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:

Tuesday, 15 April 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

8 April 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.

1 Apologies

Apologies have been received from Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse and Member David Taipari.

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, 1 April 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

15 April 2014

Application for Resource Consent: Proposed Demolition and Replacement Buildings, 72 Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn

File No.: CP2014/06474

Purpose

1. This report invites the Hearings Committee to make decisions about an application for resource consent to demolish pre-1940 buildings and construct replacement buildings at 72 Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland.

Executive Summary

2. The Council has received an application (R/LUC/2013/2320/1) for resource consent for the demolition of pre-1940 buildings and the construction of new buildings at 72 Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn (the site). The site, which is on the corner of Williamson Avenue and Ariki Street, is located 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 pre-1940 buildings and construct new buildings at 72 Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn, proceed on a non-notified basis pursuant to sections 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991, for the reasons that:

i) the replacement buildings will provide a similar character to that of the existing buildings and will read visually similar within the wider streetscape;

ii) the replacement buildings will be of a similar bulk to that of the existing buildings and be of a scale of development that is anticipated in this locality; and

iii) there are no special circumstances relating to the demolition of these pre-1940 buildings.

b) appoint the rostered independent duty commissioner, and appoint either Cherie Lane, John Hill or Richard Knott as heritage commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to make a decision on the application for resource consent pursuant to section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Discussion

The Application

5. This application is for the demolition of the existing pre-1940 buildings on site and construction of replacement buildings of a similar bulk, scale and appearance to the existing buildings. The applicant intends to retain the character of the existing building in the replacement design and improve the state of the existing buildings which are in disrepair. The replacement buildings will be used for commercial (two office tenancies and storage) purposes.

6. The site is zoned Residential 1 in the Operative District Plan and zoned Residential Single House in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Under the PAUP the site is also within a Special Character (Residential Isthmus A) overlay, a flood plain and flood prone area, an overland flow path and adjacent a District Arterial (Williamson Avenue).

7. 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 recommendation report (provided as Attachment A). Of note, Appendix E to the Council planner’s recommendation report contains an assessment from the Council’s Conservation Architect, alongside an email exchange between the reporting planner and the applicant confirming a design change to the exterior cladding of the proposal in response to the assessment’s recommendations.

The Process

8. 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 applications for resource consent for pre-1940 building demolition. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

Consideration

General

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. The reporting planner’s recommendation is that the application be processed on a nonnotified basis. In summary: the replacement buildings will provide a similar character to that of the existing buildings and will read visually similar within the wider streetscape; the replacement buildings will be of a similar bulk to that of the existing buildings and be of a scale of development that is anticipated in this locality; and there are no special circumstances relating to the demolition of these pre-1940 buildings.

Local Board Views

21. The Waitemata 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. As set out in the email exchange contained in Appendix F to the Council planner’s recommendation report, the local board were consulted on 14 March 2014, and feedback was received on 25 March 2014. Local Board Member Dempsey outlined on behalf of the Board that “...the proposal was ok…” and that “…I’m hoping that the replacement building will be more insulated and will also demonstrate great character!”.

Maori Impact Statement

22. 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

23. 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 View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Special Circumstances Criteria	13
c View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report - Appendix A (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report - Appendix B (Under Separate Cover)
e View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report - Appendix C (Under Separate Cover)
f View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report - Appendix D (Under Separate Cover)
g View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report - Appendix E (Under Separate Cover)
h View	Reporting Planner's Notification Recommendation Report - Appendix F (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

15 April 2014

District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 31 March 2014

File No.: CP2014/06575

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 (refer Attachment A). Should Councillors have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could be raised with Warren Maclennan – (Mobile021-646590), 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 31 March 2014	17

Signatories

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

Hearings Committee

15 April 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 Five Appeals to a Decision by Watercare Services Limited relating to three Notices of Requirement to Designate Land for the Central Interceptor Wastewater Infrastructure

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