I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 8
July 2014
10.00am
Committee
Meeting Room
Civic 15
1 Greys Avenue
Auckland
|
|
Hearings Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
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 4 members)
|
|
|
Rita Bento-Allpress
Democracy Advisor
1 July 2014
Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7541
Email: rita.bento-allpress@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
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
08 July 2014
|
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 5
2 Declaration of Interest 5
3 Confirmation of Minutes 5
4 Local Board Input 5
5 Extraordinary Business 5
6 Notices of Motion 6
7 Urgent Decision: Appointment of Elected Members to Resource
Consent Hearings 7
8 Appointment of independent hearing commissioners 13
9 Appointment of Commissioners - Notice of Requirement to
alter designations and s127 application to change conditions of resource
consents for the St Lukes Interchange Project 15
10 Appointment of Commissioners: application for resource
consent - Proposed Removal of a Pre-1940 Building, 44 New Street, Ponsonby 23
11 Determination of hearing commissioners: 254 Patumahoe Road,
Patumahoe 35
12 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 27 June
2014 41
13 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
14 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 51
C1 Proposed Mediation Position to Settle Appeals to Plan Change
123 Hibiscus Coast Gateway 51
C2 Proposed Mediation to Settle Appeals on Plan Change 148
(Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011) Matakana Country Park 51
C3 New resource consent appeal: Wedd & Jones v Auckland
Council 51
C4 Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 8 July 2014 52
At the close of the agenda no apologies had 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 Wednesday, 11 June 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
08 July 2014
|
|
Urgent
Decision: Appointment of Elected Members to Resource Consent Hearings
File No.: CP2014/12600
Purpose
1. To advise the Hearings Committee
of a decision made under urgency.
Executive
summary
2. Under Sections 2 and 5.1.1 of
the Hearings Committee policy and the Terms of Reference, the appointment of elected
members in addition to independent commissioners (already appointed) to make
decisions on the following resource consents has been made under urgency as at
5 June 2014 and is being reported to the Committee:
· 332
and 330 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga: Application numbers 43192 (District) and
44041 (Regional Stormwater Discharge); and
· 2
Rangatira Road, Birkenhead: Application numbers LN-2138492 (District) and
REG-2138493 and REG: 2138525.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) note the decision made under
urgency.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Urgent Decision: Appointment of Elected Members to
Resource Consent Hearings
|
9
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Mary Binney - Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
Appointment of independent hearing commissioners
File No.: CP2014/12838
Purpose
1. To release the Hearings
Committee’s decision of 7 May 2014 regarding the appointment of independent
hearing commissioners to the open minutes.
Executive
summary
2. at its meeting of 7 May 2014 the
Hearings Committee resolved as follows:
That the Hearings Committee:
a) approve the
following candidates for appointment as Auckland Council independent
commissioners from 1 June 2014 to 30 June 2017:
|
Melean Absolum
|
Orchid Atimalala
|
Janine Bell
|
Simon Berry
|
|
Richard Blakey
|
Ian Boothroyd
|
Justine Bray
|
Philip Brown
|
|
Wayne Donovan
|
Mark Farnsworth
|
Trish Fordyce
|
Kim Hardy
|
|
Jan Heijs
|
David Hill
|
Greg Hill
|
John Hill
|
|
Jenny Hudson
|
William (Bill) Kapea
|
Barry Kaye
|
Richard Knott
|
|
Cherie Lane
|
Hugh Leersnyder
|
Gavin Lister
|
Kitt Littlejohn
|
|
Rebecca Macky
|
Kevin Mahon
|
Paul Majurey*
|
Nigel Mark-Brown
|
|
Leigh McGregor
|
David Mead
|
Basil Morrison
|
Ian Munro
|
|
Shona Myers
|
Marlene Oliver
|
Michael Parsonson
|
Alan Pattle
|
|
Pamela Peters
|
Noelene Raffills
|
Kathleen Ryan
|
Robert Scott
|
|
Dave Serjeant
|
Craig Shearer
|
Les Simmons
|
Karyn Sinclair
|
|
Rebecca Skidmore
|
Bill Smith
|
Sheena Tepania
|
Alan Watson
|
|
Louise Wickham
|
|
|
|
*subject to successful completion of the
Making Good Decisions certification
b) designate, in
accordance with clause 4.2.7 of the Hearings Committee Policy, the following 13
independent commissioners to act as duty commissioners for the period from 1
July 2014 until 30 June 2015:
|
Janine Bell
|
Justine Bray
|
Mark Farnsworth
|
David Hill
|
|
Barry Kaye
|
Jenny Hudson
|
Cherie Lane
|
Rebecca Macky
|
|
Leigh McGregor
|
Ian Munro
|
Kathleen Ryan
|
Les Simmons
|
|
Alan Watson
|
|
|
|
c) approve, in
accordance with section 5.2 of the Hearings Committee Policy, the above listed
duty commissioners to be assigned by the Resolutions Team’s principal planners
and manager for the purpose of hearing and determining section 357 objections.
d) delegate, in
accordance with section 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy, to the
Resolutions Team’s principal planners and manager the authority to assign one
or more duty commissioners to make decisions on resource consent applications
that staff consider are not significant or contentious and where no hearing is
required.
e) delegate,
in accordance with section 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy, to the
Resolutions Team’s principal planners and manager the authority to assign additional
commissioners beyond the ‘duty’ group but from the approved list of independent
commissioners, as may be necessary depending on particular skills or knowledge
required for a particular resource consent application or section 357 objection
determination.
f) delegate,
in accordance with sections 4.2.3 and 5.2 of the Hearings Committee Policy,
that the persons designated as duty commissioners in clause (b), be assigned to
determine any notice of requirement or outline plan where no hearing is
required.
g) agree
that the decision only be made publicly available from 1 June 2014.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) note the release the decision
of the Hearings Committee of 7 May 2014 regarding the appointment of
independent hearing commissioners to the open section of the minutes.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Mary Binney - Local Board Advisor -
Maungakiekie-Tamaki
|
|
Authorisers
|
Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
Appointment of Commissioners - Notice of Requirement
to alter designations and s127 application to change conditions of resource
consents for the St Lukes Interchange Project
File No.: CP2014/12578
Purpose
1. To appoint independent
commissioners to make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement for
alteration to designations D05-08 and B08-04, and to make a decision on the
associated s127 application to change conditions of resource consents over 820
Great North Road. This is part of the St Lukes Interchange project and will
enable an additional left turn lane.
Executive
summary
2. Auckland Transport (AT) has
lodged a Notice of Requirement (NoR) to alter the
St Lukes (D05-08) and Great North Road (B08-04) designations over the Auckland
Council owned and designated site at 820 Great North Road (D06-08). AT has
also lodged a s127 application to change conditions of resource consents
relating to stormwater, earthworks, contaminated soil and impervious surfaces.
3. The purpose of the project is to
construct, operate and maintain an additional lane for west bound Great North
Road traffic turning left onto St Lukes Road. The project forms stage 2 of the
State Highway 16 St Lukes Interchange project which was approved non-notified
in February 2014 to improve the operation of the interchange and the
surrounding road network. The extent of these works are shown in Attachment
A. The required land take is shown in Attachment B.
4. The construction of an
additional left turn lane over 820 Great North Road requires the removal of 6
mature Pohutukawa trees. The site is owned by Auckland Council and is
designated for carparking purposes (D06-08). To date no written approvals to
the project have been provided.
5. The application was publicly
notified on Friday 6 June 2014 at the request of AT. Submissions close
Thursday 3 July 2014. The Central and Islands Planning Policy Unit and the
Major Infrastructure Projects Resource Consents team are processing the project
as an integrated application.
6. AT (a Council Controlled
Organisation) is the Requiring Authority for the project works and the project
affects Council owned land. For these reasons, officers request that the
Hearings Committee appoint three independent commissioners to make a
recommendation on the NoR and a decision on the change of conditions to
resource consent applications.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint a panel of three
independent commissioners (including one as chair), to hear submissions and
make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement and to make a decision on
the s127 application to change conditions of resource consents at 820 Great
North Road as part of the St Lukes Interchange project (additional left turn
lane).
b) delegate authority to the
chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make a replacement appointment
should any of the independent commissioners be unavailable.
|
Comments
7. The following is a summary of
the applications required for the project.
· S127
application to change conditions of consents.
Change to general condition 1 (which relates to all
consents listed below) and specific condition 90 of the regional stormwater
consents to address the effects of the additional 726m2 area of
earthworks, additional 476m3 volume of earthworks, and additional
impervious surface area resulting from the construction of the additional left
turn lane of 726m2 of the following resource consents related to the
SH16 St Lukes Western Ring Route Project which were approved on 21 February
2014:
R/LUC2014/2545 and R/REG/2013/2552 – Landuse consent under
the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in
Soil to Protect Human Health (“NES Contaminated Soil”) and regional
contaminated site discharge consent under the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land
and Water (ACRP:ALW);
R/REG/2013/2550 – Regional earthworks consent under the
Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control, and the Proposed Auckland Unitary
Plan (PAUP); and
R/REG/2013/2551 and R/REG/2013/4724 – Regional consents for
the diversion and discharge of stormwater under the ACRP: ALW, and stormwater
management – quality under the PAUP.
· Notice
of Requirement – Plan Modification number PM371
Notice of Requirement (NoR) to alter two designations
B08-04 (Great North Road) and D05-08 (St Lukes Road) to enable the construction,
operation and maintenance of an additional left turn lane over the site at 820
Great North Road (D06-08).
NoR to alter designation B08-04 (Great North Road) to
remove the following exclusion from Part 4.1 of designation B08-04 as it
relates to this site at 820 Great North Road, as follows:
“4.1 Requiring authority works provided for by this
designation specifically exclude the following activities:
Any physical works within the dripline of any scheduled or
protected tree or requiring the removal of such trees”.
· Waiver
of Outline Plan of Works requirement
Application to waive the requirement for an Outline Plan of
Works for works relating to D05-08 and B08-04 covered by the application.
8. At AT’s request the applications
were publicly notified as an integrated application on Friday 6 June 2014.
Submissions close 5pm Thursday 3 July 2014.
9. Officers have circulated the
applications to specialists to review the traffic, arboriculture, landscape,
urban design, noise and vibration, stormwater, earthworks and contaminated land
effects of the project. Comments have yet to be received.
10. Given that the requiring
authority (AT) is a Council Controlled Organisation and that Auckland Council
Parks, Sports and Recreation is a directly affected landowner, Council officers
recommend that independent commissioners be appointed to make a determination
on the applications.
11. Council officers recommend that
Leigh McGregor should be considered for selection as she was chair of the
hearings panel that determined the first stage of the SH16 St Lukes Interchange
project and therefore has a good background and understanding of the issues.
It is suggested that a panel of 3 commissioners should be appointed, with
expertise in RMA law, planning and urban design.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
12. The project is located in the
Waitemata Local Board area but is immediately adjacent to the Albert-Eden Local
Board area. Council officers have therefore invited comment from both boards.
At the time of reporting no comments had been received.
Maori
impact statement
13. The applicant has advised that
Iwi who have indicated an interest in the Waitemata Local Board area were all
contacted in 2013 about the St Lukes Interchange project. This includes Ngati
Whatua o Orakei, Ngati Paoa, Te Kawerau a Maki, Te Akitai Waiohua, Te Runanga o
Ngati Whatua, Ngati Whatua – Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki,
Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata – Waiohua, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Maru and Ngati
Tamatera.
14. Officers note that the applicant
has not identified Te Patukirikiri as an iwi with an interest in the local
board area. However, Te Patukirikiri are on the ‘Iwi and hapu by Auckland
Council Local Board Area 2014’ list for the Waitemata Local Board. All 13 iwi
as set out in this list were sent letters as part of the public notification
process.
15. In mid 2013, the applicant held
meetings with Ngati Whatua o Orakei, Ngati Tamaoho, Te Kawerau a Maki and Te
Akitai Waiohua as part of the SH16 St Lukes Interchange project. Minutes from
those meetings have been provided with the application.
Implementation
16. A hearing date will be set
following the decision to appoint commissioners. This will likely take place
in the final quarter of 2014.
17. The costs involved with
processing the applications are recoverable from AT.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
General Layout Plan - St Lukes Interchange Project
(additional left turn lane)
|
19
|
|
bView
|
Land Requirement Plan - St Lukes Interchange Project
(additional left turn lane)
|
21
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Kate McKessar - Principal Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
Appointment of Commissioners: application for resource
consent - Proposed Removal of a Pre-1940 Building, 44 New Street, Ponsonby
File No.: CP2014/13877
Purpose
1. To appoint independent
commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to
remove a pre-1940 building at 44 New Street, Ponsonby.
Executive
summary
2. Auckland Council has received an
application (R/LUC/2014/2130) for resource consent for the removal of a
pre-1940 building at 44 New Street, Ponsonby (the site). The site, which is
located opposite Saint Mary’s College, 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 appoint independent commissioners as
decision-makers pursuant to sections 95 and 104 of the Resource Management Act
1991 (“RMA”) as removal / demolition applications in the Residential 1 zone
have previously been regarded as contentious.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint the rostered independent duty commissioner,
and appoint John Hill (or Richard Knott as an alternative) as heritage
commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to make decisions on the
application for resource consent to remove a pre-1940 building at 44
New Street, Ponsonby, pursuant to sections 95 and 104 of the
Resource Management Act 1991.
|
Comments
The Application
4. This
application is for the removal of the existing pre-1940 building on site. The
applicant (who owns both the site and the adjoining property at 42 New Street)
intends to re-establish the site as an extension of the landscaped area of the
adjoining historic character dwelling at 42 New Street. The site was historically
part of the 42 New Street property prior to subdivision and consequent
construction of the subject building during the 1930’s.
5. 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. An aerial
photo showing the site location is included as Attachment A and photos
from the application as Attachment B.
The Process
6. The Committee will be aware of
the processes relating to applications for resource consent for pre-1940
building removal / demolition. In summary, the council is only able to notify
applications to remove / demolish or remove such buildings using special circumstances
under section 95A(4) in the Resource Management Act 1991.
7. The council has special
circumstances guidelines to assist staff when processing applications for
resource consent for the removal / demolition of pre- 1940s buildings in
Residential 1 and 2 zones under the Operative District Plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In this case, the Auckland
Council reporting planner has followed the special circumstances guidelines
and, based on these, has concluded that special circumstances do not exist.
11. The building is not scheduled,
and is not listed by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
12. 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
(removal / demolition of pre-1940 buildings in Residential 1 zones) do have an
element of public and media interest, therefore public interest cannot be
discounted.
Consideration
General
13. 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.
14. The
history of pre-1940 building removal / 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 appoint independent commissioners as
decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the commissioners
appointed to consider the application have planning and heritage expertise.
15. The
reporting planner’s recommendation is that the application be processed on a
non-notified basis as the plan provides for this activity to be considered
without public or limited notification and it is considered there are no special
circumstances relating to the removal of this pre-1940 building.
Local
board views and implications
16. The Waitemata Local Board was
provided with the opportunity to express its views on the application. Comments
were sought by the reporting planner on Friday 06 June 2014. No comments have
been received to date, noting the required date of response was Wednesday 11
June 2014.
17. Councillor Mike Lee has been made
aware of this application for resource consent and he has sought advice from
the Council’s Heritage Advisory Panel (HAP). A copy of the HAP’s comments in
relation to this application are provided as Attachment C.
Maori
impact statement
18. 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
19. 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
|
|
aView
|
Aerial Photo
|
27
|
|
bView
|
Site Photographs
|
29
|
|
cView
|
Heritage Advisory Panel comment
|
33
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and
Resolutions
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
Determination of hearing commissioners: 254 Patumahoe
Road, Patumahoe
File No.: CP2014/14038
Purpose
1. To determine the decision maker
for a resource consent application at 254 Patumahoe Road,
Patumahoe.
Executive
summary
2. The application is to establish
and operate a chicken egg layer farm for a maximum of 310,000 hens at 254 Patumahoe Road, Patumahoe. Given the
large capacity proposed, the application has attracted local media interest and
opposition from residents in the area.
3. The Hearings Committee is
responsible for deciding who is the most appropriate decision maker for matters
that could be significant or contentious. It is recommended that a panel of
three independent commissioners and an elected member be appointed to hear the
applicant and submitters to this limited notified application.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint four planning commissioners
to hear and determine the application by Craddock Farms
Limited to establish and operate a chicken egg layer farm for a maximum of
310,000 hens at 254 Patumahoe Road, Patumahoe,
pursuant to section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
b) delegate the
Chairperson of the Hearings Committee the authority to make replacement appointments.
|
Comments
4. The applicant proposes to
establish and operate a chicken egg layer farm on the subject site. The farm
will consist of ten sheds each with a capacity to house up to 31,000 laying
hens resulting in a maximum total of 310,000 hens on site at any one time. The
location of the sheds is depicted on the site layout plan attached to this
report (Attachment B) with each shed being 79m by 13m with a distance of
approximately 18m between each shed. Access will be by way of an existing vehicle
crossing onto Patumahoe Road with a new driveway being installed to the sheds.
The activity requires regional consents to discharge to air (odour), stormwater
discharges and for 15,000m3 of earthworks over 4.65 ha.
5. The application
was limited notified to four adjacent property owners/occupiers on 3 June
2014. The notification period closes on 3 July 2014 and it is anticipated that
a hearing will be required.
6. Since
notification, Auckland Council has received an enquiry
from local media and the local residents group and neighbouring property owners
have been vocal in their opposition to the proposal.
7. Copies of the
location plan and site layout plan are attached as Attachments A and B.
Consideration
8. The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy at section 4.2
refers to “Allocation of decision making responsibility between
elected members, independent commissioners and staff". This includes
procedural decisions such as whether or not to notify in addition to
substantive decision-making. 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. For more contentious matters elected members and / or IMSB
members should be involved in the decision.
9. This application is considered contentious due the local media
interest and opposition from local residents groups.
10. For the reasons highlighted above and in accordance with the
Hearings Committee policy, it is considered that the Hearings Committee should
determine the independent decision makers for this application. It is
recommended that three independent commissioners, including discharge to air
and soil and water specialists, and a local board member be appointed to
consider the application.
Local
board views and implications
11. The Franklin Local Board has not
provided formal comments on the application at the time of writing. They are
aware of the proposal and have been in contact with the reporting planner for
general updates on the progress of the application.
Maori
impact statement
12. The applicant
contacted 10 iwi groups to determine whether a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA)
was required. No iwi identified the need for a CIA and no cultural issues
arising from the proposed poultry farm operation were identified through this
process. Records of this consultation are included in
the s92 information provided by the applicant.
Implementation
13. There are no financial or legal
implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing
commissioners. The applicant meets the costs of commissioners.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Location Plan
|
37
|
|
bView
|
Site Layout Plan
|
39
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Natalie Bedggood - Principal Planner Hearings &
Resolutions
|
|
Authorisers
|
Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 27
June 2014
File No.: CP2014/14041
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 –
(Mobile 021 646590), or email warren.maclennan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz,
prior to the meeting.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) receive the
report.
|
Comments
3. The summary
table is attached as Attachment A.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
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.
Implementation
7. There are no
implementation issues.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Regionwide Appeals Status Report at 27 June 2014
|
43
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 2014
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
08 July 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 Proposed Mediation Position to Settle Appeals to Plan Change
123 Hibiscus Coast Gateway
|
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)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to maintain legal professional privilege.
In particular, the report contains matters that are
subject to without prejudice negotiations before the Environment Court.
|
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 Proposed Mediation to Settle Appeals on Plan Change 148
(Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011) Matakana Country Park
|
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)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, the report contains information used in council
negotiations to resolve appeals.
|
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 New resource consent appeal: Wedd & Jones v Auckland
Council
|
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)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, to enable the council to undertake without
prejudice negtiotiaions of an appeal that is before the Environment Court.
|
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.
|
C4 Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 8 July 2014
|
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)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, to enable the local authority to undertake
without prejudice negotiations of appeals that are before the Environment
Court.
|
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.
|
