckland Council’s first review of representation arrangements.  The working party’s key task was to identify whether legislative changes should be sought prior to this, noting in particular:

(i)    unlike other councils, the Auckland Council cannot review the number of its governing body members because the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets it at 20.

(ii)   there is a legal requirement to align ward boundaries with local board boundaries as far as practicable; if ward boundaries have to change to achieve fair and effective representation, there is a complicated reorganisation process involved in changing local board boundaries.

Background to current governance arrangements

12.     In 2007, the Government established a Royal Commission to make recommendations on Auckland governance.  After extensive inquiry and consideration of over 3,500 submissions, the Commission presented its report to the Governor General in March 2009.

13.     The Commission’s recommendations for representation included:

(i)      Mayor with enhanced powers

(ii)      23 governing body members, ten of whom would be elected at large, eight elected by four urban wards, two elected by two rural wards, two elected by voters on the Māori roll and one appointed by mana whenua

(iii)     Four urban local councils (each having 15 to 22 governing body members) and two rural local councils (each having seven governing body members)

14.     Following Cabinet consideration of these recommendations, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, in its initial form, proposed representation consisting of:

(i)      Mayor with enhanced powers

(ii)      20 governing body members, eight elected at large and 12 elected by ward, without Māori representation

(iii)     Between 20 and 30 local boards, with the number to be decided by the Local Government Commission.

15.     The Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee considered public submissions and reported back the Bill retaining the number of governing body members as a total of 20 but not specifying whether these would be elected by ward or at large.  It required the Local Government Commission to decide the number of wards.  The Committee also introduced the concept of shared decision-making between the Governing Body and local boards.

16.     The Act, in its final form, added provision for what is now known as the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Number of governing body members

17.     The working party discussed whether legislative change was needed so that the number of governing body members could be amended through a review.

18.     Without pre-empting that review, the working party concluded that the current number of twenty is workable.  However, the population of Auckland is growing.  By 2033, representation would be one councillor to 100,525 residents, whereas in 2013 it was one councillor to 74,659 residents. The working party felt that a future council, when conducting a review, should have the ability to review the number of governing body members.


 

19.     Furthermore, the working party noted that if there is ever a requirement to elect one or more members on the basis of Māori wards, current legislation requires such a member to constitute one of the twenty members, which means the number of governing body members elected on the basis of general wards would reduce.  If governing body members of general wards are reduced, for example to 19, current over-representation in certain wards could be exacerbated. 

20.     The working party recommends that the fixed number of governing body members should be removed from legislation so that a future council has the ability to review the number of governing body members.

Alignment of ward and local board boundaries

21.     There is a legislative requirement for ward boundaries to align with local board boundaries as far as is practicable.  However, ward boundaries also have to ensure fair representation and there is a requirement that the ratio of governing body members to population in a ward varies no more than 10 per cent from the average across the whole region.  A council may choose to not comply with this requirement on the basis that compliance would cut across communities of interest.  A determination would then be made by the Local Government Commission.

22.     An example of an issue that will need to be addressed by the next council is the under representation in the Waitemata Ward.  This is likely to vary from the average across the region by 24 per cent and the next council might wish to alter the boundary of the ward to achieve greater compliance with the 10 per cent rule.

23.     If the ward boundary is changed, the question arises whether the local board boundary should be changed, purely to achieve alignment of both boundaries (but still ensuring fair representation of communities of interest).  The council at the time might consider that having unaligned boundaries could be confusing for electors and that it is desirable for them to align.

24.     The council is not able to change local board boundaries.  The only way they can be changed is through a re-organisation process under the Local Government Commission.  In this process, the commission would invite alternative options.  Once a re-organisation process is initiated, other re-organisation proposals made by submitters might include abolition, creation, amalgamation and splitting of local boards.  There is the potential to open up the process to proposals that are not relevant to simply achieving alignment of boundaries and which could take time to resolve.

25.     The working party considers that instead of instituting a re-organisation process simply to align ward and local board boundaries, the Local Government Commission should have the power to make such boundary changes – limited to where the purpose of the boundary change is to achieve alignment of ward and local board boundaries as part of a review of representation arrangements if the change is very minor.  If it is not minor, the change should not compromise any community of interest and should have the support of affected local boards and should have been publicly notified as part of the review of representation.  This would require a legislative change.

Process for legislative change

26.     It is important to make a distinction between changes to legislation to address practical issues arising out of current legislation and changes to legislation that are policy matters.

27.     The government, from time to time, reviews legislation for changes that need to be made to address practical issues that arise from current legislation.  Often this arises from reviews at the level of officials and ends up in some form of amendment bill or even an omnibus amendment bill which contains improvements to a number of different pieces of legislation in the one bill.

28.     If the change is a policy matter, the process becomes more political and complex and more likely to take some time. Cabinet will likely be involved.  If the current legislation expresses the policy position of the government and a proposed change is contrary to the government’s policy position, any request for change to legislation is unlikely to succeed. 

29.     The government may be amenable to reviewing the limitation on the number of governing body members. It is possible that the legislation was simply setting the initial number of governing body members for a council that had not yet been created and that it is not a strong policy position of the government that it stay fixed at twenty. 

30.     The legal process for changing local board boundaries may well reflect the policy position of the government.  A change to local board boundaries must be through a reorganisation process, which is the same process for changing council boundaries.  This will have been the conscious intention of the legislators and Parliament.  There is the possibility that legislators at the time did not appreciate the difficulties when the council undertook its representation review and so there may be some sympathy in the Government for looking at changes arising through representation reviews as a special case. 

31.     Māori representation was clearly a policy issue for the government at the time and any submission to change this would be unlikely to succeed.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

32.     Representation arrangements are of strong interest to local boards.  As the work to date has focused on high level legislative issues views have not been sought from all local boards.  Local board views have been sought through the local board representatives on the political working party and they are supportive of the report’s recommendations.

Māori impact statement

33.     At present, a member elected by Māori ward would comprise one of a fixed number of twenty members, thereby reducing the number of general members.  This is a barrier to implementing Māori wards. Removing the requirement for a fixed number of governing body members will provide a future council with more flexibility if proposals for Māori wards arise

Implementation

34.     Staff will progress the legislative changes with the Department of Internal Affairs.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

 


Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 

Audit and Risk Committee Chairperson

 

File No.: CP2015/14828

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To advise the Governing Body of a change to the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee.

Executive summary

2.       The chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee, Sir John Walker, has advised of his decision to step down from that role due to other commitments.

3.       Section 9(3) (d) of the Local Government Auckland Council Act (LGACA) authorises the Mayor to appoint the chairs of Governing Body committees and I am appointing Councillor Bill Cashmore as the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee for the remainder of this political term.

4.       I am also proposing that the Chief Executive develop advice for the incoming mayor and governing body following the 2016 local government elections.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a)      record its thanks to Sir John Walker for his contribution as chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee since the start of this political term.

b)      note that Councillor Bill Cashmore has been appointed as the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee for the remainder of this political term.

c)      note that the Chief Executive will develop advice on the relative merits of independence of some, or all, of the members of the Audit and Risk Committee for the incoming mayor and governing body following the 2016 local government elections.

 

Comments

5.       The Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee, Sir John Walker, has advised me of his decision to step down from that role due to other commitments. 

6.       Councillor Sir John Walker has chaired the Audit and Risk Committee since November 2013. The Audit and Risk Committee has a critical role in ensuring the council’s transparency and accountability.  Under Sir John’s leadership, the committee has strengthened this role and, supported by council’s Internal Audit department, is developing a forward work programme that will ensure audit oversight of the council’s key work programmes.

7.       I would like to express our thanks to Sir John for his leadership and chairing of the Audit and Risk Committee over the past two years.

8.       Section 9(3) (d) of the Local Government Auckland Council Act (LGACA) authorises the Mayor to appoint the chairs of Governing Body committees and I have decided to appoint Councillor Bill Cashmore as the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee for the remainder of this political term. Councillor Cashmore’s keen interest in, and demonstrated focus on, business and financial performance make him an excellent fit for this role.

9.       Audit arrangements in both commercial and government entities are increasingly moving towards semi or full independence, including an increasing number of independent chairs of Audit committees. Ultimately this will be a decision for the incoming mayor in October 2016, but I think that decision should be informed by some advice from staff and I have suggested that the Chief Executive prepare that advice for the incoming mayor and council.  

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10.     This report notes a change to the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. Local Boards have not been consulted on this report. This report does not impact local boards.

Māori impact statement

11.     This report notes a change to the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. This report does not impact on council’s obligations to, or commitments with, Māori.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

His Worship the Mayor, Len Brown

      

 


Governing Body

30 July 2015

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Governing Body:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Special Housing Areas - Further recommendations on a Tranche 4 request

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C2       Special Housing Areas - Deferred from 14 May 2015 Auckland Development Committee

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information regarding development proposals.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C3       Special Housing Areas Tranche 7 - 7 July 2015 Auckland Development Committee Recommendations

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report and attachments contain information which, if released, would potentially prejudice or disadvantage commercial activities.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.