I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 3
March 2015
1.30pm
Level 26
135 Albert Street
Auckland
|
|
Hearings Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr Penny Webster
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
|
|
|
|
Cr Chris Darby
|
|
|
|
Cr Calum Penrose
|
|
|
|
Mr David Taipari
|
|
|
|
Cr Wayne Walker
|
|
|
|
Mr Glenn Wilcox
|
|
|
Ex-officio
|
Mayor Len Brown, JP
|
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
|
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
|
Louis Dalzell
Democracy Advisor
24 February 2015
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8135
Email: louis.dalzell@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
03 March 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 Objection against a noise abatement notice 9
8 Waterview Shared Path NoR and Resource Consents -
Appointment of Commissioners 75
9 Appointment of Commissioners - Private Plan Changes 372 and
373 to the Auckland Council District Plan - Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 81
10 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for
resource consent for partial demolition, 9 London Street, St Marys Bay 151
11 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 27
February 2015 171
12 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
13 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 181
C1 Appeals to a decision by Auckland Council relating to Auckland
Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 Plan Change
339 - Volcanic Viewshafts 181
C2 New Resource Consent Appeal: Craddock Farms Limited v Auckland
Council - 254 Patumahoe Road, Patumahoe 181
At the close of the agenda apologies from Mayor Len Brown and Deputy
Mayor Penny Hulse 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, 11 February 2015, 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
03 March 2015
|
|
Objection
against a noise abatement notice
File No.: CP2015/01743
Purpose
1. To assist the
committee to determine the objection by Ms Michelle Campbell of Pukekohe,
Auckland, to the noise abatement notice issued to her for her dogs Zena and
Buster on 12 October 2014.
Executive
Summary
2. Between 16
December 2013 and 12 October 2014, council received multiple complaints
alleging that barking dogs were causing a nuisance in the vicinity of Churchill
Street, Pukekohe, Auckland. Subsequent incidences have been recorded by
council staff and confirmed to be sufficient to cause nuisance.
3. Council staff
have worked with the owner of the dogs and complainants to try to resolve the
situation, including advising the owner of the dogs on methods to minimise the
barking.
4. Council’s
actions have been in accordance with a graduated enforcement approach with
emphasis on education and advice. Legal remedies have been employed as a last
resort after other options were exhausted.
5. Steps taken by
the owner of the dogs to address the ongoing nuisance have been unsuccessful.
The dog owner has not, by her own admission, used all possible remedies
available.
6. A noise
abatement notice was issued on 12 October 2014. Council continues to receive
complaints about barking from the dogs belonging to Ms Campbell.
7. An objection to
the noise abatement notice was subsequently received by council on 17 October.
8. Upon the
determination of the objection by the committee, council shall give the
objector a further notice stating the decision of the authority. If the effect
of the decision is to modify the requirements of the dog control officer, that
notice shall set out those requirements to be modified.
9. Should the
committee resolve to uphold the noise abatement notice, Ms Campbell will have
seven days to address the nuisance noise and any other condition associated
with the abatement notice. Failure to comply after this period would constitute
an offence under the Dog Control Act. Council may at that point choose to take
subsequent action including the impounding of her dogs Zena and Buster, and/or
the issuing of infringement notice.
|
Recommendation
That the Hearings Committee:
a) confirm
and uphold the council officers’ decision to issue the noise abatement
notice.
|
Comments
Background
10. Section 55 of
the Dog Control Act 1996 (The Act) provides ground from which council may
respond to complaints of nuisance being created by the persistent and loud
barking or howling of any dog.
11. If, during the
course of responding to a complaint, a dog control officer has reasonable
grounds for believing that a nuisance is being caused, they may:
(a) enter the land
or premises at any reasonable time, other than a dwelling house, on which the
dog(s) is kept, to inspect the conditions under which the dog is kept; and
(b) give the owner
of the dog(s) a written notice requiring that person to make such reasonable
provision on the property to abate the nuisance as specified in the notice or,
if considered necessary, remove the dog from the land or premises.
12. The recipient of
a noise abatement notice may lodge an objection in writing to the issuing
authority. The committee as the delegated authority to consider any objection
raised and to confirm, modify, or cancel the noise abatement notice.
13. The practice of
Auckland Council when responding to complaints about barking is to:
(a) speak to
complainant(s), neighbours and the dog owner to determine whether barking is
creating a nuisance,
(b) monitor noise
from the property in question to determine whether barking is at nuisance
levels,
(c) work with the
dog owner and offer education and advice on how to minimise barking,
(d) work with
complainant(s) to help them understand the difference between reasonable levels
of barking and nuisance levels of barking
(e) use, as a last resort, the legal powers contained
within The Act to remediate nuisance barking[1].
Circumstances
14. A complaint
about nuisance barking was first received by council on 16 December 2013. The
source of the barking was alleged to be from dogs belonging to Michelle
Campbell, Pukekohe.
15. Ms Campbell was
contacted to alert her to the complaint and arrange time to visit the property.
16. Advice was
provided on how to minimise barking, including restricting the dogs to inside
the dwelling at night as this was when the dogs were reported to be barking. In
addition, staff encouraged the affixing of mesh onto both gates of the property
to ensure both dogs remained confined.
17. Further
complaints were received during May and June 2014. One complainant alleged that
the dogs barking were causing a loss of sleep and that they had had to take
sick leave from work due to fatigue. In July, staff were advised by the
complainant that they had been admitted to hospital due to fatigue.
18. Ms Campbell was
further contacted during May and advised what permissible behaviour was.
Advice was also provided on the safe and effective use of bark collars.
19. A letter was
provided to Ms Campbell confirming conversations to date, reiterating steps
recommended to address the nuisance being caused by the dogs barking. The
possibility of a noise abatement notice was also formally raised.
20. On 23 June 2014
a bark monitor form was issued to the initial complainant. This provided a
systematic means for the recording of the incidence, time, length and nature of
barking.
21. In July 2014, as
a result of further complaints, council conducted a survey of neighbours to
assess their experience of the barking. Bark monitor forms were subsequently
issued to three additional parties.
22. During a visit
to the property council staff observed that a screen had been erected to the
front gates of her property to minimise what the dogs could see beyond the
property.
23. Ms Campbell
assisted in August by completing an incident report in relation to the
complaints about her dogs barking. Council was advised that prior to moving to
her current residence the dogs were kept inside. The dogs were subsequently
kept outside so as to have more exercise. On occasions the dogs had left the
property unrestrained but that this had ceased since new latches on the gates
were installed and screens erected on both front and back fences.
24. On 12 October
2014, Ms Campbell was served a noise abatement notice pursuant to section 55 of
the Dog Control Act 1996 following advice received from Council’s legal
services team. An objection was subsequently lodged on 17 October.
25. In defence, Ms
Campbell contends that there are other dogs that bark in the neighbourhood and
she feels she is being unfairly singled out by one neighbour she alleges to
have a vendetta since she moved to the property in October 2013. Ms Campbell
stated she has tried to reason with the complainant without success.
26. Ms Campbell has
considered using bark collars but does not feel it is warranted as she contends
the dogs only bark a short period of time to warn when people are around the
property.
27. Council has
continued to receive complaints about barking through November and December
2014, and January 2015.
28. Supporting
information is contained in Attachments A to I.
Conclusion
29. Council officers
have responded to complaints about barking from dogs from Ms Campbell’s
Pukekohe property over a period of 13 months. Officers have encouraged, advised
and supported the dog owner and neighbours in an attempt to abate and minimise
the nuisance through voluntary action.
30. Ms Campbell has
taken steps to remedy the nuisance, however these have not been successful and
complaints about barking have continued.
31. Other,
potentially more effective interventions that have been recommended such as
bark collars, have not been used.
Consideration
Local
Board Views and Implications
32. Local board view
has not been sought.
Maori
Impact Statement
33. The content of
this report has no adverse effect on Maori.
Implementation
Issues
34. There are no
implementation issues at this stage.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Chronological order of events
|
13
|
|
bView
|
Letter from council to Ms Campbell re barking dogs
|
33
|
|
cView
|
Bark monitor forms
|
35
|
|
dView
|
Letter from complainant 1
|
57
|
|
eView
|
Incident response from Ms Campbell
|
59
|
|
fView
|
Memo from legal services
|
65
|
|
gView
|
Letter from council to Ms Campbell re abatement notice
|
67
|
|
hView
|
Email from Ms Campbell to council re objection
|
69
|
|
iView
|
Email from complainant 1
|
71
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Jenny Williams, Team Leader Animal
Management South
|
|
Authorisers
|
Tracey Moore - Manager Animal Management, Licensing
and Compliance Services
Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and
Compliance Services
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
Waterview Shared Path NoR and Resource Consents -
Appointment of Commissioners
File No.: CP2015/01335
Purpose
1. To request
the appointment of commissioners to hear submissions and make a recommendation
on notice of requirement 374 by Auckland Transport for a shared walking and
cycling path and to make a decision on the associated application for resource
consents.
Executive
Summary
2. Auckland Transport (the applicant) submitted notice of
requirement 374 and resource consent applications LUC/2014/4855,
R/REG/2014/4810 and R/REG/2014/4811 to enable the
Waterview Shared Path over a length of approximately 2.4 kilometres connecting
Alan Wood Reserve to Great North Road (near Alford Street) in Waterview.
3. A map showing
the land affected by the notice of requirement and application for resource
consents is shown as Attachment A.
4. The notice of requirement is for the construction, operation and
maintenance of a shared walking and cycling concrete path. The proposal
includes two bridges, with one over the North Auckland Line (rail corridor) connecting
the path into Soljak Place, and one crossing Oakley Creek (near Alford Street).
The route is to be designated as the Waterview Shared (pedestrian and cycling)
Path.
5. The application for resource consents include land use consent
(R/REG/2014/4810) for earthworks, vegetation removal within a Significant
Ecological Area (Oakley Creek), infrastructure within a floodplain, and new
impervious areas pursuant to Section 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA). Land use consent (LUC/2014/4855) is required for a new structure
(bridge) over a stream within a Significant Ecological Area (Oakley Creek)
pursuant to Section 13 of the RMA. A Discharge Permit (R/REG/2014/4811) is
required for discharges from contaminated land pursuant to Section 15 of the RMA.
6. To provide a
range of expertise, it is requested that a panel of three independent
commissioners be assigned to hear submissions and make a recommendation on the
notice of requirement and a decision on the application for resource consents.
|
Recommendations
That the Hearings
Committee:
a) appoint a
panel of three independent commissioners (including one as chair), to hear
submissions and make a recommendation on notice of requirement 374 for the
Waterview Shared Path.
b) appoint the
same panel of independent commissioners in recommendation (a) above to hear
submissions and make a decision on the application for resource consents LUC/2014/4855 R/REG/2014/4810 and R/REG/2014/4811.
c) delegate
authority to the Chair of the Hearings Committee to make replacement
appointments in the event that any of the appointed commissioners
are unavailable.
|
Discussion
7. The notice of
requirement and resource consent applications were jointly lodged on 17
November 2014. Following a review by council staff, comments and feedback
about various technical matters contained within the application documentation
was sent to the applicant on 28 November 2014.
8. The applicant
responded to this feedback with some updated and amended information which was
inserted into the application documentation. In accordance with 95A(2)(d) of
the Act the applicant requested the application be publicly notified as a joint
application.
9. The proposal
was publicly notified on 15 December 2014. Submissions closed on 5 February
2015.
10. The council
received 41 submissions to the notice of requirement and 39 to the resource
consent applications. A hearing over two consecutive days will likely take
place in April 2015.
11. The path will
fulfil the requirement of condition SO.14 of the Waterview Connection Board of
Inquiry decision to mitigate adverse effects on passive open space and reserves
during construction and longer term on nearby communities.
Notice
of Requirement 374
12. Auckland
Transport seeks to secure the area required to construct, operate and maintain
the Waterview Shared Path (shared path). The shared path project is a shared
walking and cycling path between Great North Road and Alan Wood Reserve and
includes a bridge over Oakley Creek at Waterview Glade and a bridge over the
North Auckland Line (Rail) in the vicinity of Soljak Place.
13. The
land required will be used for the construction, operation and maintenance of
shared path. The works will include the following:
· Construction
of two bridges: A 3.5 metre wide bridge over Oakley Creek in the vicinity of
Alford Street (the Alford Street Bridge); and a 3 metre wide bridge over the
North Auckland Line (Rail) at Soljak Place (the Soljak Place Bridge)
· Construction
of a shared path to connect Great North Road to Alan Wood Reserve for
pedestrians and cyclists. The path is approximately 3.5 metres clear span from
Great North Road to (but not including) Soljak Place Bridge, and approximately
3.0 metres clear span from Soljak Place Bridge to Alan Wood Reserve.
· Construction
of a board walk structure for the shared path where the route passes behind
properties 4, 6, 6A, 8 and 10 Phyllis Street.
· Signalisation
of the intersection at the junction of New North Road / Soljak Place / Bollard
Ave to allow for a formal crossing for pedestrians and cyclists.
· Removal
of (non-scheduled) trees and works within the drip line of trees.
· Provision
of ancillary activities and structures typically associated with the operation
of a shared path including but not limited to signage, bridges and connecting
links to local roads; and
· Operation and maintenance of the shared
path and structures.
Resource
Consents - LUC/2014/4855,
R/REG/2014/4810 and R/REG/2014/4811
14. Auckland
Transport have also sought resource consents under the Auckland Regional Plan:
Sediment Control; Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water; Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan; and National Environmental Standard for Assessing and
Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health.
15. Land
use consent (R/REG/2014/4810) is required for bulk earthworks greater than
0.25ha within a Sediment Control Protection Area, general earthworks greater
then 2,500m2 and 2,500m3, general earthworks in 100 year
ARI floodplain greater than 500m2 and 500m3, vegetation
removal within a Significant Ecological Area (Oakley Creek), infrastructure
within the 1% AEP floodplain (Alford Street Bridge piers), and new impervious
areas pursuant to Section 9 of the RMA. Land use consent (LUC/2014/4855) is
required for a new structure (bridge) over a stream within a Significant
Ecological Area (Alford Street bridge over Oakley Creek) pursuant to Section 13
of the RMA. A Discharge Permit (R/REG/2014/4811) is required for discharges
from contaminated land pursuant to Section 15 of the RMA.
Joint Hearing and Decision Making Process
16. Due to the
relationship of the notice of requirement and to promote integrated resource
management, it is recommended that the same commissioners be appointed to
consider both matters at a joint hearing.
17. Section 103 of
the RMA enables joint hearings to be conducted where the applications concern
the same proposal. This will allow for effective integration of the two
processes and enable consistent decision making.
18. The Hearings
Committee Policy at Section 4.2 refers to “Allocation of decision making
responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff.”
Policy 4.2.2 supports the involvement of elected members in significant or
contentious applications. In this instance, there may be a perceived conflict
of interest for elected members as a result of the applicant being an Auckland
Council Controlled Organisation. Therefore, it is recommended that independent
commissioners be appointed to make these decisions.
19. Independent
commissioners with expertise in planning (including notices of requirement and
resource consent processes), landscape design, transport and an understanding
of technical detail on acoustic matters, heritage and amenity effects is
considered important.
Consideration
Local
Board Views and Implications
20. The applicant
initially presented their proposal to the Albert Eden Local Board in May 2013.
Regular updates to the Local Board have occurred throughout the design and
consultation period.
21. In addition,
the applicant attended a workshop to present the notified proposal to the Local
Board on 3 February 2015.
22. It is expected
that the Local Board will provide comments and feedback on the notice of
requirement and resource consent applications which will be annexed to the Hearing
report.
Maori
Impact Statement
23. The notice of
requirement and application for resource consents are being processed according
to the requirements under the Resource Management Act 1991.
24. The applicant
has made contact with 12 iwi group and hui have been held or arranged with the
following:
· Te Akitai Waiohua
· Te Kawerau a Maki
· Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki
· Ngati Whatua o Orakei
· Ngati Maru Runanga
25. In addition,
as part of the joint notification process, all of iwi groups with a known interest
in the area were notified, and had the ability to make a submission and be
involved in the hearing process.
26. A submission
has been received from Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited on the notice of
requirement, and while they support the principle of a shared path through
their landholdings, they oppose a designation and are of the view that the path
can be provided for a legal easement. However, if the designation is to be
confirmed Whai Rawa have sought additional conditions to ensure that adjacent
infrastructure is designed to complement the future use of its land for mixed
use development.
Implementation
Issues
27. Following the
decision to appoint commissioners a hearing date will be set. The cost of
commissioners will be covered by the applicant.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Waterview Shared Path Alignment
|
79
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Stephen Van Kampen - Principal Planner
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
Appointment of Commissioners - Private Plan Changes
372 and 373 to the Auckland Council District Plan - Auckland City Isthmus
Section 1999
File No.: CP2015/01632
Purpose
1. To request
the appointment of commissioners to hear submissions and make a decision on
private plan changes 372 and 373 to the operative Auckland Council District
Plan - Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999.
Executive
Summary
2. Fletcher
Residential Limited (the applicant) has lodged private plan changes 372 and 373
for 985 Mt Eden Road.
3. Plan change 372 requests to:
· Amend the relevant planning maps to:
o Rezone land at 985 Mt Eden Road (the
quarry site) from Business 7 to a mix of Residential 8b, Open Space 2 and Open
Space 3
o Rezone land at 23-25 Fyvie Ave from
Business 7 to a mix of Residential 8b and Open Space 2
o Rezone land at 1011 Mt Eden Road
from Business 7 and Open Space 3 and 4 to a mix of Business 2, Residential 8b
and Open Space 2
· Include a Concept Plan and associated
provisions in Appendix B to the planning maps
· Amend the text of Part 7 – Residential
4. Plan change 373 requests to:
· Amend the relevant planning maps to
rezone land at 985 Mt Eden Road (the quarry site) from Business 7 to a mix of
Residential 8b, Open Space 2
· Include a Concept Plan and associated
provisions in Appendix B to the planning maps
· Amend the text of Part 7 – Residential
5. Plan change request PA372 includes land currently owned by Auckland
Council and the Crown which is managed by Auckland Council. The council in its regulatory capacity is required to consider a private plan change even if the applicant is not the owner of the land
and this matter is not a determinant on the plan change
being accepted for processing by council. Any potential land exchange between the applicant and the council (and the Crown)
is a separate process to be considered under the Reserves Act 1977.
6. Whilst the
applications are separate and represent two different options that the
applicant may choose to pursue, the issues and expertise required are similar.
Matters relevant to both plan changes include planning (including private plan
change and rule development), urban design, mana whenua issues, transport, and
an understanding of technical detail on acoustic matters, geotechnical
engineering, land contamination and stormwater management and amenity effects
is considered important.
7. It is
requested that a panel of four independent commissioners be approved to hear
submissions and make a decision on the private plan changes (either one or the
other, or both should the applicant proceed) that will likely take place in
mid-2015.
8. Due to the
relationship of the private plan changes, it is recommended that if the
applicant proceeds with both plan change requests to a hearing that the same
commissioners be appointed to consider both hearings.
|
Recommendations
That the Hearings
Committee:
a) appoint a
panel of four independent commissioners (including one as chair), to hear
submissions and make a decision on private plan changes 372 and 373 to the
operative Auckland Council District Plan - Auckland City Isthmus Section
1999.
b) delegate
authority to the Chair of the Hearings Committee to make replacement
appointments in the event that any of the appointed commissioners
are unavailable.
|
Discussion
9. The applicant
initially lodged the private plan change requests on 3 September 2014.
Following a review by Council staff, the Auckland Development Committee
resolved to accept for notification both the private plan change requests at
their meeting on 11 September 2014, under clause 25 of the First Schedule of
the Resource Management Act 1991.
10. Both plan
changes were notified from 13 October 2014 until 14 November 2014.
11. The council
notified for further submissions on 2 December 2014 until 12 December 2014.
Private
Plan Change 372
12. There were 187
submissions received on plan change request 372.
13. Key issues
raised through the submissions are: open space utilisation, urban design,
density, transport and pedestrian connectivity, landscape protection,
development of the town centre and infrastructural constraints.
14. There was a
total of 12 further submissions received on both this plan change and 373.
15. The Council
maintains and operates the Three Kings Reserve which is included in this plan
change to be rezoned as Residential 8b zone. A separate land exchange process
for this proposal has been instigated by the applicant and is being managed by
Auckland Council Property Limited.
Private Plan Change 373
16. There were 82
submissions received on plan change request 373.
17. Key issues
raised through the submissions are: urban design, density, transport and
pedestrian connectivity, landscape protection and infrastructural constraints.
18. There was a
total of 12 further submissions received on both this plan change and 372.
19. An error in
the Summary of Decisions Requested (SDR) required the submission summary to be
amended and notification of the submission left off the SDR (no. 165) was
notified on 12 January until 23 January 2015.
Decision
Making Process
20. The Hearings
Committee’s adopted policy at Section 4.2 refers to “Allocation of decision
making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and
staff.” Policy 4.2.2 supports the involvement of elected members in significant
or contentious applications. In this instance, there may be a perceived
conflict of interest for elected members as a result of the proposed related
but independent land exchange proposal and the Council’s interests in these
pieces of land. Therefore, it is recommended that independent commissioners be
appointed to make these decisions.
21. Independent
commissioners with expertise in RMA law, Treaty of Waitangi, planning and urban
design should form the make-up of the panel.
Consideration
Local
Board Views and Implications
22. The applicant
has presented their proposal to the Puketapapa Local Board on a number of
separate occasions, including briefings prior to the notification of the
private plan changes, and once after the private plan change was notified.
23. The applicant
has also been involved in other public consultation and engagement events that
occurred for the Three Kings (Precinct) Plan which the Local Board held
throughout 2013 and 2014.
Maori
Impact Statement
24. The private
plan changes are being processed according to the requirements under the
Resource Management Act 1991.
25. As part of the
applicant’s consultation process, all iwi groups within the area below were
invited to take part in hui regarding the proposal. Four iwi groups have since
become involved in consultation with providing feedback: Ngati te Ata, Te
Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Whatua.
26. In addition to
the consultation undertaken by the applicant, the following iwi were notified
of the plan changes and had the ability to make a submission:
· Ngati Maru Runanga
· Ngati Paoa Trust
· Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust
· Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust
Board
· Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board
· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust
· Tupuna Taonga o Tamaki Makaurau Trust
Limited
· Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)
· Ngati Whatua Runanga O Te Taou
27. The following
iwi chose to make submissions on one or both of the plan changes:
· Te Kawerau A Maki Trust
· Ngāti Tamaoho
· Ngāti Te Ata
28. These
submissions either supported or supported with amendments the proposed plan
changes.
Implementation
Issues
29. Following the
decision to appoint commissioners a hearing date will be set. The timing of
this will be determined by other factors including process related matters of
the land swap proposal and Reserves Act matters.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Proposed Plan Change 372
|
85
|
|
bView
|
Proposed Plan Change 373
|
119
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Stephen Van Kampen - Principal Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application
for resource consent for partial demolition, 9 London Street, St Marys Bay
File No.: CP2015/02162
Purpose
1. To appoint independent
commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to
demolish more than 30% of a pre-1940 building at 9 London Street, St Marys Bay.
Executive
Summary
2. The council has received an
application (R/LUC/2014/1070/1) for resource consent for the partial demolition
(approximately 36%) of a pre-1940 building at 9 London Street St Marys Bay (the
site).
3. This application has been
submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as
decision makers pursuant to sections 95 and 104 of the Resource Management Act
1991 (“RMA”) as demolition applications in the Residential 1 zone of the
Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)
have often been contentious and the site lies in a prominent position on the St
Marys Bay cliff line above State Highway One.
|
Recommendations
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint the rostered
independent duty commissioner, and appoint John Hill (or Richard Knott as an
alternative) as heritage commissioner to sit with the duty commissioner, to
make a notification decision on the application for resource consent to
demolish a pre-1944 building in the Residential 1 zone at 9 London Street, St
Marys Bay, pursuant to section 95 of the Resource Management
Act 1991 (“the RMA”)
b) approve that
in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application
proceeds on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing, the same commissioners as in (a) above be
appointed to make a substantive decision on the application pursuant to
section 104 of the RMA
c) approve that
in the event the decision reached in (a) above is that the application
proceeds on a notified basis and a hearing is required, the same
commissioners as in (a) above and a local board representative from an
adjacent local board area be appointed to hear submissions and make a substantive decision on the application,
pursuant to section 104 of the RMA
d) delegate
authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to appoint a local
board representative if a hearing is required and make replacement
appointments should any of the independent commissioners in (a) – (c) above
be unavailable.
|
Discussion
The Application
4. This
application is for the partial demolition of the existing pre-1940 building on
site. The applicant intends to carry out partial demolition works to allow for
additions and alterations, as well as maintenance and repair to the existing
dwelling and will reinstate the building in a similar appearance to existing,
with new additions.
5. The site is
zoned Residential 1 in the Operative District Plan and zoned Residential Single
House in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Under the PAUP the site is
also within a Special Character (Residential Isthmus A) overlay.
6. As part of the
application, the applicant has provided an Assessment of Environmental Effects
(“AEE”) that includes a detailed description of the proposal and relevant
assessment of Operative District Plan rules. Plans from the AEE are provided as
Attachment A.
7. A notification assessment has
been prepared for the application that includes consideration of the special
circumstances guidelines prepared to assist staff when processing applications
for resource consent for the demolition of pre-1940s dwellings in Residential 1
and 2 zones. These are attached as Attachment B.
8. At the time of writing, the Council Heritage Specialist’s comments have also been prepared and
are provided as Attachment C.
Consideration
General
9. 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.
10. Based on previous interest from
the community on demolition applications within the Residential 1 zone, staff
are of the opinion that this application may be considered contentious.
Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is suggested
that the Hearings Committee appoint independent commissioners as
decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the commissioners
appointed have planning and heritage expertise.
Local
Board Views and Implications
11. The Waitemata Local Board was
provided with the opportunity to express its views on the application. Comments
were sought by the reporting planner on Monday 16 February
2015 and are due by 20 February 2015. At the time of writing this report no
comments from the local board had been received.
Maori
Impact Statement
12. There is
no record of the site having particular significance to iwi nor has any matter
of interest been raised in the application AEE or supporting documentation.
While the proposal involves “considerable earthworks” (as stated in the
application AEE), these will be located within the footprint of existing
development on site.
Implementation
Issues
13. There are no financial or legal
implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing
commissioners. The costs of the hearing commissioners will be met by the
applicant.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Application plans and site photos
|
155
|
|
bView
|
Special Circumstances Criteria
|
163
|
|
cView
|
Council Heritage Specialist's Comments
|
165
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and
Resolutions
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - Manager Projects,
Practice & Resolutions
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 27
February 2015
File No.: CP2015/01891
Purpose
1. To receive an update on the
current status of outstanding appeals region wide.
Executive
Summary
2. This report
provides a summary of current district and regional plan appeals (refer
Attachment A). Should Councillors have detailed questions concerning specific
appeals, it would be helpful if they could be raised with Warren Maclennan –
(Mobile 021 646590), or email warren.maclennan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz,
prior to the meeting.
|
Recommendation
That the Hearings Committee:
a) receive the
District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report.
|
Discussion
3. The summary
table is attached as Attachment A.
Consideration
Local
Board Views and Implications
4. Local Board
views have not been sought.
Maori
Impact Statement
5. The decision
requested of the Hearings Committee is to receive this progress report on
appeals rather than to decide each appeal.
6. All of these
appeals relate to Plan Changes or Notices of Requirement which are being
processed according to the Resource Management Act. As each appeal is
negotiated or settled, a report is prepared for the Committee’s consideration
which includes a Maori Impact Statement covering matters related to each
specific matter.
General
7. There are no
further matters requiring consideration.
Implementation
Issues
8. There are no implementation
issues.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Regionwide Appeals Status Report at 27 February 2015
|
173
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Warren Maclennan - Manager Planning - North/West
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 2015
|
|
|
Hearings
Committee
03 March 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 Appeals to a decision by Auckland Council relating to Auckland
Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 Plan Change
339 - Volcanic Viewshafts
|
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).
The report contains matters that are subject to without
prejudice negotiations before the Environment Court.
|
s48(1)(a)
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
C2 New Resource Consent Appeal: Craddock Farms Limited v Auckland
Council - 254 Patumahoe Road, Patumahoe
|
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.
|
