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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

2.00pm

Level 26
135 Albert Street
Auckland

 

Unitary Plan Committee

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

Deputy Chairperson

Deputy Mayor, Penny Hulse

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

 

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

 

 

Cr Chris Darby

 

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Member Liane Ngamane

 

 

Member Josie Smith

 

 

Cr Wayne Walker

 

 

Cr Penny Webster

 

(Ex-officio)

Mayor Len Brown, JP

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Katherine Sowry

Democracy Advisor

 

18 February 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8133

Email: katherine.sowry@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Unitary Plan Committee

24 February 2015

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

  

10        Update for Unitary Plan Committee on Judicial Conference - 27 January 2015 - 16 February 2015                                                                                                                 5   

 

    


Unitary Plan Committee

24 February 2015

 

 

Update for Unitary Plan Committee on Judicial Conference - 27 January 2015 - 16 February 2015

 

File No.: CP2015/01938

 

Purpose

1.       To update the Unitary Plan Committee on the outcome of the Judicial Conference of the Independent Hearings Panel on 27 January 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       On 9 February 2015, the Independent Hearings Panel issued a Conference Minute (dated 9 February 2015) together with a copy of the independent legal advice the Panel had received from Dr R J Somerville QC, dated 5 February 2015 (Attachments A and B).

3.       The Panel advises in its Minute that it will issue interim guidance (rather than formal recommendations) on the principal issues arising from the submissions on the proposed Regional Policy Statement (RPS) section of the PAUP, once the Panel has completed the RPS hearings, deliberated and drafted their interim guidance.  The Minute states that this interim guidance is likely to be issued in mid-March 2015. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Unitary Plan Committee:

a)      receive the report.

Discussion

Form of the Interim Guidance:

 

4.       The Minute states that the form of the interim guidance will depend on the subject matter, but will likely include a combination of the following:

a)   Panel’s interim view: In most case the interim guidance will be an indication of the Panel’s interim view about a particular matter or policy approach, without being so detailed as to include a marked-up text of the relevant provisions, e.g. whether the Panel considers that the proposed Rural Urban Boundary is appropriate or not;

b)   Questions: The guidance may be in the form of questions, the answers to which the Panel believes will assist them in narrowing the relevant issues and clarifying any competing submissions on them;

c)   Marked-up text: In some cases the Panel’s interim view could include marked-up text, especially where the policy issue is focused on a particular word or form of words, such as an important definition or matter of interpretation, or where it would be desirable for guidance to show by example how the word or phrase ought to be used or, if omitted, what alternative wording might be more appropriate.

 

Interim nature of guidance and prohibition on comments:

5.       As set out on pages 3-4 of the Minute, the interim guidance:

a)      is interim in the sense that it will not amount to a recommendation in terms of section 144 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and therefore would not require any decision from the Council in terms of section 148 of the LGATPA;

b)      will be interim in the sense that the Panel will not be bound by it when the Panel comes to make its formal recommendations to the Council (in July 2016).  The Panel will retain within their recommendatory power the right to make their recommendations based on all of the evidence and submissions heard by the time the Panel makes their formal recommendations;

c)      will not be open to correspondence – the Panel does not want to turn this into a debate outside their usual hearing process;

d)      could certainly be referred to or discussed by submitters or witnesses in the course of presenting submissions or evidence on a relevant regional or district plan topic, either as a ground on which to focus those submissions or that evidence (whether in support of or in opposition to the interim guidance) or to show whether and how the relevant plan provisions gave effect (or not) to the interim guidance.  It could be used in mediation in the same way.

6.       When Council officers are seeking recommendations from the Unitary Plan Committee (or the Auckland Development Committee) for a Council position to attend mediation and/or hearings the position paper will clearly state:

a)      whether any proposed amendments to the regional or district plan provisions are in support of (or in opposition to) the interim guidance on the RPS;

b)      whether any proposed amendments to the regional or district plan provisions will give effect to the interim guidance on the RPS (and if not, the reasons why).

Comments

7.       The Panel states in its Minute that it expects any interim guidance will include: (a) a statement of the relevant issue(s); (b) interim guidance on those issues, with summary reasons for that guidance; and (c) any questions that may arise from the issues, with summary reasons for those questions.

8.       The reasons that the Panel gave for deciding not to issue interim formal recommendations on the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) section of the PAUP are:

·           interim recommendations would prevent the Panel from revisiting matters in the RPS;

·        the time required to prepare interim recommendations;

·        the Council’s preference not to receive recommendations in tranches;

·        the majority of the parties at the conference sought guidance (rather than formal recommendations).

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

9.       The views of local boards are able to be represented by the invitation extended to all local board chairs to attend the Unitary Plan Committee.

Maori Impact Statement

10.     The recommendations made in this report are not considered to have any material impact on Maori.

Implementation Issues

11.     The recommendations made in this report can be implemented with the existing Unitary Plan budget.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

24 February 2014, Unitary Plan Committee, Update for Unitary Plan Committee on Judicial Conference Minute dated February 9 2015.

9

bView

24 February 2014, Unitary Plan Committee, Update for Unitary Plan Committee on Judicial Conference Dr R.J. Somerville QC independent legal advice dated February 5 2015.

17

      

 

Signatories

Authors

Corina Faesenkoet- Senior Solicitor Litigation & Regulatory

James Hassall – Manager Litigation and Regulatory

Authoriser

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

 


Unitary Plan Committee

24 February 2015

 

 








Unitary Plan Committee

24 February 2015