Agenda of Hearings Committee

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

2.00pm

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

26 May 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.

Independent Māori Statutory Board (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.

Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs)

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

Hearings Committee

02 June 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 Opposition to Council’s refusal to grant a multiple dog licence 9

8 Determination by the Hearings Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection at 37A Hayr Road to service 31 Hayr Road Three Kings 31

9 Designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications and section 357 objections 69

10 Recruitment of further independent commissioners 77

11 Performance Development Framework for independent commissioners 85

12 Processes for determination of demolition resource consent applications within the Residential 1 Zone of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section 97

13 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Establish a public artwork on the northern end of Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland 1021 105

14 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consents by the Harbour Access Trust – Proposed Community Marine Activity Hub, at 22 The Promenade, Takapuna Beach 113

15 Appointment of Commissioners: Application for Resource Consent - Proposed Retirement Village, 14 Rangitoto Avenue and 19 Ara Street, Remuera Auckland 123

16 Appointment of Commissioners: Application for resource consent for proposed dwelling, 92 Coromandel Road, Waiheke Island 135

17 Appointment of Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed 24 hour fast food restaurant, 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula 149

18 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

19 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 169

C1 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 2 June 2015 169

C2 Noting the urgent decision of 21 May 2015: Resource Consent Appeal: Kimberley Trust v Auckland Council 169

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda apologies have been received from Mayor Len Brown, Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse and Member Glenn Wilcox.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hearings Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 5 May 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

02 June 2015

Opposition to Council’s refusal to grant a multiple dog licence

File No.: CP2015/09527

Purpose

1. To assist the Committee to determine an objection from Ms Michelle Campbell of Pukekohe, Auckland, against the council’s decision refusing to grant her a multiple dog licence for her two dogs Buster and Zena. The decision to refuse the multiple dog licence was based on objection by three neighbours whose properties immediately adjoin Ms Campbell’s property.

Executive Summary

2. The number of dogs allowed on a property is limited by Auckland Council’s Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the Bylaw). In the Franklin local board area, a licence is required by any dog owner wishing to own more than one dog.

3. A licence is granted subject to conditions, one of which is that the dog owner must gain the consent of neighbours in all properties adjoining their address. Four of the five properties that adjoined Ms Campbell’s have not formally provided their consent as is required. Enquires by council staff have determined that three adjoining property owners refuse to provide consent.

4. On 1 April 2015 council refused to grant Ms Campbell a multiple dog licence. An objection was subsequently received by council on 16 April 2015.

5. The Committee is requested to note that Ms Campbell recently objected to a barking abatement notice issued by council, on the grounds that she believed the barking complaints from one neighbour were vexatious. The committee is further requested to note that two of the objections to the licence are from neighbours who had not previously complained about barking, but who have now made statements opposing the licence on the grounds of nuisance barking by Ms Campbell’s dogs.

6. Council continues to receive complaints about barking from Ms Campbell’s dogs and investigation into the issue is ongoing.

7. Upon the determination of the objection by the Committee, the council shall give Ms Campbell notice stating the decision of the authority. If the effect of the decision is to modify the requirements of the multiple dog licence, the notice shall set out those requirements to be modified.

8. Should the committee resolve to uphold the refusal to grant the multi-dog licence, Ms Campbell will have seven days to relocate one of her dogs. Failure to comply after this period would constitute an offence under the Bylaw and council may at that point choose to take subsequent action including issuing of an infringement notice or a prosecution for breaching the Bylaw.

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a) confirm and uphold the Council officer’s decision to refuse to grant Ms Campbell a multiple dog licence.

Comments

Background

9. Ms Campbell is the owner of two dogs. Buster an unneutered, male Mastiff cross aged 3 years and, Zena an unneutered, female Mastiff aged 2 years.

10. Clause 12 of the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the Bylaw) provides that no owner may keep any dog over 3 months of age on any premises in Schedule 3 where any other dog over 3 months of age is kept for more than 14 days (refer attachment A).

11. Ms Campbell, has lived at 31 Churchill Street, Pukekohe for approximately 18 months. Her property is within the Franklin Local Board area and therefore pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Bylaw she is required to have a licence to keep Buster and Zena on her property (refer attachment B).

12. On 18 February 2015, Ms Campbell applied for a multi-dog licence (refer attachment C).

13. The application form requires that the consent of all neighbours with sections adjoining the applicants must be obtained. Ms Campbell’s application recorded the consent of three neighbours. These neighbours were from 27, 33 and 2/29 Churchill Street (refer attachment D).

14. Council officers returned the application to Ms Campbell and asked her to get further consent from neighbours whose properties adjoin hers.

15. On 24 February 2015, Ms Campbell submitted a further application and this application records consent from the neighbour at 37B Helvetia Road (refer attachment E).

Assessment of the application

16. Officers noted that of the five neighbours whose properties immediately adjoin Ms Campbell’s property three of those neighbours, consented to the application. Three people from two properties have objected.

17. Council officers obtained statements from the occupants of 1/29 Churchill Street and 41B Helvetia Road. These neighbours strongly objected to the licence being granted (refer attachment F).

18. Officers noted the number of barking complaints received concerning Ms Campbell’s dogs. Since Ms Campbell has lived at the property there have been 19 complaints concerning barking.

19. Officers considered that there is a neighbour dispute between Ms Campbell and one of her neighbours, who has been the main complainant in relation to barking, and were prepared to consider granting the licence if consent was received from the four other neighbours. This was not the case.

20. Officers resolved to refuse to grant the application. This is recorded in the letter by the council to Ms Campbell on 1 April 2015 (refer attachment G).

Conclusion

21. Council officers carefully assessed Ms Campbell’s application for a multi-dog licence. They considered the views of neighbours whose properties immediately adjoin Ms Campbell’s property in particular those neighbours who have made statements that record persistent barking and interference with their right to peace and enjoyment of their land.

22. Officers determined the objecting neighbours’ views should be considered over and above those neighbours whose properties do not immediately adjoin Ms Campbell’s property. Moreover, it is noted that of the five immediately adjoining neighbours three recorded their consent.

23. After considering the views of the three objections from two neighbours, officers formed the view that Ms Campbell’s application for a multi-dog licence should be refused.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

24. Local board view has not been sought.

Māori impact statement

25. The content of this report has no adverse effect on Maori.

Implementation

26. There are no implementation issues at this stage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 clause 12 and 13	13
b View	Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 schedule 3	15
c View	Application for a multi-dog licence (18 February 2015)	17
d View	Aerial photographs and Map	19
e View	Application for a multi-dog licence (24 February 2015)	23
f View	Statements from neighbours	25
g View	Letter from Auckland Council to Ms Campbell (1 April 2015)	29

Signatories

Authors

Tracey Moore - Manager Animal Management, Licensing and Compliance Services

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Determination by the Hearings Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection at 37A Hayr Road to service 31 Hayr Road Three Kings

File No.: CP2015/08964

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to a stormwater line connection.

Executive Summary

2. This report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (“the Act”). The property at 31 Hayr Road, Three Kings, does not have a stormwater connection to council’s stormwater drains. To enable site development, the owners of 31 Hayr Road have endeavoured but failed to negotiate access to 37A Hayr Road to install a public stormwater connection. Consequently, the owners at 31 Hayr Road have requested council to exercise its powers under Section 460 of the Act to enable the works to be carried out.

3. The property owner of 37A Hayr Road, Madhav Karmarkar of Jayashree Limited, has advised in writing that he objects to the proposed connection. Section 460 of the Act provides a right to be heard by a committee of council. Delegation to undertake such a hearing lies with the Hearings Committee.

4. It is recommended that the Hearings Committee hear and determine the objection.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection by the owner of 37A Hayr Road, Three Kings pursuant to section 460 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1974.

b) endorse the proposed connection and its associated route through the neighbouring land at 37A Hayr Road, Three Kings to undertake drainage works generally as set out in the agenda report, pursuant to Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced on plan titled Proposed Stormwater Extension to Public Stormwater line (Eden Consultants Limited) Project no.14/028 dated 28 March 2014.

Comments

Background

5. The owners of 31 Hayr Road are proposing a 3-lot subdivision of their property. As part of the development, they are required to adequately discharge their stormwater and wastewater. To comply with council’s drainage requirements the owner seeks to install a public manhole on the existing public stormwater line within the site of 37A Hayr Road, and extend a new drainage line through the neighbouring properties of 33 and 35 Hayr Road to service 31 Hayr Road. A concept plan of the subdivision and proposed storm water line is contained as Attachment A. Aerial photos of the immediate surrounds with existing service overlay and contour overlay are provided at Attachment B.

6. On 2 August 2013, a formal application under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 was received by council from the owners at 31 Hayr Road. They have endeavoured but failed to negotiate access to 37A Hayr Road to install a 250mm public stormwater connection by way of directional drilling and open trench. The line will eventually be vested to council as public stormwater infrastructure. Consequently, the owners have requested ouncil exercise its powers under the Act to enable the works to be carried out.

7. In regards to the other neighbouring properties, the owners at 33 Hayr Road, 35A Hayr, 35B Hayr and 35C Hayr Road, through whose lands the proposed drain would also be laid, have given their written consent for the drainage works.

8. On 19 September 2013, the council’s development engineer sent a letter to Madhav Karmarkar of Jayashree Limited, listed as the property owner of 37A Hayr Road, Three Kings. A response from Mr. Karmarkar was received on 2 October 2013 seeking clarification on a number of issues related to the application process and effects to his property and tenants.

9. On 17 October 2013, the applicant’s surveyor Keith Knarston responded to the issues raised by Mr. Karmakar. Accordingly Mr. Karmaker, considers the response to his raised issues were not adequately address. Council’s engineers sought clarification from Mr Karmarkar as to these issues however resolution between the parties has not resulted. Copy of correspondence between the parties and council is contained in Attachment C.

10. In the mean-time, the applicants engineer undertook further investigation of an alternative option for stormwater disposal. That option, involving connection to an existing stormwater line in Hayr Road, was presented to Auckland Council as an Engineering Approval application and sent to Auckland Council’s Stormwater Department for asset owner input. Their response was to not support the application due to the deep nature of the manhole and the outcome of two stormwater lines running parallel beneath the road berm. Additionally, stormwater disposal from parts of the site’s paved areas would need to be pumped. The plan and correspondence on this alternative is provided as Attachment D.

11. Accepting that alternatives have been considered, on 4 February 2015, Council served ‘A Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land, under the Local Government Act 2002 Twelfth Schedule’ on Madhav Karmarkar of Jayashree Limited. Mr Karmarkar formally objected to the notice on 27 February 2015 that sets out his reason of objection. The Notice of Intent and Objection to the Notice are provided in Attachment E.

Discussion

12. The owner of 31 Hayr Road, Three Kings has met the requirements of the Act with regards to using the powers of Section 460. They have sought to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake drainage works and have investigated alternative solutions. The proposed connection would be laid within the driveway area.

13. The alternative route to lay a stormwater drain through the driveway at 31 Hayr Road and along Hayr Road to the manhole between the boundary of 39 and 41 Hayr Road would require at least a 4 metre deep manhole and result in a parallel stormwater system, that Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit would not support due to the deep nature of the manhole and the parallel stormwater situation that would eventuate from it.

14. Another alternative was to pump, however there are no provision for pumping in council’s current and future engineering standards.

15. Council considers that the proposed stormwater connection would adequately service the proposed subdivision development at 31 Hayr Road, Three Kings. The existing public stormwater line has been assessed as providing sufficient capacity to receive additional stormwater from a complying development in terms of building coverage.

16. The council’s stormwater engineer considers that the proposed stormwater line route and connection within the driveway at the entry of 37A Hayr Road is the best option for stormwater disposal. The owner of 31 Hayr Road will be required to design and build the works to an appropriate standard through an Engineering Works Approval process.

Consideration

17. Within the framework of the Hearings Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Hearings Committee has the responsibility for “Hearing and determining the 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”.

18. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objector can present their evidence in support of their positions. After hearing all the evidence and the relevant information, the Hearings Committee then has to make a decision. Any decision of the Hearings Committee may be appealed to the District Court. Copy of Section 460 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act are contained in Attachment F.

Local Board views and implications

19. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 37A Hayr Road.

Māori impact statement

20. Under Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be aligned.

Implementation

21. The costs of commissioners are met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Concept plan of proposed subdivision and stormwater line	35
b View	Aerial Photos with publc stormwater and contour overlays	37
c View	Correspondence between council and parties	39
d View	Alternative option plan and correspondence	53
e View	Notice of Intent and Objection	63
f View	Section 460 and Schedule 12 Local Government Act	67

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Designation of independent commissioners as duty commissioners to determine resource consent applications and section 357 objections

File No.: CP2015/09183

Purpose

1. To designate a number of Independent Commissioners as Duty Commissioners.

Executive Summary

2. The current designation of Duty Commissioners by the Committee expires on 30 June 2015. The need for Duty Commissioners is evident from the workload undertaken by commissioners since the council’s formation. Duty Commissioners will continue to determine resource consent applications where staff do not have delegation, where the council or a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) is the applicant; to hear section 357 objections; and to determine notified applications that do not require a hearing.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) designate, in accordance with clause 4.2.7 of the Hearings Committee Policy, the following 12 Independent Commissioners to act as Duty Commissioners for the period from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016:

i) Janine Bell

ii) Kathleen Ryan

iii) Justine Bray

iv) Les Simmons

v) Mark Farnsworth

vi) Alan Watson

vii) Jenny Hudson

viii) Richard Blakey

ix) Barry Kaye

x) Robert Scott

xi) Cherie Lane

xii) Dave Serjeant

b) approve in accordance with clause 5.2 of the Hearings Committee Policy, the Duty Commissioners listed in a above to be used for assigning by the Resolutions Team Principal Planners and Manager for the purpose of hearing and determining 357 objections.

c) delegate in accordance with clause 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy, to the Resolutions Team Principal Planners and Manager the authority to assign one or more Duty Commissioners to make decisions on resource consent applications that staff consider are not significant or contentious and where no hearing is required.

d) delegate in accordance with clause 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy, to the Resolutions Team Principal Planners and Manager the authority to assign additional commissioners beyond the “duty” group but from the approved list of Independent Commissioners, as may be necessary depending on particular skills or knowledge required for a particular resource consent application or section 357 objection determination.

Comments

Background

3. At its meeting on 7 May 2014, the Hearings Committee designated 13 Independent Commissioners to be Duty Commissioners: available on short notice to make decisions, where necessary, on resource consent applications not requiring a hearing and to hear section 357 objections. The designation ran from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

4. Now that the current duty assignment is due to expire, it is necessary to re-appoint Independent Commissioners as Duty Commissioners for a further period. The Hearings Committee Policy anticipates the practice of Duty Commissioners to help ensure the efficient determination of applications within statutory timeframes.

Basis for designating duty commissioners

5. Paragraphs 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy provide for duty commissioners and describe their role:

4.2.7 Following consultation with the commissioners concerned, the Hearings Committee will designate a number of independent commissioners to be Duty Commissioners.

4.2.8 Duty Commissioners must be available on short notice to make decisions not requiring a hearing as allocated to them by relevant team leaders and in accordance with directions of the Hearings Committee.

6. Accordingly, the Hearings Committee has, at its meetings on 2 February 2011, 18 November 2011, 27 July 2012, 5 July 2013 and 7 May 2014 designated groups of Independent Commissioners to be Duty Commissioners for specified periods of time.

7. The Hearings Committee Policy sub-delegates to staff the authority to assign duty commissioners:

5.2.1 For matters which staff consider are not significant or contentious, Team Leaders and above in the Resource Consenting, Licensing and Compliance and Planning Departments may assign Independent Commissioners to make decisions, or if the matter is administrative in nature, make the decision themselves.

5.2.2 In relation to resource consents for matters which staff consider are not significant or contentious, the decision whether or not to notify an application and the decision on an application which is not notified may be made by staff or by a Duty Commissioner as assigned by staff members.

8. The Resolutions Team operates a Duty Commissioner process across all offices that, under the team’s management, is successful and efficient. During the 2013-2014 designation period (12 months), the Duty Commissioners considered 706 applications and by the end of June 2015, it is expected that a similar number will have been determined for the 2014- 2015 year. The desire to typically have applications reviewed and determined within 24 hours of receipt requires commissioners to be rostered in small pools and a minimum of 12 commissioners are required to achieve this.

9. Duty Commissioners have also been used as a consistent pool of Hearings Commissioners for hearing section 357 objections where these cannot be resolved through negotiation with staff under delegated authority. Section 357 objections often revolve around very narrow but detailed matters and hearings for these objections are usually best handled by one or two commissioners. The use of Duty Commissioners for this purpose enables hearings to be arranged speedily to the benefit of the customer, and is helping to grow a pool of specialist knowledge on these matters.

Re-designation of duty commissioners

10. With the current designation due to expire, it is necessary to re-designate duty commissioners for a further period to ensure continuity of service and determine resource consent applications in a timely manner.

11. The Duty Commissioners are drawn from the larger pool of approved Independent Commissioners, which the Hearings Committee also review in 2014. As required by paragraphs 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy, the Resolutions Team Manager has corresponded and confirmed with all of those duty commissioners that they are willing to continue or to be new duty commissioners and understand the obligation to be available at short notice for decision-making. This correspondence is provided in Attachment A.

12. The current review provides an opportunity for other members of the wider independent commissioner list to be Duty Commissioners. We recommend that nine of the current 13 Commissioners continue and this core group will provide stability while three new Commissioners quickly become familiar with council’s duty commissioner processes. The selection of the new Duty Commissioners recognises a need to deal with complex applications and increasingly more integrated consents with both land use and regional components. Within the recommendation the first nine named are current Commissioners and the three others will be additional Commissioners for the coming term.

13. Duty Commissioners are generally rostered on call, one week per month to determine non-notified applications. There are typically two to four applications per Commissioner ready for decision in a standard week. The Commissioners sit alone when making decisions, so need to have a wide range of knowledge and expertise, although there can be instances where additional detailed knowledge is required, (e.g. a technical legal matter, built heritage, a detailed scientific matter, and kaupapa Maori or Treaty of Waitangi issues). In such instances it may be appropriate for a duty commissioner to be assisted by an additional independent commissioner from the council’s approved list with the relevant expertise. The Resolutions Team seek a delegation to assign these additional Commissioners as and when necessary.

14. Furthermore, there are instances where notified applications do not require a hearing but it is still appropriate for a decision to be made by an independent commissioner. These could include applications where neither the applicant nor submitters wish to be heard. In such instances, the statutory timeframe for a decision is reduced, because there is no need to arrange and hold a hearing. Delegating decision-making authority to Duty Commissioners to consider such applications will ensure the council is able to meet strict statutory timeframes.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. This is a matter for the Hearings Committee to determine without the need of Local Board input.

Māori impact statement

16. Commissioner Mark Farnsworth has expertise on kaupapa Maori and Treaty of Waitangi issues. His designation is recommended to ensure such issues can be given the appropriate consideration as and when required. Additionally the staff delegation expects that there may be other occurrences where specialist knowledge in kaupapa Maori and Treaty of Waitangi matters may see other commissioners involved from the wider Independent Commissioner group.

Implementation

17. To minimise disruption to service levels and to ensure strict statutory timeframes are met, the Resolutions Team recommend the designation run for 12 months. All Duty Commissioner costs are covered as part of resource consent processing fees.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Duty Commissioner: Letters of Expression of Interest	73

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Recruitment of further independent commissioners

File No.: CP2015/09592

Purpose

1. To approve a process for the recruitment of further independent commissioners.

Executive Summary

2. The administration of Auckland Council’s independent commissioner pool since July last year has seen some difficulties in assigning commissioners to hearings for particular skill areas. A statistical analysis of the commissioners’ availabilities for resource consent hearings during this time is provided.

3. It is recommended that the selection panel involved in the 2014 commissioner review be re-established to select new commissioners with the skills that are in shortage. The group will arrange an expression of interest and recruitment process and recommend a small number of additional commissioners for appointment by the Hearings Committee.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) approve the review and appointment process for specific independent commissioners to supplement the current commissioner pool until 30 June 2017.

b) delegate to the chairperson and the deputy chairperson of the Hearings Committee the authority to appoint a selection panel, comprising as a minimum, a senior manager from Democracy Services, a senior manager from Resource Consents and a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board or staff member nominated by the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

c) note that the role of the selection panel is to identify, advertise for and interview a small number of commissioner candidates with urban design, planning and iwi specialist skills, given that these skills have been in shortage in the current pool.

d) request that the selection panel provide a list of preferred candidates in a report to the Hearings Committee by September 2015, for approval to contract as additional commissioners.

Comments

Background

4. During 2014 the Hearings Committee oversaw a comprehensive review of the pool of Auckland Council’s independent commissioners. This was the first comprehensive review since the initial pool of independent commissioners was appointed in 2010 by Auckland Council’s Interim Chief Executive. The 2014 review sought expressions of interest following wide advertisement via media and through professional institutes. Commissioners from the initial pool competed directly for places in the new, smaller pool.

5. A six-person working group comprised of management representatives from Democracy Services, Regional and Local Planning, Resource Consents and Glenn Wilcox of the Independent Māori Statutory Board shortlisted and interviewed candidates.

6. The review enabled a better balance in the range of expertise across the pool by assessing the specialist commissioner use for hearings in the preceding year. The size of the pool was reduced from 65 to 49 commissioners, in part to reflect the substantial drop off of plan change hearings and not continuing with commissioners that did not have the skill sets sought. Attachment A provides the list of current commissioners grouped by their primary area of expertise.

7. The recommended commissioners were appointed by the Hearings Committee in May 2014 and the successful commissioners were contracted for a three-year term from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017.

Current Commissioner Use

8. An analysis has been undertaken of commissioner use for all resource management hearings set between 1 July 2014 to 31 May 2015. During this period there have been 85 resource management hearings set. Table 1 shows the range of these hearings.

Table 1: Resource Management Hearings set; 1 July 2014 – 31 May 2015

· Resource Consents Hearings 74

· Objection Hearings under section 357(RMA) 3

· Notice of Requirement Hearings 2

· Plan Changes 8

· Special Housing Areas* 2

(Pursuant to its own Act but with commissioner appointments from the same pool).

9. Commissioner panels during this time ranged from commissioners sitting alone to panels of four commissioners, particularly where a Local Board representative was appointed by the Committee.

10. The need for the particular expertise of commissioners during this time has generally reflected the expected use following the 2014 review. However there has been a higher use of generalist planners and urban designers than their proportional makeup of the pool. That is, 58% of hearing panel commissioners have been planners who make up 39% of the pool and 16% of the hearing panel commissioners have been urban designers who make up 14% of the pool

This is shown in Graph 1.

11. Conversely the specialists in other areas have had less opportunities to be appointed to hearings and were slightly over represented in the original makeup of the pool.

Analysis of Availability

12. Clause 4.2.6.(e) of the Hearings Committee Policy provides for commissioners outside the pool to be appointed to hearings if required. Two occasions occurred in the previous ten months when an urban design specialist was appointed as all suitable commissioners from within the pool were unavailable due to a conflict of interest or the timing of hearing. There were also two occasions within the previous 2013-2014 year when an urban designer was appointed from outside of the pool.

13. Assignments from outside of the pool can continue if required. Since 3 March 2015, however, it has become mandatory that all commissioners hold the Making Good Decisions accreditation and it may now become more difficult to source outside accredited commissioners. It therefore makes sense to supplement the commissioner pool with some additional resource in this area where availability has been lacking.

14. An assessment of commissioner availability at the time of appointment based on their areas of expertise has also been undertaken. The following analysis indicates a wider difficulty in sourcing commissioners from within the pool due primarily to competing interests. This includes private clients, commissioner work for other territorial authorities, Boards of Inquiry or currently as mediators for the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

15. Graph 2 below shows the number of times since July 2014 alternate commissioners have had to be approached before confirming commissioners for a hearing. This unavailability has then been assessed across the specialist areas (colour coded) to show where particular difficulties have occurred with these commissioner assignments.

16. The graph shows that when two or more alternates have been approached before confirming a panel, this has occurred in the specialist areas of planning and design. This regular use of alternate planners and designers is also in the same area where the overall use has been higher than expected, than when the pool commissioners were appointed last year.

17. It is important that council is able to meet its service delivery responsibilities to applicants in conducting hearings within statutory timeframes and avoiding delay. This will be best addressed by the appointment of additional commissioners in these specific areas.

Opportunities

18. The area of focus for the selection panel will be to recruit a small number of additional urban designers and/or planners with strong urban design skills. A new expression of interest process is considered the most transparent means of sourcing persons with the required skill set.

19. The Housing Project Office has confirmed that of 21 Plan Variations currently lodged, they will likely set down ten of these for hearing within the coming 6 months. They consider their commissioner needs are within the same specialist areas, and in particular with planners with strategic policy experience.

20. An opportunity is also available to recruit an additional commissioner specialising in Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori issues, to keep the number of commissioners with these skills the same as the original pool.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

21. Local Board views are not required for this report.

Māori impact statement

22. While all commissioners are expected to have grounding in resource management matters of importance to Māori, a candidate with specific expertise in the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori will be sought as part of the supplementary independent commissioner selection process.

Implementation

23. Supplementing the independent commissioner pool will improve the balance of decision-makers relative to specialist need. This will ensure council’s continuous service delivery in line with its statutory responsibilities.

24. The cost of advertising and recruiting new commissioners will be met within existing operational budgets. Hearings are predominantly for resource consents where the costs are recovered from applicants.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	List of Commissioners by Expertise	83

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Performance Development Framework for independent commissioners

File No.: CP2015/05553

Purpose

1. To approve a performance development framework for independent planning commissioners.

Executive Summary

2. In May 2014, when the Hearings Committee appointed a new pool of independent planning commissioners, staff noted that performance management mechanisms would be introduced. This is an opportunity to develop excellence in hearings, as part of Auckland Council’s drive for high performance.

3. Since May 2014, staff have advanced and sought feedback from the current pool of commissioners and other staff members on various assessment mechanisms. Their feedback has resulted in a draft performance development framework, which is attached for the Hearings Committee’s review and approval (Attachment A).

4. The performance development framework is designed to protect and promote the council’s reputation for quality and customer service. It also mitigates risk by monitoring performance and managing issues quickly and effectively.

5. The key components of the framework include:

- setting and clarifying expectations

- monitoring

- reviewing

- supporting development

- dealing with under-performance.

6. If approved, the framework will be implemented from June 2015.

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a) approve the performance development framework for independent planning commissioners.

Comments

Background

7. In May 2014, following an extensive recruitment and selection process, the Hearings Committee appointed 49 independent planning commissioners to preside over resource management and plan change hearings and make decisions under delegated authority.

8. The review and recruitment of the commissioners provided an opportunity to develop a new performance framework as part of a wider strategic priority to create a centre of excellence in hearings and align with council’s drive to becoming a high performance organisation.

9. Staff have since advanced and consulted on a range of performance development mechanisms, which have culminated in a draft performance development framework for the Hearings Committee’s review and approval (Attachment A).

Framework development

10. Feedback was sought from commissioners and staff on options for performance development throughout 2014. In November 2014, independent commissioner Mark Farnsworth was contracted to assist in the development of the framework and from early 2015, specific performance management mechanisms were tested through workshops and meetings with staff.

11. In April 2015, a survey of hearing participants was launched. This is a short electronic survey which is emailed to hearing participants after the close of the hearing but before the decision is released. The survey will assist with setting benchmarks for performance at hearings and with identifying areas for improvement.

Overview of the draft performance development framework

12. The key purpose of the framework is to encourage, record and monitor performance of Auckland Council’s independent commissioners as part of the drive to becoming a high performance council. The performance development framework protects and promotes the council’s reputation for process quality and customer service. It also mitigates risk by monitoring performance and managing issues quickly and effectively.

13. The draft framework includes the following components:

- setting and clarifying expectations

- monitoring

- reviewing

- developing

- resolving unsatisfactory performance.

Options considered and actions taken

14. The table below provides a summary of the feedback received from staff and commissioners on various performance management and development mechanisms. The table also sets out how the feedback has been addressed through the draft framework.

15. Key considerations in the development of the draft framework were that it is:

- fair

- reasonable

- simple to administer

- able to be implemented within existing budgets.

Mechanism

Feedback

Draft framework

Self-review

- Mixed views

- Concern that this has been tried before and didn’t work

- Code of conduct suggested as an alternative

- Self-review following each hearing, as part of a hearing debrief

- Review template to be developed with commissioners

End of year 360-degree review

- Supported by some commissioners

- New commissioners to the pool would like feedback on their performance

- Concern that peer review would not be impartial due to competition between commissioners for future appointments

- Voluntary participation in annual 360-degree review

Chief/lead commissioners

- Preferred the title ‘lead’ commissioner over ‘chief’ commissioner

- Noted that mentoring by senior commissioners happens in an informal way already

- Mixed views about whether to formalise this arrangement

- Experienced commissioners encouraged to volunteer as lead commissioners to provide mentoring and supervision

- Formalised mentoring arrangements as appropriate

Staff review

- Some commissioners keen to receive anonymous feedback from staff

- Staff hesitant to review commissioners because it may negatively affect their existing relationships with commissioners

- Concern by some commissioners that staff review compromises their independence

- Anonymous review by staff in advisory roles (excludes reporting planners)

- Anonymous staff feedback from attendance at hearings

Hearing debrief

- Well supported

- Would like the debrief to include feedback on staff performance

- Short debrief to follow every hearing (documented)

Hearing participants’ survey

- Concern from commissioners and staff that this has been tried before and it didn’t work

- Concern that a survey is onerous for participants to complete

- Need to receive feedback before decision is released

- Simplified form

- Used electronic survey emailed to participants via a link

- Feedback is sought immediately following the close of hearing but before the decision is released, so that results reflect the process rather than the outcome

Mechanism	Feedback	Draft framework
Independent audit	- Supported by independent commissioners - Cost-prohibitive - Difficulties in obtaining a representative audit across the 49 commissioners, due to the time involved and the fact that some commissioners will only sit on one or two hearings per year	- Not included in the draft framework due to the high cost of engaging an independent auditor and difficulties in obtaining a meaningful level of information for comparison across the commissioner pool
Complaints procedures	- Agreed that a formal mechanism for knowing where to go with problems (process or performance) is important	- Complaints procedure to be developed and included in framework
Training and development	- Support for opportunities that enable training and mentoring of new commissioners as well as sharing specific expertise with the wider pool of commissioners - Support for training through forums - Many commissioners are already members of professional networks outside council, which include opportunities for training and professional development	- Commissioners encouraged to participate in formal training and professional networks - Commissioners expected to participate in Auckland Council’s quarterly forums with senior commissioners and specialists using these opportunities to share expertise and provide training - Training organised by Auckland Council where required for specific Auckland Council issues

Next steps

16. If the draft framework is approved, staff will:

- develop and finalise self-review forms with commissioners

- develop and finalise staff appraisal forms

- meet with commissioners individually to clarify expectations, recognising that there are differences in the workload of generalist and specialist commissioners when setting these expectations

- seek and confirm volunteers for lead commissioners as mentors

- develop and finalise a programme for annual 360-degree review and confirm participants.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The performance development framework has no implications for local boards.

Māori impact statement

18. Independent planning commissioners are required to have knowledge and understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Māori. In addition, it is expected that all commissioners will ensure they maintain an understanding of current iwi and treaty matters.

19. Commissioners who have been appointed for their iwi expertise are encouraged to share their expertise with other commissioners. An example of this occurred in September 2014, when Bill Kapea led a session on mātauranga Māori at the quarterly independent commissioners’ forum.

Implementation

20. If adopted, the performance development framework will be implemented in accordance with the timeframes set out below.

Date	Task
June 2015	- Develop and finalise assessment documents - Set expectations with commissioners - Commissioners identify objectives
December 2015	- Six-monthly review
June 2016	- Annual review - 360-degree review
Ongoing	- Hearing participants survey - Hearing debriefs and self-evaluation - Attendance and participation at commissioner forums

21. It is anticipated that annual performance monitoring and review will require approximately 185 additional staff hours, 200 commissioner hours and about $7600 + GST for survey evaluation by an independent agency.

22. The cost of implementing the performance development framework will be met within existing operational budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft performance development framework for independent commissioners	91

Signatories

Authors

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Processes for determination of demolition resource consent applications within the Residential 1 Zone of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section

File No.: CP2015/09809

Purpose

1. To seek a standard approach to decision-making for resource consent applications for building demolition or removal within the Residential 1 Zone of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section (“Isthmus District Plan”).

Executive Summary

2. This report invites the committee to provide a standard delegation for the assignment of independent commissioners to determine all future resource consent applications for demolition of pre-1940 buildings within the Residential 1 Zone of the Isthmus District Plan. This is consistent with the committee’s practice over the past two years when considering who should be the decision maker for contentious demolition applications. This report recommends a similar approach to that previously adopted for demolitions within the Residential 2 Zone of the Isthmus District Plan where a duty commissioner and a heritage specialist commissioner determine these applications.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) designate under clause 4.2 of Hearings Committee Policy, that resource consent applications involving the demolition or removal of, pre-1940 buildings within the Residential 1 Zone of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section, and proposed scheduled buildings within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, be determined by two independent commissioners as set out below, being:

i) the Duty Commissioner (as chair) at the time in which the application is ready to be determined, being one of either:

· Janine Bell

· Barry Kaye

· Les Simmons

· David Hill

· Richard Blakey

ii) and one of either:

· John Hill

· Richard Knott

· Cherie Lane.

b) assign the duty commissioners in (a) above, in accordance with clauses 5.2 of Hearings Committee Policy to such applications subject to availability at short notice.

c) delegate to the Team manager – Resolutions the assignment of one alternate commissioner beyond this duty group, but from the list of independent commissioners if necessary, to cover a particular skill or knowledge associated with a particular resource consent.

d) note that this delegation does not prevent applications clearly of a minor nature being determined at a staff level.

Comments

3. The committee under clause 4.2 of its adopted policy determines who should be the decision maker for applications that are either significant or contentious. A small number of resource consents for demolition of buildings within the heritage zones of the Auckland Isthmus have often attracted a high media profile. Following a particularly contentious demolition approval of a Residential 1 zoned dwelling at Paget Street in late 2011, the Hearings Committee requested that all demolition applications in built character zones be reported to the committee. The committee has since either determined the matter of notification itself or as for most applications appointed independent commissioners for this purpose and where necessary to conduct a hearing. This process has also been consistent with the Hearings Policy intent where contentious applications that often promote media attention are reported to the Hearings Committee for its consideration.

4. In the period since the Paget Street approval and February 2015, the Hearings Committee has considered 10 applications pertaining to demolitions within the built character zones. This represents a small number of the 86 applications that the committee has considered within the Significant or Contentious policy. Appendix A sets out the heritage applications considered by the committee in the past 4 years. Furthermore, demolitions within the heritage character zones are becoming few and far between relative to times prior to the introduction of Plan Change 163 to the Isthmus District Plan. This Plan Change introduced provisions for the Residential 1 and 2 Zones across the Auckland Isthmus that, amongst other things, rule 7.7.1 that requires restricted discretionary activity resource consent to demolish or remove any pre-1940 building in these zones. The Plan Change is now fully operative.

5. The media and public comment following the Paget Street grant of demolition, led to the Resource Consents Department internally reviewing and strengthening its assessment processes relating to pre-1940 building demolition applications. In liaison with the Heritage Advisory Panel, the scope by which the council could notify applications to demolish or remove such buildings using ‘special circumstances’ under section 95A (4) in the RMA was considered. A ‘special circumstances guideline’, as provided in Attachment B, now assists staff when processing demolition applications of pre-1940 buildings in Residential 1 and 2 Zones. These matters are addressed in the council planner reports and therefore considered by the decision maker as part of the section 95A determination. Unless there are special circumstances, the Isthmus District Plan at rule 4.3.2.6. includes, “that restricted discretionary activities will be considered without public notification or the need to obtain written approval of or serve notice on affected parties”.

6. In October 2012, the Hearings Committee adopted a report covering the processing of demolition applications that lie within the Residential 2 Zone. This is a built character zone of typically, Edwardian villa and English cottage revival styled homes set out with spacious well-landscaped front yards. The Committee resolved at that time, that Residential 2 Zone applications no longer required referral to the committee however were to be considered by two independent commissioners, one of whom would be a heritage specialist. It is this approach that is now been recommended for demolition applications in the Residential 1 Zone as well.

7. Additionally, there have been a small number of demolition applications for buildings that lie outsize the built character zones, but now require consent under the pre-1944 demolition rules of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Where they are also proposed to be scheduled (i.e. White Swan Road) or meet the criteria for such (Pt Chevalier Road) these have also proceeded to the committee under the Significant and Contentious policy.

8. A consistent approach across both built character zones of the Isthmus District Plan and for proposed scheduled buildings under the PAUP will also help with ease of administration.

Consideration

9. The committee is now invited to adopt the above approach to determine any future demolition applications in the Residential 1 zone of the Isthmus District Plan and proposed scheduled items under the PAUP. The use of current duty commissioners to sit with a heritage commissioner will be an efficient process for these demolition or removal applications.

10. Paragraphs 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 of the Hearings Committee Policy provide for duty commissioners and describe their role. The Resolutions Team have established duty commissioner processes that operate efficiently. Duty commissioners are rostered to consider non-notified applications typically within 24 hours of receipt. The use of duty commissioners on these demolition applications will enable speedy determination for the benefit to the customer and the addition of a heritage specialist with each will ensure all appropriate heritage matters are well canvassed with a particular application. The expected number of residential heritage building demolition applications within a year is very small and will not impact on the council’s duty commissioner workload.

11. The commissioners involved are aware of the measures (post Paget) adopted by the Resource Consents Department for the consideration of pre-1940 building demolition applications and that these will continue to be followed. That review also reflected the complexity of specific Isthmus District Plan criteria and assessment standards set for demolition applications. It is in part due to this complexity that recommendations placed before the Hearings Committee in relation to these types of applications have sought the assignment of professional independent commissioners to make the notification determinations rather than the Committee itself. The commissioners also have the advantage of an in-depth reflection of the relevant issues outside of the public gaze.

12. The committee is therefore at this time asked to confirm the process and the list of commissioners set out in the recommendation of this report as suitable for this role.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

13. The pre-1940 buildings within the Residential 1 Zone of the Isthmus District Plan are also covered by the pre-1944 provisions of the PAUP. The comprehensive nature of the current operative rules means that little additional value is added to the overall assessment of demolition applications already within the Residential 1 Zone. In time and subject to the PAUP hearing process the proposed provisions will gain greater weight but currently create no reason to move away from the recommendation around the use of independent commissioners.

Local Board views and implications

14. The Local Boards of the Isthmus have all included the demolition of Residential 1 and 2 Zone applications and of scheduled items as a type of application where they would like the opportunity to provide comments. Any board comments are included verbatim as part of the planning officer’s notification recommendation report that is prepared for the decision maker.

Māori impact statement

15. This report recommends a practice for determining demolition consent applications within the Residential 1 Zone. Any record of a demolition application site having particular significance to iwi should first be raised in the application’s assessment or supporting documentation. Iwi have a role in the identification and stewardship/kaitiakitanga of heritage places and buildings. The PAUP Mana Whenua rules have strengthened this need as an information requirement for particular types of consents.

Implementation

16. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the use of duty commissioners. The applicant will meet the costs of any independent commissioners. A set process will improve efficiency and consistency while ensuring quality decision making.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Heritage building demolitions considered by the Hearings Committee 2011- 2015.	101
b View	Special Circumstances Guideline	103

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Appendix A


2011
N/A


2012
Demolition of the Queens Head Façade				AQM Limited, 396-404 Queen Street, Auckland Central



2013
Demolition of dwelling in a Residential 1 zone				27 Arthur Street. Freemans Bay
Demolition of dwelling in Heritage zone				12 Cremorne Street, Herne Bay
Demolition of dwelling in Residential 1 zone				12 Lee Street, Parnell
Temporary removal of pre-1940 building				92 Pt Chevalier Road, Pt Chevalier Coopoerating Parish


2014
Demolish pre1940 dwelling and subdivision into 4 lots				59 View Road, Mt Eden Haohai Group Limited
Demolition and replacement of pre 1940 residential buildings				72 Williamson Avenue, Grey Lynn

Demolition and replacement of pre-1944 of building				92 Pt Chevalier Road, Pt Chevalier Co- operating Parish

Demolition of pre-1940 building to re-establish extension of adjoining area				44 New Street, Ponsonby

Demolition of scheduled building				143 White Swan Road, Mt Roskill
Demolish pre-1940 building				8-22 Vermont St, Ponsonby
Demolition of dwelling in Residential 1 zone				43 Arthur Street, Freemans Bay
Demolition and replacement of scheduled building				Hanna Block Building at Kings School, 258 Remuera Road


2015
Partial demolition (>30%) of pre-1940 dwelling				9 London Street, St Marys Bay

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Establish a public artwork on the northern end of Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland 1021

File No.: CP2015/08896

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to make decisions under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) on an application for resource consent to establish a public artwork on the northern end of Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland 1021.

Executive Summary

2. On 17 March 2015 the council received an application for resource consent from Tattico Limited, on behalf of Auckland Waterfront Development Agency for the establishment of a public artwork on the northern end of Queens Wharf. The proposed artwork takes the form of a two-thirds size replica of a two-storey wooden state house containing a group of chandeliers representing the Matariki star cluster.

3. The proposal was publicly advertised on Friday 8 May 2015. The closing date for receipt of submissions is Monday 8 June 2015.

4. The proposed activity is not provided for under the Port Management Area 1C of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal and is a non-complying activity. Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) the proposal is a permitted activity.

5. The Hearings Committee has previously determined that the application should proceed with notice and is now asked to appoint independent commissioners to determine the application under section 104 of the RMA. As Auckland Waterfront is a Council Controlled Organisation the hearing commissioners should be independent.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint three independent commissioners ( including one as chair) to hear submissions and determine the application for resource consent by Waterfront Auckland, to establish a public artwork on the northern end of Queens Wharf, Auckland Central under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b) delegate to the chair to determine the application, if no submissions are received or the application otherwise does not require to be heard.

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

Comments

Site and Local Context

6. Queens Wharf is within the coastal marine area and is therefore controlled by the Regional Plan: Coastal. The wharf is of public interest through its registration as a Category 1 Historic Place on the Heritage New Zealand list. This is despite it not being scheduled under either the Coastal Plan or PAUP.

7. The concept for the artwork, by Michael Parekowhai, is a Lighthouse, signifying a safe harbour and welcome for all. The artwork will welcome people to Auckland and its waterfront, including those disembarking from cruise ships and other vessels.

The Proposal

8. Resource consent as a non-complying activity is sought to establish the public artwork at the northern end of Queens Wharf. The artwork is in the form of a two-thirds replica of a two-storey wooden state house that measures 5.3m high; 6.3m wide and 8.3m long. The building has no functionality as a building and is removable being set on a wooden plinth.

9. The windows and front and back doors will have glass panes for viewing inside the structure where different sized chandeliers will be displayed. In addition to views in the round at ground level, stairs will lead to an upper level viewing platform to allow people multiple views of the interior.

10. The proposal makes no reference to specific cultural perspectives, except to the extent that the grouping of the 10 chandeliers represent the Matariki constellation, or Pleiades star cluster, referencing the Maori New Year.

Notification

11. The application for resource consent was publicly notified on 8 May 2015 at the request of the applicant. Submissions close on 8 June 2015.

Consideration

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 council officers, the significance of a particular matter and whether it is contentious.

13. Due to media interest in the art work, the high profile location of the site and potential contentiousness of the proposal, the committee previously considered that notification of the application was the appropriate course. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is recommended that the Hearings Committee now also appoint the hearing commissioners to determine the application. As the applicant is a Council Controlled Organisation, it is recommended that these commissioners be independent and furthermore have planning and urban design expertise and a knowledge of the Auckland Regional Plan-Coastal.

Local Board views and implications

14. Copy of the application was sent to the Waitematā Local Board as part of the notification process. Council officers have briefed the Chair and some members of the Waitematā Local Board on the consent application.

Māori impact statement

15. The applicant has written to all 19 Mana Whenua Iwi outlining the proposal and inviting them to discuss the project in more detail. As a notified application Mana Whenua groups may submit on the application.

Implementation

16. 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
a View	Proposed site layout, elevations and design concept	109

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Application for resource consents by the Harbour Access Trust – Proposed Community Marine Activity Hub, at 22 The Promenade, Takapuna Beach

File No.: CP2015/08777

Purpose

1. To invite the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners to determine the merits of the application for resource consents by the Harbour Access Trust to establish a Community Marine Activity Hub on the Northern Activity Zone (as specified by the Takapuna Beach Reserve Management Plan 2013) at 22 The Promenade, Takapuna Beach.

Executive Summary

2. The Community Marine Activity Hub will include a 1,322m² building containing a high performance sailing facility for Yachting New Zealand (NZ) with associated boat storage for Yachting NZ, the Takapuna Boat Club and local Waka Ama. Outdoor park space will be developed for the general public with public toilets and changing facilities.

3. The application was received as a fully notified application on 4 February 2015 and following receipt of further information, the application was notified on 12 March 2015. A total of 1,032 submissions have been received and a hearing will be required.

4. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision makers because this application has been regarded by staff as significant (given the policy-making direction and location of the project) and contentious (given media coverage of the proposal). Independent commissioners are recommended due to the council’s involvement with the application to date and the activity’s location on public land.

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 consents (LCO-2140694, REG-2140695, REG-2140696 and REG-2140847) to develop the proposed Community Marine Activity Hub at 22 The Promenade, Takapuna Beach.

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.

Comments

The Application

5. Resource consents (LCO-2140694, REG-2140695, REG-2140696 and REG-2140847) are sought by the Harbour Access Trust to develop the Community Marine Activity Hub. The hub is to be established within the Northern Activity Zone at 22 The Promenade, Takapuna. An aerial photograph showing the extent of the current site is attached as Attachment A alongside various drawings and images illustrating the proposal.

6. The development includes the establishment of a single level building with a gross floor area of approximately 1,322m² containing a high performance sailing facility of approximately 400m² in area that will include: wet and dry areas for training, logistics and briefing sessions (so that athletes can use video and technical analysis straight from the water), toilets, showers and changing facilities and work stations and hot desks for administration, planning and logistics (the application does not include office facilities). The remainder of the building will be used for Takapuna Boating Club storage (200m²), public toilet, shower and changing rooms (82m²) and boat storage for Yachting NZ and the general public (570m²).

7. Adjacent to Alison Avenue, a 850m² hard stand area is proposed for the storage of rigged boats and waka ama. Vehicle access will be established from Earnoch Avenue and a pedestrian link to the reserve from Alison Avenue. No car parks are to be provided. Public areas of open space/green space will be provided on the roof and in front of the facility.

8. The site is zoned Recreation 3 and Coastal Conservation Area within the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section 2002) and zoned Informal Recreation under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Under the Operative District Plan, the site is adjacent to a Site of Geological Significance – the Takapuna Reef fossil forest. Under the PAUP the site is adjacent to the Outstanding Natural Features – ID 200 Takapuna Reef fossil forest and cliff lava exposures (Feature Type B) and adjacent to two Significant Ecological Areas – SEA-M1-62, Marine 2 and SEA_T_3413 Land. The site is located within the vicinity of a Site and Place of Value to Mana Whenua – ID 2297 (Archaeology of Maori Origin – a midden recorded in 2001). Finally, the site is subject to coastal inundation (1m and 2m sea level rise).

9. The proposal requires resource consent for a range of matters and overall is to be assessed as a discretionary activity.

10. Land owner consent from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board will be required before this development can be undertaken. Agreement with the Auckland Council Parks Department will also be required for the lease and maintenance of the public space that will be developed.

11. The application was received as a fully notified application on 4 February 2015. It was placed on hold on 20 February 2015 for further information requests. Once those requests were satisfied, the application was notified on 12 March 2015. A total of 1,032 submissions have been received: 499 in opposition, 528 in support and 5 neutral. Currently staff are working with specialists to discuss matters raised by submitters and further information is being sought from the applicant to address these matters. At this stage, no assessments have been completed.

Consideration

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 level of media attention to the project infers that this application may be considered contentious. The scale of the project for Takapuna and local community, and that it will ‘lock in’ the future use of the Northern Activity Zone confirms the significant nature of the project.

14. 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, resource planning, iwi, urban-design, and landscape expertise.

Local Board views and implications

Local board comment on the application for resource consents

15. Harbour Access Trust and Yachting NZ have been seeking to develop a high performance centre at Takapuna Beach for about four years and have been involved in consultation with the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board for that period of time.

16. The proposed building and open space will be located on the portion of reserve that is currently occupied by the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park. The decision to terminate and move to a one-month rolling lease for the Holiday Park was made by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board in 2013. The Local Board adopted the Takapuna Beach Reserve Management Plan in 2013 which allows for the provision of “marine related activities [which] may include boat storage, hardstand, launching facilities and any ancillary structures. This is consistent with the district plan zoning for the area in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991” (pg. 55).

17. The Local Board were advised of the lodgement and notification of this application but to date have not provided a formal statement of their views. It is understood that this project may not have the full support of the Local Board. Any views received from the local board will be included in the information provided to decision makers.

Local board concept plan project

18. Notwithstanding the Reserve Management Plan that provides for this activity in the Northern Activity Zone, the Local Board have endorsed, at their meeting on 21 April 2015, a public consultation program on four options for the Northern Activity Zone, to enable a concept plan. These options are:

i. Reversion of the land currently occupied by the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park to open space only, apart from structures reasonably expected on a reserve (e.g. playground, picnic tables, toilet and shower facilities);

ii. Retention of the Holiday Park with upgrades, with an expectation that the tenant would improve the amenity of its operational facilities;

iii. Establishment and construction of the Community Marine Activity Hub as currently proposed by the Harbour Access Trust, including development of the reserve as public open space; and

iv. Combination of both an upgraded Holiday Park and Community Marine Activity Hub, which may likely result in a reduced activity footprint for both activities when compared with what may be desired.

It is expected that this consultation will commence in May 2015.

Māori impact statement

19. There is one recorded site of Value to Mana Whenua recorded on the application site, PAUP ID 2297 (Archaeology of Maori Origin – a midden recorded in 2001). The midden is located below the existing car park at the beginning of the boat ramp and was uncovered during the replacement of a stormwater drain. The applicant has provided an archaeological report and assessment and the council has assigned this application to officers from the Heritage Unit for assessment.

20. The applicant has engaged with Iwi who have an interest in the local area to determine whether the excavation and stormwater will require a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) to be undertaken. This is consistent with the policy in the PAUP on guidance for CIA. The iwi engaged with are:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Trust

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust

· Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority

· Ngāti Tamaoho Trust

· Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

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

· Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust

· Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Incorporated

· Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Te Patukirikiri Inc

21. The applicant has held a number of hui with those Iwi that expressed an interest to be involved. This consultation is ongoing. Only one submission was received from an Iwi through public notification (Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Incorporated) who stated that they did not support the application. The applicant is currently consulting with this Iwi.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Aerial photo and drawings / images illustrating the proposal	117

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Appointment of Commissioners: Application for Resource Consent - Proposed Retirement Village, 14 Rangitoto Avenue and 19 Ara Street, Remuera Auckland

File No.: CP2015/09186

Purpose

1. This report invites the Hearings Committee to appoint commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to develop a retirement village at 14 Rangitoto Avenue, and 19 Ara Street, Remuera.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent to develop the Rawhiti Bowling Club at 14 Rangitoto Avenue into a retirement village. The retirement village will provide residential accommodation as 27 independent living units, and 68 aged care suits, together with a range of common facilities. The development will vary in height from 1-storey at Rangitoto Avenue to 3-storeys at Ara Street; will involve earthworks across the majority of the site and vehicle access points from Rangitoto Avenue and Rakau Street.

3. The application was lodged with the council on 10 April 2015. At the time of reporting the application is being reviewed and assessed by council officers.

4. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision makers as the application is regarded by staff as potentially contentious given recent media coverage, receipt of local residents’ comments (including a member of the Local Board) and previous history of the site.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner, to make the notification determination on the applications for resource consent (R/LUC/2015/1280, R/REG/2015/1281 and R/REG/2015/1282) to develop a retirement village at 14 Rangitoto Avenue and 19 Ara Street, Remuera, pursuant to sections 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

b) subject to the notification decision above, either;

i) appoint the same independent commissioner as appointed in (a) to make a decision under section 104 of the RMA in the event that the application proceeds on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing, or

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

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

Comments

The Application

5. Resource consents (R/LUC/2015/1280, R/REG/2015/1281 and R/REG/2015/1282) are sought by The BeGroup New Zealand Limited to develop the Rawhiti Bowling Club into a retirement village. An aerial photograph showing the location of the site and site plan are provided at Attachment A. The proposal includes 27 independent living units, and 68 aged care suites with a resident population of 100 people proposed. A range of common facilities available for the use of all residents and their visitors, include resident lounges, library, theatre, dining, café and bar facilities; an indoor pool and gymnasium; on site services such as physiotherapy, hair salon and podiatry; and a series of terraced and courtyard areas/patios.

6. The development will vary in height from 1-storey at Rangitoto Avenue to 3-storeys at Ara Street, and the layout of the proposal comprises three building ‘wings’. The southern two wings (at the Rangitoto Avenue end of the site) accommodate the aged care suites and the majority of common facilities, together with a basement carpark. These wings are linked by a central atrium/wintergarden space. The northern wing accommodates the independent living units and is linked to the aged care suite wings at each level by a combination of common amenity facilities and corridors.

7. Earthworks will occur across the majority of the site, including 4690m³ cut to waste to be removed from the site. Vehicle access points are proposed from Rangitoto Avenue (a pick-up/drop-off area adjacent to entrance/lobby) and at Rakau Street (crossings servicing the basement carpark, and a loading bay). The removal of several street trees is also proposed, along with extensive on-site landscaping. Artist impressions of the proposal are located at Attachment B.

8. The Rawhiti Bowling Club, previous owners of the site, were granted a Private Plan Change (298) to rezone the site from Open Space 3 to Residential 5 in October 2011. This became operative in August 2012. During the plan change process, submissions were received, primarily in relation to the intensity of development, traffic and infrastructure effects.

9. The site is located within the Residential 5 (14 Rangitoto Avenue) and Residential 2b (19 Ara Street) zones of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section), and zoned Residential Single House and Residential Mixed Housing Suburban in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“the PAUP”). The site is subject to a flood plain and overland flow path, and is also a contaminated site.

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

11. The application was lodged with the council on 10 April 2015 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

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. Previous media attention occurred during the private plan change process, as well as some current media attention regarding the current proposal. There has also been a lot of email communication from individual local board members, including one who lives in close proximity to the site and some communication from other residents in the area. As such, this application may be considered contentious.

14. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, staff consider that the Hearings Committee should appoint commissioners as decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that if a hearing is required the commissioners appointed have legal, planning, urban design and resource management expertise.

Local Board views and implications

15. The Orakei Local Board has been advised of the application and briefed by council on the application on 14 May 2015. An opportunity for the local board to provide comments on the application is also provided following the standard comment process. At the time of reporting there has been no input received. Any views received will be included in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers.

Māori impact statement

16. The applicant has engaged with iwi who have an interest in the local area to determine whether the proposed discharge and diversion of groundwater 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

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngati Whanaunga

· Ngati Tamatera

· Te Patukirikiri

· Waikato-Tainui

17. The applicant has advised that meetings are required with Ngati Maru, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki to determine whether a CIA is required. As such this matter and Iwi responses will be further addressed in the information included in the staff report to the decision makers.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Location Aerial and Site Plan	127
b View	Photo Montages	131

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Julie Bevan - Acting General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Appointment of Commissioners: Application for resource consent for proposed dwelling, 92 Coromandel Road, Waiheke Island

File No.: CP2015/09205

Purpose

1. To appoint commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to construct a new dwelling, straddling a wetland area on a vacant residentially zoned property at 92 Coromandel Road, Waiheke Island (near Sandy Bay).

Executive Summary

2. The council has received an application (R/LUC/2014/4325) for resource consent to construct a new dwelling on the vacant property at 92 Coromandel Road, Waiheke Island (“the site”). The site is located within a bush residential environment, just inland from the Sandy Bay beachfront and is surrounded by other bush-residential sites.

3. This application has been submitted to the committee to appoint commissioners as decision-makers pursuant to sections 95 and 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”) because the Waiheke Local Board and a local wetland protection group have expressed knowledge of the site and an interest in the proposal due to enforcement action associated with previous unconsented works within this wetland.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make a notification decision on the application for resource consent to construct a new dwelling and associated works at 92 Coromandel Road, Waiheke Island, pursuant to section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”).

b) subject to the notification decision that is made in (a) above:

i. appoint the same commissioner as in (a) above approve to make a substantive decision on the application pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, should the application proceed on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing; or

ii. appoint, a further independent commissioner, to sit with the commissioner appointed in (a) above as the chair to hear submissions and make a substantive decision on the application pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, should the application proceed on a notified basis and a hearing is required.

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

Comments

4. The application is seeking resource consent for the construction of a new single storey dwelling straddling a wetland area on the site. The works include the partial infilling and modification of the identified wetland area.

5. The site is zoned Island Residential 2 (Bush Residential) under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Section) (“the Operative District Plan”). An aerial photo showing the site location is included as Attachment A and a second aerial photo as Attachment B which illustrates the underlying landform contour in the vicinity of the site. A selection of drawings illustrating the proposal has been included as Attachment C.

6. The application was originally lodged with the council in October 2014 and has been on-hold since then as issues related to the application have been addressed.

7. The activity status of this application is currently unclear, as there has been a difference of opinion between the applicant and the council ecological specialists as to the reclamation works proposed; however the applicant has now agreed to accept that the application proceed as a non-complying activity because of infringements to the Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (rule 7.5.38) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (rule H.4.13) relating to new reclamation or drainage of a permanent river or stream.

8. The proposal also requires consent under the Operative District Plan for:

· the construction of a new dwelling in the Island Residential 2 zone (restricted discretionary activity under rule 10a.10.5).

· undertaking construction works less than 1m above the edge of a wetland (restricted discretionary activity under rule 8.5.1).

· undertaking works within a dripline of protected trees (restricted discretionary activity under rule 10c.5.1).

· undertaking 555m² and 275m3 of earthworks on the site (restricted discretionary activity under rule 10c.5.6).

· infringement of the building coverage limit of 15% by 0.2% (discretionary activity under rule 10c.4.5).

· undertaking site works within 20m of a water system (discretionary activity under rule 10c.5.7).

9. The proposal also requires consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan for:

· the addition of greater than 25m² of impervious surface area to the site (restricted discretionary activity under rule H 4.14.2).

Consideration

General

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

11. Staff consider that this application could be contentious because of the number of infringements to the rules of both the operative district plan and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the overall non-complying status of the application and the history of unconsented activity on the site. Therefore, staff recommend, that the committee appoint an independent commissioner to make a decision on notification of the application and appoint a further independent commissioner as substantive decision-makers for this application should a hearing be required.

Local Board views and implications

12. The Waiheke Local Board and a local wetland protection group have previously expressed interest in the site following council enforcement proceedings during May-June 2014 associated with illegal earthworks and vegetation removal within this wetland feature, which is located on both 92 and 94 Coromandel Road. An abatement notice was issued on 17 June 2014 to the owner of the 92 Coromandel Road property requiring all illegal work to cease. Apart from a response to some minor mowing activity in March 2015, no further action has been required by the council enforcement team.

13. As a result of this enforcement history and their awareness of other cases of wetland modification on the island, the local board resolved in (June 2014) to seek a greater awareness of the statutory provisions under the Operative District Plan that enable wetland protection.

14. The local board was made aware of this current application for resource consent (R/LUC/2014/4325) in October 2014 and, while to date the resource consents department has not received any formal response from the local board, it is understood that a response is forthcoming.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Locality map	139
b View	Landform contours	141
c View	Proposal drawings	143

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 2015

Appointment of Commissioners: Application for resource consent - Proposed 24 hour fast food restaurant, 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula

File No.: CP2015/09355

Purpose

1. To appoint commissioners to determine notification and then the merits of the application to provide for a 24 hour drive-thru restaurant at 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application for resource consent to change the conditions of an existing consent to allow the operation of a 24 hour drive-thru restaurant. The previous resource consent LUC-2014-841 approved a mixed use development which includes retail tenancies at ground floor, with a gym (24 hours) and a childcare (7am-6pm) at Level 1. The hours of operation for the complex were limited by a condition to 7am – 10pm (apart from the gym) in line with the noise restrictions. The proposed variation seeks changes to a number of conditions that will allow for the 24 hour drive-thru restaurant at the site and vary the circulation of vehicles, a reduction in car parking and additional signs.

3. The application was lodged with the council on 23 March 2015. 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 independent commissioners as this application is considered potentially contentious given the nature of the application, the proposed changes to the original consent conditions and recent public interest and media coverage.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make the notification determination under sections 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) on the application for resource consent (LUC-2015-471) to develop a 24 hour drive-thru restaurant at 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula.

b) subject to the notification decision above, either;

i) appoint the same independent commissioners in (a) to make a decision under section 104 of the RMA on the application, should the application be non-notified or a hearing not required, or

ii) appoint two further independent commissioners and a Local Board member, to sit with the commissioner appointed under (a) as the chair, should the application be notified and a hearing is required, to hear submissions and make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991

c) delegate to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee the authority to make replacement appointments should any of the commissioners or local board member appointed under (a) and (b) above be unavailable.

Comments

5. A variation to Resource consent (LUC-2014-841) is sought by Vaco Investments (Te Atatu) Limited to amend conditions of the approved mixed use development at 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula. This will provide for the establishment of a 24-hour drive-thru restaurant. The site is adjacent to residential dwellings beyond the eastern and southern boundaries and the main commercial development of Te Atatu Peninsula to the north. An aerial photograph showing the location of the site is included at Attachment A. The development includes the conversion and reconfiguration of the southern-most retail unit and the southern end of the site to accommodate the restaurant and drive-thru. The variation increases the approved floor area by 18.2m² (273.20m² to 291.4m²) and will include changes to the site circulation, vehicle movements, hours of use and signs. The approved car-parking is reduced by 9 spaces to accommodate the drive-thru. The proposed site plan is located at Attachment B and selection of previously approved plans (LUC-2014-841) are included at Attachment C.

6. The site is located within the Harbour View North Special Area of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) and zoned Mixed Use in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“the PAUP”).

7. The proposal requires resource consent pursuant to S127 of the RMA and for additional unconsented matters under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section). Overall the proposal is to be assessed as a discretionary activity.

8. The application was lodged with the Council on 23 March 2015 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

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. The level of media attention to the project infers that this application may be considered contentious. An online petition entitle ‘No 24/7 Drive Through in Te Atatu Peninsula’ (www.change.org/p/auckland-council-no-24-7-drive-through-in-te-atatu-peninsula) has gathered 1341 supporters at the time of writing and residents have raised their interest with the Resource Consents Department and local politicians. The scale of the petition and the correspondence received, confirms the contentious nature of the project.

11. Therefore staff consider that the Hearings Committee, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, should appoint the commissioners as decision-makers for this application. It is recommended that the commissioners appointed to consider the application have planning and resource management expertise.

Local Board views and implications

12. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has been advised of the application and their comments on notification sought following the standard referral process. The local board comments are included as Attachment D.

Māori impact statement

13. There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi. The application is silent on engagement with Iwi.

Implementation

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
a View	Aerial GIS Photograph - 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula	153
b View	Proposed Site Plan - McDonalds, 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula Auckland, prepared by ASC Architects, 6 August 2014	155
c View	Approved Plans - Te Atatu Peninsula Commercial Development, 543 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, prepared by Babbage for Vaco Investments	157
d View	Henderson-Massey Local Board Comment	163

Signatories

Authors

Clarke McKinney - Principal Planner Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

02 June 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 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 2 June 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.

C2 Noting the urgent decision of 21 May 2015: Resource Consent Appeal: Kimberley Trust v Auckland Council

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

In particular, the report contains information relating to an Environment Court appeal, and the disclosure of information may prejudice the council's 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.