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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

1.30pm

Level 26, Room 1 and 2
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

 

 

Member David Taipari

 

 

Cr Wayne Walker

 

 

Member Glenn Wilcox

 

Ex-officio

Mayor Len Brown, JP

 

 

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Katherine Sowry

Democracy Advisor

 

3 February 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8133

Email: katherine.sowry@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

11 February 2015

 

 

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          Process for appointing elected members to Special Housing Area hearings panels 9

8          Appointment of hearing panel - Proposed filming charges and amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol                                                                                              15

9          Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consents - Integrated Development Plan, 101 - 135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central           17

10        Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consents - SkyPath at Northcote Point, Auckland Harbour Bridge and Westhaven             25

11        Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed New Zealand International Convention Centre, Hobson Street, Auckland Central                                                                                                                           33

12        Noting the urgent decision of 23 December 2014: 12 Nick Johnstone Drive, Waiheke Island                                                                                                                             47

13        Noting the urgent decision of 16 January 2015: 98 Beach Haven Road, Beach Haven                                                                                                                                       53  

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

15        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 65

C1       New Resource Consent Appeal:  Hobsonville Limited v Auckland Council – 6 Memorial Park Lane, Hobsonville                                                                                               65

C2       Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 11 February 2015                              65

C3       Noting the urgent decision of 23 January 2015: 46 Michaels Avenue, Ellerslie  65

C4       Noting the urgent decision of 2 February 2015: Resource Consent Appeal, Lot 1 DP 419092, North Cove, Kawau Island                                                                            66

C5       Noting the urgent decision of 2 February 2015: Redvale landfill, Dairy Flat        66  

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Mayor LCM Brown, Deputy Mayor PA Hulse and Cr AJ Anae and 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 Wednesday, 10 December 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

11 February 2015

 

 

Process for appointing elected members to Special Housing Area hearings panels

 

File No.: CP2015/00553

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek a decision from the Hearings Committee on its preferred option for appointing elected members to special housing area hearings panels, known as the Accord Territorial Authority Hearing Panel.

Executive Summary

2.       On 10 December 2014, the Hearings Committee received a memo providing an overview of the process for appointing elected members to special housing area (SHA) hearings panels and advising that a report would be presented to the Hearings Committee in February 2015 on options for future appointments.

3.       The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) introduced a fast-track consenting process for developments in special housing areas, including a requirement to hold hearings within 20 days of the close of submissions and to give at least 10 days’ notice of the hearing.

4.       HASHAA also requires that one member of the hearings panel is a member of the relevant local authority or local board.

5.       Although Auckland Council staff have the delegation to appoint elected members to SHA hearings panels, staff consider that the elected member should be appointed by the Hearings Committee due to the political and public interest in special housing area developments.

6.       The statutory timeframes are unlikely to enable the appointment of elected members to be made through the normal Hearings Committee reporting process, therefore it is proposed that the Hearings Committee delegates the power to the Chairperson, one Independent Maori Statutory Board member and one other Hearings Committee member.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      delegate to the Hearings Committee Chairperson, one IMSB member and one other Hearings Committee member the power to appoint elected members in accordance with section 89 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 to sit as panel members for Special Housing Area hearings, and requests that those decisions be reported to a subsequent meeting of the Hearings Committee.

Discussion

7.       The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) introduces a fast-track process for resource consents, plan changes and variations to proposed plans in relation to qualifying developments in special housing areas. It also specifies the composition of panels for hearings relating to those applications.

8.       Section 89(2) of HASHAA requires that an Accord territorial Authority (ATA) hearings panel must comprise no fewer than three members. One panel member must be a councillor, community board or local board member and the remaining panel members must collectively have knowledge and expertise in the areas of planning, design, engineering and experience relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori. Also, all hearings panel members must now be accredited with the Making Good Decisions certification.

9.       Auckland Council’s pool of independent hearing commissioners collectively satisfy the requirements for experience and expertise and may be appointed to SHA hearings panels.

10.     Auckland Council staff members have the delegation to appoint all panel members to SHA hearings panels. However, staff consider that it is more appropriate for the Hearings Committee to appoint the elected member because of the political and public interest in special housing area developments. A current list of elected members that are accredited with the Making Good Decisions certification is attached to this report (Attachment A).

11.     HASHAA requires that a hearing must be held no later than 20 working days after the closing date for submissions and that at least 10 working days’ notice of the hearing must be given. The appointment of panel members usually occurs after the close of submissions, when it is certain that a hearing is required. That means there are fewer than 10 working days between the close of submissions and the notification of a hearing to appoint panel members.

12.     Because the Hearings Committee usually meets once per month, it is unlikely that the appointment of elected members to hearing panels can occur through the normal Hearings Committee reporting process.

13.     To enable the appointment of an elected member within the required statutory timeframes, three options have been considered as follows:

14.     Option one

The elected member is appointed by staff to sit on ATA hearings panels

Description:

A tier four manager within the Housing Project Office will select and appoint elected members and independent commissioners to act as members of ATA hearings panels

Pros:

-     Utilises an existing process

-     Appointments can easily be made within the statutory timeframes

-     No increase in workload

Cons:

-     Hearings Committee members will not have visibility or input into the elected members being appointed to SHA hearings

15.     Option two

The elected member is appointed through the normal Hearings Committee meeting process

Description:

Staff schedule reports within the normal Hearings Committee meeting cycle to make recommendations for the appointment of elected members to SHA hearings panels. This would occur either during the submission period or after submissions close, depending on the meeting schedule.

Pros:

-     Utilises an existing process

-     All Hearings Committee members have input into the elected member appointments for SHA hearings.

Cons:

-     Increase in the number of reports tabled at Hearings Committee meetings

-     Increased workload for staff to prepare and schedule reports

-     If the appointment of an elected member occurs after submissions close, it is unlikely that there will be enough time to schedule a report for the next Hearings Committee meeting and have a decision made within 10 working days as required by HASHAA

-     If the appointment of an elected member occurs before the submission period closes, it is possible that either no submissions are received or no submitters wish to be heard, which will result in the cancellation of those hearings after the elected member has been appointed.

 

16.     Option three

A new process is established for Hearings Committee members to appoint elected members to ATA hearings panels outside the normal committee meeting process.

Description:

The Manager Special Housing Area Consenting will prepare a written recommendation to the Hearings Committee chairperson, one Independent Maori Statutory Board member and one additional Hearings Committee Member for their consideration and appointment of an elected member to the SHA hearings panel. The decision will be reported to a subsequent meeting of the Hearings Committee.

Pros:

-     Hearings Committee members have visibility of the elected members being appointed to SHA hearings

-     Appointments can be made within the statutory timeframes

Cons:

-     Slight increase in workload for staff to prepare recommendations and for the Hearings Committee members to consider and approve the appointments

17.     The Housing Project Office anticipates four SHA hearings in March 2015, with a further four to five hearings expected from April 2015. If these expected volumes continue, it would mean a significant increase in reports being presented to the Hearings Committee under option two.

18.     Staff consider that option three strikes a balance between ensuring that Hearings Committee members have the ability to appoint elected members in a way that is transparent and timely while minimising additional workload.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

19.     When recommending elected members for SHA hearings panels, staff will give priority to accredited local board members from the area that the application relates to. If the local board member has a conflict of interest, then a local board member from the adjacent board area or a councillor from the relevant ward will be recommended for appointment.

Maori Impact Statement

20.     HASHAA requires that the hearings panel members must collectively have appropriate knowledge and experience relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Māori. In addition, the hearings panel will consider any cultural impact assessment associated with an application when making its decision.

Implementation Issues

21.     There are no implementation costs to the council. The applicant will be charged for panel members’ time.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, List of elected members accredited with the Making Good Decisions certification as at January 2015.

13

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Wells - Manager SHA Consenting

Authorisers

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 



Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

Appointment of hearing panel - Proposed filming charges and amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol

 

File No.: CP2015/00573

 

Purpose

1.       Appoint a panel to receive submissions and make recommendations on the charges for filming in public places and related amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol.

Executive summary

2.       The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (at its 5 February business meeting) will consider approving proposed changes to the Auckland Film Protocol for public consultation. Due to the agenda deadlines overlapping, the decision of the committee was not able to be included in this report. The committee decision will be available at the meeting.

3.       If approved, input from the public and key stakeholders is planned to be sought over February and March through a simplified consultation process in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

4.       A panel is needed to receive and consider submissions and make recommendations for final adoption by the council. Hearing dates are likely to be in late March or early April 2015.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      appoint a panel of up to three members, including up to two councillors and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, to receive and consider submissions on the proposed charges for filming in a public place and associated amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol and make recommendations on these for adoption by the relevant committees

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.

Background

5.       A report has been prepared for the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee business meeting on 5 February 2015 to consider a proposal for a new set of filming charges to apply across Auckland. A set of corresponding amendments and minor updates to the Auckland Film Protocol is also proposed.

6.       If approved, public submissions will be invited in accordance with section 82 and 82A of the Local Government Act 2002.

7.       Submissions are planned to be open for four weeks over February and March.

Comment

8.       After the close of the submission period, a hearing date will be set by council Hearings staff. This is currently likely to be in late March or early April 2015.

9.       In order to be able to achieve these timelines an immediate decision on the composition of the hearings panel is needed.

10.     Staff request that a panel be appointed to receive and deliberate on submissions on the proposed charges for filming in a public place and associated amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol.

11.     Following deliberations, the panel will report back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee with any recommendation on the final form of the Auckland Film Protocol.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12.     Around a quarter of filming in public places takes place on local parks. Local boards are therefore key stakeholders and several workshops have been held with local boards in the development of the proposed approach to the charges. Local boards will also have the opportunity to make a submission on the formal proposal.

Maori impact statement

13.     The decision for this report is about the process of establishing a decision-making body for changes to the Auckland Film Protocol.

14.     The primary impacts of the panel’s decision-making once appointed will be on film makers. The impact on Maori film makers will be similar to those on other film makers. 

15.     To assist in the consideration of impacts to Maori in the decision making on the protocol, the committee may wish to consider appointing a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board to the panel.

16.     In relation to general filming activities and the future operation of the protocol and the charges; ATEED has an ongoing relationship with several mana whenua and mataawaka groups, across its whole portfolio of activity. This includes liaison on filming activities that may affect particular land or sites, and film as a medium for Māori story-telling, such as the recently released feature film "The Dead Lands." ATEED will ensure that appropriate groups are advised of their opportunity to make a submission on the formal proposal.

Implementation

17.     None.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Shireen  Munday - Policy Analyst

Richard Stuckey - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consents - Integrated Development Plan, 101 - 135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central

 

File No.: CP2015/00208

 

Purpose

1.       To invite the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners to hear and determine a publicly notified application for resource consent for an Integrated Development Plan at 101-135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central.

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent for an Integrated Development Plan (IDP) at 101-135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central.  The IDP and its concurrent development control modifications for excess height and floor area will facilitate the future development of a hotel.

3.       The application was publicly notified on 9 December 2014 and the submission period closes on 16 February 2015.

4.       The Hearings Committee is invited to appoint the hearing commissioners as this application is regarded by staff as significant given the scale and location of the development, media coverage of the project and the recent support of the hotel concept by Central Government. Independent commissioners are recommended as the applicant Auckland Waterfront is a council controlled organisation.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      appoint a panel of three independent commissioners (including one as chair) to hear submissions and make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/4432) for an Integrated Development Plan at 101-135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central

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

Discussion

The Application

5.       Resource consent (R/LUC/2014/4432) is sought by Auckland Waterfront for an IDP with concurrent development control modifications to facilitate the future development of a hotel activity on this site. The IDP is a resource consent that sets up the built and spatial framework for the future detailed design of buildings. In particular, consent is sought for a building to exceed the maximum height control of 18.5 metres by 6.5 metres and by 13.3 metres for various roof top projections and exceed the floor area ratio rule by 1.77:1 or 9,885m2. The IDP itself does not involve any physical works and further resource consents will be required to provide for the actual development.

6.       The site is located in the north eastern corner of Wynyard Quarter, on land formally occupied by Team New Zealand, adjacent to the Viaduct Harbour waterspace. The site has four public frontages, bounded to the west by Halsey Street, to the north by the road designation of Karanga Plaza, and to the east and south by conservation covenants for public open space.

7.       The site lies within the Wynyard Quarter Precinct of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004) (“the Operative District Plan) and Wynyard sub-precinct G of the City Centre zone in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“the PAUP”). An aerial photo showing the site location is included as Attachment A and an IDP elevation included as Attachment B.

8.       The proposal requires resource consent for a range of matters under the Operative District Plan. Reasons for resource consent include (but are not limited to) providing an IDP, establishing risk sensitive activities (eg non-permanent accommodation, food and beverage), infringing the height control, the site intensity control, non-provision of verandahs, infringing a required viewshaft, and being setback from the site frontage boundaries. Overall, the proposal is a non-complying activity.

9.       The application was publicly notified on 9 December 2014 at the request of the applicant pursuant to section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”). The submission period closes on 16 February 2015. To date eight submissions have been received, at this stage the content of the submissions have not been reviewed.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

10.     The Waitemata Local Board has been served notice of the application and has yet to make comment. Any views received will be included in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers at the hearing.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi nor has any matter of interest been raised in the application’s Assessment of Environmental Effects or supporting documentation. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki have expressed interest in the application and are liaising directly with the applicant and planning consultant regarding continued involvement.

General

12.     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.

13.     The location of the development, level of media attention and support of the hotel concept from Central Government infers that this application may be considered significant. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, staff consider that the Hearings Committee should appoint the hearing commissioners as decision-makers for this application. It is further noted that given the application has been made by Auckland Waterfront, a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), then it is appropriate for there to be independent decision making on this application. It is recommended that the independent commissioners appointed to consider the application have planning, legal, urban design and resource management expertise.

Implementation Issues

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

 


Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Independent Commissiners: Application for resource consents - Integrated Development Plan, 101-135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central, Locality Plan.

21

bView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Independent Commissiners: Application for resource consents - Integrated Development Plan, 101-135 Halsey Street, Auckland Central, IDP elevation plan.

23

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie  Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 



Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 



Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consents - SkyPath at Northcote Point, Auckland Harbour Bridge and Westhaven

 

File No.: CP2015/00210

 

Purpose

1.       To appoint independent commissioners to hear and determine a publicly notified application for resource consents to construct and operate a pedestrian/bicycle pathway to be known as SkyPath that is attached to the eastern side of the Auckland Harbour Bridge and lands at Northcote Point and Westhaven.

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council has received applications for resource consent to construct, maintain and use a combined pedestrian/bicycle pathway to be known as SkyPath, which will connect to the outside of the eastern (southbound) ‘clip-on’ structure of the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). Two landing sites are proposed, being the “Northern Landing” at Northcote Point and the “Southern Landing” at Westhaven. These landings are generally located within or under the AHB structure.

3.       The application was publicly notified on 5 December 2014 with the submission period closing on 23 January 2015. To date in excess of 1,000 submissions have been received.

4.       This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint the hearing commissioners as this application is regarded by staff as significant given the scale of the development and the public interest in the proposal. Independent commissioners are recommended due to Council’s financial involvement in the project.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      appoint a panel of three independent commissioners (including one as chair) to hear submissions and make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/3364 and R/REG/2014/3365) for a combined pedestrian/bicycle pathway known as SkyPath connecting Northcote Point to Westhaven on the eastern side of the Auckland Harbour Bridge

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

Discussion

The Application

5.       Resource consent (R/LUC/2014/3364 and R/REG/2014/3365) is sought by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathways Trust (the Trust) to construct, maintain and use SkyPath a combined pedestrian/bicycle pathway. SkyPath will provide a connection between central Auckland and North Shore connecting to the outside of the eastern (southbound) ‘clip-on’ structure of the AHB. Two landing sites are proposed, one being the “Northern Landing” at Northcote Point and the second the “Southern Landing” at Westhaven. Drawings and an artist impression show the location of SkyPath and its concept design at Attachment A.

 

6.       The proposal requires resource consent for a range of matters under the following:

·        Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

·        Operative Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section 2002)

·        Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal

·        Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

·        National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

·        Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The proposal is unique and spans over land and water and is not provided for under the Plans noted above. Consents are required for the structure, occupation and activity within the coastal marine area, within the residential and recreation land it crosses or lands at Northcote Point, and at the Westhaven landing which is subject to a concept plan. These consents will address issues relating to the bulk and location of the structure, traffic generation and parking, noise and vibration and lighting. The northern landing is also affected by overlays or rules relating to archaeological and mana whenua sites, the coastal conservation area and foreshore protection yard and contaminated land and the southern landing will also require the removal of some trees. Overall the proposal is to be assessed as a non-complying activity.

7.       The application was publicly notified on 5 December 2014 at the request of the applicant pursuant to section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”).The submission period closes on 23 January 2015. To date over 1,000 submissions have been received, at this stage the content of the submissions have not been reviewed.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

8.       The Waitemata Local Board and the Kaipaitiki Local Board have been sent copy of the application and have yet to make comment. Any views received will be included in the information provided in the staff report to the decision makers at the hearing.

Maori Impact Statement

9.       The applicant has undertaken extensive consultation and worked with iwi who have a particular interest and role in developments in the vicinity of SkyPath, the surrounding land and the Waitemata Harbour, these being Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Te Kawerau a Maki. These iwi offer their support to the project, provided they have on-going involvement in its design, construction and operation in agreement with the applicant, and do not deem that a Cultural Impact Assessment (“CIA”) is required as in accordance with the provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. 

10.     Due to the physical remnants of Te Onewa Pa at Northcote Point the applicant has also advised the ten other mana whenua groups with interests in the Kaipatiki Local Board area in accordance with the requirements of the PAUP for mana whenua engagement, being:

·        Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

·        Ngati Whatua o Kaipara

·        Ngati Tamaoho

·        Te Akitai Waiohua

·        Ngati Te Ata Waiohua

·        Ngati Paoa

·        Ngati Maru

·        Ngati Whanaunga

·        Ngati Tamatera

·        Te Patukirikiri

11.     Responses were received from Ngati Tamaoho, Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua, Ngati Maru, and Te Akitai Waiohua. Ngati Tamaoho deferred to the three Iwi that have been involved in consultation; Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua confirmed their interests would be represented through Ngati Whatua o Orakei; Ngati Maru provided a confidential CIA to the applicant; and Te Akitai Waiohua advised they do not support the proposal given there is currently no acknowledgement of Te Akitai Waiohua.

12.     All of the mana groups identified above have also been served notice of the application. The aspects of consultation will be further addressed in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers.

General

13.     The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy that, at section 4.2, refers to: “Allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff". Section 4.2.2 states that in deciding who is the most appropriate decision maker, the Hearings Committee will take into account recommendations from staff, the significance of a particular matter and whether it is contentious.

14.     SkyPath is a significant project that is seen as the missing connection and a critical gap in Auckland’s cycling and walking networks. The Trust has been championing for a pathway across the AHB for approximately 10 years. While SkyPath is not a council project, as it has been promulgated by the private sector, the council supports the concept and various departments of the council have been working with the Trust on the proposal.

15.     In late 2013 the council agreed to a partial underwrite of the admission fare revenue through the Morrison & Co’s Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund. As part of the agreement after 20 years the ownership of SkyPath will pass to Auckland Council.

16.     There has been significant public interest in this project, particularly from various user groups and local resident associations.

17.     Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, staff consider 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, resource management and landscape/visual assessment expertise.

Implementation Issues

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

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Independent Commissioner: Application for resource consents - SkyPath at Northcote Point, Auckland Harbour Bridge and Westhaven, Location Plans and Artist Impression.

29

 

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie  Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed New Zealand International Convention Centre, Hobson Street, Auckland Central

 

File No.: CP2015/00212

 

Purpose

1.       To appoint independent commissioners to determine notification and then the merits of the application to develop the New Zealand International Convention Centre (NZICC) and associated hotel facility on the site bounded by Hobson Street, Wellesley Street West and Nelson Street, Auckland Central.

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent to develop the NZICC in Auckland Central. The NZICC will include an exhibition hall, plenary theatre, pre-function space, meeting rooms, back of house space and associated food and beverage activities; adjacent to the Centre a 12-storey, 300 room hotel is proposed. The development proposes four levels of basement parking for 1,415 cars; substantial demolition of a Category B scheduled building; a pedestrian airbridge across Hobson Street and streetscape upgrades on Hobson Street, Wellesley Street West and Nelson Street.

3.       The application was lodged with the council on 19 December 2014. At the time of writing this report the application is being reviewed and assessed by council officers.

4.       This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint the independent commissioners as this application has been regarded by staff as significant given the scale of the project; and contentious given media coverage of the development. Independent commissioners are also recommended due to council’s involvement with the application to date.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      appoint two independent commissioners (including one as chair), to make the notification determination under sections 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/5383, R/REG/2014/5396 and R/REG/2014/5398) to develop the New Zealand International Convention Centre in Auckland Central

b)      subject to the notification decision above, either;

i)        appoint the same panel of two independent commissioners (including one as chair), should the application be non-notified or a hearing not required, to make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/5383, R/REG/2014/5396 and R/REG/2014/5398) to develop the New Zealand International Convention Centre in Auckland Central; or

ii)       appoint a panel of three independent commissioners, including the chair and commissioner appointed under (a), should the application be notified, to hear submissions and make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/5383, R/REG/2014/5396 and R/REG/2014/5398) to develop the New Zealand International Convention Centre in Auckland Central

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

Discussion

The Application

5.       Resource consent (R/LUC/2014/5383, R/REG/2014/5396 and R/REG/2014/5398) is sought by New Zealand International Convention Centre Incorporated to develop the NZICC. It is to be established on the site bounded by Hobson Street, Wellesley Street West and Nelson Street; to the south of the TVNZ building and excluding the Albion Hotel on the corner of Hobson Street and Wellesley Street West. An aerial photograph showing the location of the site is at Attachment A. The development includes the provision of an exhibition floor space of 7,778m2 with direct access from Hobson Street; a plenary theatre above providing 3,000 seats; associated meeting rooms and pre-function space; a through lane between Nelson and Hobson Streets; substantial demolition of Nelson House (Berlei Factory) a Category B scheduled building to accommodate the exhibition floor space; and a 300 bed, 12 storey hotel on the north-eastern corner of the site. Basement parking across 4 levels for 1,415 cars is proposed with loading and coach parking available. An airbridge is proposed to connect the NZICC via the proposed hotel to the existing SkyCity site on the eastern side of Hobson Street. Extensive streetscape upgrade work is proposed on the three streets adjacent to the NZICC. In particular, the streetscape upgrade works on Hobson Street, include the reduction to four lanes of vehicular traffic, on-street coach parking for NZICC and significant landscaping. Artist impressions of the proposal are located at Attachment B.

6.       The site is located within the Victoria Quarter Precinct of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004) and zoned City Centre in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“the PAUP”). Under both the District Plan and the PAUP, the site includes the scheduled Category B building of Nelson House (also known as the Berlei Factory) on the corner of Wellesley Street West and Nelson Street.

7.       The proposal requires resource consent for a range of matters under the following:

·        Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004)

·        Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water 2013)

·        Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan (Sediment Control 2001)

·        National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

·        Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Overall the proposal is to be assessed as a non-complying activity.

8.       A range of licenses/approvals are required from Auckland Transport for the development including for ground anchors, street lighting, airbridge, verandahs, and on-street coach parking. Approval is also required from Heritage New Zealand for an Authority to Modify for the disturbance of pre-1900 archaeological materials.

9.       The application was lodged with the Council on 19 December 2014 and is currently being reviewed by council staff, including specialists, for sufficiency of information and assessment of recommendation on notification. At this stage no assessments have been completed.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

10.     The Waitemata Local Board Chair and Planning portfolio holder have been briefed by the applicant on 17 December 2014. The applicant seeks to brief the full board in early 2015. The Board has also been advised of the application and their comments on notification sought following the standard referral process. At the time of writing this report there has been no input received. Any views received will be included in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi. The applicant has engaged with iwi who have an interest in the local area to determine whether the proposed excavation and groundwater take and diversion will require a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) to be undertaken. This is consistent with the policy in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) on guidance for CIA.  The iwi engaged with are:

·        Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

·        Ngati Whatua o Kaipara

·        Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

·        Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

·        Te Kawerau a Maki

·        Ngāti Tamaoho

·        Te Akitai Waiohua

·        Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·        Ngāti Paoa

·        Ngāti Maru

·        Ngati Whanaunga

·        Ngati Tamatera

·        Te Patukirikiri

12.     The applicant has advised that meetings are required with Ngati Maru, Ngati Tamatera and Ngati Whatua to determine whether a CIA is required. As such this matter will be further addressed in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers.

General

13.     The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy that, at section 4.2, refers to: “Allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff". Section 4.2.2 states that in deciding who is the most appropriate decision maker, the Hearings Committee will take into account recommendations from staff, the significance of a particular matter and whether it is contentious.

14.     The level of media attention to the project infers that this application may be considered contentious. The scale of the project for both Auckland and New Zealand, along with the associated economic benefits, confirms the significant nature of the project.

15.     The Mayor and various Councillors have made public comment on both the agreement between the Crown and SkyCity and subsequent Act of Parliament; as well as the NZICC as a development. In particular in March 2013 the Mayor reconfirmed his ongoing support for the NZICC development in an article in the NZ Herald. In June 2013 Councillors voted ten to seven in opposition to the proposed deal between the Crown and SkyCity for the NZICC and additional gaming activity for SkyCity. The Council and eight Local Boards made a submission on the NZICC Bill, this submission confirmed the overall support for a large scale convention centre in Auckland, however gave strong opposition to the proposed deal between the Crown and SkyCity to facilitate such a centre. Thus, in the opinion of staff, it would be inappropriate for Councillors, or council officers, to be involved in the decision making process for this application.


16.     The proposal includes an airbridge over Hobson Street, connecting the proposed hotel with the existing SkyCity building and involving use of public airspace. The applicant, together with council’s Built Environment Unit and Auckland Transport are considering streetscape changes for the adjacent part of Hobson Street, Wellesley Street West and Nelson Street that is proposed to extend, in due course, to other parts of these streets. These streetscape works are entirely within the public realm, and include the reduction in the number of vehicle lanes and coach parking on the street. Given the extent of works being proposed within the public realm, in Council officers opinion, it is important that a decision on these works as part of the resource consent be made by persons independent of the council.

17.     Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, staff consider 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 legal, planning, urban design and resource management expertise.

Implementation Issues

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed New Zealand International Convention Centre Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Attachment A - Site Locality Plan.

37

bView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Independent Commisioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed New Zealand International Convention Centre, Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Attachment B - Artist Impressions.

39

     

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie  Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 



Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

Noting the urgent decision of 23 December 2014: 12 Nick Johnstone Drive, Waiheke Island

 

File No.: CP2015/00050

 

Purpose

1.       To advise the Hearings Committee of the decision made under urgency to appoint independent commissioners to determine a helicopter pad resource consent application.

Executive Summary

2.       Independent commissioners, Janine Bell, and if required Craig Shearer and Mark Farnsworth, were appointed to determine an application for resource consent to establish a helicopter pad at 12 Nick Johnstone Drive, Waiheke Island.

3.       The decision was made under urgency under Section 2 and 5.1.1 of the Hearings Committee policy and terms of reference on 23 December 2014.

4.       This urgency was required because a notification decision is needed prior to the next meeting of the Hearings Committee on 11 February 2015.

 

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      note the decision to appoint independent commissioners Janine Bell, and if required Craig Shearer and Mark Farnsworth, made under urgency.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Commissioners: Resource consent application to establish a helipad at 12 Nick Johnstone Drive, Waiheke Island.

49

     

Signatories

Author

Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

Noting the urgent decision of 16 January 2015: 98 Beach Haven Road, Beach Haven

 

File No.: CP2015/00238

 

Purpose

1.       To advise the Hearings Committee of the decision made under urgency to appoint independent commissioners to determine a resource consent application to demolish a building.

Executive Summary

2.       The rostered independent duty commissioner and John Hill (or Richard Knott as an alternative) were appointed to determine an application for resource consent to demolish a building at 98 Beach Haven Road, Beach Haven. 

3.       The decision was made under urgency under Section 2 and 5.1.1 of the Hearings Committee policy and terms of reference on 16 January 2015.

4.       This urgency was required because a notification decision is needed prior to the next meeting of the Hearings Committee on 11 February 2015.

 

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a)      note the decision to appoint the independent duty commissioner, and John Hill (or Richard Knott as an alternative) made under urgency.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

11 February 2015, Hearings Committee, Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent for the demolition of a pre-1944 building at 98 Beach Haven Road, Beach Haven

55

Signatories

Author

Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

     

 


Hearings Committee

11 February 2015

 

 

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       New Resource Consent Appeal:  Hobsonville Limited v Auckland Council – 6 Memorial Park Lane, Hobsonville

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

In particular, the report contains information relating to an environment court appeal, and the disclosure of information may prejudice the councils position in regards to negotiations and the potential settlement of the appeal.

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       Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 11 February 2015

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.

 


 

C3       Noting the urgent decision of 23 January 2015: 46 Michaels Avenue, Ellerslie

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

In particular, the report contains information 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.

 

C4       Noting the urgent decision of 2 February 2015: Resource Consent Appeal, Lot 1 DP 419092, North Cove, Kawau Island

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

In particular, the report contains information 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.

 

C5       Noting the urgent decision of 2 February 2015: Redvale landfill, Dairy Flat

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

In particular, the report contains information 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.