Agenda of Hearings Committee

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.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Other 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.

Council Controlled Organisations

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

Hearings Committee

19 August 2015

Determination of objection to creek widening Hillcrest

File No.: CP2015/14062

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to the widening of Hillcrest Creek 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. Council has been working on a project to reduce flooding risk and enable redevelopment in the Hillcrest Avenue area since 2010.

4. The project involves construction of a second culvert beneath Hillcrest Avenue and widening of 240 metres of Hillcrest Creek. This projects impacts on 12 private properties on Evelyn Place, Hillcrest Avenue and Ocean View Road. The impact on property owners includes widening of the creek through their properties and acquisition of easements for access, with appropriate compensation. A plan of the proposed widening overlying an aerial photograph of the impacted area is shown in attachment A.

5. This project will reduce existing flood risks in Hillcrest Avenue, Ocean View Road, Lake Road and Tonar Street (see flood hazard maps pre and post construction in Attachment B).

6. It will also enable redevelopment of Housing New Zealand properties at the northern end of Tonar Street which are currently within the flood plain. These properties are within the Northcote Strategic Special Housing Area and have been identified as a potential site for redevelopment but this cannot proceed without reducing the flood risk.

7. In developing this project, council considered a number of other potential options to alleviate the flood risk. Options of up-stream detention or diversion along an alternative route were discounted due to insufficient available storage and cost respectively. Changes to the grade of the channel or deepening were also both considered and deemed unfeasible. The proposed project was identified as the best practicable option.

8. Consultation with owners of affected properties commenced in August 2010. Council met with each owner and provided them with plans of the proposed works and photomontages of the proposed changes (see attachment C for an example of a plan and photomontage for 38 Evelyn Place).

9. During this process council also canvassed potential left bank and right bank widening options with owners and determined widening on the true right bank was the best option.

10. In 2013, the resource consent application to undertake the Hillcrest Creek widening works was limited notified. Council was unable to resolve the submissions received in opposition from affected parties and the application was the subject of a hearing in August 2013.

11. A resource consent was then granted in October 2013 to undertake the works (no subsequent appeals), with various conditions, including that offers of compensation for injurious affection (where applicable) be made to affected owners.

12. Council then conducted a valuation based on pre-construction and post-construction conditions to determine injurious affection and the level of compensation property owners should receive. This included compensation for easements for maintenance access. Liaison with owners of affected properties to agree injurious affection and compensation has been in progress since late 2014.

13. Agreements for injurious affection and compensation have been agreed with nine of the 12 property owners (agreements have been finalised for two properties and agreed in principle for the remaining seven).

14. No agreement on injurious affection and compensation has yet been reached with the owners of the three remaining properties (7 and 13 Hillcrest Avenue and 38 Evelyn Place). However, the owner of one of these properties (7 Hillcrest Avenue) has signaled informal agreement to a planting plan related to the creek widening for her property.

15. Council made several efforts in late 2014 and early 2015, including a face to face meeting where possible compensation options were outlined, to negotiate an agreement with the remaining two property owners (Mr Chang of 38 Evelyn Place and the owner of 13 Hillcrest Avenue). Despite various attempts to contact him, the owner of 13 Hillcrest Avenue has been largely un-responsive to date.

16. Council staff met again with Mr Chang on 26 May 2015 to discuss the project and try to resolve his concerns, with little progress.

17. Because of the time that had elapsed since the previous notice of intention was served to property owners in November and December 2013, a further notice of intention to proceed with construction (under section 181 of the LGA02) was served to the owners and occupiers of affected properties in late May to early June 2015 (as an example, attachment D is the letter sent to the owners of 38 Evelyn Place).

18. On 22 June 2015 an objection to the notice was received from Mr Chang of 38 Evelyn Place, who wishes to be heard (refer to the email in attachment E in respect of this matter). Council has met on a number of occasions with this property owner without resolution and so it is not expected that further negotiation will resolve his objections.

19. 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 38 Evelyn Place, Hillcrest, pursuant to section 181 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b) endorse the proposed Hillcrest Creek widening works 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 Search Consulting Limited.

Comments

Background

20. The Hillcrest Creek widening project arose from development of the Hillcrest Catchment Management Plan (2008), which identified a number of flood risks in the area. These extended to Hillcrest Avenue, Ocean View Road, Lake Road and Tonar Street (see the first flood hazard map in attachment B).

21. The flood plain in this area also includes Housing New Zealand properties at the northern end of Tonar Street. A Housing New Zealand redevelopment of southern Tonar was carried out in 2008 which replaced 15 existing dwellings with 44 new apartments.

22. Housing New Zealand was also considering re-development of northern Tonar but this was not able to proceed due to the flood risk. This development would have added more quality housing to the area, replacing the existing buildings which were constructed in the 1960s.

23. In 2014 this area was also included in the Northcote Strategic Special Housing Area. The Hillcrest Creek widening project is part of a wider catchment solution that will enable development in this Special Housing Area.

24. Council modelled widening of Hillcrest Creek upstream and downstream of Hillcrest Avenue and the impact of creating an additional culvert underneath Hillcrest Avenue. They found that this would reduce flood risk in the area (see map showing projected extent of flooding post construction in attachment B) and remove the flood risk from Housing New Zealand’s Tonar Street properties.

25. The project involves construction of a second culvert beneath Hillcrest Avenue and widening of Hillcrest Creek for 100 metres upstream (in Stancich Reserve and 16 Hillcrest Avenue) and 140 metres downstream of Hillcrest Avenue. Widening is planned in 12 private properties at 32/1 and 32/2, 38 and 40 Evelyn Place, 7, 11, 13, 15b and 16/1 and 16/2 Hillcrest Avenue, and 11/1 and 11/2 Ocean View Road (see attachment A for a plan of the proposed widening).

26. The proposal is to widen the creek through these properties by approximately 2.5 to 3 metres, roughly doubling the width of the creek. This will deliver an increase in capacity of the creek of between 70 to 100 per cent. The estimated construction cost of the project is approximately $2.2 million.

Consideration of other options

27. During the project development phase, council’s stormwater engineers and consulting engineers investigated other potential options in the Hillcrest catchment to reduce flood risk. These options included detention, diversion, re-grading or deepening the channel. A summary of the benefits and drawbacks of each option is provided below.

Detention

28. Detention opportunities within the upper reaches of the Hillcrest catchment were investigated and are shown below in Figure One.

Figure One - Detention opportunities in Hillcrest catchment

29. Each detention option would provide localised flood relief but, individually, would not provide sufficient flow reduction at Hillcrest Avenue to reduce the flood risk. Collectively, detention at every site would have been sufficient to reduce the flood risk but the major drawback of this option was that it was not cost-effective for council to provide.

Diversion

30. Council considered the option of diverting flows along an alternative conveyance route (along Hillcrest Avenue and Ocean View Road to discharge back into Hillcrest Creek at or near the intersection of Northcote Road and Ocean View Road bridge) as shown in Figure Two.

31. It was determined that two 2.1 meter long pipelines, each approximately 325 metres long (as shown on Figure 2 below), would be required to divert flows from Hillcrest Creek in a parallel conduit to provide the necessary conveyance capacity to resolve the identified flooding issues.

32. This alignment would have the benefit of requiring less disruption to private property. Some drawbacks of this option were that the estimated cost of the proposed diversion was in excess of $3 million (as opposed to the preferred option’s cost of $2.2 million).

Figure Two - Alignment of potential diversion

33. This option also had higher risks of failure, as there was a possibility that storm-borne debris could block the inlets into such a system (pipes of that size and length generally require inlet grilles as safety devices).There would also be hydraulic issues to manage to maximize flow through the pipes.

34. Construction of this proposed alignment would also be very disruptive to traffic, as these roads each carry more than 10,000 vehicles per day. Service relocations, including of a 630 millimeter diameter concrete-lined steel bulk water main owned by WaterCare, would also be complex and expensive.

Re-grading or deepening the channel

35. Council considered the option of re-grading the channel through increasing the gradient in the downstream direction. This option was considered because a higher gradient means that water moves through channels at a higher velocity and the channel has more capacity during a flooding event.

36. Deepening the channel to increase its capacity was also considered. These options had similar benefits and drawbacks.

37. The benefit was that they would cause less disruption to private property than creek widening.

38. With regards to drawbacks, council found that it would not be cost-effective to try to increase the positive gradient of the bed of Hillcrest Creek. This was because the creek is quite flat in this section and re-grading would be required for more than 400 metres to reach a point where there is a significant drop in the bed level (a small waterfall) that would allow an increase in the bed gradient.

39. Re-grading would also require deepening of the existing channel and construction or replacement of retaining walls on both sides of the creek which could significantly increase the cost of the project.

40. Council also found that while, subject to obtaining consent to remove the waterfall, the gradient could be increased to approximately 1.5 per cent over this section, this would still only increase the capacity of the creek by approximately 20 per cent.

41. This meant that this option still required increasing the cross-sectional area of the channel (through deepening or widening) by approximately 50 per cent. Due to technical issues with deepening (see below), this meant that disruption to property owners would have not been significantly less than in the preferred option, in which council proposes to widen the existing creek by approximately 100 per cent (2.5 to 3 metres).

42. Changing the level of the creek would also require excavation in the creek bed, which is variable in composition (some alluvial material and some basalt). This was a major drawback because basalt excavation would be time-consuming and costly.

43. Excavation of the bed would also require the existing low retaining walls on both sides of the creek to be replaced as lowering the creek bed would undermine the existing walls. The new retaining walls would need to be significantly higher to accommodate the increased flow conveyed by the widened upstream channel and additional culvert and would be more costly due to the higher strength of materials required to withstand the additional loads of the higher retained banks.

44. Providing higher retaining walls on both sides of the creek had potential to more than double the cost of the project.

Summary of alternative options

45. In summary, council engaged in an extensive consideration of other options for delivering this project that would involve less disruption to private property. Overall, they found that the proposed creek widening is the best and only practicable option to deliver the project in a reasonably cost-effective fashion.

Consultation with property owners

46. Once council had decided on a preferred option for the project, consultation with owners of properties affected by the widening works began in August 2010.

47. During this period council staff met with each owner and provided them with plans of the proposed works and photomontages of the proposed changes (see attachment C to show an example for 38 Evelyn Place).

Left bank or right bank widening options

48. A selection of left bank and right bank widening options were canvassed with property owners during consultation. Through this process council determined that widening on the true left (northern) bank is not practicable through 13 and 15b Hillcrest Avenue due to the construction of the dwelling at 15b Hillcrest Avenue and its proximity to the creek.

49. Widening on the true left bank at 40 Evelyn Place is also not preferred by the owner of 40 Evelyn Place due to the effects on the proposed development at this address. Consent for the proposed development is subject to Hillcrest Creek widening works proceeding and reducing the attendant flood risk at 40 Evelyn Place.

50. Widening on the true left bank at 38 Evelyn Place was also considered and discussed with the owner of 38 Evelyn Place but this would result in a reduction (of approximately 160 square metres) of the area of back yard on the same side of the creek as their dwelling (see attachment F).

51. Whilst widening on the true right bank involves removing several mature oak and kauri trees, there is no reduction in the area of back yard adjacent to the dwelling (see attachment C).

52. In summary, the analysis found that the proposed widening on the true right bank was the best practicable option to reduce flood risk in the area and that this will have fewer adverse effects on property owners than other options.

Resource consent process

53. Letters requesting consent for works under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02) were sent to affected property owners on 22 July 2011 and 31 July 2012. A follow up letter to property owners who had not yet responded was also sent on 27 September 2012.

54. The resource consent application for the project was accepted by council’s regulatory department in 2013. As part of a limited notification process owners of affected properties were once again notified in November and December 2013.

55. Submissions made in opposition (including one from the owner of 38 Evelyn Place) were received and the application proceeded to a hearing (where their submission was heard) in August 2013.

56. The resource consent for the works was granted in October 2013 (no subsequent appeals), with the following conditions:

· downstream erosion protection works be undertaken

· that owners be presented with proposals for compensation for injurious affection, where applicable

· planting plans for mitigation planting be presented for agreement with affected property owners.

57. In accordance with these conditions, downstream erosion protection works commenced in March 2014 and were completed in September 2014. Planting plans for each property were also developed.

58. A further letter requesting consent for works under the LGA02 was issued on 11 November 2013 and a follow-up letter was sent on 17 December 2013. The intention was for the works to proceed in the summer of 2014/2015, following the completion of the downstream erosion protection works. The lead time of approximately 12 months was intended to allow for any LGA02 objections to be heard and resolved prior to physical works commencing.

Compensation assessments for injurious affection and easements for access

59. As part of negotiations with property owners, easements for access through private property were sought to enable council’s contractor to have a legal right of access for maintenance of the modified channel and adjacent banks.

60. Accordingly a compensation assessment was carried out, which included compensation for easements for maintenance of the section of Hillcrest Creek through private property.

61. Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) was engaged to manage the valuations (pre-and post-works and easements) and to negotiate with the property owners (as per LGA02 and Public Works Act requirements). ACPL engaged Thomas Civil to undertake this work.

Result of negotiations with property owners regarding compensation

62. Thomas Civil have met with all affected property owners to explain the situation and outline options for compensation. They have made agreements with nine of the 12 property owners. Of these, two have been finalised and another seven property owners have made an agreement in principle (currently being finalised). However, Thomas Civil have been unable to negotiate agreements with the remaining three property owners.

63. Of the three remaining properties (7 and 13 Hillcrest Avenue and 38 Evelyn Place), while the owner of 7 Hillcrest has not yet agreed to a formal offer of compensation she has signified her verbal assent to the proposed plantings. The property owner of 13 Hillcrest Avenue has been un-responsive to date.

64. Planting plans for all affected properties have also been sent to the respective owners for review. Ten of the property owners have agreed with these planting plans. Planting plans relating to the remaining two properties (13 Hillcrest Avenue and 38 Evelyn Place) were sent to the owners but the arborist for this project has been unsuccessful in his efforts to engage with them to agree the planting proposals.

Objection to Hillcrest Creek widening works

65. Council staff have met with Mr Chang of 38 Evelyn Place a number of times since 2010 to discuss this project with him. This included a meeting in which council’s contractor Thomas Civil outlined his options for accessing compensation.

66. Mr Chang has stated his opposition to the project and has not yet commissioned a valuation of his property or responded to council’s efforts to negotiate compensation with him.

67. Council staff met again with Mr Chang on 26 May 2015 to try to progress compensation negotiations. The conclusion drawn following the meeting was that there had been no material progress. After the meeting, a further letter of formal notice (under section 181 of the LGA02) was served, as 18 months had elapsed since the previous service.

68. Unfortunately there were minor mail merge errors in this letter that were not detected until the following day. An agent was engaged to formally serve an amended notice on 4 June 2015 (see attachment D). Mr Chang was absent at the time of service (12:45 pm on 4 June 2015), and the notice was taped to his front door.

69. Mr Chang has subsequently acknowledged receipt of the notice and submitted an objection via email (attachment E).

Other issues for consideration

70. Following issue of the resource consent in 2013, a handmade bridge spanning the banks of Hillcrest Creek within 38 Evelyn Place has been constructed (refer attachment G). No consent has been issued for this bridge, and it does not appear to satisfy building consent requirements (it has no fall arrest or handrail).

71. It is proposed that this bridge be removed as part of the widening project as it will no longer span the banks. It is deemed not reasonable for council to bear the cost and liability for designing and constructing a compliant bridge.

72. Instead, in the course of the Hillcrest Creek widening works it is proposed that access from within the channel in 38 Evelyn Place be provided (via a ladder attached to the retaining wall and a gate in the fence on the true right / south bank).

73. The widening is proposed to extend to the area on the true right bank that is currently separated from the dwelling by the existing channel (refer attachment C) so removal of the bridge should have minimal impact.

Summary and recommended decision

74. Council has developed a project to alleviate the risk of flooding through widening Hillcrest Creek. This project is also part of a broader catchment solution that will enable development in a Special Housing Area.

75. Council has considered other options, including detention, diversion, re-grading or deepening of the creek bed, and determined that the proposed widening is the best practicable option.

76. Council has consulted with affected property owners since August 2010. Council has served notice on affected owners advising of its intention to undertake works in accordance with the LGA02 no fewer than five times since 2012.

77. Council has sought and obtained resource consent to undertake the works in October 2013 and has subsequently fulfilled all resource consent conditions.

78. Council has also been successful in negotiating agreements for compensation with nine of the 12 impacted property owners (two confirmed, seven being finalised). Of the three remaining property owners; the owner of 7 Hillcrest Avenue has agreed informally to a planting plan for her property, the owner of 13 Hillcrest Avenue has been largely unresponsive and the owner of 38 Evelyn Place is the objector to this hearing.

79. Council staff and consultant agents have met with the objector several times, most recently on 26 May 2015, to discuss the scope of works and the expected effects with a view to advancing the agreement for compensation for injurious affection and the easement for maintenance access. These meetings did not result in any material progress in negotiations and it is not expected that further mediation will resolve his objections.

80. In summary, it is recommended that the Hearings Committee endorses the proposed widening of Hillcrest Creek along the true right bank, as shown in the attached technical drawings by Search Consulting Limited (attachment A).

Next steps for implementation

81. If approved, the contract for the physical works will be tendered soon after as construction is proposed to proceed in late 2015 or early 2016.

82. Negotiations for compensation with owners with whom council has yet to reach agreement may proceed. Since council has resource consent for this project the successful conclusion of these negotiations is not required for physical works to proceed.

83. The agreements include compensation for council obtaining easements for access for maintenance of council assets along Hillcrest Creek in private property. Compulsory acquisition may be considered as a way to progress this project if it is not possible to negotiate compensation for all of these easements.

84. It is estimated that the construction of the project will take approximately 20 weeks, although the duration of work in any single property is not expected to exceed 12 weeks.

Consideration

85. 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.

86. 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 under schedule 12 of the LGA02.

Local Board views and implications

87. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of those properties with whom council has yet to reach agreement.

Māori impact statement

88. It is recognised that stormwater works which impact on the mauri of waterways are of great significance to mana whenua in their kaitiaki role. The project was submitted to mana whenua through North Shore City Council’s tangata whenua forum for consideration in 2010, and no objection to the proposal was received at that time.

89. 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

90. The determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of those properties with whom Council has yet to reach agreement.

91. If this proposal proceeds as planned, all costs for this project can be met within existing council budgets and resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Technical drawings from Search Consulting showing plans for Hillcrest Creek widening, including culvert and watercourse upgrade works	19
b View	Flood hazard maps showing current extent of flood plain if no works undertaken versus extent if full upstream and downstream work undertaken as part of proposed Hillcrest Creek Widening	21
c View	Map and photomontage showing impact of project on 38 Evelyn Place	23
d View	Local Government Act 2002 Section 181 amended letter of notification to owners of 38 Evelyn Place	25
e View	Objection (email) received from owners of 38 Evelyn Place, Rebecca Chang and Tai-Li Chang	27
f View	Photomontage showing impact of left bank widening on 38 Evelyn Place	29
g View	Non-compliant bridge at 38 Evelyn Place	31
h View	Section 181 of Local Government Act 2002	33
i View	Schedule 12 of Local Government Act 2002	35

Signatories

Authors

Bruce Palmer – Stormwater Specialist, Flood Projects

John Schermbrucker, Stormwater Delivery & Development Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

19 August 2015

Appointment of Commissioners - private plan change 375 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) for the rezoning of the University of Auckland's Tamaki campus at 231 and 261 Morrin Road, St Johns

File No.: CP2015/14366

Purpose

1. To appoint commissioners to hear submissions and make a decision on behalf of Auckland Council on private plan change 375 to the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (the District Plan).

Executive Summary

2. The University of Auckland (the applicant) lodged private plan change 375 (the plan change) in September 2014.

3. The University proposes to rezone the land at 231- 261 Morrin Road, St Johns (the ‘Tamaki campus’) from the Special Purpose 2 (Education) zone to the Mixed Use zone. New site specific provisions are included in the plan change. A map showing the land affected by the plan change is shown as Attachment A.

4. The plan change was notified on 9 January 2015 and the submission period closed on 24 February 2015. 15 submissions were received. The summary of decisions requested was notified on 10 July 2015: further submissions may be lodged until 24 July 2015.

5. The submissions to the plan change have been summarised and collated into the following themes:

· Height and gross floor area

· Cultural matters

· Transport and traffic effects

· Reverse sensitivity effects

· Infrastructure (wastewater, water supply, and stormwater design)

· Capacity of local educational facilities

6. It is recommended that a hearing panel of four independent commissioners be appointed to hear the submissions received and make a decision on the private plan change. It is recommended that the panel that includes commissioners with expertise in planning, urban design, transportation planning/engineering and kaupapa Māori.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of four independent planning commissioners (including one as chair), to hear submissions and make a decision on private plan change 375 to the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999).

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

Comments

7. The applicant lodged the plan change in September 2014. Following a review by subject matter experts and a further information request, the Auckland Development Committee resolved to accept the application under clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

8. The plan change seeks to rezone 231 and 261 Morrin Road, St Johns from the Special Purpose (Education) zone to the Mixed Use zone.

9. The plan change removes the existing concept plan^{^[1]} from the site. This concept plan directly relates to the University of Auckland’s use of the site as a tertiary education campus, and provides for ancillary activities. Site specific development controls apply.

10. The plan change proposes several site specific provisions that will apply in addition to the existing Mixed Use zone provisions in the District Plan. Key provisions proposed include: a higher height limit, new buildings will require land use consent and a number of additional land uses are provided for as permitted activities.^{^[2]}

11. The plan change was notified on 9 January 2015 and closed on 24 February 2015. 15 submissions were received. The summary of decisions requested was notified on 10 July 2015: further submissions may be lodged until 24 July 2015.

12. Key issues raised through the submissions are:

· Height and gross floor area

· Cultural matters

· Transport and traffic effects

· Reverse sensitivity effects

· Infrastructure (wastewater, water supply, stormwater design)

· Capacity of local educational facilities

13. Independent commissioners with expertise in planning, urban design, transportation planning/engineering and kaupapa Māori should be appointed to the panel.

14. The applicant’s submission to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) sought similar plan provisions. Determination of submissions to the PAUP is a separate plan making process.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. While the site falls within the Orākei Local Board area, it is in close proximity to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Board area, including the Glen Innes town centre. Accordingly, the Orākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Boards were briefed on the plan change by both officers and by the applicant prior to notification.

16. The Orākei Local Board considers the decision to grant this plan change affects the wellbeing of the communities within its local board area, and the responsibilities of the local board with regard to long term planning. The board commented that it generally supports the proposal for a mixed zone but is concerned to see controls and overlays included relating to the future mix of uses, building form and infrastructure. The board’s comments are set out in Attachment B.

17. The submission period was extended from 20 to 30 working days in accordance with the board’s request.

Māori impact statement

18. All iwi with a known interest in the Orākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board areas were notified during the formal notification process. The applicant has consulted with a number of iwi, which is documented in the plan change supporting material.

19. Submissions have been received from Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Ngati Whatua Ōrākei. Ngati Te Ata Waiohua wishes to ascertain what the cultural effects may be as a result of this application. Ngati Whatua Ōrākei seeks particular relief regarding stormwater design and cultural discovery protocols.

General

20. Following the closure of further submissions, the RMA requires that a hearing be held to consider and make decisions on submissions, unless no person indicates they wish to be heard, or the request to be heard is withdrawn. In this case there are submitters who wish to be heard. The applicant will also be presenting evidence in support of the plan change request.

21. The appointment of a hearings panel to hear and make decisions on submissions to plan changes falls within the Hearings Committee Policy 4.2 and does not trigger the council’s significance policy.

22. Auckland Council and the applicant are signatories to a partnership agreement which commits the parties to working positively together. Although there is no conflict of interest arising from the partnership agreement, and it has no bearing on the private plan change request, members of the public could perceive bias. In addition submissions were received from Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited. Therefore it is recommended that the decision-makers be selected from the list of independent commissioners.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Locality Diagram	41
b View	Orakei Local Board views	43

Signatories

Authors	Rebecca Greaves - Principal Planner
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

19 August 2015

Appointment of Commissioners - Private Plan Change 79 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2005) for the rezoning of Queen Elizabeth Square on Lower Queen Street

File No.: CP2015/15770

Purpose

1. To appoint commissioners to hear submissions and make a decision on behalf of Auckland Council on Proposed Private Plan Change 79 (the Plan Change) to the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section 2005) (the District Plan).

Executive Summary

2. Precinct Properties (the applicant) lodged the Plan Change in April 2015.

3. The applicant requests to rezone land at Queen Elizabeth Square, Lower Queen Street from Public Open Space to City Centre zone with a ‘Pedestrian Orientated’ activity area, and other consequential changes and to introduce planning controls to inform future development of the site.

4. The Plan Change was notified on 17 June 2015 and the submission period closed on 15 July 2015. Six submissions were received. The summary of decisions requested was notified on 24 July 2015 and further submissions may be lodged until 7 August 2015.

5. It is recommended that a hearing panel of two independent commissioners be appointed to hear the submissions received and make a decision on the Plan Change. It is recommended that the panel includes commissioners with expertise in planning and urban design.

6. The hearing is expected to be set down for a maximum of two days, ideally held consecutively.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of two independent planning commissioners (including one as chair), to hear submissions and make a decision on Private Plan Change 79 to the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section 2005).

b) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee to appoint replacement commissioners should any of the commissioners appointed in (a) above be unavailable.

Comments

7. The applicant lodged the Plan Change request in April 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved to accept the application under Clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

8. The Plan Change request seeks to rezone Queen Elizabeth Square in Lower Queen Street from Public Open Space to City Centre zone with a ‘Pedestrian Orientated’ activity and other consequential changes and to introduce planning controls to inform future development on the site, including:

· Amending Planning Overlay Maps 1-7

· Amending the text of Part 6 – Development Controls (multiple additions to the text)

· Amending Figure 14.2 (Central Area open space facilities and locations) by removing the ‘Existing Public Open Space’, ‘Pedestrian Routes / Open Spaces to be enhanced’ and ‘Queen Elizabeth Square’ text from the subject land.

· Amending Figure 14.2A.6 (Concept Plan – Queen Elizabeth Square) by removing the concept plan from the subject land.

· Amending the text of Part 14.2A.8.7

9. It is requested that independent commissioners with expertise in planning and urban design be appointed to the panel.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The site falls within the Waitematā Local Board (the local board) boundary. The local board was informed upon receipt of the plan change request and members were briefed on the details of the request and the plan change process in April 2015.

11. Overall, the local board supported the private plan change request being accepted by the council so that it can go through the statutory planning process to allow the public to submit on the proposed zoning.

12. There is no opportunity for local board input in appointing a hearing panel.

Māori impact statement

13. The applicant has consulted with 13 interested iwi in the area, details of which have been documented in the application. Those iwi who attended meetings in November and October 2014 include:

· Ngati Whatua Ōrakei

· Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki

· Ngati Paoa

· Ngati Maru

· Ngati Tamaoho

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

14. Iwi have also been involved in strategic planning and local place-making initiatives led by Auckland Council and / or their CCOs, and relating the sale and future use of the square.

15. Further engagement with iwi is being focused through the CRL works affecting the QE Square land as required in the CRL designation.

16. Iwi have the ability to make submissions on the Plan Change.

Implementation Issues

17. Following the decision to appoint commissioners a hearing date will be set. It is requested by the applicant that this takes place in October 2015. Although the scheduling of the hearing is Council’s responsibility it would provide a good level of customer service to consider the applicant’s request.

18. There are no financial implications associated with the appointment of commissioners. The costs of processing the plan change, including the costs of a hearing and independent commissioners, are recoverable from the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Private Plan Change 79	49
b View	Waitemata Local Board views	57

Signatories

Authors	Hannah Thompson - Planner
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

19 August 2015

Appointment of Commissioners: Notice of Requirement to alter Britomart Transport Centre Designation 314 - Plan Amendment 80 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section)

File No.: CP2015/15768

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to hear submissions and to make a recommendation on Plan Amendment 80 - Notice of Requirement (NoR) to alter Designation 314 (Britomart Transport Centre) lodged by Auckland Transport (AT) to enable construction works for the City Rail Link.

Executive Summary

2. Designation 314 provides for the operation and maintenance of the Britomart transport centre and the provision for a rapid rail system. The centre comprises an underground rail station, attendant facilities and public access to the station through the main portal of the former Chief Post Office and at other access points. Above ground features of the centre include the glazed annex to the Chief Post office building, a series of skylights, ventilation stacks and other servicing plant and equipment.

3. The Requiring Authority requests to alter the designation in order to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of works within the Britomart Transport centre which supports the City Rail Link (CRL) to be constructed to the adjacent CRL NoR 1 (Plan Modification 68). NoR 1 is almost through the statutory process, with consent orders currently filed with the Environment Court.

4. The Requiring Authority requested that the NoR be publicly notified. The council publicly notified the NoR on 13 July 2015 with the submission period closing on 10 August 2015.

5. It is recommended that a panel of three independent commissioners with expertise in planning, urban design/heritage and legal be appointed to hear any submissions and make a recommendation on the NoR.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of three independent commissioners (including one as chair) with expertise in planning, urban design and heritage to make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement for the alteration of Designation 314.

b) delegate authority to the chair appointed in (a) above to make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement (ref: 314) should no submissions be received or where submissions are received and submitters and the Requiring Authority do not wish to be heard.

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

Comments

6. Auckland Transport as the Requiring Authority lodged a notice in May 2015 to alter Designation 314, which is identified in the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section) and extends over the Central Post office building on Lower Queen Street and Britomart Place as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Designation Locality

7. The NoR proposes to amend the designation as follows:

· Amendment to the Britomart Transport Centre Designation 314 description.

· Proposed boundary change to the designation extent (temporary for construction overlaying CRL NoR 1 CSA 3, subject to a drawback condition post construction).

· Addition of construction, operation and maintenance conditions (to align with the CRL project).

8. The Notice was publicly notified on 13 July 2015. By the time this report is considered, the submission period will have closed on 10 August 2015. The council is thereafter required to hear any submitters and make a recommendation to AT about whether the Notice should be confirmed, modified, withdrawn or conditions imposed. It is recommended that independent commissioners be appointed to hear submissions and make any recommendations to AT. Further, given the matters that are likely to be considered at the hearing, it is recommended that the commissioners be appointed with expertise in planning (including designation and resource consent processes), urban design/heritage and legal matters.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

9. Waitematā Local Board was apprised of the NoR on 17 March 2015 at a briefing to discuss CRL enabling works, in particular the impacts of the works on buses, traffic and access.

Māori impact statement

10. AT introduced its proposal to alter Designation 314 and the reasoning for it at the Mana Whenua forum on 12 March 2015. A further update on progress was provided to the forum on 14 May 2015. Mana whenua for the purpose of this designation are considered to be the following (in no particular order), who at the time of the Notice of Requirement expressed a desire to be involved in the City Rail Link Project:

· Ngati Maru

· Ngati Paoa

· Ngai Tai ki Tamaki

· Ngati Te Ata

· Ngati Whatua Ōrakei

· Te Akitai

· Te Kawerau o maki

· Ngati Tamaoho

11. AT has noted in the application that there is a general level of comfort with respect to the approach, particularly given their involvement in the original CRL NoRs and given their ongoing role assisting AT in the development of the CRL design. The CRL conditions require ongoing involvement with iwi and they also have the opportunity to submit on the NoR.

Implementation

12. There are no implementation issues. Following a decision to appoint independent commissioners, a final recommendation to the Requiring Authority will be able to be made on the NoR.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Hannah Thompson - Planner
Authorisers	Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

19 August 2015

Appointment of commissioners: Application for resource consent - proposed Stage 4/5 expansion of St Lukes Mall and associated works at multiple properties, including 80 St Lukes Road, Mount Albert

File No.: CP2015/16095

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to expand the existing St Lukes Mall and associated works at multiple properties, including 80 St Lukes Road, Mount Albert.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application (R/LUC/2015/529) for resource consent to construct an expansion (Stage 4/5) to the existing St Lukes Mall and associated works, including the extension of Exeter Road to Aroha Avenue. The proposal is located over multiple properties including 80 St Lukes Road, Mount Albert.

3. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers pursuant to sections 95 and 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) because the mall expansion has the potential for public and media interest given the scale of development and the Local Board’s concerns.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make the notification determination under sections 95, 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2015/529) to construct the Stage 4/5 expansion of St Lukes Mall and associated works over multiple properties, including 80 St Lukes Road, Mount Albert.

b) subject to the notification decision in (a) above, either:

i) appoint the same independent commissioner as in (a) above to make a determination, under section 104 of the RMA, on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2015/529) to construct the Stage 4/5 expansion of St Lukes Mall and associated works over multiple properties, including 80 St Lukes Road, Mount Albert, if the application proceeds without the need for notice or if a hearing is not required; or

ii) appoint an additional independent commissioner and a local board member (from an adjacent local board area), to sit with the independent commissioner appointed under (a) above as Chair, to hear submissions and make a determination, under section 104 of the RMA, on the application for resource consent (R/LUC/2015/529) to construct the Stage 4/5 expansion of St Lukes Mall and associated works over multiple properties, including 80 St Lukes Road, Mount Albert, if the application proceeds with notice and a hearing is required.

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

Comments

4. The application is for the expansion of the Westfield St Lukes shopping mall. An aerial photo showing the site location is included as Attachment A and a list of the properties that make up the site is included as Attachment B. A selection of the proposal’s drawings are included as Attachment C.

5. A ‘Stage 4’ expansion of St Lukes Mall, has been consented but not yet implemented by the applicant. The current application for resource consent seeks to amend the consented Stage 4 development and expand the centre further. The applicant has termed this latest expansion as ‘Stage 4/5’. The Stage 4/5 resource consent would sit alongside the Stage 4 consent and the consent holder would choose to implement either the Stage 4 consent (on its own) or parts of the Stage 4 consent in conjunction with the Stage 4/5 consent.

6. The proposal involves the following:

· the replacement of the proposed rooftop parking above the consented Stage 4 mall with a second level of retail, increasing the total GFA from 56,826m² (Stage 4) to 77,013m² (Stage 4/5).

· the expansion of the existing building close to the road boundary adjacent to the St Lukes Road / Morningside Road intersection (and the removal of the existing customer parking in that area).

· the provision of additional parking by extending the Stage 4 parking structure in the gully area further to the north, increasing the total car parking on the site from 2,655 (Stage 4) to 3,497 (Stage 4/5).

· the extension of Exeter Road through to Aroha Avenue as required by the Concept Plan for the site.

· modification to the St Lukes Road / New North Road intersection as required by the Concept Plan.

7. The application for resource consent was originally submitted in February 2015 and has been on-hold since then to allow the applicant to address issues raised by staff.

8. The site is zoned Business 8 under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section). The activity status of this application is overall discretionary and resource consent is required for a variety of matters, including:

Under the Operative District Plan

· earthworks exceeding 500m²(Rule 4A.2B)

· the removal of four trees within the Aroha Avenue road reserve (Rule 5C.7.3.3B(a)

· parking for more than 100 vehicles (Concept Plan E06-05).

· construction and operation of the link road between Exeter Road and Aroha Avenue (Concept Plan E06-05).

· construction of buildings within 30m of a site boundary that increase GFA by more than 500m² (Concept Plan E06-05).

· exterior signs as part of the proposal (Concept Plan E06-05).

· construction of buildings fronting Exeter Road Extension (Concept Plan E06-05).

· infringements to the maximum height (Rule B2.1 of Concept Plan E06-05).

· infringement to the Type C Interface Control (Rule B4.3(a) of Concept Plan E06-05).

· infringement to the Type D Interface Control (Rule B4.4(a) of Concept Plan E06-05).

· infringements to the Type E Interface Controls (Rules B4.5(a)-(d) of Concept Plan E06-05).

· not providing a continuous pedestrian shelter along the full length of Exeter Road Extension (Rule B5.3 of Concept Plan E06-05).

· infringement regarding the glazing percentage on the street façade at ground level of buildings along Exeter Road Extension (Rule B5.5 of Concept Plan E06-05).

Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· the area and volume of earthworks exceeding 1,000m² and 1,000m³ (Rule H4.2.1.1).

· earthworks within the 100 year AEP flood plain (Rule H4.2.1.2).

· building over an overland flowpath (Rule H4.12.1).

· new impervious area discharging to ground soakage (Rule H4.14.1.1).

· new impervious area greater than 25m² (Rule H4.14.3.1 ).

· new uncovered parking area greater than 1,000m² (Rule H4.14.3.1 ).

· the potential use of contaminant yielding roof material (Rules H4.14.1.1 and H4.14.3.2.2.2(b)).

Under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control

· earthworks between 1ha and 5ha when the slope of the land is less than 15°.

Under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

· stormwater discharge from new impervious surfaces between 5,000m² and 10,000m² in area.

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 public and political interest infers that this application may be considered contentious. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is considered 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 planning policy and regulatory expertise and a sound understanding of urban design.

11. The reporting planner has not yet come to a notification recommendation for the application as peer reviews of the traffic and urban design have not yet been concluded.

Local Board views and implications

12. The Albert-Eden Local Board provided comment on 27 March 2015 outlining their concerns in respect of the application (refer Attachment D). Subsequently, on 5 May 2015, the applicant presented to the Local Board outlining the application and addressing the board’s concerns.

Māori impact statement

13. There is no record of the site having particular significance to iwi. The applicant has not provided any comment in their application material to indicate that any engagement or consultation with iwi has occurred. James Brown of Ngai Tai ki Tamaki viewed a copy of the application material in March 2015, after being informed of the application via the regular list of recently lodged applications for resource consent that is made available to iwi by the council, however no comment has been received by the reporting planner to date.

Implementation

14. The costs of the independent commissioners will be met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Aerial photograph	69
b View	List of properties within the site area	71
c View	Selection of proposal drawings	73
d View	Local board input	79

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

19 August 2015

Appointment of commissioners: Application for resource consent to establish a helipad at 72 Onetangi Road, Waiheke Island

File No.: CP2015/15685

Purpose

1. To appoint commissioners to make decisions on an application for resource consent to establish a helicopter pad for regular use at the existing vineyard at 72 Onetangi Road, Waiheke.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has received an application (R/LUC/2015/2247) for resource consent to establish a helicopter pad for regular helicopter flights to and from the vineyard at 72 Onetangi Road, Waiheke Island. The site is in a rural location with the immediately surrounding land use comprises horticulture, vineyards and farming.

3. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint independent commissioners as decision-makers pursuant to sections 95 and 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) as applications to accommodate regular helicopter landings have previously been regarded as contentious. The application has also received public and media interest.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint an independent commissioner to make decisions, where required under sections 95, 95A and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), on the notification of the application for resource consent to establish a helipad for regular helicopter usage at 72 Onetangi Road, Waiheke Island.

b) subject to the notification decision in (a) above, either:

i) appoint the same commissioner as in (a) above to make a determination, pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, on the application for resource consent to establish a helipad for regular helicopter usage at 72 Onetangi Road, Waiheke Island, if the application proceeds without the need for notice or if a hearing is not required; or

ii) appoint an additional independent commissioner and a local board member (from an adjacent local board area) to sit with the independent commissioner appointed under (a) above as Chair, to hear submissions and make a determination, pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, on the application for resource consent to establish a helipad for regular helicopter usage at 72 Onetangi Road, Waiheke Island, if the application proceeds with notice and a hearing is required.

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

Comments

4. The site is zoned Rural 1 (Landscape Amenity). An aerial photo showing the site location is included as Attachment A.

5. The application is for the construction of a new helipad to carry out the following flight numbers over a three day rolling average period at the subject site.

6. Arrival from / departure from proposed helipad (total number of movements permitted on the northern departure only):

· 3 x B429 or EC135 movements per day; or

· 10 x EC130 or AS350 movements per day; or

· 30 x R44 movements per day.

7. If the westward departure or arrival is used, the movements are the same as above, with the exception of only 8 movements being permitted for the EC130 or AS350.

8. The activity status of this consent is currently unclear, as specialist input from a suitably qualified noise expert is required to determine whether it is a restricted discretionary activity under the following rule in the Auckland Council District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands section:

· Restricted discretionary activity consent is required pursuant to Rule 13.8.2 where the proposal will involve the construction and use of a helipad in the Rural 1 zone that will meet the standards outlined in clause 13.8.2(2) of the Operative Plan.

· Discretionary activity consent is required if the proposal does not meet the standards outlined in clause 13.8.2(2) of the Operative Plan.

9. Rule 13.8.2(2) sets a maximum noise level of Ldn 50dBA (3 day rolling average) at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (dwellings).

10. The application was originally submitted on 16 June 2015 and is currently on hold seeking further information pursuant to section 92 of the RMA, predominantly clarifying the assessment of cumulative noise effects at the notional boundaries.

Consideration

General

11. 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.

12. The public and political interest infers that this application may be considered contentious. Therefore, in accordance with the Hearings Committee policy, it is considered 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 planning expertise and a sound understanding of acoustic engineering.

13. The reporting planner has not yet come to a notification recommendation for the application as peer reviews of the acoustic assessment has not yet been concluded.

14. As full and limited notification is precluded under Rules 10c.3.2 and 8.5.2 in the ACDP: HGI for restricted discretionary activities, the only possibility for notification is manifested in the existence of “special circumstances” that may apply to the proposal. Recently a similar resource consent for a helipad at 12 Nick Johnstone Drive, Waiheke Island (Cable Bay Vineyard) was granted resource consent on a non-notified basis.

Local Board views and implications

15. No local board input has been sought, as the proposal does not trigger local board input.

Interested persons

16. The local Gulf News publication has recently published an article on the proposal and the council has received one letter of objection from a concerned resident (refer Attachment B). The letter attaches a petition, comprising approximately 85 signatures from people of various properties primarily located on Sea View Road, Hartley Avenue and Te Makiri Road. These people claim to be adversely affected by the existing helicopter flights to and from the site and express concern over further use of helicopter on this and surrounding sites. Particular concern was raised over the cumulative noise effects and the subsequent adverse effects on residential amenity.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

18. The costs of the independent commissioners will be met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Aerial photograph	85
b View	Interested persons letter / petition	87

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

19 August 2015

Determination of Hearing Commissioners: Resource consents, Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited, Firth of Thames.

File No.: CP2015/16194

Purpose

1. To determine the decision makers for two resource consent applications located in the Firth of Thames.

Executive Summary

2. The two applications by Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited are for coastal permits to construct spat catching farms, use the coastal marine area and occupy the common marine and coastal area (approximately 113ha and 128ha in area) for collecting spat of New Zealand green lipped mussels (Perna canaliculus) and to undertake associated discharges to water and disturbance of and deposition on the seabed. Given the nature of the proposals and the combined large areas required, the applications have attracted interest from residents and iwi in the area.

3. The Hearings Committee is responsible for deciding who is the most appropriate decision-maker for matters that could be significant or contentious.

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint independent commissioner(s) to make notification determinations under section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) on the applications by Westpac Mussels Distributors Limited for coastal permits for two mussel spat collection activities in the Firth of Thames;

b) subject to the notification decision above , either;

i) appoint the same commissioner(s) as in (a) to determine the applications pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, should they proceed on a non-notified basis or otherwise not require a hearing; or

ii) appoint two further commissioners to sit with the commissioner(s) appointed under (a) as the chair, to hear submissions and determine the merits of the applications pursuant to section 104 of the RMA, if the applications are notified and hearings are required;

c) delegate to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee the authority to make replacement appointments to the hearings panel in the event that any member(s) appointed under resolution a) or b) is unavailable.

Comments

Proposals

4. Two separate resource consent applications were lodged on 20 September 2013 by Westpac Mussels Distributers Ltd. Coastal permits are sought to construct two spat catching farms, use the coastal marine area and occupy the common marine and coastal area for green lipped mussel spat catching (using conventional long-line structures and spat catching frames or ropes) and to undertake associated discharges to water and disturbance of and deposition on the seabed.

5. The sites are located in the middle reaches of the Firth of Thames within the Auckland Region. One application relates to an area of 113 hectares, to the north east of Waimango Point Farms, the other application covering 128 hectare is to the south east of Waimango Point Farms. The approximate locations of both application areas can be seen on the map at Attachment A.

6. The two applications are currently on hold at the applicant’s request as they undertake consultation with iwi. No notification decision has been made. The council has on record that the Kaiaua Citizens and Ratepayers Association Inc. is opposed to the application and they have requested that they be advised of any developments with the application.

7. A third, more recent, application by Westpac Mussels Distributers Ltd for a 171 hectare spat catching farm was reported through to the Hearings Committee under urgency on 17 June 2015 for the committee to determine the decision makers for an imminent notification decision and subsequent substantive decision. That application is now also on hold while the applicant consults further with iwi.

Consideration

8. The Hearings Committee has adopted a hearings policy at section 4.2 refers to “Allocation of decision making responsibility between elected members, independent commissioners and staff". This includes procedural decisions such as whether or not to notify in addition to substantive decision-making. 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.

9. Further, the Hearings Committee Policy at 5.1” Timeliness” also states that in order to ensure decisions can be make quickly, “where a matter is otherwise urgent, any 2 or more members of the Hearings Committee may make any relevant decisions.”

10. This application is considered both contentious and significant. The matter of mussel spat catching and mussel farming in the Firth of Thames has been very contentious in the past. The Transitional Regional Coastal Plan prohibits marine farming, however spat catching may be applied for as it is not covered by the definition of ‘marine farming’ by the Marine Farming Act 1971, under which the TRCP was promulgated. The proposals are for significant areas. The largest approved farm in the Auckland region is a 74ha oyster farm in the Kaipara Harbour. The largest mussel farm within the Auckland region in the Hauraki Gulf is approximately 22 ha. Most approved mussel farms are 5ha.

Local Board views and implications

11. The Local Board has not provided formal comments on the application.

Māori impact statement

12. The applicant is currently consulting with several iwi in the area including Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Paoa and Ngati Maru. Ngati Whanaunga has been active in resource consent hearings for extensions to existing mussel farms at Waimango Point and are likely to have an interest in this proposal.

13. Ngati Paoa provided comment in October 2013 that they believed both applications should be publicly notified or if not publicly notified, then limited notified to certain iwi. Ngati Maru have also requested that both applications be publicly notified.

14. Comments have also been received from the Royal family of Waimango Point that have ties with several iwi in the area, requesting that the applications be refused.

Implementation

15. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing commissioners. The applicant meets the costs of commissioners.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Location Plan	97

Signatories

Authors

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Hearings Committee

19 August 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: Northcote Point Preservation Society incorporated v Auckland Council (ENV-2015 AKL-000101), Northcote Residents’ Association Inc. v Auckland Council (ENV-2015 AKL-000100), Herne Bay Residents Association Incorporated v Auckland Council (ENV-2015 AKL-000099) – Princess Street Northcote Point, Curran Street and Westhaven Drive, Westhaven.

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