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, 12 August 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 3 members)

Rita Bento-Allpress

Democracy Advisor

5 August 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7541

Email: rita.bento-allpress@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 August 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 Determination by the Hearings Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection through 213 Hillsborough Road and 2A Olsen Road, Hillsborough 7

8 Urgent Decision: Determination of Hearing Commissioners - Resource Consent, 117 Third View Avenue, and 108 Beachlands Road, Beachlands 11

9 Appointment of hearing commissioners for hearing for Private Plan Change 35 - Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) and associated applications for resource consent 25

10 Appointment of Commissioner/s: Notice of Requirement Plan Amendment 69 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) 149 Roscommon Road, Manurewa: Wiri Oil Terminal. 33

11 Appointment of Hearing Commissioners: Applications for Private Plan Change and Resource Consents - Proposed mixed use development at 170, 178, 180 and 182 Balmoral Road and 2, 4, and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral 41

12 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed Café, 311 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn 45

13 Draft Decision of the Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono - Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section. 49

14 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 31 July 2014 51

15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 61

C1 Resolution of an Appeal by Consent Order - Snowplanet Appeal to Plan Change 123 Hibiscus Coast Gateway Recreation and Entertainment Zone 61

C2 Appeals to Plan Change 32: Clevedon Village to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) – Update and Direction 61

C3 New resource consent appeal: Hill v Auckland Council 62

C4 Urgent Decision: Resource Consent Appeal - Blair Investments Limited v Auckland Council - 8 Harrison Road, Auckland 62

C5 New Resource Consent Appeals: D and K Eastgate v Auckland Council and Armadale Holdings Ltd v Auckland Council 62

C6 New Resource Consent Appeals: Papakura Private Hospital v Auckland Council and Strata Title Admin Body Corporate 176156 v Auckland Council 63

C7 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 12 August 2014 63

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr LA Cooper 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:

confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 8 July 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 August 2014

Determination by the Hearings Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection through 213 Hillsborough Road and 2A Olsen Road, Hillsborough

File No.: CP2014/15484

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to a stormwater line connection.

Executive summary

2. This report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (“the Act”). The owners of 215 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough propose a two-lot subdivision of their property, however, their property does not have a stormwater connection to council stormwater drains. To find a suitable point of connection for stormwater and to comply with the drainage requirements, they seek to connect to the existing public stormwater manhole within the road reserve by extending the stormwater drain through the neighbouring properties of 2A Olsen Avenue and 213 Hillsborough Road and eventually terminating with a manhole in 215 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough.

3. The owners of 215 Hillsborough Road have endeavoured but failed to negotiate access to 2A Olsen Ave and 213 Hillsborough Road to install a 250mm public stormwater line. Consequently, the owners of 215 Hillsborough Road have requested Council to exercise its powers under Section 460 of the Act to enable the works to be carried out.

4. The property owners of 2A Olsen Avenue and 213 Hillsborough Road, 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.

5. It is recommended that the Hearings Committee hear and determine the objection.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections from the owners of 2A Olsen Avenue and 213 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough pursuant to section 460 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1974.

b) endorse the proposed stormwater connection and its associated route to 215 Hillsborough Road, through the neighbouring land at 2A Olsen Avenue and 213 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough, to undertake drainage works generally as set out in the officer’s report, pursuant to Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced on plan Project no. EMCS131209, sheet no. 1209/01 and 1209/02 dated 5 April 2013 and 5 July 2013.

Comments

6. On 27 June 2013, Ragu Ragunathan, Engineering Consultant and Amysh Goyal, owner of 215 Hillsborough Road, approached the council to discuss the issue of accessing the neighbouring land for a new stormwater connection for the property at 215 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough that would eventually service a proposed subdivision.

7. On 17 July 2013, a formal request under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 in the form of a Section 460 application was received by Council.

8. On 6August 2013, the Council’s development engineer sent a letter to the owners of 2A Olsen Avenue and 213 Hillsborough Road requesting access to the public stormwater line through their property.

9. Consequently, Elais Drakakis (owner of 213 Hillsborough Road) contacted Council’s engineers to discuss the reason for receiving the letter and the section 460 process. Mr. Drakakis indicated in his phone conversation that they will not be in favour of the proposed drain through their land.

10. As nothing was received in the form of response from Ripene Iosefa, owner of 2A Olsen Avenue, a second letter was sent to him on 19 September 2013. No response was received to this letter also. Follow up phone calls were made but the owner could not be reached.

11. On 30^th January 2014, Council served ‘A Notice on Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land, under the Local Government Act 2002 (Twelfth Schedule)’ on Ripene Iosefa and Elais Drakakis and Maria Drakakis .

12. Both Elais Drakakis and Maria Drakakis of 213 Hillsborough Road and Ripene Iosefa of 2A Olsen Avenue formally objected to the notice in writing stating their reasons (Appendix F)

Consideration

13. The owners of 215 Hillsborough Road have met the requirements of the Act with regard to using the powers of Section 460. They have attempted to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake drainage works and have investigated alternative solutions. The proposed connection would be laid approximately 0.5m away from and along the entire length of the north western boundary of 2A Olsen Avenue and 213 Hillsborough Road by use of directional drilling. The remainder of the works within the road reserve and on 215 Hillsborough Road would be open trenched. The drains will eventually be vested to council as public stormwater infrastructure.

14. An alternative route to lay a stormwater drain through 1-4/2 Olsen Avenue has found to potentially affect more properties and may require a foundation assessment of the existing building on 1-4/2 Olsen Avenue as the drain would need to be laid within close proximity of the building. This will affect more property owners and require an additional manhole on private land.

15. Another alternative of public line extension along Olsen Avenue and then along Hillsborough Road would require private stormwater pumps as the connection would eventually end up being higher than the development site. This option further increases the potential for properties to be affected downstream of 215 Hillsborough Road from stormwater due to pump failure, particularly during heavy rain events. Pumping of stormwater is not considered a good engineering outcome and therefore is not recommended.

16. Council’s stormwater engineers consider that the proposed stormwater connection is the most practical route to adequately service the proposed subdivision development at 215 Hillsborough Road. The existing public stormwater line has been assessed as providing sufficient capacity to receive additional stormwater generated from a complying development. However, in the event that the public stormwater does not have adequate capacity, onsite attenuation devices such as detention tanks would be required to ensure the existing situation is not exacerbated. The owner of 215 Hillsborough Road will be required to design and build the works to an appropriate standard through an Engineering Approval process.

17. Elais and Maria Drakakis and Ripene Iosefa of 2A Olsen Avenue insist that the owner of 215 Hillsborough Road should find an alternative connection route to meet their stormwater requirements. The council’s stormwater engineer recommends that the best option for stormwater disposal is through 213 Hillsborough Road and 2A Olsen Avenue, along Olsen Avenue to the public manhole located in front of 4 Olsen Avenue. The alternative routes as explained above, are considered inappropriate and involve greater risk of failure that could detrimentally affect more properties.

18. The proposed works by use of directional drilling will have minimal impact on the property at 213 Hillsborough Road and 2A Olsen Avenue. In the event of any damage occurring such as ground disturbance, damage to existing vegetation and fence will be fully remedied by the council.

Committee Consideration

19. 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”.

20. 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.

Consultation

21. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 213 Hillsborough Road and 2A Olsen Avenue.

Maori impact statement

22. 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

23. n/a

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Plan showing public stormwater line and property location (Under Separate Cover)
b	Plan showing public stormwater drains and contours (Under Separate Cover)
c	Plan showing proposed connection to the existing stormwater line (Under Separate Cover)
d	Correspondence with objectors (Under Separate Cover)
e	Notice on intention to construct a drain on private land (Under Separate Cover)
f	Written Objections (Under Separate Cover)
g	Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (Under Separate Cover)
h	Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Under Separate Cover)
i	Photographs (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Veena Krishna - Principal Planner Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 August 2014

Appointment of hearing commissioners for hearing for Private Plan Change 35 - Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) and associated applications for resource consent

File No.: CP2014/16071

Purpose

1. To appoint hearing commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 35 – Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) and on associated applications for resource consent.

Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 35 – Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (‘the plan change’), lodged by the Southern Gateway Consortium (‘the applicant’), seeks to rezone 150ha of land currently zoned Mangere Puhinui Rural Zone to two new business zones. The land is currently outside the metropolitan urban limit as identified in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement.

3. Work is currently underway on a structure plan for the wider Puhinui area, to inform whether a metropolitan urban limit change should occur (and where the rural urban boundary should be in the Auckland Unitary Plan).The structure plan will be completed before the end of 2014. In the meantime, however, the applicant wishes to proceed with the plan change hearing.

4. At its 20 September 2013 meeting, the Hearings Committee appointed a panel to hear submissions and make a decision on the plan change. However, since that time, two of the commissioners on the panel have been appointed to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, and resource consents relating to the plan change have been applied for and notified.

5. The resource consents are for the discharge of stormwater (Regional Water/Discharge Permit (Stormwater) – P43679), the draining and reclamation of tributaries of the Puhinui Stream and the Waiokauri Creek (Regional Land Use Consent (Streamworks) – P43680), and diverting surface water as a result of earthworks for construction of a new road within the 100 year flood plain (Regional Water Permit (Surface Water Diversion) – P43678).

6. Due to the relationship between the applications, a new hearing panel is required for a combined hearing of the plan change and the applications for resource consent.

7. This requires that resolution number HC/2013/17 from the 20 September 2013 Hearings Committee meeting be rescinded, and a new panel set up, as currently there is scope for a hearing and decision on the plan change only.

8. For the new hearing panel, expertise in plan changes, resource consents, legal issues, iwi and cultural heritage matters, transport, stormwater and environmental issues would be important for hearing submissions and making decisions on the plan change and resource consent applications. October 2014 is currently the most likely timeframe for when a hearing could occur.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) rescind the following decision made at the 20 September 2013 Hearings Committee meeting:

Resolution number HC/2013/17
MOVED by Cr NM Raffills, seconded by Cr AJ Anae:

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners David Kirkpatrick (Chairperson), Greg Hill, Bill Kapea and Ian Gunn to hear submissions and to make a decision on Private Plan Change 35: Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).

b) delegate the Chairperson of the committee to appoint alternate members to the Hearings Panel in the event that the appointed members of the Hearings Panel are unavailable.

CARRIED

b) appoint a hearing panel of three independent commissioners and one local board member with expertise in plan changes, resource consents, legal issues, iwi and cultural heritage matters, transport, stormwater and environmental issues to hear submissions and make decisions on:

i) Private Plan Change 35 – Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section)

ii) P43678 – Regional Water Permit (Surface Water Diversion)

iii) P43679 – Regional Water/Discharge Permit (Stormwater)

iv) P43680 – Regional Land Use Consent (Streamworks)

c) delegate authority to the Chair of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments in the event that any of the appointed members of the hearing panel is unavailable.

Comments

Private Plan Change 35 – Puhinui Gateway

9. Private Plan Change 35 – Puhinui Gateway to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) seeks to rezone 150ha of land currently zoned Mangere Puhinui Rural Zone to two new business zones, Puhinui Gateway Business Zone and Puhinui Gateway Service Zone. The land is currently outside the metropolitan urban limit as identified in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (‘the regional policy statement’). The area subject to the plan change is shown in Attachment A.

10. At its 14 March 2013 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to accept the private plan change request from the Southern Gateway Consortium for public notification.

11. At the same time the committee deferred its decision to initiate a plan change to the regional policy statement to shift the metropolitan urban limits to incorporate the private plan change request, until a masterplanning process incorporating the wider Puhinui rural area outside of the metropolitan urban limits had been undertaken.

12. The masterplanning process intended to determine whether the Puhinui area should be included within the rural urban boundary in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (‘the unitary plan’). However, the findings of the process were that due to the complexity of the planning issues and the important environmental and cultural values present in the area, it was not feasible to confirm the location of the rural urban boundary until a detailed structure plan was prepared.

13. At its 13 February 2014 meeting the Auckland Development Committee resolved to proceed with this detailed structure planning process. The area subject to the Puhinui structure plan is also shown in Attachment A. The outcome of this process will inform the rural urban boundary debate at the upcoming unitary plan hearings. The Regional and Local Planning Manager will report to the Auckland Development Committee on the outcome of the structure plan process before the end of 2014.

14. In the meantime, the applicant wishes to progress with the hearing on the private plan change.

Notification and submissions

15. Private Plan Change 35 was notified on 24 May 2013 and submissions closed on 8 July 2013. Due to an administrative error where some landowners were not notified, the plan change was renotified on 19 July 2013, and submissions closed on 16 August 2013.

16. Thirty-six submissions were received. Issues raised in the submissions relate to the following:

· business land needs and supply

· loss of productive rural use and character

· transport effects – provision of transport, and inadequacy of the integrated transport assessment

· provision of infrastructure including water, wastewater and stormwater

· cultural and heritage effects

· open space amenity

· ecological effects

· conflict with the regional policy statement and metropolitan urban limit issues

· reverse sensitivity issues regarding Auckland International Airport and protection of State Highway 20B as a key access route to the airport.

Resource consent applications

17. The Southern Gateway Consortium has now also applied for resource consents to deal with the works and stormwater discharges that would eventuate from the private plan change. These include the discharge of stormwater (Regional Water/Discharge Permit (Stormwater) – P43679), the draining and reclamation of tributaries of the Puhinui Stream and the Waiokauri Creek (Regional Land Use Consent (Streamworks) – P43680), and diverting surface water as a result of earthworks for construction of a new road within the 100 year flood plain (Regional Water Permit (Surface Water Diversion) – P43678).

Notification and submissions

18. The applications for resource consent were publicly notified on 30 May 2014, with submissions closing on 27 June 2014. Fifteen submissions were received. Issues raised in the submissions relate to the following:

· stream reclamation and piping

· lack of information in relation to scale of the works, environmental effects and consultation carried out with iwi

· effects on receiving environments from the stormwater discharge

· appropriateness of the mitigation measures proposed.

Hearing panel required for combined hearing

19. At its 20 September 2013 meeting, the Hearings Committee appointed a hearing panel of independent commissioners David Kirkpatrick (Chairperson), Greg Hill, Bill Kapea and Ian Gunn to hear submissions and make a decision on the plan change. The hearing process has not progressed since then, as the applicant has not yet provided further information required for the plan change before the hearing date can be set.

20. In addition, there has been some delay due to uncertainty of when the applications for resource consent would be lodged.

21. David Kirkpatrick and Greg Hill have since been appointed to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, and in December 2013 the regional consents relating to the plan change were applied for and have now been notified.

22. Section 103 of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires that applications concerning the same proposal be heard and decided together in a combined hearing. While the Hearings Committee Chairperson has authority to appoint replacement members to the hearing panel if any members are unavailable, the panel was appointed to hear submissions and make a decision on the plan change only.

23. A new hearing panel is therefore required to be appointed, which can hear and decide on both the plan change and the applications for resource consent. A combined hearing would allow all issues to be heard at the same time and enable consistent decision making.

24. Three independent commissioners and one local board member (from outside the local boards immediately adjacent to the subject site, to avoid conflicts of interest) would allow sufficient breadth of knowledge for the hearing panel.

Changes to the metropolitan urban limit or the rural urban boundary

25. The matter of whether there should be a change to the metropolitan urban limit in the regional policy statement (or a change to the rural urban boundary in the unitary plan, through the unitary plan process) will be considered by the Auckland Development Committee.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. The area affected by the plan change and associated resource consents is within the boundaries of the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board. Due to its location it is also of interest to the adjacent Manurewa and the Mangere-Otahuhu local boards. These local boards were sent notice of the plan change and resource consents when they were publicly notified for submissions.

27. The Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board made a submission to the plan change. In principle the board supports the plan change, subject to amendments. Their key concerns include providing public open space and walkways, and road access.

Maori impact statement

28. The following iwi groups were notified of the plan change:

· Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

· Te Ara Rangatu of Te Iwi of Ngati Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngati Ahiwaru

· Ngati Tamaoho Trust

· Waikato Tainui Te Kauhangaui Inc.

· Ngati Paoa Trust

· Huakina Development Trust

· Te Puea Maori Marae

· Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board

· Ngai Tai Umupuia Te Waka Totara Trust.

29. Submitters on the plan change were in turn notified of the resource consent applications. Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Tamaoho and the Huakina Development Trust made submissions on the plan change and the consent applications, raising the following resource management concerns:

· significant cultural values of the area

· capacity issues for transport, stormwater and wastewater

· the metropolitan urban limit

· the masterplanning process

· inadequate section 32 analysis

· stream reclamation

· effects on the receiving environment

· insufficient information and consultation.

30. Council staff are continuing to work with Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority on the Puhinui structure plan.

Implementation

31. Council staff are currently awaiting further information from the applicant on both the resource consent applications and the plan change. A specific hearing date cannot therefore be set. October 2014 is currently the most likely timeframe for when a hearing could occur.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Private Plan Change 35 and Puhinui structure plan areas	31

Signatories

Authors

Patrick Clearwater - Planner

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 August 2014

Appointment of Commissioner/s: Notice of Requirement Plan Amendment 69 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) 149 Roscommon Road, Manurewa: Wiri Oil Terminal.

File No.: CP2014/16984

Purpose

1. To appoint an Independent Commissioner to determine and to set up notification and hearings arrangements for the Notice of Requirement (NoR) lodged by Wiri Oil Services Limited as a Requiring Authority to designate the Wiri Oil Terminal at 149 Roscommon Road in Manurewa. If necessary, appoint a Hearings Panel to make a recommendation on the NoR to Auckland Council.

Executive summary

2. Wiri Oil Services Limited as a Requiring Authority has lodged a NoR for a designation in respect of its hazardous substances terminal and distribution facility at 149 Roscommon Road, Manurewa, Auckland

The assessment of the NoR is subject to sections 168-179 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the Act’) which requires a determination on notification to be made within 10 working days (from lodgement). The deadline for the decision has been extended to 12 September 2014 to provide for the Commissioner appointment and notification decision process.

The applicant has requested that the application be considered on a limited notification basis and has identified parties they consider to be affected by the proposal. Council staff have a contrary view, and consider that the effects of the proposal are more than minor, that there is considerable public interest in this significant facility and that it is difficult to determine with certainty particular affected persons or parties. It is the opinion of Council staff that the decision on whether the application should be limited or publicly notified should fall to an Independent Commissioner.

Agreement is sought to appoint a Hearing Commissioner / Panel as required.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an Independent Commissioner to determine whether limited or public notification is required (pursuant to section 95A-E of the Resource Management Act 1991) of the Notice of Requirement for the Wiri Oil Terminal at 149 Roscommon Road in Manurewa.

b) upon the notification (limited or public) and should a subsequent Hearing be required:

i) That the Hearings Committee appoint a panel of three Commissioners to hear submissions and make final recommendations on the Notice of Requirement for the Wiri Oil Terminal at 149 Roscommon Road in Manurewa pursuant to section 171 of Resource Management Act 1991.

c) In the event that the independent Commissioner or any of the Hearings Panel appointed become unavailable, that the Chair of the Hearings Committee be delegated authority to make replacement appointments.

Comments

3. Background

The Terminal site to which the requirement applies is located at 149 Roscommon Road on a 26 hectare site in the industrial area of Wiri/Manurewa that is the main storage location of bulk petroleum products for four major oil companies in the greater Auckland area.

The site extends from Roscommon Road to the east and McLaughlins Road in the west. Controlled site access is provided at Oil Terminal Road at the intersection with Wiri Station Road and Roscommon Roads. The site is approximately 4km from the Manukau City centre and 8.5km from the Auckland Airport.

The site is characterised by the oil terminal related infrastructure. This includes nine bulk storage tanks within a bunded compound with a total capacity of 116 million litres of fuel, truck loading facilities, parking and offices. The site is secured in a 2.4m high security fence topped with barbed wire (total height 2.7m).

The Terminal was constructed in or about 1982. The primary function of the Terminal is to receive, hold and distribute petroleum products (petrol, diesel, jet fuel). The Terminal receives fuel from Marsden Point Refinery at Whangarei via the high pressure Refinery – Auckland Pipeline (RAP). This pipeline is designated in the District Plan. Fuel is distributed from the site by truck and pumped directly to the Auckland Airport via the Wiri – Auckland Pipeline (WAP) that is also designated in the District Plan.

The Terminal site itself is not designated and the applicants seek a designation that would cover existing onsite activities and a future growth scenario.

Notice of Requirement

Pursuant to Section 168A of the Resource Management Act 1991, Wiri Oil Services Limited (WOSL) have lodged a Notice of Requirement for a Designation of the Wiri Oil Terminal for the purposes of the operation, maintenance, upgrading, development and redevelopment of the loading, distribution and storage facilities at the Terminal required in connection with the transmission and distribution of petroleum products by pipeline.

The application is supported by detailed technical information and an assessment of effects on the environment that have been reviewed by Council staff and consultants. The information includes a development plan showing the existing site arrangement, the location of future development areas and maximum envelope of effects. The NoR has been accepted by Council for processing and information deemed sufficient for the purposes of assessing the proposal.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

4. A copy of the draft NoR has been forwarded to members of the Manurewa Local Board requesting feedback and comments. There has been no response to date. If the NoR is either limited or fully notified, the Board will be served notice.

Maori impact statement

5. In response to the further information request, the applicants provided information in regards to the cultural heritage values of the site and undertook consultation with Mana Whenua.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) maps identify the presence of a site and place of value to Mana Whenua (ID 2067; CHI ref: 11577; NZAA site R11_1187) on the Terminal site in the vicinity of the existing truck park. Rule J.5.2.1 Activity table in the PAUP requires restricted discretionary activity consent for earthworks on or within 50m of a site or place of value to Mana Whenua. Earthworks associated with future expansion of the Terminal will be primarily located in Area A (identified on the Long Term Development Plan) and will not affect the site identified on the PAUP maps.

The record (ID 2067; CHI ref: 11577; NZAA site R11_1187) also refers to an archaeological authority granted by NZHPT at the time the oil terminal was first developed in the early 1980’s. The authority provided for the archaeological features at the site to be destroyed by construction of the bulk oil storage facilities and required a comprehensive archaeological survey of the site to be carried out prior to development of the site. The information contained in the archaeological survey confirms that the entire terminal site has been previously earthworked and the archaeological features destroyed such that further earthworks associated with future expansion of the Terminal will not affect any known features.

It is also noted that the Auckland Council’s own submission to the PAUP (reference: 5716-637) seeks the removal of site / places, which are found to have been destroyed from the PAUP overlay, and, as such, it is anticipated that the notation on the Terminal site will be uplifted as the PAUP progresses.

Notwithstanding this, conditions can be imposed to ensure standard archaeological protocols will be followed during construction works and a condition on the NOR.

WOSL has sought to consult with the following iwi identified by the Council as having a potential interest in the site and NOR application:

· Ngati Tamaoho

· Ngati Te Ata - Waiohua

· Te Aakitai Waiohua

· Ngati Paoa Trust Board

· Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust.

The applicant states that the consultation process and results were as follows:

· Letters were sent to iwi representatives on 18th November 2013 advising of WOSL’s application to designate the site, identifying the presence of the site of value to Mana Whenua (as shown on the PAUP maps) and providing the opportunity to discuss the proposals in more detail.

· Site meetings with representatives of Te Aakitai Waiohua on 29th November 2013 and Ngati Tamaoho on 2nd December 2013.

· The Ngati Te Ata – Waiohua representative was ultimately unable to attend these meetings, and subsequently advised that following discussions with Te Aakitai Waiohua and Ngati Tamaoho, who had met with WOSL on site, he did not consider it necessary to arrange another meeting time.

· A written response received from Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata – Waiohua in support of the application, noting comment on Puhinui Stream.

· Te Aakitai Waiohua raised some concerns in relation to landscape treatment of the Roscommon Road frontage and risk to surrounding properties. A copy of the Isthmus Landscape report was provided on 30th January 2014 and a copy of Sherpa’s revised risk assessment was provided on 11th June 2014.

· A formal response from Te Aakitai Waiohua on these matters has not yet been received.

· No response was received from Ngati Paoa Trust Board or Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust in relation to WOSL’s invitation to consult.

The NoR will be assessed according to RMA requirements and will include consideration of matters of national importance, the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga. If the NoR is either limited or fully notified, the iwi will be served notice.

Implementation

6. The procedure for assessing NoRs is set out in section 168 -179 of the Act. Assessment of a NoR by Council is subject to the same statutory timeframes as a resource consent process. In order to meet these statutory timeframes this report has been prepared to make the necessary arrangements as required.

The recommendations of this report is within the Hearings Committee’s delegations, is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the Council’s significance policy

The costs for processing the NoR, including any notification are met by the Requiring Authority.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Location Map	37
b View	WOSL Identified Affected Parties	39

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Trinder - Planner

Vance Hodgson – Consultant Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 August 2014

Appointment of Hearing Commissioners: Applications for Private Plan Change and Resource Consents - Proposed mixed use development at 170, 178, 180 and 182 Balmoral Road and 2, 4, and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral

File No.: CP2014/16910

Purpose

1. To reconfirm the May 2011 resolution HC/2011/14 (refer Attachment A) which appointed commissioners on private plan change 209 and to further appoint the same commissioners co-currently to hear and determine an associated application for resource consents.

Executive summary

2. On 7 October 2013 Eldamos Investment Limited (the applicant) lodged an application for resource consents R/LUC/2013/3990 and R/REG/2013/4253 at 170, 178, 180, 182, Balmoral Road and 2, 4 and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral. Resource consents are being sought to enable the redevelopment of the subject sites as a mixed use complex with retail, cafes, offices and 34 apartments within two buildings.

3. The application for resource consents is linked to private plan change 209 to the Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999. This plan change seeks a rezoning application of two properties (16 Rocklands Avenue and 178 Balmoral Road) from a Residential 6b zoning to a Business 2 zone.

4. Essentially, both the resource consents and the private plan change are seeking to enable the sites to be comprehensively developed into a mixed use complex.

5. The Hearings Committee’s May 2011 resolution HC/2011/14, appointed three independent commissioners to hear and determine the private plan change. The plan change has since been re-notified with the resource consent in December 2013 and to ensure a consistent decision is made, it is recommended that the Committee appoint the same commissioners to consider both matters at a joint hearing

6. The hearing is likely to take place in mid-late October 2014. Commissioner Greg Hill is unlikely to be available given his commitment to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Panel. The Committee may also wish to revisit whether a Local Board member should be appointed to the panel.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) reconfirm the appointment of independent commissioners to hear and determine Private Plan Change 209 to the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999), seeking to rezone land at 16 Rocklands Avenue and part 178 Balmoral Road, Balmoral.

b) appoint the same commissioners as appointed in clause a) above to concurrently hear submissions and make decisions on applications for resource consents R/LUC/2013/3990 and R/REG/2013/4253 at 170, 178, 180, 182, Balmoral Road and 2, 4 and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral.

c) appoint a Local Board member to the panel appointed in clause a) above.

d) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments in the event that any of the appointed commissioners are unavailable.

Comments

Application for Resource Consents - R/LUC/2013/3990 and R/REG/2013/4253

7. The applicant lodged on 7 October 2013 applications for resource consent for the redevelopment of The Warehouse site in Balmoral. The applications were publicly notified on 16 December 2013, with submissions closing on 12 February 2014.

8. The proposed works will occur across properties zoned Business 2 (170, 180, 182, Balmoral Road and 2 and 4 Rocklands Avenue), Residential 6a (16 Rocklands Avenue), and 178 Balmoral Road (Residential 6b) under the Operative District Plan.

9. The proposal involves:

· Demolishing all commercial buildings on the site, including the petrol station at 170 Balmoral Road, and the removal for re-location of the dwelling at 16 Rocklands Avenue.

· Constructing two separate buildings, with one building of approximately 4800m² containing a ‘The Warehouse’ store and other retail/cafes, and the second building containing 34 apartments

· Constructing a new private road between the two buildings, connecting Balmoral Road and Rockland Avenue

· Providing 234 parking spaces across the site at grade and in a semi-basement below ‘The Warehouse’ store.

10. The proposal requires resource consent for a range of matters under the Operative District Plan, the Operative Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Reasons for consent include earthworks, discharge of contaminants, street tree removals, car parking shortfall, height in relation to boundary, access, size of one apartment unit, front yard landscaping, maximum height (in residential part of site), coverages (in residential part of site), and retail activities in a residential zone Overall, the proposal is a non-complying activity.

Private Plan Change 209

11. This private plan change was lodged in March 2010, notified in June 2010 and a summary of submissions notified. However, the plan change did not progress to hearing and has remained on hold for further information (traffic modelling) since 2010.

12. In October 2013, the applicant’s consultant, Vern Warren of Planning Network Services advised that the applicant will be seeking notified resource consents for the redevelopment of the sites and progress the private plan change. This included the re-notification of the private plan change, given that it had been over two years since it was initially notified.

13. A joint notification process was agreed between the applicant and council as it would streamline the participatory process for submitters and the applicant, and enable better decision making through reporting to a joint hearing. Hence, both the resource consents and the private plan change were publically notified on 16 December 2013, with submissions closed on 12 February 2014. Following this, further submissions were notified on 4 April 2014, and further submissions closed on 22 April 2014.

14. Three independent commissioners were appointed to make decisions on PM209 (Resolution number HC/2011/14. The Hearings Committee appointed Greg Hill (Chair), Kit Littlejohn and Karyn Sinclair and as alternates, commissioner Les Simmons (Chair), commissioner Ian Munro and commissioner Justine Bray to hear submissions, and make a decision on Private Plan Change 209 (16 Rocklands Avenue and part of 178 Balmoral Road) to the Auckland City Isthmus District Plan.

Consideration

Joint Hearing and Decision Making Process

15. It is appropriate to hold a joint hearing and for a decision to be made on both the private plan change, and the applications for resource consents. Section 103 of the RMA enables joint hearings to be conducted where the applications concern the same proposal. This will allow for effective integration of the two processes and enable consistent decision making.

16. Since the Committee has previously appointed commissioners for the plan change hearing, it is recommended that these same commissioners be reaffirmed and in addition be appointed to hear and determine the related resource consents.

17. The Hearings Committee’s adopted policy at Section 4.2 refers to “Allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff.” Policy 4.2.2 supports the involvement of elected members in significant or contentious applications.

18. In this instance, this application is considered as a significant and contentious application. Hence it is recommended that an elected member from an adjacent local board be appointed to the hearing panel.

Local board views and implications

19. The Albert Eden Local Board received copy of the private plan change and application for resource consents, as part of the notification process. A meeting was held with the Board but no formal comment was received.

Maori impact statement

20. The private plan change and application for resource consent are being processed according to the requirements under the Resource Management Act 1991.

21. As part of the private plan change and resource consent notification process, all of the iwi groups below were notified, and had the ability to make a submission and be involved in the hearing process.

· Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board;

· Te Uri o Hau

· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

· Ngati Whatua Te Tinana

· Ngati Whatua Te Taou

· Ngati Whatua Te Hao

· Ngati Whatua Runanga O Te Taou

· Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara

· Ngati Wai Trust

· Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board

· Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust

· Ngati Paoa Trust

· Ngati Maru Runanga

· Ngati Manuhiri

· Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)

· Nga Puhi.

22. There were no iwi issues identified as part of the Assessment of Environmental Effects or submissions received from any iwi group.

Implementation

23. Following the decision to appoint commissioners a hearing date will be set. This will likely take place in mid-late October 2014.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Hearings Committee Resolution HC/2011/14 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Proposed Site Plan (Under Separate Cover)
c	Proposed Elevations 1 - The Warehouse (Under Separate Cover)
d	Proposed Elevations 2 - Apartments (Under Separate Cover)
e	Proposed Elevations 3 - Apartments (Under Separate Cover)

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

12 August 2014

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed Café, 311 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn

File No.: CP2014/16902

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners and a local board member to hear and determine a publicly notified application for resource consent to establish a café at 311 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/267) to establish a café at 311 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn. The café will seat up to 60 persons with 8 staff and operate from 6.30am to 6.00pm seven days a week. An outdoor area will be open from 7.00am Monday to Saturday and 9.00am on Sundays and public holidays. A full service kitchen with coffee roasting facilities is to be located on site. Five on-site car parks are to be provided.

3. The application was publicly notified on 27 May 2014, under staff under delegation pursuant to section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”). The submission period closed on 25 June 2014 and a total of 63 submissions have been received to the application.

4. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint the hearing commissioners as this application has been regarded by staff as contentious given media coverage of the issue.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of three independent commissioners (including one as chair) and one local board member, to hear submissions and make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/267) to establish a café at 311 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn.

b) delegate to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee the authority to make replacement appointments should any of the independent commissioners and/or local board member appointed under (a) above be unavailable.

Comments

The Application

5. Resource consent is sought to convert the existing retail activity on site at 311 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn, to a café. The café will operate seven days a week, from 6.30am to 6.00pm, with the outdoor courtyard made available after 7.00am Monday to Saturday and after 9.00am on Sundays and public holidays. The café is proposed to cater for up to 60 patrons and 8 staff, with provisions for a full service kitchen which is to include the sale of alcohol and also a basement coffee roasting facility.

6. As part of the activity it is proposed to carry out additions and alterations to the existing building. The physical works to the building involve the removal of an existing rear lean-to, a rear sleep-out and green canopies which overhang the Richmond Road foot path. The proposal also involves the construction of a new rear addition, an outdoor seating area and formation of a new five space car-park area. A basement area underneath the existing roof line of the building will accommodate a coffee roasting facility and ancillary facilities to serve the café activity.

7. Richmond Road is a collector road that runs from Ponsonby Road to Surrey Crescent through the suburbs of Ponsonby and Grey Lynn. The subject site is located on the acute corner of Richmond Road and Peel Street, with the longer site boundary to the north being located along Peel Street. The site is occupied by two weatherboard buildings, one containing a residential unit and a corner store that faces Richmond Road, while the second building is a sleep out to the rear of the site.

8. The site is zoned Residential 1 in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (“the Operative District Plan) and zoned Residential Single House in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“the 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.

9. The proposal requires resource consent for a range of matters under the Operative District Plan and the PAUP. Reasons for resource consent include (but are not limited to) the establishment of the café activity, a car parking shortfall, additions and alterations to a Residential 1 building, site coverage and intensity of use in the Residential 1 zone. Overall, the proposal is a non-complying activity.

10. The application was publicly notified on 27 May 2014 with the submission period closing on 25 June 2014. In total 63 submissions have been received, primarily from surrounding residents. Of these, 62 are in opposition to the proposal and one unstated/ neutral. The key reasons for opposition are on the grounds of traffic generation and parking availability, effects on residential character and amenity, noise and odour effects generated by proposed coffee roasting.

Consideration

General

11. 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.

12. The level of public interest, media attention and opposition to the proposal infers that this application may be considered contentious. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, staff consider that the Hearings Committee should appoint independent commissioners and a local board member (from a neighbouring area) as decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the commissioners and local board member appointed to consider the application have planning and resource management expertise.

Local board views and implications

13. The Waitemata Local Board has provided their views on notification of the application. These views will be included in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers at the hearing. The local board favored full public notification of the application.

Maori impact statement

14. 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

15. 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	Proposal Drawings (Under Separate Cover)

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

12 August 2014

Draft Decision of the Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono - Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section.

File No.: CP2014/15559

Purpose

1. To receive the draft Decision of the Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono – Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section, and outline a process to respond to the Draft Decision.

Executive summary

2. The Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono – Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Signficance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section, released its draft decision on 25 July 2014. This draft decision confirms the notice of requirements and grants the resource consents, all subject to conditions. Submitters have until 22 August 2014 to comment on the draft decision.

3. As the Hearings Committee meets on 12 August and not again until 10 September, a draft staff response which is being worked on currently will be provided to the Committee prior to the meeting for its approval in principle. A delegation is requested for the Chair of the Hearings Committee to sign off the final comments before 22 August.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) agree that due to time constraints, comments on the draft decision of the Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono – Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Signficance – Puhoi to Warkworth Section as tabled at the meeting of 12 August 2014 form the basis of the council’s response to the Board of Inquiry.

b) delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Hearings Committee to approve the final wording of the comments to the Board of Inquiry before the 22 August.

Comments

4. In December 2013, NZTA lodged notices of requirement and resource consent applications for the Ara Tuhono – Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Signficance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section (the Project). The council lodged a submission supporting the Project and seeking improvements to conditions to manage effects.

5. In accordance with a previous delegation (15 April 2014), council staff and solicitors negotiated with the applicant, prepared evidence and attended the Board of Inquiry hearings. By the time of the hearing date, negotiations had resolved all outstanding matters concerning conditions. Nevertheless, council staff took the witness stand to enable questions from the Board of Inquiry and solicitors.

6. The Board of Inquiry has released a draft decision (refer Attachment A (sections 11 to 13 of the draft decision) and the full decision can be viewed at http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Puhoi/Draft-report-and-decision/Pages/default.aspx). The Environmental Protection Agency has issued the following invitation for comments from submitters.

7. “Under section 149Q(4) RMA the EPA invites any comments from you on minor or technical aspects of the report. Under section 149Q(5) RMA you may include comments:

· On minor errors in the report.

· On the wording of conditions specified in the report.

· That there are omissions in the report (for example, if the report does not address a certain issue).

You may not comment on the Board’s decision or its reasons for that decision.”

8. A draft report by staff commenting on the draft decision and in particular, the wording of the conditions will be circulated to the members of the Committee and tabled at the meeting for the consideration of the meeting for consideration of members. A delegation to Committee Chair and Deputy Chair is requested to finalise the wording of the comments to the Board of Inquiry prior to 22 August 2014.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9. The Project will run through the Rodney Local Board area. The views of the Rodney Local Board were sought in the preparation of the council’s submission. Agreed conditions arising from negotiation with NZTA gave effect to the council’s submission which took into account the views of the Rodney Local Board.

Maori impact statement

10. As part of the application documentation for the project NZTA states:

11. “Consultation and engagement with mana whenua for the Project led to the formation of Hokai nuku, a collective of iwi representing Ngati Manuhiri, Ngati Mauku/Ngati Kauwae, Ngati Rango and Ngati Whatua iwi. Ngati Paoa provide support where required. Hokai nuku have provided cultural advice to the project, participated in site walkovers with technical specialists and prepared an assessment of cultural effects for the Project.”

12. The draft conditions for the Project provide for an ongoing role for Hokai nuku in many aspects of the design and construction of the Project, and protect culturally significant sites. Consequently, tangata whenua did not make a submission on the Project and a representative of Hokai nuku presented a statement of evidence to the Board of Inquiry on behalf of NZTA.

Implementation

13. The costs will be covered by existing budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Sections 11 to 13 of draft decision (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors	Christopher Turbott - Principal Planner
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

12 August 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 Resolution of an Appeal by Consent Order - Snowplanet Appeal to Plan Change 123 Hibiscus Coast Gateway Recreation and Entertainment Zone

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