Agenda of Hearings Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

10.00am

Committee Meeting Room
Civic 15
1 Greys Avenue
Auckland

Hearings Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Penny Webster
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
	Cr Chris Darby
	Cr Calum Penrose
	Member David Taipari
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Member Glenn Wilcox
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

(Quorum 3 members)

Mary Binney

Democracy Advisor

5 March 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6211

Email: mary.binney@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Hearings Committee will have responsibility for:

· Decision making (including through a hearings process) under the Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation;

· Hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996;

· Decision making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

· Hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002. This delegation cannot be sub-delegated;

· Hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws, including applications for dispensation from compliance with the requirements of bylaws;

· Receiving recommendations from officers and appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Hearings Committee;

· Receiving recommendations from officers and deciding who should make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings commissioners in any particular hearing;

· Monitoring the performance of decision makers including responding to complaints made about decision makers;

· Where decisions are appealed or where the Hearings Committee decides that the Council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such appeals; and

· Adopting a policy or policies and making any necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of responsibility to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.

Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 and other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term “decision making” is used to encompass a range of decision making processes including through a hearing. “Decision making” includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing use right certificates and certificates of compliance and also includes all necessary related decision making.

In adopting a policy or policies and making any sub-delegations, the Hearings Committee must ensure that it retains oversight of decision making under the Resource Management Act 1991 and that it provides for Councillors to be involved in decision making in appropriate circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the existing delegations (contained in the Chief Executive’s Delegations Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision making under the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Hearings Committee.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

Resource Management Act 1991;
Building Act 2004;
Local Government Act 2002;
Local Government Act 1974;
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009;
Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010;
Dog Control Act 1996;

Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987;

Gambling Act 2003;

Sale of Liquor Act 1989;

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Health Act 1956;
Biosecurity Act 1993;
Related Regulations; and
Council Bylaws.

Hearings Committee

12 March 2014

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Local Board Input 7

5 Extraordinary Business 7

6 Notices of Motion 8

7 Environment Court Decision on Proposed Plan Change 131 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) and associated changes to the regional documents - Rezoning of Land for Industrial Purposes at Silverdale 9

8 Application for Resource Consent: 59 View Road, Mt Eden, Auckland 15

9 Appointment of Commissioners: objection to costs for PPC36 21

10 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 28 February 2014 23

11 Determination by the Hearings Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection at 23 Fenton Street, Papatoetoe 33

12 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

13 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 49

C1 Appeals to Plan Change 28 (PC28): Kingseat to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Update and Direction 49

C2 Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 11 March 2014 49

C3 New Resource Consent Appeals: Todd Property Ormiston Town Centre Limited v Auckland Council and Manwa Holdings Limited v Auckland Council 49

C4 New resource consent appeal: B & J Skinner v Auckland Council, 213 Eskdale Road Birkenhead. 50

1 Apologies

An apology from Member PA Hulse has been received.

2 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.

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hearings Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 25 February 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 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.

5 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.”

6 Notices of Motion

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

Hearings Committee

12 March 2014

Environment Court Decision on Proposed Plan Change 131 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) and associated changes to the regional documents - Rezoning of Land for Industrial Purposes at Silverdale

File No.: CP2014/02499

Purpose

1. To advise the Committee of the Environment Court’s Decision on Proposed Plan Change 131 (Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011) to rezone land industrial at Silverdale and the associated changes to the regional documents.

Executive Summary

2. Proposed Plan Change 131 and the associated changes to the regional documents, including shifting the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL), relate to the rezoning of land for industrial purposes at Silverdale (See Attachment A).

3. An appeal by Auckland Memorial Park Limited opposed the decision to rezone the land.

4. The matter went to an Environment Court hearing on 7 – 10 October 2013 and 7 November 2013. The Environment Court released its decision on 22 January 2014.

5. The Court upheld the appeal and cancelled the plan changes. The Court essentially considered that Countryside Living was a better use of the site than industrial and was not convinced that the suite of planning controls included in the Plan Change would mitigate the effects as intended.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) note the decision of the Environment Court to uphold the appeal and cancel Proposed Plan Change 131, Change 16 to the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement and Variation 6 to the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water.

Discussion

6. Proposed Plan Change 131 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) rezones 7ha of land from Countryside Living to Industrial at Silverdale. The location of the Plan Change area is shown in Attachment A.

7. At the same time the Council lodged a request to the former Auckland Regional Council to amend the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement to shift the Metropolitan Urban Limit (Proposed Change 16) and to the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water to extend the Urban Air Quality Management Area (Proposed Variation 6).

8. The land is located to the south of the existing Silverdale industrial area and is currently zoned Countryside Living Rural. To the west is the Auckland Memorial Park cemetery which is provided for by a scheduled activity on land zoned Countryside Living Rural. To the south and east of the plan change area, land is zoned Countryside Living Rural.

9. Proposed Plan Change 131 also proposed to introduce a scheduled activity (Scheduled Activity 332) over the plan change area which includes a number of additional site specific rules. These rules place restrictions on water supply and wastewater discharge. Additional rules and assessment criteria regarding landscaping, building colour, building position in relation to a ridgeline on the zone boundary and earthworks are also applied in order to mitigate the adverse effects of future development on the site.

10. The Decision of the independent Hearings Commissioners dated 7 November 2012 was to approve all of the plan changes.

The Appeals

11. The decision to rezone the land was appealed by Auckland Memorial Park Limited which sought that all the plan changes be declined.

12. The landowner of the plan change area, Silverdale Estates Ltd, issued a notice to be heard under s274 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Environment Court Decision

13. The Environment Court’s (EC) decision upheld the appeal and cancelled the plan changes. The key reasons for the Court’s decision were:

· EC was not convinced that the plan changes would better serve the objective and policies of the planning instruments

· EC does not find certainty that the proposed planning regime will achieve the intended outcome

· The potential for this land to contribute meaningfully to growth expectations for business land is overstated

· EC does not see a balance swaying towards industrial activity, especially given the physical constraints of this land

· There is no certainty that the provisions proposed will mitigate the effects, the extensive provisions suggest that the site is not suitable for industrial activity

· Countryside living is a better use of the site.

14. The decision is disappointing as the Council viewed the change as a small but logical extension to the supply of industrial land at Silverdale. It is not considered that there are grounds to appeal the Environment Court’s decision to the High Court.

Consideration

Local Board Views

15. These Plan Changes were initiated prior to the existence of local boards. The Plan Changes are now at a stage where there is no formal opportunity for the Local Board to be involved. However, it is noted that the land was included in the Hibiscus and Bays Area Plan as industrial with the agreement of the Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

16. Iwi were informed via letter on the Proposed Changes as part of the statutory process associated with the plan change notification. The following Iwi groups were served with individual notification:

· Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara

· Ngāti Manuhiri (Ngāti Wai)

· Ngāti Paoa Trust

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

17. Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara indicated they had no immediate issues and no response was received from the other iwi.

18. There were no specific issues relating to Māori raised in the submission process in respect of these proposed changes and the appeal did not raise any specific iwi issues.

General

19. The recommended decision is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the Council’s significance policy.

Implementation Issues

20. The proposed changes need to be removed from the Operative District Plan, the Regional Policy Statement and the Regional Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Locality Plan	13

Signatories

Authors	Dave Paul - Principal Planner North West Planning
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 March 2014

Application for Resource Consent: 59 View Road, Mt Eden, Auckland

File No.: CP2014/03353

Purpose

1. This report invites the Hearings Committee to make decisions about an application for resource consent to demolish a pre-1940 dwelling, and subdivide the site into 4 vacant lots at 59 View Road, Mt Eden, Auckland.

Executive Summary

2. The Council has received an application for the demolition of a pre-1940 dwelling and for the subdivision of the existing property at 59 View Road, Mt Eden (the site) into 4 vacant lots. The site is within the Residential 1 zone of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (the Operative District Plan).

3. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to be the decision-maker on the notification determination pursuant to section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) as demolition applications in the Residential 1 zone have been contentious resulting in refinements being made to strengthen Council processes.

4. The Council’s reporting planner recommends that the application be processed on a non-notified basis.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) determine that the application to demolish a pre-1940 dwelling and subdivide the site at 59 View Road, Mt Eden into four vacant lots, proceed on a non-notified basis pursuant to sections 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the reasons that:

i) both demolition of an existing dwelling and the subdivision element are restricted discretionary activities and Rule 4.3.2.6 of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999), requires restricted discretionary activities to be considered without notification and without having to obtain the written approval of affected persons or limit notify to them; and

ii) there are no “special circumstances” relating to the demolition of this pre-1940 building. The heritage quality and character displayed by the building is poor and the building is not a rare, unique or significant example of a particular architectural or heritage style. There is no significant known interest in the building from heritage groups, nor is the building associated with an event of significance known to the community. The building does not have a high visual profile or landmark value where its loss would impact on local character.

b) appoint an independent duty commissioner, and a heritage commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to make a decision on the resource consent application pursuant to section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Discussion

The Application

5. This application is for the demolition of a pre-1940s dwelling and the subdivision of the site into 4 vacant lots at 59 View Road, Mt Eden. The property is zoned Residential 1 in the Operative District Plan. The property is zoned Residential Single House under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and has a Special Character (Residential Isthmus A) overlay. A detailed description of the proposal, the relevant District Plan rules, and an assessment of the proposal is set out in the Council planner’s report (provided as Attachment A).

6. The site is located towards the western end of View Road. This part of View Road contains a mixture of building types, ranging from traditional character buildings to ‘sausage flat’ type developments. There are two existing buildings on site – one larger pre-1940’s building towards the front of the site, and a smaller building at the rear of the site that was relocated on to the site in 1985. It is the larger building that is the subject of the Operative District Plan’s pre-1940 demolition control.

7. The building was constructed c.1900 and is now used as a boarding house. The applicant’s heritage architect and the Council’s heritage architect agree that the original building has been significantly modified, with changes including:

a. Filling in of original front verandas;

b. Significant internal alteration;

c. The entire building has been re-clad with palisade plastic weatherboard;

d. All timber joinery has been removed and replaced with aluminium; and

e. All chimneys have been removed.

As set out in the expert reports, both heritage architects consider that the building is not an exemplar villa style building.

8. Demolition of the existing dwelling is a restricted discretionary activity (i.e. the criteria to be considered when assessing the proposal are limited). Rule 4.3.2.6 of the Operative District Plan requires restricted discretionary activities to be considered without public notification and without having to either obtain the written approval of affected persons or limited notify them.

9. The subdivision element of the proposal is a discretionary activity. Rule 11.5.5.2 of the Operative District Plan states discretionary activity subdivision consents will be treated as restricted discretionary activities under Rule 4.3.2.6. Rule 4.3.2.6 states that specified activities can be considered without public notification, or the need to obtain the written approval of, or service on, affected persons.

10. In order for the application for resource consent to be notified, special circumstances must exist. “Special circumstances” are circumstances outside the common run of things, which make the application exceptional, abnormal or unusual, but which may be less than extraordinary or unique. The fact that a building is “old” is not a special circumstance in itself – there needs to be more about a particular building. If Council decides that special circumstances exist, Council can publicly notify an application, notwithstanding a rule in the plan that says the application should be processed non-notified. In this case, Council officers do not believe there are any special circumstances that warrant notification.

The Process

11. Following the grant of the Paget Street resource consent for demolition in 2011, an internal review of the resource consent approval was undertaken. This found that the correct process had been followed, but recommended that a range of supplementary measures be adopted in order to strengthen further processes relating to pre-1940s demolition applications. The Resource Consents Department reported on the implementation of these measures to the Heritage Advisory Panel (HAP) on 5 June 2012, and to the Regional Development and Operations Committee on 21 June 2012.

12. In addition to the above measures, the HAP, at its meeting on 5 June 2012, discussed whether there was further scope for the Council to notify applications to demolish or remove such buildings using special circumstances under section 95A(4) in the RMA. The HAP recommended that guidelines as to what constitutes special circumstances, be prepared by the Council and brought back to a meeting of the HAP for consideration in the near future. This recommendation was supported by the Regional Development Operations Committee on 21 June 2012.

13. As requested, the Council prepared and implemented special circumstances guidelines to assist staff when processing applications for resource consent for the demolition of pre-1940s dwellings in Residential 1 and 2 zones. These are attached as Attachment B. The guidelines have been discussed with the HAP on 7 August 2012, and a number of changes made to them to reflect their comments.

14. The special circumstances guidelines reflect current practice, and set out a series of questions for planners to ask themselves to help decide whether special circumstances may exist. The questions centre on the quality of the building, its significance, the level of public interest, if any, and whether there is known interest in the site by a heritage or other group.

15. It is important to note that the special circumstances guidelines do not create a requirement to consult with interest groups. Rather they are intended to ensure that the planner processing the application, turns their mind to whether there is any known interest by the public or a special interest group in a building or site (for example, a request from the public that it be scheduled). This is relevant under the guidelines because it may suggest that there are “exceptional, abnormal or unusual” circumstances relating to the application justifying notification.

Consideration

General

16. The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy that, at section 4.2, refers to “Allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff". Section 4.2.2 states that in deciding who is the most appropriate decision maker, the Hearings Committee will take into account recommendations from staff, the significance of a particular matter and whether it is contentious.

17. The history of demolition applications within the Residential 1 zone infers that this application may be considered contentious. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is considered that the Hearings Committee should either make the notification decision themselves, or appoint decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that if commissioners are appointed to consider the application, they have planning and heritage expertise.

18. In this case, the Council planner has followed the special circumstances guidelines and, based on these, has concluded that special circumstances do not exist, for the reasons detailed in the reporting planner’s report. In summary, the existing dwelling has been significantly modified, as have surrounding buildings, and therefore does not have the special qualities identified in the guidelines.

19. The building is not scheduled, and is not listed by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

20. The Council has no knowledge of members of the public or interest groups having raised an interest previously in relation to the building. However, it is noted that consents of this nature (demolition and new builds in Residential 1 zones) do have an element of public and media interest, therefore public interest cannot be discounted.

21. The application has been reviewed by the Team Manager of Resource Consents, to ensure due process has been followed, and there has been close management oversight throughout the processing of the application.

Summary

22. The reporting planner’s recommendation is that the application be processed on a non-notified basis. In summary, the existing dwelling is not considered to contribute positively nor provide a relationship to any other existing dwelling along the existing streetscape of View Road.

Local Board Views

23. The Albert/Eden Local Board was provided with the opportunity to express its views on the application in accordance with the process identified as part of the Paget Street review. In particular, the local board were consulted on 25 February 2014, and feedback was received on 26 February 2014. Local Board Member Easte concluded that the application for the proposed demolition of the building should proceed on a non-notified basis, and that the local board be able to comment on the proposed redevelopment of the site.

24. The Team Manager of Resource Consents meet with Councillor Casey, Local Board Member Fryer and Local Board Member Easte on 26 February 2014. After discussion, Councillor Casey and Local Board Member Fryer were of the opinion that the application should be notified. Local Board Member Easte remained of the view that the application be non-notified.

Maori Impact Statement

25. There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi nor has any matter of interest been raised in the application’s Assessment of Environmental Effects or supporting documentation.

Implementation Issues

26. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs of the hearings commissioners will be met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report and Supporting Appendices (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Special Circumstances Criteria	19

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 March 2014

District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 28 February 2014

File No.: CP2014/02756

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the current status of outstanding appeals region wide.

Executive Summary

2. This report provides a summary of current district and regional plan appeals. Should Councillors have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could be raised with Warren Maclennan – (Mobile 021-646590) or email warren.maclennan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz, prior to the meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) receive the report.

Discussion

3. The summary table is attached as Attachment A.

Consideration

Local Board Views

4. Local Board views have not been sought.

Maori Impact Statement

5. The decision requested of the Hearings Committee is to receive this progress report on appeals rather than to decide each appeal.

6. All of these appeals relate to Plan Changes or Notices of Requirement which are being processed according to the Resource Management Act. As each appeal is negotiated or settled, a report is prepared for the Committee’s consideration which includes a Maori Impact Statement covering matters related to each specific matter.

General

7. There are no further matters requiring consideration.

Implementation Issues

8. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regionwide Appeals Status Report at 28 February 2014	25

Signatories

Authors	Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 March 2014

Determination by the Hearings Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection at 23 Fenton Street, Papatoetoe

File No.: CP2014/03152

Purpose

1. To seek the determination of the Hearings Committee of the objection to a proposed Stormwater connection for 23 Fenton Street, Papatoetoe under Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Executive Summary

2. This report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act, 1974.The property at 23 Fenton Street, Papatoetoe does not have a stormwater connection to council’s stormwater network. The property owner, Super 8 Limited, is seeking to construct a new public stormwater connection, from the neighbouring property of 21A Fenton Street Papatoetoe, to service his property.

3. Mr Andre Conradie (RPC Land Surveyors), agent for Mr Mohammed Sahid Khan (Director of Super 8 Limited) has endeavoured but failed to negotiate access to 21A Fenton Street to install a 150mm public stormwater connection. Consequently, Mr Khan has requested Council exercise its powers under section 460 of the Act 1974 to enable the works to be carried out.

4. The property owners of 21A Fenton Street are as follows:

1/21A (21A) – Lupe Halafih and HepisipaFinau

2/21A (21B) – Silvanus Shaneel Naida and Pauline Prabha Naidu

3/21A (21C) – Rosalie Anne Lawler & Timothy Easton Heeney

5. Rosalie Lawler and Tim Heeny have advised in writing that they object to the proposed connection. Section 460 of the Act provides a right to be heard by a committee of Council. Delegation to undertake such hearings lies with the Hearings Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection lodged by the owners of 21A Fenton Street, Papatoetoe pursuant to section 460 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1974.

b) endorse the proposed connection and its associated route through the neighbouring land at 21A Fenton Street, Papatoetoe to undertake drainage works generally, pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 and as set out in proposal number 40745 (dated 10 August 2012).

Background

6. In May 2012 Mr Khan applied for a pre-application meeting with council to discuss the construction of a second dwelling and subsequent subdivision. Amongst other matters, he was advised that he needed to provide a public connection to both the existing and proposed dwellings.

7. In July 2012, Mr Conradie approached council with a request to issue notice, under the LGA s460, to the owners of 21A Fenton Street. Mr Veer Khar, Team Leader Development Engineering (South), responded with the requirements of council prior to commencement of this section of the LGA.

8. Late July 2012, Council advised Mr Conradie that council was not in a position to assist until such time as an Engineering Approval had been obtained. An Engineering approval application was received 9/8/12 and a decision issued 10/8/12. In late August 2012, Mr Khan requested, through his agent, for council to initiate proceedings under s460 of the LGA. Discussions were held with the adjacent owners of 21A Fenton Street with a view to obtaining an agreed position.

9. Initial concerns were raised, by the neighbours, with regards to ‘inter neighbour’ relationships and the concern of ‘lack of trust’. One of the concerns raised was in respect to the trees, along the northern boundary of 23 Fenton, and how they were interfering with the private overhead power supply. The neighbours had been advised by Mr Khan that the trimming of the trees was their responsibility even though the trees are located within 23 Fenton. At the neighbours’ request, Mr Khan removed all the trees.

10. Further discussions were held to try and met all outstanding matters of concern. The owners of 21A appeared strong in their objections to this proposal. In April 2013, ‘A Notice on Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land, Local Government Act 2002 Twelfth Schedule was served on the owners of 21A Fenton Street.

11. Objections were received from:

21C Fenton Street on 1/5/2013

21B Fenton Street on 10/5/2013

21A Fenton Street on 16/5/2013

12. The objections were similar and included the following:

i) Incorrect Legal description

ii) Incorrect street numbering

iii) Concerns regarding access to property during construction

iv) Concerns regarding use of the driveway and power poles belonging to 21A

v) Boundaries and privacy maintained by installing a fence adjacent to their driveway prior to any construction

13. The owners of 21A & B also stated that they ‘…do not have time to attend hearings in this matter as we have a busy lifestyle and our opinion is not going to change and the council should not be trying to change our position in this matter.’

14. They also stated ‘We hope the council will take our views and objections very seriously and understand our position as we are rate payers as well. We hope that we won’t be further inconvenienced in the process of the new construction that is going to take place on 23 Fenton Street.’

15. The owners of 21C also stated ‘As our homes at 21A B and C Fenton Street were built we had to pay for all the drainage on the site. It seems basically unfair that the Council now chooses to install a new public line to service 23 Fenton St to the drain we have paid for.’

16. Due to inaccuracies in the ‘notice’, and other delays, another Notice of Intention was sent 10 January 2014.

17. A response was received from 21C Fenton Street dated 4 February 2014. It basically covered the same objections as previously.

Discussion

18. The owner of 23 Fenton Street has met the requirements of the Local Government Act with regards to using the powers of section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974. Mr Khan has sought to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake drainage works and has investigated alternative solutions.

19. Council considers that the proposed stormwater connection would adequately service 23 Fenton Street. The existing public stormwater line inside the 21A Fenton Street property is approximately 2.5 metres away from the property boundary with 23 Fenton Street. The existing public stormwater line has adequate capacity to receive additional stormwater. The owner of 23 Fenton Street will be required to build the works in accordance with the approved engineering works approval.

20. An alternative route to lay a stormwater drain across the road and down to 15 Fenton Street is considered inappropriate as this option takes stormwater out of its catchment and involves a greater length of pipe and thus cost.

21. Although it is clear that Mr Khan has intentions of developing 23 Fenton Street, it should be noted that at this point, he only has engineering approval to provide a stormwater connection to his property. No proposal has been submitted to Council for development. At such time as Mr Khan does present a proposal, it will be treated on its merits in accordance with both the District and Unitary Plans. All neighbours ‘rights’ will be addressed as part of that application.

22. It is noted that there are errors on the engineering plans submitted however the intent is clear and approval was given based on the engineering detail provided rather than the incorrect legal descriptions.

Consideration

23. Within the framework of the Hearings Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Hearings Committee has the responsibility for “Hearing and determining the matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002. This delegation cannot be sub delegated”.

24. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objector can present their evidence in support of their positions. After hearing all the evidence and the relevant information, the Hearings Committee then has to make a decision. Any decision of the Hearings Committee may be appealed to the District Court.

Local Board Views

25. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 21A Fenton Street, Papatoetoe

Maori Impact Statement

26. Under Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be aligned.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

27. The costs of the committee are met by the applicant.

Implementation Issues

28. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Plans showing proposed stormwater connection	37
b View	Correspondence with owners of 21A Fenton Street, Papatoetoe	39
c View	Notice of construction of drain to adjacent properties	45

Signatories

Authors

Douglas Mitchell – Senior Development Engineer, Natural Resources & Specialist Input, Resource Consents

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 March 2014

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

That the Hearings Committee:

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 Appeals to Plan Change 28 (PC28): Kingseat to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Update and Direction

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