TERMS
OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
A committee that will give direction to officers on matters
associated with the Unitary Plan including:
·
Council’s submission to the UP (final sign off with parent
committee)
·
Response to matters raised by the submission process
·
Pre-hearing mediation
Substantive issues of policy require approval by the parent
committee.
Powers
All powers necessary to perform the Committee’s
responsibilities.
Except:
(a) powers that the Governing
Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body
responsibilities)
(b) where the Committee’s responsibility is limited
to making a recommendation only
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.
An apology from
Deputy Chairperson PA Hulse has been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Unitary Plan Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Wednesday, 4 February 2015, including the
confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is
allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking
time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 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.
7 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.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Unitary Plan
Committee
24 February
2015
|
|
Auckland
Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel - Update on Progress
File No.: CP2015/01441
Purpose
1. To update the
committee on the progress made by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent
Hearings Panel since last reported in October 2014.
Executive
Summary
2. The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) is a statutory body appointed by
the Ministers for the Environment and Conservation. The Panel’s job is to hear
submissions and evidence on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) and then
report back to the Auckland Council about changes it recommends should be made
to the Plan.
3. The setup of
the office is complete and the hearings programme is underway with most of the
hearings on the regional policy statement component of the plan now completed.
Staff supporting the Panel and hearing processes have all been appointed. The
hearing rooms on-site and off-site are meeting expectations.
4. Hearing events
are successfully being completed within timeframes. Overall participation of
submitters at hearings is on a par with other District Plan and Plan Change
processes. A breakdown by submitter groups shows that participation by
community groups, special interest groups and individuals is lower than
business and public sector categories of submitter. It is expected that the
number of community groups and individuals attending hearings will increase as
the schedule moves from the high level policy framework of the Regional Policy
Statement (RPS) to the hearings on schedules, zones and precincts which
directly impact on people’s properties.
5. Mediation has
been successful in reducing matters addressed at the hearing and resulting in
joint representation at hearings. Given this impact, mediation has now been
scheduled for the majority of all hearing topics.
6. The hearing
process has been modified to the extent considered appropriate by the Panel in
response to feedback from submitters and memoranda from counsel, as well as
several judicial conferences and a feedback session with an external review
group. For example, pre-hearing meetings have moved to predominately a paper
based approach rather than submitters needing to attend, the schedule for 2015
has been adjusted to provide some ‘breathing space’, mediation is now focused
on tracked changes to the text and the process and templates have been
simplified, expert conferencing is now used only sparingly to clarify
particular technical matters, evidence exchange timetables have been extended
and guidance provided on how to prepare evidence to facilitate the process for
submitters and Panel.
7. Steps have been
taken to improve communication and accessibility of information. Drop in
clinics have been provided, a simple process map and video of key steps has
been added to the website, and a ‘find my hearing’ tool has been developed to
help submitters link their points to hearing topics. Improvements to website
content and presentation of information are ongoing. Staff are always available
to help submitters navigate the process and information and there has been
positive feedback from submitters regarding this service.
8. The Panel
remains open to modifying its process in response to feedback where it feels
there is scope to do so. Three judicial conferences have been held so far and
established useful dialogue and led to changes in the Panel’s process. An
external peer review group was convened in November and will continue to meet
at regular intervals until the completion of the hearings. Community groups
have been approached for feedback on options for making site specific hearings
more ‘submitter friendly’.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Unitary Plan
Committee:
a) receive this
report and notes the progress of the programme for the hearing of submissions
by Independent Hearings Panel on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
b) request this
report and resolutions be forwarded to local boards, the Independent Maori Statutory
Board and advisory panels for their information.
|
Comments
Background
9. On the 14 October 2014 the IHP provided an update to the Unitary Plan
Committee on progress made on the establishment of the Independent Hearings
Panel, hearing progress, website and the evaluation by the Ministry for the
Environment. The resolutions were accepted. These included a quarterly update
to the Auckland Unitary Plan Committee from the Independent Hearings Panel and
that the report be forwarded to local boards for their information.
10. The Committee
requested that the next report include an update on mechanisms to improve the
process, participant numbers, the mediation process, budget and options to
engage the public.
Establishment of the Independent
Hearings Panel
Premises for the IHP
11. As the committee
will be aware, 130 people can be accommodated on level 16 (to meet fire safety
requirements). Off-site venues have been required for some pre-hearing
meetings, mediation and expert conferencing. Aotea Centre, the Town Hall and
the Manukau Service Centre have been used. These venues have worked
successfully. It is likely that some hearings will be held in suitable council
venues once the hearing programme moves onto site specific matters.
Staff appointments
12. The IHP staffing
levels will continue to be monitored against expected workload to ensure
adequate support for the hearing programme and enable delivery of the hearings
on schedule. All staffing levels are currently being managed within allocated
budgets.
Hearing programme
Schedule
13. Hearing events are on track against the schedule as it stands (see below
para 15), with 84.1 per cent of events scheduled through to late 2015 completed
under or on time. One hearing (009 Mana Whenua issues) required additional time
and several mediation sessions required longer (006 RPS natural resources and
013 RPS urban growth). 90.9 per cent of hearing events on RPS topics (including
pre-hearing, mediation, and expert conference) have been completed.
14. Note that the
scheduled events for site specific hearings are provisional and no hearing days
have been included in the schedule as yet specifically for precincts. Following
a report back from Council in the first quarter of 2015 categorising the
submissions on site specific topics the Panel will consider the options for
dealing with these hearings topics and will revise the hearing schedule
accordingly.
15. The IHP planning
team has made good progress with parties and issues reports for the hearing
topics, with 74 per cent of these reports now completed.
Budget
16. Financial reports
show 33 per cent of the IHP budget spent year to date compared with 58 per cent
of year elapsed as at 31 January 2015. The actual costs are expected to track
more closely against the budget by the end of the financial year (30 June), by
which time there will have been 8 full months of hearings.
Participation
17. The overall participation rate is 11.8 per cent for hearings and
mediation (the participation rate is the percentage of those notified who actually
attended the event). There are no strictly comparable baselines for the Unitary
Plan hearings, but previous plan processes show a considerable range (e.g. 14.5
per cent for the Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan process, 10.86 per cent for
the Whangaparoa Golf course, 13.76 per cent for the Central Interceptor, 2.26
per cent for the Te Arai private plan change and 2.69 per cent for the Milford
plan change).
18. Participation
rates vary for different categories of submitters with business and public
sector the highest (public sector includes Auckland Council which has a
presence at all hearing events), followed by Mana Whenua/mataawaka, community
groups and special interest, then individual submitters.
19. The overall
participation rate for the RPS mediation and hearings is 12.7 per cent for both
types of event. The rate for community groups is 9.4 per cent (mediation) and
11.8 per cent (hearings) and for individuals it is 2.8 per cent and 3.3 per
cent. Participation rates for community groups and individuals are expected to
increase in 2015 once the hearings get into site specific topics (i.e.
schedules, zones, precincts and designations). The Panel is exploring options
on how to run the hearing process for these topics to better meet the needs of
community groups. Feedback on these options was requested from 70 community
groups in mid-December (mainly residents and ratepayer associations) but only 7
have responded (the due date was 31 January 2015).
20. 17 per cent of
attendees at hearings have requested more speaking time and most requests have
been granted (93 per cent).
21. When considering these participation rates the following points
should be noted:
·
It is a statutory RMA
process so inevitably will have a degree of formality and procedural intricacy
that can be perceived as off-putting by individual ‘lay’ submitters and
community groups.
·
While there are no
strictly comparable baselines (see next point), examples such as the Hauraki
Gulf Islands District Plan review and the Milford Plan Change (PC34) show that
low levels of participation in formal hearing processes are typical.
·
It has been many years
since a full plan review has been carried out in Auckland, so there are no
recent comparable baselines and submitters are judging the process against expectations
based on plan change hearings which are mostly local in focus, and/or much
narrower in scope than the Proposed Unitary Plan.
·
While the process is
offering multiple opportunities for submitters to participate, through
pre-hearing, mediation and hearing, many submitters have limited capacity to
take advantage of these opportunities because of the amount of time required by
multiple and overlapping hearing tracks and the scheduling of events during
working hours.
·
Participation rates are
expected to increase as the hearings programme moves from the high level policy
framework of the RPS to the hearings on schedules, zones and precincts which
directly impact on people’s properties. The way the hearings on these topics
could be run is being considered by the Panel in the light of feedback to
encourage greater participation by community groups and individual submitters.
Pre-hearing meetings
22. The Panel has
moved towards dealing with pre-hearing matters of an administrative nature ‘on
the papers’, if submitters wish to choose this option, rather than expecting
most submitters to attend the meeting. The website provides a document where
submitters can fill in an application for additional hearing time and coding
errors. This has reduced submitters needing to attend the pre-hearing meetings
and has had support from submitters.
Impact of mediation
23. Mediation so far
in the programme appears to be achieving the objective of reducing the matters
to address at the hearing. It has also resulted in joint witness statements
being prepared, for example 004 Chapter G hearing approximately 20 submitters
were jointly represented by Russell McVeagh.
24. Based on the
positive outcomes, the Panel has been supportive of increasing the amount of
mediation for some topics. Mediation has been scheduled for a number of RPS
topics when the original programme did not include this and has had a
beneficial outcome. Mediation is scheduled for almost all topics in 2015. The
Panel has also provided mediator support for informal ‘offline’ (i.e. not
scheduled as part of the topic) mediation between parties on three topics so
far.
25. Based on the
initial experience with expert conferencing the use of this has been reduced,
with more emphasis placed on mediation. Where pre-hearing processes, including
mediation, identify a need to resolve specific technical matters an expert
conference can be convened.
Review by the Panel of support provided by Auckland Council
26. The first
quarterly review by the Panel of the support provided by Auckland Council was
completed in December 2014 and a high overall level of satisfaction reported.
External peer review and Judicial
Conferences
27. An external peer
review of the Auckland Unitary Plan Hearing Procedure was held on 17 November
2014. Reviewers were selected and invited by the Panel to attend and included a
range of organisations and people who have a regional remit and have a history
of involvement in council plan processes.
28. Three judicial
conferences have been held to address matters of process raised by legal
practitioners and other parties to the hearing process.
29. Following the
review session and judicial conferences the Panel decided to address the
matters raised in the following ways:
· The schedule for 2015 was reviewed and
some additional “breathing space” built in.
· The Panel has confirmed its intention
to release interim guidance on the RPS in mid-March.
· The Council is providing a marked up
version of the relevant PAUP provisions in advance of mediation or hearing
sessions on every topic.
· The timetable for exchange of evidence
has been modified to build in more time and to stagger the dates with council
providing its evidence first.
· Additional mediation has been
scheduled for hearings in 2015. The process for mediation has been simplified
and improved.
· The Panel is looking at ways to
encourage lay submitters and community groups to take part in hearings, for
example holding hearings in local areas, holding some hearings in evenings or
weekends, combining some hearing topics to reduce the frequency of attendance.
Community groups were asked for their views on these options but the response
was limited, though there was support for holding hearings in local areas.
· Three drop in clinics were held for
the public to ask the IHP planners questions about the process. These clinics
were held in Orewa, the city and Manukau during the day and evenings. Only
eight people attended the Orewa and City clinics and two people attended the
Manukau clinic. The Panel is not likely to commit resources to further
clinics.
· Improving the website and
communications as follows: a simple process map and video of key steps has been
added to the website, and a “find my hearing” tool has been developed to help
submitters link their points to hearing topics. Improvements to website content
and presentation of information are ongoing.
· Staff are always available to help
submitters navigate the process and information and there has been positive
feedback from submitters regarding this service.
· Pre-hearing meetings are now generally
based ‘on the papers’ to avoid participants having to attend for administrative
purposes (see above).
· To assist submitters prepare for
hearings more efficiently and effectively the Panel has provided on the IHP
website best practice examples of evidence, rebuttal and joint witness
statements.
Consideration
Local
Board Views and Implications
30. The views of
local boards are able to be represented by the attendance of all local board
chairs at the Unitary Plan Committee.
Maori
Impact Statement
31. It is considered
that there are no specific impacts on Maori arising from any decisions made by
the Unitary Plan Committee in response to this report.
Implementation
Issues
32. The Panel and
the IHP support team will continue to work accordingly to the hearing schedule.
The delivery of the hearings and the support to the Panel is being delivered
within existing allocated budgets.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Phill Reid - Hearings Panel Planning Manager
|
|
Authoriser
|
Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places
|
