|
Waitematā
Local Board
08 July 2014
|
|
Submission on
Auckland Transport's Notice of Requirement for the St Lukes Interchange
File No.: CP2014/14926
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to seek agreement for the Waitematā
Local Board submission on Auckland Transport’s Notice of Requirement for the St
Luke’s Interchange.
Executive summary
2.
In 2013 NZTA and Auckland Transport in alliance with Aurecon approached
Auckland Council seeking landowner approval from the Parks, Sport and
Recreation Department for works that would affect parkland at 820 Great North
Road. This work was linked to the SH16 St Lukes Interchange and Waterview
Project and was not covered by the original designation and consent for these
works.
3.
820 Great North Road is Auckland Council owned land and
is treated as “local park”. Waitematā Local Board is responsible for
council decisions on local parks.
4.
The initial proposal involved two left hand turn lanes
(when travelling west along Great North Road) onto the St Lukes overbridge and
involved the removal of significant Pohutukawa trees. The proposal was not
supported by the board and the Parks, Sport and Recreation Department.
5.
The application was later modified to reduce the
proposed widening of Great North Road, maintain a single left hand turn lane
onto St Lukes overbridge and retain the Pohutukawa trees. This single left
hand lane proposal was granted landowner consent in November 2013. This
proposal subsequently obtained resource consent and works have now commenced on
site.
6.
On 22 May 2014, Auckland Transport submitted a Notice
of Requirement (NoR) for road works along Great North Road. The NoR, if
successful, would designate part of the parkland at 820 Great North Road for
roading purposes and would enable two left hand turn lanes to be constructed
onto St Lukes overbridge.
7.
Works associated with two left turn lanes would require
the removal of six significant Pohutukawa trees from the site. The NoR has
been publicly notified and submissions close on 3 July 2014.
8.
Officers were asked to investigate what options were
available for the local board to make a submission on the NoR and three options
were initially identified:
·
Option 1 - The Waitematā Local Board
resolves to make a separate submission
·
Option 2 - The Waitematā Local Board gives
their views and preferences through the council staff report
·
Option 3 - The Waitematā Local Board do not
provide views separate to council staff
9.
Option 3 was rejected on the basis that the Board members wanted to make
their views known on the NoR.
10. The submission closing date for the NoR was 3rd July
2014.
11. It was agreed by the Chair and Parks Portfolio holders to lodge a
separate submission (Option 1) subject to final board approval on the 8th
July. The implication being that if the board did not approve it then the
submission would be withdrawn.
12. A submission was lodged on the 3rd July 2014 (Attachment
A).
|
Recommendations
That the Waitematā Local Board:
a)
Approve the submission on Auckland Transport’s Notice of Requirement
for the St Lukes Interchange.
b)
Agree to delegate to the Chair, Deputy Chair and Parks Portfolio for
any further matters relating to the submission.
c)
Agree for the Chair, Deputy Chair and Parks Portfolio to represent the
board at the hearing process.
|
Comments
13. In
November 2013 the NoR application was split into two phases. Phase two works
(which is the subject of the current application) required written approval from
Auckland Council Parks and the Waitematā Local Board to remove six mature
Pohutukawa trees for the application to proceed on a non-notified basis. This
was not supported by the board and the Parks, Sport and Recreation Department.
14. The
NoR was amended and phase one proceeded on a non-notified basis, which included
a single left hand turning lane. The works for phase one are scheduled to
start shortly.
15. In
May 2014 Auckland Transport lodged an alteration to AT designations (D05-08 and
B08-04) for the phase two works which includes the removal of six mature
Pohutukawa trees as a result of including an additional left turn lane.
16. The following concerns were raised by the chair and portfolio
members regarding the NoR:
·
The loss of amenity that would result from the
removal of six pohutukawa trees from the Auckland Council carpark at 820 Great
North Road;
·
The adequacy of provision for positive
pedestrian and cycling outcomes;
·
The adequacy of provision for public transport
outcomes;
·
The adequacy of the assessment of the need for
the works in their current form, in particular issues of traffic management and
traffic flow;
·
The adequacy of the assessment of the impact of
the proposed works on the safety of the wider roading network;
·
The adequacy of the business case to support to
the project generally.
17. These board members confirmed that they wished to express their
views and preferences on the NoR.
Submission Approach and Options
18. The NoR process is carried out under the Resource Management Act.
Officers advised that the council hearing panel which relates to both resource
consents and NoR processes should, where possible under the Resource Management
Act, consider “any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the
decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local
board or the wellbeing of communities within its local board area.”
19. The usual process for these views to be heard for resource consents
and therefore could be implied for the NoRs is to have the local board views
and preferences included as part of the council report to the hearings panel,
in a separate section. This way, the local board views and preferences are
clearly expressed.
Consideration
20. Two options were identified for Waitematā Local Board to submit
their views on the Notice of Requirement
Option A – The Waitematā Local Board resolves to make a
separate submission
Pros
-
Allows the board to actively engage in the
process
-
Enables the board to be represented under the non-regulatory
governance rights as the park owner as an affected party
-
Opportunity for board members to speak at the
hearing
Cons
-
The financial cost to the council of separate
representation
-
Possibility of perception risks of having two different
council views presented
-
The views and preferences of the board will not
be able to be part of the council officers report
Option B – Giving views and
preferences through the council staff report
This option will include a Local Board views section as part of the
council officer’s report.
Pros
-
Includes a separate section so that the board’s
views are clearly noted and expressed
-
Fits with statutory requirements
-
Has no additional cost implications
Cons
-
Provides the board with a reduced level of input
and may restrict the impact of the Waitematā Local Boards views in the
hearing process
Note – the local board’s role in regulatory processes was generally set
out in the governing body report July 2011. This report did not deal
specifically with the process for notices of requirements. There is no clear
reference to this process in the matters allocated to delegated to, or
conferred on local boards. As an interim approach, staff are available to
assist with either option listed in this paper.
Local board views and implications
21. The chair, parks and transport portfolio members discussed the
proposed approach and felt that this situation was different to a resource
consent process due to the board being an affected party. Therefore it was
agreed that the Board should have the opportunity to submit their views in
their role as the landowner of the park.
22. There were two options for progressing the submission either through
the urgent decision process or for the chair to lodge the submission subject to
final board approval
23. A
memo outlining the background to the NoR and the proposed process for the
submission was circulated to all members for their views and feedback.
24. The agreed approach was for the Acting Chair, with the support of
the parks portfolio holder to lodge the submission ‘subject to final board
approval at the 8 July 2014 meeting.
Maori impact statement
25. The
submission process does not specifically impact on iwi and mana whenua. As
part of the next stage in gathering expert evidence to support the submission
at the hearing any impact on Maori will be considered.
Implementation
26. Auckland
Council Legal Services has assisted the board to develop and lodge the attached
submission.
27. Officers
will now assist the board to develop the more detailed submission for
presentation at the hearing.
28. Limited
funding has been identified to engage subject matter experts to further support
the submission.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Submission on requirement for alteration of
designation that is subject to public notification
|
9
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Trina Thompson - Senior Local Board Advisor -
Waitemata
|
|
Authorisers
|
Judith Webster - Relationship Manager
|
