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

21 July 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 Determination of an objection to the construction of a proposed stormwater line through 24A Garadice Road, to service 22 Garadice Road 9

8 Objection to the issue of noise abatement notices 41

9 Three Kings Reserve - Appointment of Consideration Panel 117

10 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 30 June 2015 125

11 Noting the decision to appoint local elected members to Accord Territorial Authority hearings panel - 4 June 2015 135

12 Noting the urgent decisions of 17 June 2015 to appoint hearings commissioners 139

13 Noting the urgent decision of 23 June 2015: Redoubt Road - Mill Road Corridor Project 151

14 Noting the urgent decision of 8 July 2015: 650-680 Whitford-Maraetai Road, Beachlands 159

15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 167

C1 New resource consent appeal: N M Growth Limited v Auckland Council (ENV-2015-AKL-85) 8 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna 167

C2 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 8 July 2015 167

C3 Noting the urgent decision of 17 June 2015: D & S Hayr v Auckland Council 168

C4 Noting the urgent decisions of 23 June 2015: Real Living (Properties) Limited v Auckland Council and Unique Developers & Trading Limited v Auckland Council 168

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda apologies have been received from Mayor Len Brown, Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, and Deputy Chairperson Penny Webster .

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, 2 June 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Local Board Input

4 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 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 one (1) 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 6.1 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

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

6 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

Hearings Committee

21 July 2015

7 Determination of an objection to the construction of a proposed stormwater line through 24A Garadice Road, to service 22 Garadice Road

Determination of an objection to the construction of a proposed stormwater line through 24A Garadice Road, to service 22 Garadice Road

File No.: CP2015/11887

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to the construction of a stormwater pipeline under Section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Executive Summary

2. This report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to Section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02).

3. The property at 22 Garadice Road, Rothesay Bay does not have a stormwater connection to council drains. The property owner wishes to construct two new dwellings on that property.

4. The public stormwater line on the adjacent property at 16 and 16A Beulah Avenue lies beneath dwellings and a closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection has shown this pipeline to be in poor condition, of insufficient size to serve the upstream catchment, and in need of replacement.

5. The owner of 22 Garadice Road has explored options for alternative connections and found that the best option will be a replacement line via their property and 24A Garadice Road to an existing manhole in 16 Beulah Avenue (see map in attachment A). Negotiation to seek agreement for access through 24A Garadice Road has not been successful.

6. Because of the need to replace the 16 & 16A section of the existing line, Auckland Council agreed to a cost sharing arrangement with the owner of 22 Garadice Road to progress the replacement line. Council then exercised its powers under Section 181 of the LGA02 to enable the works.

7. The council has notified the owner of 24A Garadice Road of the proposed public works. They have objected to the proposed line (see attachment B) and wish to be heard.

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

Recommendation

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection by the owner of 24A Garadice Road, Rothesay Bay, pursuant to Section 181 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b) endorse the proposed stormwater pipeline and its route through the property at 24A Garadice Road, Rothesay Bay and the undertaking of drainage works generally as set out in this agenda report pursuant to Section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 and as referenced on the attached technical drawings from Chester Consultants.

Comments

Background

9. An application was received by Auckland Council on 17 April 2013 from Blazevic Family Trust, the owner of 22 Garadice Road, Rothesay Bay, for a consent under Section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the “RMA”) to develop two new dwellings on this property.

10. There is no connection available on the property to a public stormwater system, so in mid-2013, Mr Blazevic sought assistance from council’s stormwater staff to locate a suitable connection to an existing stormwater pipeline.

11. Council staff investigated the stormwater drainage system from May to June 2013 and found that the nearest pipeline, in the adjacent property, 16 Beulah Avenue was beneath two dwellings and that the Geographic Information System (GIS) record of it was incomplete.

12. Staff investigated further using closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras and found that the pipe extended through the full length of 16 and 16A Beulah Avenue, but was in very poor condition (with many open and misaligned joints) and a diameter of only 150 millimeters. Due to the pipe’s small diameter and it being partially blocked due to joint faults and broken pipes, it has insufficient capacity and is therefore unsuitable to connect additional dwellings to.

13. It was also established, by reference to property files, that seven houses upstream are connected to this existing pipeline. This means the capacity of the pipe is overloaded, resulting in a frequent overland flow observed through 16 and 16A Beulah Avenue.

14. Based on the results of these investigations, council determined that the existing pipe would have to be replaced. However, as dwellings had been built over the existing pipe, it was not possible to replace the line on the existing alignment and so an alternative route would have to be found.

15. This meant a connection from the proposed development on 22 Garadice Road to the closest stormwater reticulation (in 16 Beulah Avenue) was not viable. Council therefore informed Mr Blazevic that they would be unable to consent to the proposed developments on 22 Garadice Road, as stormwater discharge was unable to be managed appropriately.

16. Mr Blazevic then employed Chester Consultants Ltd to investigate alternative stormwater disposal options and to prepare a design and drawings for the construction of a stormwater pipeline on an alternative route. Chester Consultants investigated the options and prepared a plan and construction drawings of a proposed pipeline (attachment A).

17. The proposed pipeline will traverse the length of the property at 22 Garadice Road and travel along the western boundary of 24A Garadice Road. The new pipeline will serve a catchment area of 0.68 hectares including properties at 12, 14A, 14B, 16, 18, 20A, 20B, Garadice Road and connect to the existing reticulation serving these seven houses upstream. It will discharge to the same point as the existing pipeline.

18. The new pipe will provide capacity for those dwellings and additional capacity to allow for connection of the two proposed dwellings on 22 Garadice Road and will meet current stormwater design standards. The proposed stormwater pipeline is 225 millimeter nominal diameter, a significant increase on the previous pipe size. The route, longitudinal section and engineering details of the pipe are shown in attachment A.

Consideration of other options

19. Council’s stormwater engineers also investigated other potential replacement options for the pipeline. The governing criteria are the start and finish points of the line where the stormwater enters the low point in the rear yard of 16A Beulah Avenue and at the only potential outlet into an existing manhole in the front yard of 16 Beulah Avenue respectively. These two lots are low-lying and in the natural valley drainage path.

20. Within 16 and 16A Beulah Avenue there is no available alternative route that is not either beneath an existing house or very close to house foundations and the footings of the retaining wall on the eastern boundary. Both of these options are unacceptably risky to construct because of the effect on house foundations and retaining wall stability.

21. A pipeline route close to the western boundary of 16 and 16A is also not a satisfactory alternative, as the upstream catchment (seven houses) could not be served with an upgraded pipe.

22. Even if this limitation was deemed acceptable, this alternative would also cost approximately double the Chester option, as a branch line would have to be extended across the front yard of 16A Beulah Avenue to serve the Blazevic development on 22 Garadice Road. Substantial additional pipe length and an additional manhole, plus a substantial area of concrete driveway replacement, would also be necessary. This option also assumes that property owner consent would be gained.

23. In summary, the analysis found that there is no other viable alternative route available for a stormwater pipe that will serve 22 Garadice Road and also serve the upstream catchment with an upgraded pipe that will reduce the incidence of overland flow beneath the house on 16A Beulah Avenue.

Negotiation with property owners regarding recommended option

24. Mr Blazevic endeavoured to obtain property owner consents for the proposed new stormwater pipeline from the affected downstream parties. With respect to the owners of 24 and 24A Garadice Road, this did not reach a satisfactory conclusion as both owners of the cross leased property would only agree subject to individual, substantial financial compensation, which was rejected by Mr Blazevic due to the unacceptable cost implication.

25. The owner of 22 Garadice Road, Mr Blazevic, has met the requirement of the Act with regard to using the powers of Local Government Act 1974 Section 460 for a private drain. He has engaged Chester Consulting to investigate alternative solutions. Chester has designed an appropriate stormwater discharge reticulation for 22 Garadice Road that also caters for the upstream discharge.

26. Mr Blazevic has attempted to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to undertake the drainage works. As a satisfactory conclusion could not be reached with the owners of 24 and 24A Garadice Road, and as the proposed drainage will become a public stormwater drain, council is proceeding to undertake the works under Section 181 of the LGA02.

27. Accordingly, council notified the property owners under LGA02, Section 181 with letters dated 3 February 2014, 4 April 2014, 15 April 2014, and 28 July 2014 (attachment C).

28. Property owner consent was subsequently granted to the council by the owner of 24 (Flat 1 DP94150 on Lot 57 DP 33296 1/2sh 1128m²) Garadice Road (see attachment D), but an objection was received from the owner of 24A Garadice Road, (Flat 2 DP 95257 on Lot 57 DP 33296 1/2sh 1128m²) Mrs K Braddock via Schnauer and Co (attachment B).

29. This objection did not state Mrs K Braddock’s reasons for declining consent. However, Mrs K Braddock has made it known through Mr N Kearney of Schnauer and Company, her solicitor, that she may grant approval subject to the payment of compensation for injurious affection.

30. Council’s solicitor responded with a letter dated 11 December 2014, (attachment E) in which he states:

a) “Under the LGA, your client is not entitled to compensation for the works, or for the use of your client’s land.

b) However, as we expressed in our earlier letter to you, dated 9 December 2014, the council confirms that should any matters arise (in connection with the works) which would give rise to a claim for injurious affection, the council will pay compensation calculated under the Public Works Act 1981. The council would pay this compensation, provided it has a satisfactory evidential basis for doing so.

c) However, the council will not predetermine the outcome of any claim for injurious affection by agreeing upfront the payment of any specific compensation in consideration of obtaining the written landowner approval under section 181(3)(a) LGA02.

d) As you know, the council can proceed with the works by either obtaining written approval from your client or by going through the hearing process. While we would prefer the former, we are comfortable to follow the latter process if need be. Nevertheless, in our view, the process that is taken will not negatively affect your client’s entitlement to compensation for injurious affection, should it suffer a loss.”

31. The owners of 16 and 16A Beulah Avenue have separately given written consent to the pipeline’s construction within their subject properties, with copies of these consents in attachment D, along with the previously mentioned consent from 24 Garadice Road.

Recommended decision

32. In summary, it is recommended that the Hearings Committee endorses the Chester proposed discharge option for 22 Garadice Road as this is the only practical, viable solution council’s stormwater engineers have identified to date.

33. This proposal also provides the additional benefit of including provision for discharge from the upstream catchment areas of 12 to 20 Garadice Road (seven dwellings) which will then allow the existing failed stormwater pipe in 16 and 16A Beulah Avenue to be sealed and abandoned. The proposed pipeline will be vested as a council asset once constructed.

Next steps for implementation

34. If approved, the costs for this pipeline will be shared between Mr Blazevic and council, with Mr Blazevic paying for the length of the proposed pipeline that is downstream of his property (across 24A Garadice Road and into the existing manhole on 16 Beulah Avenue). This proposed new stormwater pipe will be vested to council and serve a catchment area of 0.68 hectares including the seven upstream properties.

35. So that the upstream seven properties can be connected to the new pipeline and thus make the existing pipeline obsolete, council will fund the length of the new pipeline that is upstream of his property from its existing stormwater renewals budget.

36. It is proposed that the pipe through 24A Garadice Road will be installed by horizontal directional drilling methods. Unless unforeseen obstacles are encountered that cannot be drilled through, this means no excavation would normally be required within 24A Garadice Road to install this pipe. Any excavation necessary would be backfilled and ground surfaces reinstated.

37. It is estimated that the construction of the pipe across 24A Garadice Road will take five to ten working days, which includes allowance for unforeseen delays.

Consideration

38. Within the framework of the Hearing Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Hearing Committee has the responsibility for “Hearing and determining the matters regarding drainage and works on private land under the LGA02. This delegation cannot be sub-delegated.”

39. 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 in relation to 24A Garadice Road under Section 181 of the LGA02 may be appealed to the District Court under Schedule 12 of the LGA02.

Local Board views and implications

40. The Local Board is not advised of service connection requests under LGA02. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 24A Garadice Road, Rothesay Bay.

Māori impact statement

41. It is recognised that stormwater works which impact on the mauri of waterways are of great significance to mana whenua in their kaitiaki role. However, the proposed works do not alter flow within the catchment and so are unlikely to have an impact on the mauri of surrounding waterways.

42. Under Section 181 of the LGA02, mana whenua are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are owners of land through which a proposed drain is to be aligned.

Implementation

43. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owner of 24A Garadice Road, Rothesay Bay. All other affected property owners have granted their written consent.

44. If this stormwater pipeline is approved, all costs for this project can be met within existing council budgets and resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Chester Consultants Ltd technical maps showing route and longitudinal section of proposed stormwater reticulation over 24A Garadice Road, accumulated stormwater catchment area and design pipe flow rates	15
b ⇩	Objection received from K Braddock	17
c ⇩	Notification of property owner K Braddock under LGA02, Section 181 with letters dated 3 February 2014, 4 April 2014, 15 April 2014, and 28 July 2014	19
d ⇩	Property owner consent 16,16A Beulah Avenue and 24 Garadice Road	27
e ⇩	Council response to Braddock offer subject to compensation for injurious affection	35
f ⇩	Copy of Section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002	37
g ⇩	Copy of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002	39

Signatories

Authors

Craig Mountjoy, Principal - Operational Management Stormwater

Dukessa Blackburn-Huettner, Stormwater Operations and Planning Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

21 July 2015

8 Objection to the issue of noise abatement notices

Objection to the issue of noise abatement notices

File No.: CP2015/12435

Purpose

1. To assist the Hearings Committee to determine the objection by Dr. Deborah Waxman of Remuera, Auckland, to the noise abatement notices issued to her in respect of her dogs Tai, Tov, Fionn and Mazel on 23 May 2015.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council officers have been involved since November 2013 in dealing with complaints about Dr. Waxman’s dogs barking, made by several of her neighbours.

3. The council has received complaints from the neighbours on the following days:

a) 24 March 2015 – complaints received from 3 neighbours;

b) 11 May 2015 – complaints received from 5 neighbours;

c) 15 May 2015 – complaints received from 5 neighbours and 2 unknown persons;

d) 20 May 2015 – complaints received from 4 neighbours;

e) 12 June 2015 – complaints received from 7 neighbours.

4. Methods to resolve the issue have included advice and education to Dr. Waxman, and mediation between Dr. Waxman and her neighbours. Evidence obtained by council staff in May and June 2015 confirmed barking at nuisance levels, resulting in the issue of a noise abatement notice.

5. The May complaints led to the council’s decision to issue a noise abatement notice for all of Dr. Waxman’s dogs. Dr.Waxman objected to the noise abatement notice on 27 May 2015.

6. The council’s actions have been in accordance with a graduated enforcement approach, with emphasis on education and advice at the early stages, with a stricter regulatory response where this proves ineffective.

7. Council staff have advised Dr. Waxman of a range of effective, well proven methods to remedy the barking. This includes regular exercise and socialization of her dogs, specialist dog behaviourists and/or expert training, and the use of bark collars.

8. The most effective remedy has been the use of electronic bark collars. Council has not received complaints about barking when apparently the collars where being worn.

9. In three recent complaints to council, the barking was related to Dr. Waxman’s decision not to attach the bark collars to her dogs:

a) 24 March 2015 12.54 hours – “Discussed bark collar which Deborah will put on when return after job within hour.” – Notes Matt Florence AMO, refer attachment A.

b) 15 May 2015 16.30 hours – “Deborah asked me to give her one more chance she will put the bark collars on the dogs she feels may be barking. Deborah stated that she had to go out that evening but she will make sure that the dogs have bark collars on.” – Statement Kia Ah-Siu AMO, refer attachment B.

c) 12 June 2015 10.23 hours – “Gwen Pantry a Dispatch operator phoned Deborah Waxman. Deborah Waxman informed Gwen, that she is not prepared to go home. She told Gwen that she took the bark collars off the dogs as she was trying some sort of experiment. She wanted to see how long it would take before Animal management received a complaint about her dogs barking. Deborah stated to Gwen she was working in Drury and she wouldn’t come home.” – Statement Kia Ah-Siu AMO, refer attachment C.

10. Upon the determination of the objection by the committee, council shall give the objector a further notice stating the decision of the authority. If the effect of the decision is to modify the requirements of the dog control officer, that notice shall set out those requirements to be modified.

11. Should the committee resolve to uphold the noise abatement notice, Dr. Waxman will have seven days to address the nuisance noise and any other condition associated with the abatement notice. Failure to comply after this period would constitute an offence under the Act. Council may at that point choose to take subsequent action including the impounding of her dogs, and/or the issuing of infringement notice.

Recommendation

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a) confirm and uphold the council officers’ decision to issue the noise abatement notices issued to Dr. Debrah Waxman in respect of her dogs Tai, Tov, Fionn and Mazel on 23 May 2015.

Comments

Background

12. On 7 November 2013, the council issued Dr. Waxman with noise abatement notices for her dogs Tai, Tov, Fionn and Mazel. Dr. Waxman objected to the notices but requested mediation with her neighbours to discuss their concerns, refer attachment D.

13. On 13 February 2014, mediation took place between Dr. Waxman and her neighbours and this resulted in actions that Dr. Waxman agreed to carry out that included “electronic collars will remain”. The council agreed to rescind the noise abatement notices if it was satisfied the agreed actions were being complied with, refer to email dated 3 March 2015, attachment E.

14. On 30 June 2014, in accordance with the agreed actions the council rescinded the 7 November 2013 noise abatement notices, refer attachment F.

15. Following this only two complaints were received regarding barking on 12 November 2014 and 24 March 2015, refer attachment G.

16. On 11, 15, 19 and 20 May 2015 that the council received a series of complaints, refer attachment B and H.

17. The complaints received in May 2015 resulted in the council decision to issue Dr. Waxman with noise abatement notices for her four dogs pursuant to s 55 of Act, letter dated 23 May 2015, refer attachment I.

18. Dr. Waxman objected to the noise abatement notices on 27 May 2015.

19. On 12 June 2015, a further complaint was received, refer attachment C. An officer spoke to Dr. Waxman, whilst another officer attended the scene and photographed what she observed, refer attachment J.

20. Statements were taken from eight neighbours in relation to the 12 June 2015 incident, refer attachment K.

21. Maps and aerial photographs have been included to illustrate the location of Dr. Waxman’s property, refer attachment L.

22. The recipient of a noise abatement notice may lodge an objection in writing to the issuing authority. The committee as the delegated authority to consider any objection raised and to confirm, modify, or cancel the noise abatement notice.

23. The practice of Auckland Council when responding to complaints about barking is to:

(a) speak to complainant(s), neighbours and the dog owner to determine whether barking is creating a nuisance,

(b) monitor noise from the property in question to determine whether barking is at nuisance levels,

(d) work with complainant(s) to help them understand the difference between reasonable levels of barking and nuisance levels of barking

(e) use, as a last resort, the legal powers contained within the Act to remediate nuisance barking^{^[1]} .

Conclusion

24. Council officers have responded to complaints about barking from Dr. Waxman’s Remuera property for almost 2 years. Officers have encouraged, advised and supported the dog owner and neighbours in an attempt to abate and minimise the nuisance through voluntary action.

25. Dr. Waxman has taken steps to remedy the nuisance and these have been successful. However, complaints about barking have been received and it has been established that the cause of those complaints has been Dr. Waxman’s decision not to attach the electronic bark collars to her dogs.

26. The issuing of the noise abatement notices is reasonable. The use of electronic bark collars has demonstrated that they effectively abate the nuisance barking and therefore the requirements of the notices are reasonable, can be easily implemented and do not impose a significant or unreasonable inconvenience for Dr. Waxman.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

27. The Local board view has not been sought.

Māori impact statement

28. The content of this report has no adverse effect on Māori.

Implementation

29. There are no implementation issues at this stage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	24 March 2015 - Discussion with owner regarding barking collars	45
b ⇩	15 May 2015 - Discussion with owner	47
c ⇩	12 June 2015 - Discussion with owner	51
d ⇩	Council issues a noise abatement notice	57
e ⇩	Mediation with owner and neighbours	59
f ⇩	Council rescinds noise abatement notice	61
g ⇩	Complaints received regarding barking	63
h ⇩	Further complaints received regard barking	67
i ⇩	Council issues a noise abatement notice	71
j ⇩	Photographs from owners property	79
k ⇩	Statements from neighbours	85
l ⇩	Map and location of owners property	115

Signatories

Authors

Tracey Moore - Manager Animal Management, Licensing and Compliance Services

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

21 July 2015

9 Three Kings Reserve - Appointment of Consideration Panel

Three Kings Reserve - Appointment of Consideration Panel

File No.: CP2015/13744

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to consider submissions received in respect of a notice of intention under s.15 of the Reserves Act 1977 to exchange reserve land at Three Kings Reserve with land at 985 Mount Eden Road.

Executive Summary

2. Fletcher Residential Ltd, part of the Fletcher group that owns the Three Kings quarry, has requested a plan change to the operative district plan (PM372). The plan change is predicated on a land exchange under s.15 of the Reserves Act to facilitate the rehabilitation and development of the quarry land and parts of the surrounding reserve for residential purposes.

3. The master plan provides for the provision of 1,200 to 1,500 residential dwellings, together with reconfigured reserve areas to provide two full sized sports fields, improved vehicular, pedestrian and cycle connections, improved passive recreational space and the provision of a public plaza.

4. The reserve land is part owned by Auckland Council and part owned by the Crown, and the council is the administering body for the reserve. Any exchange of crown derived reserve land must be requested by council for the approval of the Minister of Conservation.

5. On 11 June, the Auckland Development Committee resolved (AUC/2015/118) that a notice of intention to request the exchange of reserve land be published to request objections and submissions on the proposed exchange. Under the Reserves Act, the administering body for the reserve must consider all objections prior to resolving to request the exchange from the Minister. The submission period opened on 22 June and closes on 24 July 2015.

6. A consideration panel is required to be formed to consider objections and submissions (and hear those submissions where requested by a submitter). The panel is then to report back to council officers with recommendations as to whether accept or reject any such objections. Council officers and ACPL will then report those recommendations to the Auckland Development Committee.

7. It is recognised by the applicant that any proposed land exchange requested of the Minister by the administering body is a separate process to PM372.

Recommendation

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of four independent commissioners (including one as chair), to consider, in the context of the Reserves Act, submissions received in response to the notice of intention to request an exchange of reserve land at Three Kings Reserve under s.15 of the Reserves Act 1977, and report to council officers with their recommendations to the council, as the administering body of the reserve.

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

8. Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Ltd own 985 Mount Eden Road, a 15.2ha site forming the Three Kings quarry. Quarrying activities have ceased, and a clean fill operation is underway. The property is zoned Business 7 (quarrying) under the Auckland City Operative District Plan (Isthmus Section).

9. The Three Kings Reserve adjoins the south and southwest boundaries of 985 Mount Eden Road. The reserve comprises Crown land and Auckland Council land, and is held in trust and administered by Auckland Council under the Reserves Act 1977.

10. In September 2014, Fletcher Residential Ltd submitted two private plan changes relating to the rehabilitation and redevelopment of the quarry area for residential purposes. Plan change PM373 relates to a development contained within the boundaries of 985 Mount Eden Rd, whilst the other, PM372, relates to both 985 Mount Eden Road and parts of the Three Kings Reserve.

11. Part of the northeast area of 985 Mount Eden Road has been granted SHA status for the development of town house and apartment buildings and this area is not part of either plan change request.

12. Separate to PM372, the applicant is seeking an exchange of reserve land under s.15 of the Reserves Act 1977. The exchange of land proposes to reconfigure the existing reserve to form an integrated residential and open space development linking the new development at 985 Mt Eden Road, together with residential development on parts of exchanged reserve, to the Three Kings town centre.

13. Both plan changes were notified in October 2014 and a commissioners hearing on PM372 was held in May 2015. The planning commissioners are formulating their decision, and progress on PM373 is on hold awaiting the outcome of this decision.

14. In parallel to the RMA process, Auckland Council Property Ltd and council officers have engaged or consulted with council stakeholders, Puketapapa Local Board, adjoining owners, Department of Conservation, iwi and the public, and have reported to Auckland Development Committee on the exchange proposal in the context of s.15 of the Reserves Act 1977.

15. In this instance, Auckland Council as the administering body for the reserve, does not have delegated authority to authorize the exchange under the Reserves Act. A request to exchange must be made to the Minister of Conservation. It is a statutory requirement that prior to the request, the administering body must publish a notice of the intention to request an exchange under the Reserves Act. The notice calls for objections and submissions to the exchange, and objections must be considered by the administering body before it resolves to request the exchange of the Minister.

Consideration

General

16. The land exchange proposal and Fletcher Residential Ltd proposals for the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the quarry, with or without surrounding reserve land, has received a high degree of public and stakeholder interest.

17. On 11 June 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved (AUC/2015/118) that a notice of intention be published in respect of the proposed exchange, and that a consideration panel be appointed to review any objections or submissions received during the public notification period. The Committee recommended that, if available, the independent commissioners on PM372 be appointed to the consideration panel, given their detailed knowledge of the whole proposal.

18. To address any perceived conflict of interest between the RMA plan change process and the land exchange process under the Reserves Act, it is suggested that the chair of the panel is a Reserves Act specialist unconnected with the PM372 hearing process. It is also recommended that a maximum of two PM372 commissioners are appointed to the panel. This will provide the panel with a balance of persons with a detailed understanding of the whole master plan proposal, including the impact of stormwater design on the sportsfields area, together with a Reserves Act specialist as chair and another member with no prior involvement. Staff will ensure that this Reserves Act process is carried out independently to the RMA process.

19. The Department of Conservation has commented, in reviewing the inclusion of planning commissioners on the panel that the evaluation of submissions must be made in a Reserves Act context only, and exclude RMA considerations.

20. Any request by the administrative body will be reviewed by the Department of Conservation to ensure objections have been addressed in accordance with sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977. Any exchange request would also be subject to outcome of PM372.

21. In the context of the Reserves Act, the principle test is one of suitability; will the proposed reserve following the exchange be better suited for the purposes of the reserve than the existing reserve? The ‘purpose’ of the Three Kings Reserve is ‘recreational’. A guide setting out Reserve Act considerations will be provided to the consideration panel.

Local Board views and implications

22. On 13 November 2014, 26 March 2015 and 28 May 2015, the Puketapapa Local Board received reports relating to the land exchange proposals and on the outcome of iwi engagement, and the feedback from adjoining owner and the public consultation that was undertaken in April.

23. On 30 April the Local Board provided its views on Private Plan Change 372 for inclusion in the Section 42A Report – Proposed Private Plan Change 372 to the Auckland Council District Plan: Operative Auckland City (Isthmus Section 1999).

24. On 4 June the Auckland Development Committee held a workshop which was attended by the Local Board and which provided an opportunity to review issues identified by the Local Board in its meeting of 28 May 2013.

25. The Local Board has requested to make a submission in response to the notice of intention. The Board’s principal interests relate to ensuring the current master plan in PM372 provides the best achievable alignment with the Three Kings Plan and that no other master plan for the area would provide a better alignment.

26. From a legal perspective, the governing body (and its committees) is required to consider views and preferences expressed by the Local Board before making a request to the Minister. Staff will provide a mechanism for this to occur, either by the Local Board’s views and preferences being provided separately to the panel or by the Local Board making a submission as part of this non-regulatory process.

Māori impact statement

27. Further to the resolution of the Auckland Development Committee of 12 March (AUC/2015/42), ACPL has undertaken an iwi consultation process on the proposed land exchange.

28. Representatives of the collective of 13 Mana Whenua iwi/hapū of the Tupuna Taonaga o Tamaki Makaurau Trust, together with the chair of the Maunga Authority, were contacted with information on the proposal.

29. Invitations were extended to iwi to attend a hui to discuss the exchange, and this was held on 14 April 2015 with seven Mana Whenua representatives present. Detailed notes of the meeting were taken, and it was agreed that responses and feedback on the exchange should be provided by 7 May to Auckland Council Property Ltd.

30. Mana Whenua are broadly supportive of the exchange proposal and noted that the rights of first refusal attached to crown land would be attached to the new reserve land. Questions were raised around mana whenua access to, and participation in, affordable housing; the use of development contributions to be applied to marae development; the need for more sports fields in the area; and the support for the Fletcher Residential Ltd proposal to provide for and fund one third of the cost of a Whare manaaki in the development.

31. On 4 June a presentation was made to the Maunga Authority hui and the land exchange proposal was discussed. Both at this meeting and at the hui of 14 April sadness was expressed at the loss of four of the five hills of the maunga by quarrying over the last 150 years.

32. Representatives of the collective of 13 Mana Whenua iwi/hapū of the Tupuna Taonaga o Tamaki Makaurau Trust, together with the chair of the Maunga Authority were individually contacted in respect of the s.15 notice of intention immediately prior to its publication on 22 June.

Implementation

33. 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 of PM372.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Existing and proposed reserve exchange plans	121

Signatories

Authors

Nigel Hewitson - Team Leader Disposals

Authorisers

Clive Fuhr - Manager Acquisitions & Disposals

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

21 July 2015

12 Noting the urgent decisions of 17 June 2015 to appoint hearings commissioners

Noting the urgent decisions of 17 June 2015 to appoint hearings commissioners

File No.: CP2015/12678

Purpose

1. To advise the Hearings Committee of decisions made under urgency to appoint hearings commissioners.

Executive Summary

2. Two urgent decisions to appoint hearings commissioners relating to a Notice of Requirement for an alternation to a designation to “State Highway 20A” and associated resource consent applications, and a resource consent application by Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited in the Firth of Thames.

3. The decisions were made under urgency under Section 2 and 5.1.1 of the Hearings Committee policy and terms of reference.

Notice of Requirement - “State Highway 20A”

4. Jenny Hudson (Chair), Les Simmons and Stephen Udy were appointed to hear submissions and make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement for an alternation to a designation to “State Highway 20A” and associated resource consent applications.

5. The decision was made by Chairperson Linda Cooper, Deputy Chairperson Penny Webster and Member Glenn Wilcox on 17 June 2015.

Resource Consent, Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited

6. David Serjeant (Chair) and Sheena Tepania were appointed to make decisions on the notification of the Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited application and determine the application if it proceeds on a non-notified basis or otherwise does not require a hearing.

7. In the event the application proceeds on a notified basis and a hearing is required, Craig Shearer was appointed to the panel.

8. Deputy Chairperson Penny Webster declared an interest in this matter and did not participate in the decision making.

9. The decision was made by Chairperson Linda Cooper, Councillor Calum Penrose, and Member Glenn Wilcox on 17 June 2015.

Recommendation

Recommendation

That the Hearings Committee:

a) note the decision to appoint Jenny Hudson, Les Simmons and Stephen Udy to make decisions on the Notice of Requirement – “State Highway 20A”.

b) note the decision to appoint David Serjeant, Sheena Tepania and Craig Shearer to make decisions on the resource consent, Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Requirement for an alternation to a designation to "State Highway 20A"	141
b ⇩	Resource consent, Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited, Firth of Thames	147

Signatories

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

21 July 2015

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Hearings Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 New resource consent appeal: N M Growth Limited v Auckland Council (ENV-2015-AKL-85) 8 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna

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