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, 14 October 2014

10.00am

Committee Meeting Room
Civic 15
1 Greys Avenue
Auckland

Hearings Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

(Quorum 3 members)

Louis Dalzell

Democracy Advisor

7 October 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6211

Email: louis.dalzelll@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

14 October 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 of an Objection to the Construction of a Public Stormwater line through 3 Lyons Avenue, to service 9 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay 7

8 Appointment of Hearing Commissioners: Application for resource consent to establish a comprehensive care retirement village at 187 Campbell Road, Greenlane 37

9 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 26 September 2014 67

10 Urgent Decision: Draft Decision of the Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono - Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section 77

11 Urgent Decision: Appointment of Independent Commissioners: an application for resource consent for the proposed demolition of a Scheduled Building at 143 White Swan Road, Mt Roskill 81

12 Urgent Decision: Appointment of Independent Commissioners: an application for resource consent for the proposed demolition of a pre-1940 building and associated building works at 8-22 Vermont Street, Ponsonby 133

13 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

14 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 153

C1 Resource Consent Appeal: Proposed construction of a new three-storey dwelling at 36 Sunny Brae Crescent, Westmere 153

C2 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 14 October 2014 153

C3 Urgent Decision: Resource Consent Appeal – Westbrooke v Auckland Council (ENV-2014-000186) 154

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda apologies for absence have been received from Chair Linda Cooper, Mayor Len Brown, and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse.

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, 10 September 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

14 October 2014

Determination of an Objection to the Construction of a Public Stormwater line through 3 Lyons Avenue, to service 9 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay

File No.: CP2014/22267

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to a stormwater line connection under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Executive summary

2. The report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (the Act). The property at 9 Lyons Avenue does not have a stormwater connection to council drains. The owner has considered a number of solutions for a suitable discharge point to service the site. The provision of a stormwater line across 3 Lyons Avenue to a discharge point within an overland flowpath traversing 4 Westbourne Road is considered the most appropriate option.

3. The owner of 9 Lyons Avenue has endeavoured to negotiate consent for this access route along the northern boundary of 3 Lyons Avenue, but this has proved unsuccessful. Consequently, the owner of 9 Lyons Avenue has requested council to exercise its powers under Section 460 of the Act to enable the work to be carried out.

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

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection by the owner of 3 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay, pursuant to section 460 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1974

b) endorse the proposed stormwater connection and its associated route through the neighbouring property at 3 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay, 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 the drawing Woods 61058-100 Rev 1.

Comments

Background

5. An application has been received from Mr. Russell Keach, the owner of 9 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay under Section 460 of the Local Government Act. This seeks the proposed installation of a 150mm diameter PVC stormwater pipe across and along the northern boundary of 3 Lyons Avenue, as shown on the attached Woods drawing, Attachment A. The new stormwater pipe will vest to council and serve a catchment area of 0.2659ha including properties at 7, 9 & 11 Lyons Avenue. Aerial Photos. Attachment B.

6. Under Building Consent BA1238653 the council processed an application based on the submitted drawing, Attachment C, annotated as having stormwater discharge into an overland flowpath and creek via an existing system. It now appears that this connection pipe is not in place, and therefore stormwater discharge is unable to be managed appropriately.

7. There is a difference of opinions as to the history of the situation, however the current state cannot remain. The downstream property at 3 Lyons Avenue is subject to stormwater discharge across its lower garden area from time to time during heavy rainfall events. Council has endeavoured to facilitate a negotiated solution between the parties involved. This did not reach a satisfactory conclusion and therefore council is proceeding to undertake the works under the Local Government Act. Information provided to date confirms that a piped discharge to the creek did exist at some stage, was subsequently removed and was not available when the upgrade developments works at 9 Lyons Avenue were completed.

8. Subsequent to the building consent works being completed the owner of 9 Lyons Avenue also upgraded the stormwater management on their property. This included landscaping and upgraded reticulation within the property boundaries which resulted in a concentrated stormwater discharge via a 150mm PVC pipe at the northern boundary with 3 Lyons Avenue. It is this discharge that is contributing to the stormwater discharge over the lower garden of 3 Lyons Avenue and requires remediation.

9. The upgraded landscaping and Stormwater management on 9 Lyons Avenue removed previous stormwater discharge onto 6A Westbourne Road and accommodated that from 7 & 11 Lyons Avenue,

10. It is estimated that the construction of the 150mm PVC Stormwater pipe across 3 Lyons Avenue will take 5 – 10 working days, which includes allowance for unforeseen delays.

Discussion

11. The owner of 9 Lyons Avenue, Mr Keach, has met the requirement of the Act with regard to using the powers of Section 460. He has attempted to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake drainage works. He has further engaged Woods Consulting to investigate alternative solutions. Woods have designed an appropriate stormwater discharge reticulation for 9 Lyons Avenue that also caters for the upstream discharge. Woods have proposed the reticulation as shown on drawings provided in Attachment A. Being a public line, this proposal will have the advantage of also providing for a discharge connection for 3 Lyons Avenue which currently does not have controlled reticulated discharge to the adjacent creek. The GIS view, Attachment B, of the area shows that public drainage discharges into the stream upstream of the proposed site and that other landowners also discharge into the stream in this area.

12. Woods has reported, Attachment D, and also as set out in the attached undated letter from Mr Keach, that the proposed solution is considered the most practical given the topography of the area. A pumped stormwater option was considered but such systems are unreliable and council does not as a rule approve such systems. The pumped system was the only viable alternate option considered.

13. The Woods option to discharge across 9 Lyons Avenue and into the open water course within 4 Westbourne Road is effectively the only viable option.

14. The owner of 1/4 Westbourne Road and 2/4 Westbourne Road, Mr. Leigh Alexander, has given his approval to discharge stormwater into the overland flowpath within his properties. Attachment E.

15. Mr. Richard Fanselow the owner of 3 Lyons Avenue has presented complaints to council regarding the flooding resulting from the Stormwater discharge from 9 Lyons Avenue including the letters contained in Attachment F.

16. The Woods drawings have been presented to Mr. Fanselow who has accepted the proposal subject to financial compensation of $2,500. Landowner consent has not been achieved as the proposed financial settlement condition set by Mr. Fanselow has been rejected by Mr. Keach.

17. Council supports the Woods proposed discharge option for 9 Lyons Avenue as the most practical solution and one that provides the additional benefit of including discharge from the upstream catchment areas of 7 & 11 Lyons Avenue.

Consideration

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

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

Local board views and implications

20. The Local Board is not advised of service connection request under the Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 3 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay.

Māori impact statement

21. Under section 460 of the Act, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be aligned.

Implementation

22. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owner of 3 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay.

23. All costs for this process are to be met by the owner of 9 Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Woods drawing showing route of proposed stormwater reticulation over 3 Lyons Avenue, accumulated stormwater catchment area and typical discharge structure.	11
b View	GIS Aerial Photos showing site location and overland flowpath discharge	15
c View	Approved Building Consent Plan dated 27 May 2010	19
d View	Woods letters dated 25 September 2013 (design criteria), 17 October 2013 (alternate options including pumping) 20 December 2013 (reasons behind option adopted) and Russell Keach undated memo explaining options	21
e View	Leigh Alexander owner of 1/4 and 2/4 Westbourne Terrace, letters of approval to discharge onto property	29
f View	Mr Richard Fanselow letters of complaint dated 5 May 2014 and 16 July 2014	31
g View	Relevant Sections of the Local Government Act	35

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

14 October 2014

Appointment of Hearing Commissioners: Application for resource consent to establish a comprehensive care retirement village at 187 Campbell Road, Greenlane

File No.: CP2014/22523

Purpose

1. This report invites the Hearings Committee to appoint commissioners to hear and determine a resource consent for a retirement village at 187 Campbell Road, Greenlane.

Executive summary

2. Ryman Healthcare Ltd has lodged an application for resource consent to construct, operate and maintain a comprehensive care retirement village at 187 Campbell Road, Greenlane (the former Kingsgate Hotel site).

3. The site is zoned Residential 6a under the Operative District Plan and the village will contain 233 living units of varied levels of care in buildings of between two to six storeys in height. A basement carpark will require excavation and blasting of volcanic rock and the removal of generally protected trees.

4. The Hearings Committee is invited to appoint commissioners to hear and determine the application. It is considered both significant and contentious due to the previous consenting history at the site, level of public and media interest, and scale of the proposed development. The Council has received 426 submissions following public notification, including 163 in opposition.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a hearing panel of at least three independent commissioners, one to be the Chair, to make a decision on the applications for resource consent for the construction, operation and maintenance of a comprehensive care retirement village at 187 Campbell Road, Greenlane

b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments should any of the appointed Commissioners be unavailable.

Comments

The application

5. Ryman Healthcare Limited has lodged with Auckland Council an integrated application for resource consent to construct, operate and maintain a comprehensive care retirement village at 187 Campbell Road, Greenlane (the former Kingsgate Hotel site). The site lies in the Residential 6a zone under the Operative District Plan.

6. The village will contain buildings of between two to six storeys in height above ground level. These will exceed the District Plan building coverage and maximum height controls, and volcanic cones protected viewshaft. The buildings will accommodate 233 living units of varied levels of care. Removal of generally protected trees will be required to accommodate the new buildings, along with works within the dripline of generally protected and scheduled trees. A basement carpark will be constructed, requiring excavation and blasting of volcanic rock. It is also proposed to construct and bore and take groundwater for irrigation. Stormwater on site will be discharged to ground soakage. The site is known to be subject to contamination. Key plans are attached at Attachment A.

7. The following is a summary of the particular resource consents (R/LUC/2014/2093, R/REG/2014/2098 and R/REG/2014/2099) that have been applied for:

· Consent under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) is required for: the activity of a retirement village in the Residential 6a zone; non-compliance with building coverage, maximum height, landscaped permeable surfaces, and paved impermeable surfaces development controls; provision of carparking and a carparking shortfall on the site; vehicle crossing widths; earthworks; removal of generally protected trees and works within the dripline of generally protected and scheduled trees; exceeding the volcanic cones protected viewshaft; and for the use and storage of hazardous substances (detonators and explosives) on site.

· Consent under the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 is required for the disturbance of soil and a change in land use on land that is potentially contaminated.

· Consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment Control) is required for earthworks over an area of greater than 1ha and less than 5ha outside of the Sediment Control Protection Area.

· Consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air Land and Water) is required for the construction of a bore and take of groundwater for the purpose of irrigation.

· Consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is required for: trimming and works in the dripline of scheduled trees; the construction of a bore for groundwater abstraction; groundwater take for irrigation; stormwater discharge to ground soakage; impervious areas within a Stormwater Management Area: Flow (SMAF) zone; and earthworks.

8. The application was lodged on a publicly notified basis and was notified on 13 August 2014. Submissions closed on Wednesday 10 September 2014. At the date of writing, Auckland Council has received 426 submissions, comprising 259 in support and 163 in opposition.

9. The Auckland Urban Design Panel (AUDP) has reviewed the proposal and do not support the proposal in its form as notified (refer minutes attached at Attachment B). The applicant has advised potential design changes will be implemented prior to the hearing.

10. A s92 request for further information was sent prior to notification and some of the Council’s specialists consider that the information that has been provided in response is insufficient. The applicant will be requested to address this and any other matters that arise following a review by the processing planner of the issues raised in submissions, to determine if a second s92 request for further information is required prior to the hearing.

Consideration

General

11. The Hearings Committee has adopted a Hearings Policy which, at section 4.2 of that policy, refers to the “allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff”. Section 4.2.2 of the policy 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 or not it is a contentious proposal.

12. It is considered that the application is contentious because it has attracted media attention and received a significant number of submissions in opposition. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Policy, the Hearings Committee should determine the decision makers for this application.

13. It is recommended that commissioners with legal, planning and urban design expertise be included as part of the hearings panel. There are additionally matters of interest to Iwi associated with the proposal while the Committee’s policy encourages the assigning of a Local Board member (from an adjacent Board area) for applications of this nature.

Local board views and implications

14. The Mangakiekie-Tamaki Local Board was given the opportunity to provide comments on the application and comments have been received from Bridget Graham (refer Attachment C). Ms Graham states that the Local Board has several issues with the application, including: the proposed tree removals; intrusion into the volcanic viewshafts; and the potential effects of the groundwater take on the Onehunga aquifer. The Local Board also note that there is considerable local interest in the site.

Māori impact statement

15. There are 13 Iwi groups identified that may have interest in the Mangakiekie-Tamaki Local Board area:

· Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Te Patukirikiri

16. There are no specific triggers under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that have been identified that require a Cultural Impact Assessment must be provided.

17. For infringements to the volcanic viewshafts, the Operative District Plan requires, under Rule 5C.7.6.5(c), that the application include a ‘cultural impact assessment which should include an assessment of the extent to which the non-complying object detracts from the cultural significance of the volcanic cone’.

18. The applicant has provided a statement in their s92 response dated 18 July 2014 Attachment D, that all of the relevant iwi in the Local Board area have been contacted. Attachment E contains the correspondence detailing iwi consultation as provided to Council.

Implementation

19. A hearing date will be set following the Hearings Committee’s decision to appoint commissioners. The hearing will likely take place in the second half of November 2014.

20. The costs involved with processing the applications are recoverable from the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Key Application Drawings	41
b View	Auckland Urban Design Panel Comments	45
c View	Mangakiekie Local Board Comments	47
d View	Applicant's s92 Response - Iwi consultation	51
e View	Applicant's s92 Response - Iwi consultation evidence	55

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

14 October 2014

To: Bridget Graham

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Planning Spokesperson

Email: bridget.graham@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Brooke Dales, Planning Consultant DCS on behalf of Auckland Council

Brooke@dcs.gen.nz

Date: 11 July 2014

CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL BOARD PLANNING SPOKESPERSON ON AN APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A RETIREMENT VILLAGE

Auckland Council has received a resource consent application for the site below. A copy of the application plans and Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) are attached. You are invited to make comments on the application as the Local Board Planning Spokesperson in relation to the notification determination. The comments you provide are not a determination, but are to be taken into account by the Council Planning Officer and the decision maker.

Date required by: 5pm Wednesday 16 July

Please note that if comments are not received by this date it will be assumed that you do not have any comments regarding this application. Please return this page only by email. My email address is set out above for your information. Thank you.

STREET ADDRESS: 187 Campbell Road, Green lane, Auckland

APPLICATION NUMBER: LUC/2014/2093, R/REG/2014/2096, R/REG/2014/2098, R/REG/2014/2099, R/REG/2014/2100

Comments

The Local Board has several issues with this application: - 1. 1. The loss of 36 trees, the removal of twelve of which has already been granted., and the work beneath the dripline of some of the remaining. The local residents howld these trees in high regard as they have been part of the landscape for quite a number of years.

2. the intrusion into the volcanic viewshafts. Though the height is mentioned I could not find reference of the bulk intrusion into the various viewshafts. This may be in Appendix G which I could not locate. The Local Board feels that the viewshafts are there for the purpose of preserving the view of Auckland’s unique volcanic features for all of Auckland and a large bulk protrusion will not protect this. 3. 3. The use of the aquifer. Will the use of the aquifer for irrigation purposes affect the use of the aquifer for all residents of Onehunga, this is not clear. Due to considerable local interest in the site which has been expressed to us for many years, we feel that the application should be a fully notified application

Initial here: BMG Date: 22.7.2014

Local Board Planning Spokesperson

Note – Other Local Board Members Consulted: Yes

Local Board Guidelines

The notification decision relates purely to adverse effects on the environment and people.

Summary of Section 95 – Notification

Please note this is not an extract from the Resource Management Act, but a guide to provide understanding and context.

· Public notification – Anybody can make a submission on the application, with a public notice placed in the written media and local residents receiving copies of the application.

· Limited notification – Specific sites/persons are considered adversely affected and only these owners/occupiers can make submissions.

· Non-notification – No third party can make a submission on the application.

When considering public (full) notification, only the adverse effects on the environment can be considered. Council, however;

1. must disregard adverse effects on persons who own or occupy the subject site or land adjacent to the subject site.

2. may disregard adverse effects if a rule permits an activity with that effect.

3. must disregard trade competition effects.

4. must disregard any effect on a person who has provided their written approval.

If Council does not publicly notify an application, it must decide whether there are any adversely affected persons (limited notification). Council, however;

1. may disregard adverse effects if a rule permits an activity with that effect.

2. must disregard any effect on a person who has provided their written approval.

Comments

Therefore, when considering the above, your comments should ideally be limited to what adverse effects you think may occur from a particular proposal and why you think these adverse effects might occur. As Local Board representatives, you often have local knowledge which can be of benefit. Some examples:

I am concerned about traffic effects as vehicles often undertake U-turns at the traffic lights outside the subject site.

I think the bulk and design of the additions really complement the existing building and match the character of the surrounding town centre. Therefore, I feel there are no adverse effects.

Issues such as general community concern or interest, and the right to public participation are not valid reasons under Section 95 to notify resource consent applications.

Hearings Committee

14 October 2014

District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 26 September 2014

File No.: CP2014/23247

Purpose

1. To receive 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
a View	Appeals Status Report at 26 September 2014	69

Signatories

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

Hearings Committee

14 October 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/22874

Purpose

1. To advise the Hearings Committee of a decision made under urgency.

Executive summary

Under Sections 2 and 5.1.1 of the Hearings Committee policy and the Terms of Reference, the decision that Auckland Council will not lodge an appeal of the Board of Inquiry’s decision on the Ara Tuhono – Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance was made under urgency on 30 September 2014 and is being reported to the Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) note the decision made under urgency.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Decision of the Board of Inquiry on the Ara Tuhono - Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, Puhoi to Warkworth Section	79

Signatories

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

14 October 2014

Urgent Decision: Appointment of Independent Commissioners: an application for resource consent for the proposed demolition of a Scheduled Building at 143 White Swan Road, Mt Roskill

File No.: CP2014/21691

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 independent commissioners to make decisions about an application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/3571) to demolish a building at 143 White Swan Road, Mt Roskill, which is scheduled as Historic Heritage (Category B) under the Proposed Auckland Unity Plan, has been made under urgency on 17 September 2014 and is being reported to the Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) note the decision made under urgency.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Appointment of Independent Commissioners: an application for resource consent for the proposed demolition of a Scheduled Building at 143 White Swan Road, Mt Roskill	83

Signatories

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

14 October 2014

Urgent Decision: Appointment of Independent Commissioners: an application for resource consent for the proposed demolition of a pre-1940 building and associated building works at 8-22 Vermont Street, Ponsonby

File No.: CP2014/21696

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 independent commissioners to make decisions about an application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/3356) to demolish a pre-1940 building at 8 Vermont Street, Ponsonby, has been made under urgency on 17 September 2014 and is being reported to the Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) note the decision made under urgency.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Appointment of Independent Commissioners: an application for resource consent for the proposed demolition of a pre-1940 building and associated building works at 8-22 Vermont Street, Ponsonby	135

Signatories

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Hearings Committee

14 October 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 Resource Consent Appeal: Proposed construction of a new three-storey dwelling at 36 Sunny Brae Crescent, Westmere

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