Agenda of Hearings Committee - 10 December 2014

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

10.00am

Room 1
Level 26
135 Albert Street
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

4 December 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.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

IMSB

· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

CCOs

· Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Local Board Input 7

5 Extraordinary Business 7

6 Notices of Motion 8

7 Pukekohe West School and Early Childhood Education Centre notice of requirement - appointment of hearing commissioners 9

8 Appointment of Hearings Panel - Notices of Requirement and Resource Consent applications for Glenvar Ridge Road and Long Bay Primary School 15

9 Appointment of Commissioners to make Decisions on the Applications for Resource Consent and to make Recommendations on the Notices of Requirement for NZTA’s Southern Corridor Improvements Project 21

10 Appointment of independent commissioners to make decisions on resource consent applications by Auckland Transport for the City Rail Link project 43

11 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Resource Consent Application for Demolition, 258 Remuera Road, Remuera 49

12 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Resource Consent Application to vary conditions of consent for a retirement village at 1-2 Squadron Drive, Hobsonville 61

13 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 28 November 2014 67

14 Update on the appointment process of local elected members to Special Housing Area hearing panels 77

15 Noting the urgent decision of 17 November 2014: Whenuapai Special Housing Area - appointment of local elected member to Accord Territorial Authority Panel 79

16 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

17 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 83

C1 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 10 December 2014 83

C2 Noting the urgent decision of 27 November 2014: New Resource Consent Appeal: New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Auckland Council 83

1 Apologies

Apologies from Deputy Mayor PA Hulse and Deputy Chairperson MP Webster have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

At the close of the agenda no requests for declarations of interest had been received.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hearings Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 4 November 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

10 December 2014

Pukekohe West School and Early Childhood Education Centre notice of requirement - appointment of hearing commissioners

File No.: CP2014/26360

Purpose

1. To appoint hearing commissioners to hear submissions and make a recommendation to the requiring authority on the notice of requirement for a designation for the Pukekohe West School and Early Childhood Education Centre (Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) Amendment 42).

Executive summary

2. The Minister of Education has lodged a notice of requirement for a designation for a primary school (years 0–8) and early childhood education centre, on land at Jutland Road, Pukekohe. The area the notice of requirement applies to is shown in Attachment A.

3. The site is within the Rural Zone of the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section), it is shown as Mixed Housing Suburban in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and it is within the Belmont Special Housing Area.

4. The notice of requirement has been publicly notified, with submissions closing on 18 December 2014.

5. A hearing panel is recommended to be set up, to hear any submissions and make a recommendation to the requiring authority on the notice of requirement.

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a hearing panel of three planning commissioners, with expertise in the notice of requirement process, traffic, planning and landscape, and infrastructure issues, to hear submissions and make a recommendation to the requiring authority on the notice of requirement for designation for the Pukekohe West School and Early Childhood Education Centre (Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) Amendment 42).

b) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments in the event that any of the appointed members of the hearing panel are unavailable.

Comments

Lodged notice of requirement

6. The Minister of Education has lodged a notice of requirement for a designation for a primary school (years 0–8) and early childhood education centre on land at Jutland Road, Pukekohe.

Site

7. The site is owned by the Crown, for education purposes, and is currently used for cropping. It is diagonally opposite the Princes Street Reserve on Jutland Road in Pukekohe. It is shown in Attachment A.

8. The site is in the Rural Zone in the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section).

9. The site is zoned Mixed Housing Suburban and is within the Belmont-Pukekohe Greenfield Urban Sub-precinct, in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This precinct requires a structure plan to be prepared for the area before it is developed for urban use.

10. The site is also within the Belmont Special Housing Area. No application has yet been made for a structure plan, but one is currently being prepared, by the Belmont Residents and Landowners Group, in consultation with the Housing Project Office.

Effects

11. The assessment of environmental effects in the notice of requirement notes that there will be visual and amenity, traffic and noise effects, and addresses these through proposed conditions. The proposed conditions included in the notice of requirement are generally consistent with the standard conditions for Ministry of Education designations in the unitary plan.

12. There may also be effects on the future built form and urban layout of the Belmont area, depending on how the school site responds to the Belmont structure plan. The effects of the notice of requirement are likely to be mainly restricted to this local area.

Notification

13. The requiring authority requested public notification of the notice of requirement.

14. The notice of requirement was notified in The New Zealand Herald and the Franklin County News on 20 November 2014. In addition, owners and occupiers of properties in the vicinity of the site were directly notified. Submissions close on 18 December 2014.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The Franklin Local Board has been provided with a copy of the notice of requirement and has been invited to make comments. If comments are received, they will be included in the assessment within the reporting planner’s hearing report.

Māori impact statement

16. The requiring authority consulted with the Huakina Development Trust on the notice of requirement prior to its lodgement. The trust stated that they did not have any concerns with the proposal.

17. The following iwi authorities, along with the Huakina Development Trust, have been notified of the notice of requirement:

· Ngāti Tamaoho Trust

· Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

· Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated

· Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Incorporated

· Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated.

18. The notice of requirement will be assessed according to the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 which include consideration of the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga as a matter of national importance.

19. Any submissions received from iwi will be assessed by the reporting planner and considered by the hearing panel in making a decision on the notice of requirement.

Implementation

20. After the Hearings Committee has appointed a hearings panel, and submissions received, a hearing date will be set by council Hearings staff. This is currently likely to be in mid March 2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Notice of requirement location map	13

Signatories

Authors	Patrick Clearwater - Planner
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

Appointment of Hearings Panel - Notices of Requirement and Resource Consent applications for Glenvar Ridge Road and Long Bay Primary School

File No.: CP2014/26602

Purpose

1. To appoint a Hearing Panel to hear submissions and make recommendations on three interrelated Notices of Requirement and decisions on associated resource consents applications for a new road and playing fields at Long Bay Primary School.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport (AT) has applied to construct a new road to serve the Long Bay area. Fill remaining from the construction of the new road will be used by the Ministry of Education (MoE) to establish a new playing field within an existing designation for Long Bay Primary School (MoE 27) as well as provision for an early childhood education centre. A plan showing the location of the projects is set out in Attachment A.

3. Notices of Requirement and resource consent applications have been received by the council. The Requiring Authorities (AT and MoE) have requested that they be fully notified and public notification occurred on 13 November 2014.

4. A hearing may be required if submissions are received and those submitters wish to be heard at a hearing.

5. Commissioners with expertise in in planning, traffic, and effects associated with transport infrastructure, earthworks, stormwater, contamination, landscape and, ecology would be beneficial.

6. It is recommended that a panel of 3 independent commissioners be appointed to hear submissions, and make recommendations to the Requiring Authorities on the Notices of Requirement and make decisions on the Resource Consent applications. However, in the event that no submissions are received, the matter will be referred to the commissioner appointed as chair, to make recommendations and decisions. Independent commissioners are recommended as Auckland Transport is one of the requiring authorities.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of four independent commissioners one to be the Chair, to hear submissions and make recommendations on the Notices of Requirement (refs: PA213, PA214 and PA215) and decisions on the Resource Consent applications (refs: LQ/2140220, REG/2140221 and REG/2140222) under sections 168A , 171 and 104 of Resource Management Act 1991 (the “RMA”).

b) delegate authority to the Chair appointed in (a) above to make recommendations on the Notices of Requirement (refs: PA213, PA214 and PA215) and decisions on the Resource Consent applications (refs: LQ/2140220, REG/2140221 and REG/2140222), should no submissions be received.

c) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make a replacement appointment should any of the independent commissioners be unavailable.

Comments

7. A package of related Notices of Requirement and resource consents have been lodged for which decision makers will need to be appointed. AT has applied to construct a new road to serve residential development in the Long Bay area. Fill remaining from the construction of the new road will be used by the MoE to establish a new playing field within part of an existing designation for Long Bay Primary School (MoE 27) as well as provide for an early childhood education centre. As such, the projects are interrelated and should be considered together.

Proposed Glenvar Ridge Road

8. A Notice of Requirement (ref: PA213) has been received for the construction, operation and maintenance of a new road to serve the Long Bay area. This road was identified as part of the Long Bay Structure Plan in the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section 2002), and is known as ‘Glenvar Ridge Road’ (GRR).

9. The area surrounding the proposed location of GRR includes some existing housing clustered around the existing junction with Glenvar Road. Some of the surrounding land will also be subject to future subdivision resulting in lot sizes from 600m² to 5000m³ as a result of the Long Bay Structure Plan.

10. The location of the proposed designation for GRR is shown in Attachment A.

11. Some of the land covered under the proposed designation for GRR is to enable the construction of the road rather than being for the road itself. AT is engaged in discussions with land owners to purchase or temporarily occupy adjacent land during the course of construction work. On completion of GRR, AT proposes to reduce the extent of the designation to apply only to the road.

12. The construction of the road will involve tree removal, extensive cut and fill operations (up to 16,000m³), construction of retaining walls and culverts, provision of new vehicle access for sites along the route, as well as construction of a new intersection/roundabout at Glenvar Road. Stormwater will be managed by a new wetland once the road is formed. Replanting is also proposed.

13. Once completed, the road will be a second arterial road serving Long Bay with traffic flows predicted to be up to 11,600 vehicles per day by 2026. GRR has also been designed to provide for cycling and pedestrians.

Long Bay Primary School

14. The projects involve a Notice of Requirement (ref: PA214) to ‘permanently’ increase the extent of designation MoE 27 (Long Bay Primary) to enable the formation of a new playing field for both Long Bay Primary School (LBPS) and Long Bay College (see Attachment A). It is also proposed to alter the purpose of designation MoE 27 from a “Primary School”, to provide for “educational purposes (years 0-8)” which includes an early childhood education centre and a playing field (years 0-13) that will also serve Long Bay College.

15. In addition, a further Notice of Requirement (ref: PA215) seeks to alter the above designation to enable involving the placement of fill for the construction of the playing fields (see Attachment A). MoE has indicated that the designation will be decreased once the playing fields are completed.

16. Existing trees will be removed and the remaining landform will be levelled once the surplus earth is transferred from the GRR site to the LBPS site.

Resource Consents

17. A series of thirteen resource consent types (refs: LQ/2140220, REG/2140221 and REG/2140222) have been applied for to enable above-mentioned projects. Overall, the Resource Consents cover the following works:

· Disturbance of contaminated land.

· Discharge of contaminants to land.

· Earthworks, including works within a flood plain.

· Placement and erection of structures within a stream bed with associated stream disturbance.

Consideration

General

18. The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy that, at section 4.2, refers to the allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff. Section 4.2.2 states that in determining who is the most appropriate decision maker, the committee will take into account the significance of a particular matter. The NoRs are considered to be within the terms of significant as they involve an element of policy making.

19. Section 103(2) of the RMA applies to hearings in respect of two or more applications or any other matters the consent authority is empowered to decide or recommend on under this Act in relation to the same proposal.

Local board views and implications

20. This report invites the Hearings Committee appoint a Hearing Panel which is not a matter within the delegated authority of the Local Board.

21. AT and MoE have advised that they have engaged with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board previously on both projects and have generally received the support of the board.

22. Whilst the local board’s views on notification were not required as the Notices of Requirement and Resource Consents were to be fully notified, an information memo dated 20 November 2014 was forwarded to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board providing details on the projects and the designation process.

Māori Impact Statement

23. AT and MoE both advise that they have contacted the relevant iwi groups^{^[1]} as advised by the council prior to submitting the Notices of Requirement.

24. With respect to the Glenvar Ridge Road project, AT has advised that 5 of 13 of the iwi authorities have provided initial responses. Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Inc. has provided a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA).

25. With respect to the Long Bay Primary School project, the MoE have advised that of the iwi authorities, 5 of 13 have provided initial responses.

26. Ngāti Manuhiri has also provided a CIA in respect of both projects.

27. All 13 iwi authorities have been individually notified of the Notices of Requirement and, the Resource Consent applications when the projects were publicly notified on 13 November 2014.

Implementation Issues

28. Following the decision to appoint the Hearing Panel, a hearing date will be set by the Council’s Hearings Unit within Democracy Services in the event that submissions are received and wish to be heard at a hearing. This is likely to take place sometime in March 2015.

29. Alternatively, in the event that no submissions are received, the recommendations on the NoR and decisions on the Resource Consents will be made by the chair of the appointed Hearings Panel.

30. Costs of processing the Notices of Requirement and Resource Consents are recoverable from the Requiring Authorities/applicants.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - Designation plan	19

Signatories

Authors

Nathan Te Pairi - Planner

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

Appointment of Commissioners to make Decisions on the Applications for Resource Consent and to make Recommendations on the Notices of Requirement for NZTA’s Southern Corridor Improvements Project

File No.: CP2014/27973

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to make decisions and recommendations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for the alterations to designations (Notices of Requirement – ‘NORs’) and resource consent applications for the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) Southern Corridor Improvements (SCI) project.

Executive Summary

2. NZTA’s SCI project will involve the construction and operation (including the maintenance, improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration) of a 9.5 km section of the southern motorway between Manukau and Papakura. The project also covers ancillary works including improvements to motorway approaches and ramp connections, as well as safety and operational services, vegetation removal, stormwater treatment, temporary construction, maintenance and access areas, mitigation and restoration, ancillary structures and activities associated with the SCI works.

3. The majority of the project can be undertaken within the boundaries of NZTA’s existing designations. However, alterations to designations are required within the Manukau and Papakura sections of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) to enable temporary occupation during the construction of the project, in particular, to enable construction of retaining and noise walls within the existing designation boundaries. Minor permanent alterations are required to facilitate the reconfiguration of the Takanini interchange and the new Orams Road overbridge.

4. A range of resource consent applications under the provisions of the PAUP, the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal, the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air Land and Water, the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control and the Operative District Plans (Manukau and Papakura sections) are also required.

5. The council is processing the NoRs and resource consent applications on an integrated basis.

6. Officers request that the Hearings Committee appoint independent commissioners to make RMA decisions and recommendations on the NoRs and resource consent applications.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make a decision on the notification of the Notices of Requirement and resource consent applications for the Southern Corridor Improvements Project under Sections 95, 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

b) appoint the same commissioner under (a) to make a recommendation on the Notices of Requirement and a determination on the resource consent applications if these proceed without the need for notice or a hearing is not required

c) appoint further independent commissioners, if either the Notices of Requirement or the resource consent applications are publically notified or limited notified under section 95 of the RMA, to sit with the independent commissioner under (a) to hear submissions and make the Council’s final recommendation on the Notices of Requirement and decision on the resource consent applications

d) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments should any of the appointed independent commissioners in (a)-(c) above be unavailable.

Discussion

7. The SCI project is intended to increase the capacity and enhance the safety and efficiency of this 9.5 km section of the southern motorway.

8. The general location of the project extent is represented in Attachment A, with the general arrangement of each section of the project depicted in the general arrangement plan set at Attachment B.

9. The following is a summary of the NoRs and resource consent applications lodged by NZTA for this project. Note that Outline Plans of Works (OPWs) will be submitted once the project designs have been developed to an appropriate level of detail. OPWs do not require a notification decision under the RMA.

10. Resource consent applications made by NZTA:

· R/LUC/2014/4812

Land Use Consent (District) under the Auckland Council District Plan: Operative Manukau Section 2002 and the Auckland Council District Plan - Operative Papakura Section 1999 for earthworks within the dripline of scheduled trees and removal of scheduled trees.

Land Use Consent under the PAUP for earthworks on or within 50m of a site or place of value to Mana Whenua, vegetation removal within a Historic Heritage overlay, and management of stormwater flows and stormwater quality.

· R/LUC/2014/4813

Land Use Consent under section 89(2) of the RMA for the construction, operation and maintenance of a motorway on reclaimed land.

· R/REG/2014/4814

Discharge Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water for the diversion and discharge of stormwater within an urban area by a stormwater network utility operator.

Discharge Permit under the PAUP for the diversion and discharge of stormwater to land, water or the Coastal Marine Area.

· R/REG/2014/4815

Regional Land Use Consent under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control for earthworks over an area of 1.0 hectares, and roading, tracking and trenching over a length of 100m within a Sediment Control Protection Area.

Regional Land Use Consent under the PAUP for earthworks greater than 2,500m2 and 2,500m3 for network utilities or road networks

· R/REG/2014/4816

Coastal Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal 2004 for the construction activities in the Coastal Marine Area, including the erection and placement of temporary structures and alterations to existing lawful structures not provided for, disturbance from construction activities, reclamation associated with widened embankments and the discharge of contaminants during construction.

Coastal Permit under the PAUP for the construction activities in the Coastal Marine Area, including reclamation, disturbance from construction activities which includes the removal of mangroves and the extension or alteration to existing lawful structures.

· R/REG/2014/4817

Coastal Permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal 2004 for the occupation and ongoing use, operation and maintenance of State Highway 1 for transport purposes in the Coastal Marine Area, including associated stormwater outfalls, and the ongoing discharge of contaminants and stormwater associated with this use.

Coastal Permit under the PAUP for the occupation and ongoing use, operation and maintenance of State Highway 1 for transport purposes in the Coastal Marine Area.

11. NoRs served by NZTA:

a. to alter Designation 186 (Southern Motorway (State Highway 1)) - Operative Auckland District Plan – Manukau Section for improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration works.

b. to alter Designation 14 (Motorway Purposes - Auckland – Hamilton (State Highway 1))- Operative Auckland District Plan – Papakura Section for improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration works.

c. to alter Unitary Plan Designations 6706 (Motorway purposes Auckland – Hamilton), and 6714 (Southern Motorway (State Highway 1) for improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration works.

12. Under Sections 95, 95A and 95B of the RMA, a consent authority (Auckland Council) must decide whether to give public or limited notification to an application and notify an application if it decides to do so.

13. The applicant has provided a notification assessment with the NoRs and resource consent applications. Overall, the applicant concludes that the project will be beneficial to the local, regional and national communities through improved coastal access, increased transport efficiency and an improved level of ecological health in the harbour resulting from increased level of stormwater treatment. Subject to the mitigation measures proposed, and the offered conditions of consent, NZTA have concluded that any adverse effects on the environment will be no more than minor.

14. The applicant has identified a number of parties as being potentially affected in terms of Section 95E of the RMA and has advised that limited notification of the NoRs and resource consent applications to the following parties would be appropriate.

· The owners and occupiers of those properties at the Takanini Interchange that are the subject of the alteration to the designation in whole or in part who have not given their written approval.

· The owners and occupiers of residential properties parts of which are required for temporary construction access and who have not given their written approval.

· The owners and occupiers of residential properties that are adjacent to proposed noise walls where these walls are proposed to exceed 2 m in height.

· The network utility operators with infrastructure that is located within the footprint of alteration and who have not yet given their written approval.

· The Parks Department of Auckland Council in respect of open space land under council control and/or ownership that is the subject of the alteration.

· Auckland Transport in respect of the parts of local roads within which construction activity will take place and that are the subject of alterations to designations

· Mana Whenua who have advised through the Cultural Impact Assessments and Maori Values Assessments contained in Volume 3 - Appendix 11 that the cultural values they ascribe to the Coastal Marine Area at the Pahurehure Inlet are adversely affected by the reclamation and works subject of the applications for coastal consents.

· Transpower in respect of the possible need to reconfigure or relocate the high voltage transmission pylon within the existing designation at the Takanini Interchange.

15. To date, written approvals to the project have been provided on an agreement in principle basis by Watercare Services Limited, Chorus and Vodafone NZ.

16. The NoRs will affect land that is subject to existing designations being those for the North Island Main Truck Railway operated by KiwiRail as the requiring authority and the Auckland Botanical Gardens. Council understands that discussions with the requiring authorities are progressing and NZTA anticipates that the approvals required under section 176 of the RMA will be provided once the relevant design details are resolved.

17. Given the relative technical complexity of the SCI project and its strategic importance to the State Highway and local roading network, Council officers recommend that an independent commissioner be appointed to make a determination on the notification of the NoRs and resource consent applications and then make recommendations on the NoRs and substantive decisions on the applications for resource consents.

18. Given the range of matters to be considered in making its determination, Council officers recommend that the commissioner’s area of expertise include an understanding of planning matters pertaining to transport projects, NoRs and resource consents, cultural impacts and have a familiarity with the local Takanini and Papakura coastal environment.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

19. The applicants have consulted and attended workshops with the Papakura, Howick-Manurewa and Franklin Local Boards to inform and seek comment about the project.

20. Council officers will provide copies of the application to the relevant Local Boards and invite them to make comment. No formal comment from the Local Boards has been received by Council officers at the time of writing this report.

Maori Impact Statement

21. NZTA have consulted with representatives of the mana whenua groups who have an interest in the area (as defined by Local Board areas). The following mana whenua groups were initially approached by NZTA:

· Ngati Tamaoho

· Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki

· Ngati Maru

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngati Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngati Paoa

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngati Tamatera

· Ngati Whanaunga

· Tainui-Waikato

Ngati Tamatera, Tainui-Waikato, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Maru subsequently advised NZTA that they do not have an interest in the project or defer their interest. Ngati Whanaunga has not responded to consultation requests.

22. Briefings and the provision of information commenced in July 2014, several months in advance of the formal lodgement of the NoRs and resource consent applications.

23. Maori Values/Cultural Impact Assessment reports were commissioned by NZTA from Ngati Tamaoho, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua. These reports were submitted within the package of specialist reports when the NoRs and resource consent applications were lodged. NZTA has advised that engagement and consultation with mana whenua groups on the SCI project will be ongoing.

Implementation Issues

24. The Council’s costs involved with processing the NoRs and resource consent applications are recoverable from the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	General Location Plan	27
b View	General Arrangement Plan Set	29

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

Appointment of independent commissioners to make decisions on resource consent applications by Auckland Transport for the City Rail Link project

File No.: CP2014/28172

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to make decisions on resource consent applications by Auckland Transport (AT) for the City Rail Link (CRL) project.

Executive Summary

2. A range of regional and district resource consents are required for the CRL project. These consents are proposed to be lodged in stages. AT will be lodging three separate consent packages for the CRL project outlined in paragraph 7 below.

3. As AT is an Auckland Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), it is recommended that independent commissioners be appointed to make both the notification decisions on the resource consents under section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and determine the applications under section 104 of the RMA.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make decisions where required on the notification of the resource consent applications for the City Rail Link (CRL) project under Sections 95, 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

b) appoint that same commissioner to make a determination on the resource consent applications for the CRL project pursuant to section 104 of the RMA if any of the applications proceed without the need for notice or if a hearing is not required

c) appoint a further three independent commissioners to sit with the independent commissioner appointed under (a) to hear submissions and make the Council’s final decision on all the resource consent applications for the CRL project

d) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments should any of the appointed independent commissioners in (a)-(c) above be unavailable.

Discussion

4. AT will be lodging three separate consent packages for the CRL project as follows:

· Regional and land use (district and regional) resource consents for the Albert Street Stormwater Main Re-alignment (Package 1)

The Albert Street stormwater main re-alignment involves the diversion of a length of the existing stormwater main from Wellesley Street to Swanson Street and to locally strengthen a section of the Orakei Main Sewer. All works will be carried out within the existing Albert Street road reserve. Apart from surface disturbance at launch/ receiving pits, the works will be undertaken at a depth of 15 – 18m.

· Regional and land use resource consents (regional) for the CRL tunnels from Britomart Station to Wyndham Street (Package 2)

This application relates to all works associated with the underpinning of the Central Post Office Building and associated works to extend the underground tunnels across Lower Queen Street, through the Downtown Shopping Centre site and up Albert Street (as far as Wyndham Street). The tunnels will be constructed via the cut and cover methodology.

· Regional and land use resource consents (regional) for the CRL tunnels from the proposed Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line at Mount Eden (Package 3)

This application will be for all remaining CRL related works. The application will include all works associated with the construction of the CRL from (and including) the future Aotea Station through to the North Auckland Line. From Aotea Station, the tunnels will largely be constructed using a tunnel boring machine. The CRL emerges from the tunnels at Mt Eden Terrace where the alignment splits into two branches to join the North Auckland Line.

5. Package 1 was lodged with Council for processing on the 14^th November 2014. AT have requested full public notification of this consent package and therefore a decision on notification is not required to be made by Council for this particular package. This consent package has not yet been publicly notified.

6. Resource consent package 2 is scheduled to be lodged with Council on 19^th December 2014, and resource consent package 3 in April 2015.

7. The following is a summary of the resource consent applications lodged as part of package 1, and those to be lodged as part of packages 2 and 3.

CRL Package 1 – Albert Street Stormwater Main Re-alignment

R/LUC/2014/4792

-Land use consents (District) under the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

-Land use consent to disturb soil under the National Environmental Standard for --Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES).

R/REG/2014/4793

-Regional land use consent for earthworks.

R/REG/2014/4794

- -Water permit for the take and diversion of groundwater.

R/REG/2014/4795

-Contaminated land discharge permit.

R/REG/2014/4796

-Air discharge permit.

CRL Packages 2 (Britomart to Wyndham Street) and 3 (Aotea Station to North Auckland Line)

-Land use consents under the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section and the Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section for utility diversions.

-Land use consents for earthworks under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control, PAUP and the NES.

-Water permits for the take and diversion of groundwater.

-Air discharge permits.

-Contaminated land discharge permits.

-Diversion and discharge of stormwater permits.

8. A plan showing the proposed CRL route, along with the extent of each project package is in Attachment A (note the staging dates on the map have now been superseded).

9. Given the technical complexity of the CRL project, the high profile of this project, and as the applicant is a CCO, Council officers recommend that independent commissioners be appointed, to make decisions on the notification of the resource consent applications (where required) and to make the final decisions on all the resource consent applications. It is recommended that the same independent commissioners be appointed for all consents so that the project is determined in an integrated manner.

10. Given the range of matters to be considered in making its determination, Council officers recommend that the commissioners’ areas of expertise include planning, legal, engineering and iwi.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

11. The applicant has engaged with all Local Boards on the CRL project. Consultation commenced in February 2012 as part of the Notices of Requirement process. In summary, the following consultation has occurred with Local Boards:

· All boards briefed individually between February-June 2012.

· All boards at one integrated briefing on 11 August 2014.

· Advisory emails regularly sent out to all Local Boards.

· The following targeted Local Board briefings have been held:

- Hibiscus Bays Local Board - August 2012 and July 2013

- Takapuna Devonport Local Board September 2012

- Waitemata Local Board – various briefings from December 2012 to August 2014

- Albert-Eden Local Board - July 2012, August 2014 and September 2014

12. Council officers will provide copies of the applications to the Waitemata and the Albert-Eden Local Boards and invite them to make comments. No formal comment from the Local Boards has been received by Council officers at the time of writing this report.

Maori Impact Statement

13. Through the CRL Mana Whenua Forum (a requirement of the CRL designation conditions), AT has briefed, and are engaging on a monthly basis, with those mana whenua groups, who at the time of the CRL Notice of Requirement process expressed an interest in being involved in the CRL project and its related activities. The eight mana whenua who specifically identified an interest in CRL are:

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

14. AT have written to five additional mana whenua groups not listed above, but who do have a registered interest regarding all resource consenting activities within the Waitematā Local Board area in relation to all resource consenting activities associated with the CRL project. This is consistent with the policy in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) on guidance for Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA). The five additional mana whenua are:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua;

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara;

· Ngāti Whanaunga;

· Ngāti Tamaterā; and

· Te Patukirikiri.

15. The five mana whenua groups were requested to confirm whether a CIA was required from them for the regional consents requirements or whether they wished to continue deferring their interest to the eight iwi groups who make up the Mana Whenua Forum. Only two responses where received from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Tamaterā. Both groups deferred their interest to other groups already sitting on the Mana Whenua Forum. The remaining three groups did not respond.

16. AT has been unable to confirm whether CIAs are required for the Project at the time of lodgement of package 1 because the Mana Whenua Forum has confirmed that it wishes to view the application in full prior to confirming the need for a CIA or otherwise.

Implementation Issues

17. The council’s costs involved with processing the resource consent applications are recoverable from the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Overall Route and Consent Staging Plan	47

Signatories

Authors

Veena Krishna - Principal Planner Hearings and Resolutions

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Resource Consent Application for Demolition, 258 Remuera Road, Remuera

File No.: CP2014/28252

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to demolish the ‘Hanna Block’ at Kings’ School, 258 Remuera Road, Remuera.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent for the demolition of a building on a site containing a scheduled building located at 258 Remuera Road, Remuera. The site contains the Kings’ School Chapel which is a category ‘B’ scheduled heritage item under the Auckland Isthmus District Plan. The protection includes the interior and site surrounds. The Hanna building is otherwise not specifically protected.

3. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers, as demolition applications of this scale have previously been regarded as contentious.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint the rostered independent duty commissioner, and appoint John Hill (or Richard Knott as alternate) as heritage commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to make a notification decision on the application for resource consent to demolish the ‘Hanna Block’ building at 258 Remuera Road, Remuera, pursuant to sections 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”);

b) approve that in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application proceeds on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing, the same commissioners as appointed in (a) above be appointed to make a substantive decision on the application pursuant to section 104 of the RMA;

c) approve that in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application proceeds on a notified basis and a hearing is required, the same commissioners as appointed in (a) above be appointed to hear submissions and make a substantive decision on the application, pursuant to section 104 of the RMA;

d) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make a replacement appointment should any of the independent commissioners above be unavailable.

Discussion

The Application

4. This application (R/LUC/2014/4160) for resource consent is for the demolition of the ‘Hanna Block’ at Kings’ School. The applicant intends to construct a new teaching facility with the same footprint occupied by the current building. Photos of the Hanna block from the application material are contained in Attachment A

5. The ‘Hanna Block’ does not have any inherent heritage recognition under the Auckland Isthmus District Plan, despite its age (constructed in 1936/37) and historic character. The building has limited visibility from Remuera Road and Portland Road given its setback from the site boundaries and partial screening provided by other buildings across the site. The demolition of a pre-1940 building on this Residential 2A zoned site is a permitted activity, as the site is not one of those subject to demolition and removal controls. However under the Auckland Isthmus District Plan, heritage considerations are triggered under rule 5C.7.1.3c as the demolition works are within the site surrounds of a scheduled item, the Chapel, which is set at 30 meters. The subject building is not scheduled, and is not listed by Heritage New Zealand.

6. Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan the subject site is zoned ‘school’ and the demolition of a non-scheduled building remains a permitted activity as the pre-1944 demolition control overlay has not been applied to this site. The proposal only triggers reasons for consent associated with the earthworks.

7. As part of the application, the applicant has provided an Assessment of Effects by their planning agent, a heritage impact assessment from Salmond Reed Architects, and a memo from the Kings’ School Board outlining the decision making process behind this application. The Salmon Reed report concluding that the demolition of the ‘Hanna Block’ will not endanger, modify, damage or destroy the scheduled Chapel and will not, the most part, detract from the features for which it was listed. The demolition provides a number of benefits for the school as the existing building poses a seismic risk and is no longer functioning effectively to provide for modern teaching practices.

The Process

8. The Committee will be aware of the processes relating to applications for resource consent for buildings protected by a rule within a district plan. In summary, the council must first determine whether or not to notify the application to demolish or remove the Hanna building under sections 95A-F of the Resource Management Act 1991.

9. While there are no demolition rules applying to pre-1940 or pre-1944 buildings under the Auckland Isthmus District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan respectively, an application will still need to be determined under section 104 of the RMA in regards to the Hanna building sharing the site with a scheduled item and being within that building’s site surrounds.

10. Past experience has shown that consents of this nature, removal / demolition of notable buildings, may have an element of public and media interest.

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 likely public interest infers that this application may become contentious. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is considered that the Hearings Committee should appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the commissioners appointed to consider the application have planning and heritage expertise.

13. The reporting planner has not yet come to a notification recommendation for the application, as all information necessary to assess the application was only received late last week.

Local Board Views and Implications

14. The Orakei Local Board was provided on Wednesday 22 October 2014, the opportunity to express its views on whether the application should be notified or not. Comments were sought by the reporting planner. The Board’s consents portfolio holder, Troy Churton recommends full notification. However, additional correspondence has been received from other Board members in support of the demolition. While not part of the council’s Board comment process, the application was on-forwarded to the Chair of the Remuera Residents Association, who supports the demolition on a non-notified basis, and Sue Cooper of Remuera Heritage who has no objection to the demolition. The email correspondence, are provided as Attachment B.

Maori Impact Statement

15. There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi nor has any matter of potential interest to iwi been raised in the applicant’s Assessment of Environmental Effects or supporting documentation.

Implementation Issues

16. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs of the hearings commissioners will be met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Prospectus photograph from the Kings' School website displaying the 'Hanna Block' as it currently exists.	53
b View	Local Board Comments	55

Signatories

Authors	Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Resource Consent Application to vary conditions of consent for a retirement village at 1-2 Squadron Drive, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2014/28260

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to make decisions on an application by Summerset Group Holdings Limited to vary a condition of resource consent.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application to vary Condition 3 of resource consent pursuant to s127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”). The resource consent (“the underlying consent”) authorises the construction and operation of a 315-unit retirement village at 1 – 2 Squadron Drive, Hobsonville. The application seeks to modify the layout of the retirement village adjacent to the site’s northern coastal edge.

3. The underlying consent was publicly notified and refused by independent commissioners in February 2013. The applicant appealed the decision and subsequently modified the proposal to reach a settlement with Council and s274 parties. The modifications included changes to the layout of the retirement village adjacent to the site’s northern coastal edge.

4. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers because the underlying consent was previously regarded as being significant, and the proposed changes relate directly to aspects of the development which were previously agreed as part of the settlement of the Environment Court appeal.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make a decision on the notification of the application for resource consent to vary Condition 3 of the consent to establish a 315-unit retirement village at 1 – 2 Squadron Drive Hobsonville, pursuant to sections 95, 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”);

b) appoint the same commissioner as appointed in (a) above to make a decision on the application pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application proceeds on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing;

c) appoint two further commissioners, to sit with the commissioner as appointed in (a) above as chair, in the event that the application proceeds on a notified basis and a hearing is required, to hear submissions and make a decision on the application pursuant to section 104 of the RMA;

d) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make replacement appointments should any of the independent commissioners above be unavailable.

Discussion

The Site and Application

5. The site is a semi-circular shaped promontory on the northern side of the Hobsonville Peninsula that extends into the Upper Waitemata Harbour. Its only land boundary adjoins State Highway 18.

6. This application (LUC-20145-1876) seeks to vary Condition 3 of the underlying consent that was issued by the Environment Court (reference ENV-2013-AKL-00031) on 1 November 2013. The application seeks to modify the layout of the approved retirement village adjacent to the site’s northern coastal edge. The following is a summary of the changes sought to the underlying consent: :

· delete a two-way private road which was to be constructed alongside a proposed esplanade reserve adjoining the site’s northern boundary;

· construct a row of 11 coastal fronting houses between 3.2 metres and 6.6 metres closer to northern boundary;

· upgrade a one-way rear lane behind the houses to a two lane private road standard;

· construct a 2 metre wide private walkway in front of the houses; and

· modify the landscape treatment to suit the revised sit layout.

7. Attachment A includes a plan from the underlying consent showing the layout of the retirement village as approved by the underlying consent (Figure One), and a plan showing the proposed changes described above (Figure Two).

8. Physical works for the retirement village development commenced in late 2013 and are ongoing. To date, earthworks and vegetation removal have been carried out over the majority of the site and a number of units for the retirement village have been constructed in the southwest portion of the site and are tenanted. No units or roads have been constructed in the immediate vicinity of land which is the subject of this application.

9. Under the Operative Auckland District Plan – Waitakere Section (“District Plan”), the site is zoned Monterey Park Special Area and is subject to a complex arrangement of Natural Area overlays. The part of the site which is the subject of this application is located predominantly within the Coastal Natural Area. Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”) the site is zoned Future Urban.

Consideration

General

10. 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.

11. The interest in this application infers that it may be considered contentious. Therefore, the Hearings Committee in accordance with its policy should appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the commissioners appointed to consider the application have planning and urban design\ landscape expertise.

12. The reporting planner has not yet come to a notification recommendation for the application.

Local Board Views and Implications

13. The Upper Harbour Local Board has been provided with the opportunity to express its views on the application. Comments were sought by the reporting planner on Thursday 27 November 2014.

Maori Impact Statement

14. There are 13 Iwi groups identified that may have interest in the Upper Harbour Local Board area. These are;

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaterā and Te Patukirikiri

15. The coastal margins of the site are identified in the District Plan as being valued heritage areas to Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua o Orakei. An archaeological assessment submitted with the underlying consent identified three recorded archaeological sites (middens) along the site’s coastal edge relating to pre-European Maori settlement and/or seasonal occupation of the site.

16. The applicant obtained approval through the underlying consent and a blanket authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga for the controlled destruction of the recorded and any unrecorded archaeological sites. No submissions were received from or on behalf of Iwi groups, or in relation to impacts of the development on Iwi values.

17. The changes proposed in this application relate to part of the site which contained the largest of the recorded archaeological sites (reference: R11/498), associated with a headland feature. This archaeological site was significantly modified earlier this year as part of the initial earth-working of the site.

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

Implementation Issues

19. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs of the hearings commissioners will be met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Comparison of the approved and proposed site layout plans	65

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 2014

District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 28 November 2014

File No.: CP2014/27749

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

That the Hearings Committee:

a) receive the District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report.

Discussion

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.

General

7. There are no further matters requiring consideration.

Implementation Issues

8. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regionwide Appeals Status Report at 28 November 2014	69

Signatories

Authors	Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

10 December 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 Appeals: Status Report 10 December 2014

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, to enable the local authority to undertake without prejudice negotiations of appeals that are before the Environment Court..

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Noting the urgent decision of 27 November 2014: New Resource Consent Appeal: New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Auckland Council

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

In particular, the report contains information that could compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of this appeal that is before the Environment Court..

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

[1] Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust, Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority, Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Māori Trust, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Paoa Trust, Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Inc, Te Patukirikri Incorporated, Ngāti Tāmaterā Settlement Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Environment Unit, Ngāti Wai Trust Board, Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust, Ngāti Tamaoho Trust, Te Ara Rangatu o te iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua and; Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Trust.

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places