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

23 May 2016

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 Appointment of Independent Commissioners – New Zealand Transport Agency, Notices of Requirement and Resource Consents, Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive, Shared Path Project (Sections 2, 3 and 4) 9

8 Appointment of Hearing Commissioners for applications for resource consent for stormwater and playing field upgrades at 90 Sunnynook Road (Sunnynook Park) and Wairau Intermediate School 23

9 Appointment of Local Elected Members to Accord Territorial Authority Hearings Panel (HASHAA Hearings) - Various Special Housing Areas 33

10 Local board involvement in resource consenting processes 35

11 District and Regional Plans Appeal Status Report at 29 April 2016 55

12 Noting the decision to appoint a local elected member to Accord Territorial Authority hearings panel - 27 April 2016 61

13 Noting the urgent decision of 27 April 2016 to appoint hearing commissioners 65

14 Objection to the issue of a noise abatement notice 73

15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 111

C1 New Resource Consent Appeal: Onehunga Enhancement Society Incorporated v Auckland Council – Old Mangere Bridge, Mangere 111

C2 New resource Consent Appeal: Royal Forest and Bird Protection of New Zealand Society Incorporated v Auckland Council - 60 Tiri Tiri Rd, Birkdale 111

C3 Noting the urgent decisions of 26 and 27 April 2016: Osborne v Auckland Council, Pownall v Auckland Council and The National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited v Auckland Council 111

C4 Noting the urgent decision of 11 May 2016: Friends of Fowlds Park Incorporated v Auckland Council 112

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda apologies had been received from Mayor Len Brown and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse.

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, 15 March 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

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) day’s 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

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

6 Notices of Motion

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

Hearings Committee

23 May 2016

Appointment of Independent Commissioners – New Zealand Transport Agency, Notices of Requirement and Resource Consents, Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive, Shared Path Project (Sections 2, 3 and 4)

File No.: CP2016/08946

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners:

· to make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement (NoR) by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to designate Section 2 (St Johns Road to Meadowbank Train Station); and

· to make a decision on the application for resource consents by the NZTA in Ōrākei Basin for Section 3 (Meadowbank Train Station to Ōrākei Train Station),

· to make a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement (NoR) by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to designate Section 4 (Ōrākei Train Station to Tamaki Drive)

for the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path project.

Executive Summary

2. NZTA are proposing to construct, operate and maintain a shared walking and cycling concrete path known as the ‘Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path’.

3. The shared path comprises four sections. The section to which the NoR’s relate are known as ‘Sections 2 and 4’ and are located between St Johns Road and Meadowbank Train Station and from Ōrākei Train Station to Tamaki Drive respectively. The section to which the application for resource consents refers is known as ‘Section 3’ and involves widening the existing Ōrākei Basin boardwalk within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) from 2.7m to 4.5m wide.

4. On 7 April 2016 Auckland Council received the Section 2 NoR and application for resource consents (Section 3), and at the request of NZTA these were publicly notified on Friday 15 April 2016. The two sections were advertised together but as separate public notices. The notice for Section 4 was received on 14 April 2016; however this section will not be progressed until after determination of the Section 3 consents.

5. The application falls into the ‘significant’ category as defined by the Hearings Committee’s ‘Hearings Policy’.

6. It is recommended that the same panel of commissioners be appointed to make the recommendations on the NoR’s and application for resource consents and that these commissioners be independent, as the project involves Auckland Transport funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint three independent commissioners, one to be the Chair, for Sections 2, 3 and 4 the New Zealand Transport Agency ‘Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path’ project, to hear and make;

(i) a recommendation on the Notices of Requirement under sections 171 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and

(ii) a decision on the application for Resource Consents under sections 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991;

b) delegate authority to the chairperson appointed under (a) above to make a recommendation and/or determine the application for resource consents in the event that a hearing is not required for a Section of the project.

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

Comments

Background

7. The applications involve the delivery of three of the four sections of a proposed ‘Shared Path’ for pedestrians and cyclists from Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive. The four sections are:

· Section 1: Merton Road (Glen Innes Train Station) to St Johns Road (1,644m). Resource consent for this section has previously been granted on 24 September 2015 by a council duty commissioner, following a limited notified application process. It is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in 2016.

· Section 2: St Johns Road to Meadowbank Train Station (2,644m). This section is the subject of the current NoR. Resource consents have previously been granted on 10 November 2015 by a council duty commissioner for site establishment works and geotechnical investigations in this section.

· Section 3: Meadowbank Train Station to Ōrākei Train Station (651m). Widening the existing Ōrākei Basin Boardwalk. This section is the subject of the current application for resource consents.

· Section 4: Ōrākei Train Station to Tamaki Drive (1,997m). The Section 4 (NoR) has been received but is currently on hold.

8. The current NoR’s and application for resource consents relate to Sections 2 and 4 (NOR’s) and Section 3 (resource consents). On 7 April 2016, Auckland Council received the Section 2 NoR and application for resource consents. At the request of NZTA, the NoR and application for resource consents were publicly notified on Friday 15 April 2016. These two sections were advertised under the same banner heading in the Herald but each had separate public notices.

9. The notice for Section 4 was received by council on 14 April 2016; however this section of the Shared Path will not be progressed until after determination of the Section 3 resource consents to enable additional consideration of the final design. NZTA has not yet made a decision on whether to request public notification, pending assessment of the matters that are contingent on the outcomes of Section 3.

10. This section is covered as part of this report with the intention that the same commissioners determine all three sections.

11. The appointed commissioners will make recommendations on the NoR’s for Section 2 and 4 in accordance with section 171 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and determine the application for Resource Consents for Section 3 in accordance with section 104 of the RMA.

Section 2 Notice of Requirement

12. The NZTA has given notice of a requirement for a designation to be included within the Operative Auckland Council District Plan: Auckland City Isthmus Section and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

13. The proposed NoR relates to the construction, operation and maintenance of Section 2 of the shared path from the Meadowbank Pony Club on St Johns Road to the Meadowbank train station (refer Attachment B). It will allow for a formed path for pedestrians and cyclists, approximately 4-metres wide including the construction of structures such as boardwalks, bridges and earth embankments.

14. In addition to the construction, operation and maintenance of the shared path, the works include; the enabling works to provide access for construction purposes and site preparation; temporary construction areas; vehicle access for the Meadowbank Pony Club; temporary removal of on-street parking at Meadowbank Train Station and mitigation planting and landscaping works.

15. The submission period for the Section 2 NoR closes at 5pm on Monday 16 May 2016. At the time of writing this report, no submissions had been received.

16. In addition to the NoR’s for Sections 2 and 4, regional earthworks consents, stormwater permits and discharge permits will also be required.

Section 3 Application for Resource Consents

17. NZTA have applied for resource consents under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan: Auckland City Isthmus Section, the Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal, the Operative Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

18. The proposal is for the construction and use (operation and maintenance) of a boardwalk and bridge over the Ōrākei Basin (refer Attachment C). This will involve widening the existing boardwalk from 2.7m to 4.5m, installation of new piles, replacement handrails, lighting, new bridge over the channel to the south of the sluice gates and widening of short sections of the existing concrete paths at Purewa Road and Ōrākei Road. Removal of existing vegetation between Ōrākei Road and the Boardwalk and between Purewa Road and the boardwalk and use of the adjacent land at Ōrākei Road as a laydown area for construction related activities. Partial lowering of the water level in the Basin for two periods of four weeks, to enable the installation of the piles, potentially restricting the use of the Basin for marine recreation during these periods. It is proposed to retain access to the existing boardwalk during construction and to maintain the existing fortnightly flushing regime for the Basin. The works are expected to take less than 12 months to complete.

19. The submission period for the applications closes at 5pm on Friday 13 May 2016. At the time of writing this report, 1 submission had been received by the council to the application, noting that the submitter does not wish to be heard.

Section 4 Notice of Requirement

20. NZTA has also given notice of a requirement to designate land from the Orakei Train Station eastward (that includes the rail corridor, Orakei Road reserve, and the car parking area associated with the train station), across Hobson Bay on the northern side of the rail embankment. The route then enters land owned by the Outboard Boating Club of Auckland Inc. on the western side of Hobson Bay before joining Tamaki Drive via Auckland Council reserve.

21. The purpose of the NoR is to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of the Section 4 shared path from Orakei Road to Tamaki Drive. A resource consent application to authorise the portion of Section 4 within the coastal marine area (CMA) will be lodged to Auckland Council separately at a later date.

22. The NoR provides for the wider construction footprint, including the associated enabling works and construction works required to form the shared path and vehicle access to the site area from the road network for construction vehicles.

General

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

24. Given the technical complexity of the project, that NZTA have requested public notification and the location of the proposal is in a high public use area, the application falls into the ‘significant’ category as defined by the Hearings Committee’s ‘Hearings Policy’. Therefore, it is recommended that the Hearings Committee, in accordance with its policy, appoint the commissioners to make the recommendations on the NoR’s and to make a decision on the application for resource consents.

25. Given the range of matters to be considered in making its determination, council staff recommend that the commissioners’ areas of expertise include planning, coastal processes / marine ecology, engineering, landscape architecture / urban design and Māori values.

26. It is recommended that the same panel of commissioners be appointed to make a recommendation on the NoR’s for Sections 2 and 4 in accordance with section 171 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and to determine the application for resource consents for Section 3 in accordance with section 104 of the RMA. As Sections 2 and 3 were advertised together, using the same commissioner will allow for a joint hearing as provided for under section 103 of the RMA. While Section 4 will proceed at a later date, there is a benefit to the decision-making being with commissioners will hold knowledge of the preceding stages.

27. It is recommended that only independent commissioners are appointed, as the project is funded by Auckland Transport.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. The Ōrākei Local Board has not been briefed on the Section 2 NoR but has requested that its views are attached to the hearing report. The reporting team will brief the Ōrākei Local Board after the close of submissions.

29. The Ōrākei Local Board has been provided with an electronic copy of the Section 3 application for resource consents with a briefing by the council’s resource consents processing planner inviting internal comments.

30. No formal comment from the Ōrākei Local Board has been received by council staff at the time of writing this report on either Section 2 or 3 of the proposal.

Māori impact statement

31. No Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) have been provided for the project.

32. The following Mana Whenua authorities or groups were sent a letter advising them of public notification of Section 2 (those iwi having attended a presentation by NZTA or having an identified interest (rohe) in the land within the NoR):

· Ngāti Whātua Orākei

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāti Paoa.

33. The following Mana Whenua authorities or groups were sent a letter advising them of public notification of Section 3:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Te Patukirikiri

· Waikato-Tainui.

34. In relation to Section 3 that traverses Ōrākei Basin, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are members of the Ōrākei Basin Action Group.

35. At the time of writing this report no formal submissions from Mana Whenua authorities or groups had been received.

Implementation

36. The procedure for assessing NoRs is set out in sections 168-179 of the RMA. The NoR process is subject to the same statutory timeframes as for a resource consent process. The procedure for assessing the applications for resource consent is set out in sections 88-104 of the RMA.

37. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs for processing the NoR and application for resource consents, including the notification and hearing / commissioner costs, are recoverable from NZTA.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Overall layout of the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path Sections 1-4	15
b View	Approximate route of Section 2 (NoR)	17
c View	Approximate route of Section 3 (application for resource consents)	19
d View	Approximate route of Section 4 (NoR)	21

Signatories

Authors

Peter Kensington - Principal Planner, Hearings and Resolutions

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

23 May 2016

Appointment of Hearing Commissioners for applications for resource consent for stormwater and playing field upgrades at 90 Sunnynook Road (Sunnynook Park) and Wairau Intermediate School

File No.: CP2016/06506

Purpose

1. To appoint independent hearing commissioners to hear submissions and determine resource consent applications by Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit associated with the upgrading of public stormwater infrastructure at Sunnynook Park and the upgrading of playing fields at Wairau Intermediate.

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Council Stormwater Unit (ACSU) has applied to upgrade existing stormwater infrastructure within Sunnynook Park and its surrounding streets, as well as use excess fill for the upgrading of playing fields at Wairau Intermediate School.

3. The purpose of the project is to reduce the risk of flooding during 1 in 100 Average Return Interval (ARI) events within the Wairau Creek catchment. The works will include the excavation of an existing dry weather pond and the creation of an additional dry weather pond at the park, as well as the installation of a new culvert screen. Further works include the re-contouring of overland flow paths, improvements to stormwater reticulation and new flood walls along an existing stream.

4. In addition to the stormwater works, the applicant proposes to upgrade the playing fields at the Sunnynook Park, including the provision of a sand carpet under-surface.

5. Excess fill will be removed from the reserve and transported to Wairau Intermediate School to provide new level playing fields, which will also feature a sand carpet system.

6. The proposed timeframe for the works are spread over two earthworks seasons for a total of 50 weeks (approx.).

7. This application has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint commissioners as the application is regarded as potentially contentious and which was lodged on a publicly notified basis. Independent commissioners are recommended due to the council’s involvement as the applicant and the location of the activity on public land. It is also recommended that the appointed commissioners have planning, erosion and sediment control, stormwater engineering and traffic engineering expertise.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint a panel of three independent commissioners, one to be the Chair, to hear submissions and make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on the applications for resource consents LCO-214694, REG-214696, REG-214823 and LW-2142699 for stormwater infrastructure and playfield resources at 90 Sunnynook Road (Sunnynook Reserve) and Wairau Intermediate School.

b) to delegate to the Chair appointed in (a) above to make decisions on the Resource Consent applications, should no submissions be received or a hearing otherwise not be required.

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

Comments

8. ACSU have applied for a package of resource consents associated with improving stormwater infrastructure and playing fields in the Sunnynook Park area.

9. The project will involve significant earthworks across both the affected reserve and school, with re-contouring of the land and alterations to existing flooding patterns. A total excavation of 39,000m³ is proposed at Sunnynook Park and its relocation to Wairau Intermediate School. Two dry weather ponds will be located at the park, while park upgrades include new seating, pedestrian/cyclist connection improvements and three new accessible parking spaces. Works to 119 trees at both the park and school are also proposed.

10. The consent package includes a variation of conditions of an existing dam permit (Auckland Regional Council Reference: 34512) to increase the storage capacity of park’s current dry weather pond.

11. The Resource Consents Department is aware of community interest in the application, which was lodged by the ACSU on a notified basis. This community interest includes the potential flooding effects and the disturbance from construction activities (including the proposed access to the intermediate school).

12. ACSU have provided a summary of the project and a copy is provided as Attachment A.

13. Consents have been sought across the following planning documents:

· Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section);

· Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control;

· The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health;

· Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air Land Water; and

· The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

14. The package of consents involves the following matters:

· Earthworks, including earthworks within flood plains, public open space and sediment control areas;

· Vegetation alteration and removal for the purpose of installing infrastructure;

· The discharge of contaminants to land;

· The diversion of groundwater;

· The construction of a dam;

· The alteration of an existing dam; and

· The replacement of an existing debris trap.

15. Overall, consent is required for a discretionary activity. An Outline Plan of Works application will be sought for District Plan related matters at Wairau Intermediate School following any approval for the applications.

16. The applications were notified on 20 April 2016 and submissions close on 18 May 2016. Submissions will be accepted given the fully notified status of the applications.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. This report invites the committee to appoint independent hearing commissioners which is a not a matter within the delegated authority of the local board.

18. ACSU have advised that they have previously engaged with the Devonport –Takapuna Local Board at a briefing on 5 May 2015. This briefing was accepted by the local board with a request for further design information regarding swales and the community centre.

19. The local board’s views on notification were not required as the resource consents have been fully notified at the request of the applicant.

Māori impact statement

20. The applicant has advised that they have engaged with 13 mana whenua entities during the development of the project, with none of the entities preparing a Cultural Impact Assessment.

21. Key areas of interest identified by mana whenua include the potential disturbance of historical remains and the retention of native trees.

22. All 13 mana whenua entities were notified of the consent applications on 20 April 2016 as part of the public notification process. No formal responses had been received at the time of this report.

General

23. 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.

24. The level of community interest in the project infers that these applications may be considered continuous. Local residents have approached Resource Consent staff with their concerns regarding flooding impacts, traffic effects and the loss of amenity for properties neighbouring the school. This feedback from the local community suggests the contentious nature of the project.

25. Therefore staff consider that the Hearings Committee, in accordance with the Hearings Committee Policy, should appoint the independent commissioners as decision makers for these applications. It is recommended that the commissioners appointed have planning, erosion and sediment control, stormwater engineering and traffic engineering expertise.

Implementation

26. Following the decision to appoint a hearings panel, a hearing date will be set should submissions be received and submitters wish to be heard. This is likely to take place sometime in July 2016.

27. In the event that no submissions are received, the decision on the resource consents will be made by the Chair of the appointed Hearings Panel.

28. All costs associated with the processing of the resource consent applications are recoverable from the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Application Summary	27

Signatories

Authors	Tim Hegarty - Senior Planner - Major Infrastructure Projects
Authorisers	Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

23 May 2016

Appointment of Local Elected Members to Accord Territorial Authority Hearings Panel (HASHAA Hearings) - Various Special Housing Areas

File No.: CP2016/09579

Purpose

1. To seek the appointment of several local board members to the Accord Territorial Authority Panel (ATA Panel) to consider various Special Housing Area (SHA) Plan Variations (Clarks Beach, Red Hills, Mill Road, Quarry Road, McLarin Road, Argent Lane, Bremner Road and Bellfield Road) and concurrent qualifying development consent applications.

Executive Summary

2. There are eight Special Housing Area applications that will require hearings and decisions before the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) becomes operative. The Development Programme Office plans to deal with the final cluster of hearings by appointing a pool of commissioners to hear these applications and issue decisions in a timely manner.

3. Section 89(2) of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) requires each panel considering plan variations to have no fewer than three members, one of whom is a member of the relevant local authority, community board or local board.

4. Staff recommend that a member of the local board where the proposed development is located, who is accredited with the Making Good Decisions certification (a requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991), be appointed.

5. In this case, the SHA hearings would require local board representation from Franklin, Henderson Massey, Rodney and Papakura Local Boards respectively. The relevant local board members with the suitable accreditation are: Murray Kay, Brenda Brady, Shane Henderson, Vanessa Neeson, Phelan Pirrie, John McLean, Brent Catchpole with Bill McEntee (in reserve if required) and Lisa Whyte (Hibiscus and Bays / Upper Harbour if required).

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) appoint local elected members to the Accord Territorial Authority Panel, which will hear and decide on the proposed plan variations for the re-zoning of the remaining Special Housing Areas from future urban to residential zones under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) including concurrent qualifying development consents.

b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make a replacement appointment should any of the elected members appointed in a) above be unavailable.

Comments

6. The authority to appoint local elected members to the ATA Panel was delegated from Hearings Committee (HEA/2015/3) to Chairperson of Hearings Committee, Councillor C Penrose and one Independent Maori Statutory Board member of the Hearings Committee.

7. There are eight plan variations from various SHA applicants that are at various stages (pre-lodgement discussions, lodged awaiting a concurrent qualifying development, or lodged and limited notified). The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel is due to give its recommendations to council in July with a decision required in August on whether or not to accept those findings. The appeal period after council makes its decision will likely end at the same time as the housing accord is due to expire in September this year. Section 75 of HASHAA provides that whichever decision is made operative first, takes precedence. This means that council should facilitate the hearing of these final applications as soon as possible to avoid any conflict between the two processes.

8. Section 89(2) HASHAA requires each panel considering plan variations to have no fewer than three members, one of whom is a member of the relevant local authority, community board or local board. The other panel members can be appointed through officer delegations from its pool of commissioners.

9. The housing legislation states that an elected member of council, either a member of the governing body or the local board in which the proposal is located, and who is accredited with the Making Good Decisions certification (a requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991) should be appointed in the first instance. Staff recommend that if a local board member has a conflict of interest or there are no accredited local board members, then either a local board member from an adjacent board area or an accredited member of the governing body should be appointed.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. All local boards maintain an overview of the SHAs through the establishment phase and are consulted when reserves are acquired.

Māori impact statement

11. All applicants are required to engage with tangata whenua to prepare cultural impact assessments. Commissioners with experience in tikanga Maori are recommended for coastal SHA applications (Clarks Beach, McLarin Road, Bremner Road).

Implementation

12. There are no implementation costs to council. The applicants will be charged for panel members’ time.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Alina Wimmer - Lead Project Planner

Authorisers

John Dunshea - General Manager Development Programmes Office

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

23 May 2016

Local board involvement in resource consenting processes

File No.: CP2016/08955

Purpose

1. To approve a review of the role of local boards in resource consent processes and endorse the process to engage governing body and local board members in the review.

Executive Summary

2. The establishment of a working party of governing body and local board representatives is recommended to review current processes and canvass future options for the involvement of local boards in resource consenting.

3. A range of potential options are included in a discussion paper attached as Attachment A. A summary of the paper is presented in the comments section below. Possible future options are canvassed and a high-level rating, against a set of criteria, presented.

4. The discussion paper can inform working party discussions from which recommendations can be developed and reported back to this committee for information.

5. Any proposed changes would be reported to the Governing Body for a decision at the start of the next political term.

6. This work is an important subcomponent of the wider work reviewing the governing body / local board framework.

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) approve a review the role of local boards in resource consenting processes, including the effectiveness of the current trigger processes and consenting information provision, input into notification, substantive decision input opportunities, decision-making and related matters.

b) approve the establishment a working party made up of four governing body, one Independent Maori Statutory Board member and four local board representatives to undertake the review.

c) appoint the Chair of the Hearings Committee, three governing body members and one Independent Maori Statutory Board member who are members of the Hearings Committee, as working party representatives.

d) request that local boards appoint four representatives for the working party.

e) request that the working party:

i) identify a mechanism for ensuring all local boards are informed of progress

ii) report back to this committee on the results and recommendations of the working party prior to the end of this political term for information purposes

f) note that any recommended revisions to current processes for local board involvement in resource consenting will be reported to the Governing Body for a decision early in the new political term.

Comments

7. In 2011, the Governing Body considered the role that local boards should play in resource consent processes. The Governing Body did not allocate or delegate any powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 to local boards but processes were set up to enable local boards to provide input on notification decisions and to provide input on notified consents.

8. At its meeting of 26 November 2015 the Governing Body received a presentation from Troy Churton of the Ōrākei Local Board that a local board be permitted to present views to commissioners if they differ from the reporting officer. From this approach the Governing Body resolved (GB/2015/119).

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the presentation by Troy Churton, Orākei Local Board regarding a change to local board delegations.

b) request a report back to the Hearings committee on this issue in February 2016.

9. Given that it has been five years since the Governing Body last considered this issue, it is timely to review the effectiveness of the local board input role more generally.

Process

10. This report recommends that a joint working party, consisting of four governing body, four local board representatives and an Independent Maori Statutory Board member be established to undertake the review. Governing body representatives would come from the Hearings Committee. Local boards chairs will be asked to appoint their own representatives.

11. The working party will be provided with draft terms of reference at the first meeting, including mechanisms for keeping local boards more generally informed of progress.

Discussion paper

12. To assist the working party a discussion paper, covering the following matters, has been developed:

· The legal and Auckland Council context for current local board input

· Issues relating to the effectiveness and efficiency of the current processes

· Proposed principles to guide the discussion and criteria to rate options

· Options for moving forward (discussion paper attached as Attachment A).

13. The assessment criteria include:

· Recognising the statutory intent of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

· Effectiveness of input to the quality of decision-making

· Meeting Resource Management Act statutory timeframes

· Efficiency of process to all parties and the cost/resourcing commitment

· Acknowledgment and visibility of local board roles

· Ease of implementation / co-ordination with current processes that remains applicant / customer centric

· Risk of challenges on resource consent decision making

· Independence / managing the perception of bias and delivering natural justice.

14. The options assessed by these criteria are wide ranging, can be considered individually or together and do not present an exhaustive list of possibilities. In reviewing the relative strengths of the options canvassed, some of the ranking criteria (such as need to meet a statutory intent and matter of natural justice in decision-making) make some of the more extreme options less viable.

Reporting review outcomes

15. The outcome of the working party discussions will be reported back to this committee before the end of the current political term.

16. Given the importance of this work to local boards, mechanisms for keeping them well informed of progress will be required.

17. If changes to the existing processes are recommended, they will need to be reported to the Governing Body to make a decision. This would happen early in the new term.

18. Any changes would provide the framework for local board input from that time.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. Initial discussions with local board representatives on current input processes have identified a range of issues and options that are expressed within the attached discussion document.

20. The possible options available for local board input into resource consenting will be the subject of future engagement at which time local board representatives will be involved.

Māori impact statement

21. Resource consenting matters can be of major interest and importance to iwi. The means by which iwi input into these consent processes lie separately from those of the local board and are therefore not canvassed within the attached report.

22. Lists and descriptions of resource consent applications, applications identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as sites of value to mana whenua and those applications that may impact on maunga of Tāmaki Makaurau are provided direct to iwi.

23. There is no intention to change the iwi consultation and information sharing processes as part of this project.

Implementation

24. The options considered within the attached discussion paper have cost and time implications: e.g. the time of local board members, resource consenting staff and applicants for resource consents.

25. There are also legal implications associated with options around allowing local board submissions and/or the right to appeal.

26. These matters can be further canvassed by the working party and as part of a subsequent report to the committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Discussion Paper: Local Board involvement in resource consent processes.	39

Signatories

Authors	Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
Authorisers	Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

23 May 2016

Objection to the issue of a noise abatement notice

File No.: CP2016/09200

Purpose

1. To determine the objection by Ms Mikayla Pope of Auckland, to the noise abatement notice issued for her dogs Kyah and Tyson on 15 September 2015.

Executive Summary

2. Ms Pope has requested that her address be redacted from the report and attachments. Council staff have agreed to this request and ‘Ms Pope’s property’ will be referenced in the report rather than a specific address.

3. Between 18 March 2015 and 3 September 2015, Council received 49 complaints from 11 different complainants alleging that barking dogs were causing a nuisance in the vicinity of Arkles Reserve, Mt Roskill, Auckland.

4. Multiple investigations repeatedly determined the barking came from Ms Pope’s property.

5. Council staff worked with Ms Pope and the complainants to try to resolve the situation, including advising her on methods to minimize the barking, in particular the use of electronic bark collars.

6. Complaints continued to be received during this period, which culminated in the issuance of a noise abatement notice on 15 September 2015. An objection to the Council was received on 22 September 2015.

7. Council’s actions have been in accordance with a graduated enforcement approach with emphasis on education and advice. The issuing of the noise abatement notice is reasonable because other, voluntary means to address the nuisance being caused have not been successful.

8. Experienced animal management officers advise that electronic bark collars are a proven and humane means for abating barking, can be implemented simply and without unreasonable inconvenience to the dog owner.

9. 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 notice, that notice shall set out those requirements to be modified.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Hearings Committee:

a) confirm and uphold the Council officers’ decision to issue the abatement notice to Ms Mikayla Pope of Mt Roskill, Auckland.

Background

11. Between 18 March 2015 and 3 September 2015, Council received 49 complaints from 11 different complainants alleging that barking dogs were causing a nuisance in the vicinity of Arkles Reserve, Mt Roskill, Auckland. The details of the complaints are set out in Attached A.

12. On 15 September 2015, the council issued Ms Pope with a noise abatement notice, ref Attachment B. An objection to the council was received on 22 September 2015, ref Attachment C.

13. Since the abatement notice was issued the council has received a further 20 complaints.

14. Statements were taken from neighbours in relation to their complaints:

· Neighbour A – Neighbour A also recorded an episode of barking that will be available for the committee to listen to if it chooses, ref Attachment D.

· Neighbour B – ref Attachment E.

· Neighbour C – ref Attachment F.

8. Bark Monitoring forms were provided to neighbours in the vicinity. Neighbours A and B completed a monitoring form. In addition to neighbours A and B a further 4 neighbours have signed the monitoring form, ref Attachment G.

9. Neighbour C also completed a bark monitoring form, ref Attachment H.

10. Maps and aerial photographs have been included to illustrate the general vicinity of Arkles Reserve, ref Attachment I.

11. The Officer in charge of this case has provided a statement, ref Attachment J. In summary:

a. On 9 February 2016, she conducted bark monitoring from 2.00pm to 2.44pm. During that time she recorded 16 minutes of barking from one dog. The Officer spoke to Ms Pope who told her she was away from her home for 4 hours. She said she now has bark collars on both dogs;

b. On 15 March 2016, the Officer attended another complaint from 4 complainants. She said she monitored the barking from the park for 15 minutes and recorded 10 minutes of barking. She contacted Ms Pope who initially denied her dogs were barking and when the officer told her she had recorded her dogs barking Ms Pope “still did not seem to take it seriously or really accept that the dog was barking.” When the officer asked her whether the bark collars were being used she said “perhaps they weren’t tight enough to make connection.”

c. The officer’s recording of the barking is available should the committee wish listen to it.

17. In the most recent complaint on 18 March 2016, Ms Pope told the responding animal management officer that “she did know whether the bark collars were on” and that “…the collars did not really work anyway.” The officer formed the view that Ms Pope was not using the collars correctly and discussed with her how to properly attach them and suggested shaving the dogs’ necks to get a better result, refer to Attachment K.

Dog Control Act 1996

18. Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides where a dog control officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being caused, they may:

(a) enter the land or premises at any reasonable time, other than a dwelling house, on which the dog(s) is kept, to inspect the conditions under which the dog is kept; and

(b) give the owner of the dog(s) a written notice requiring that person to make such reasonable provision on the property to abate the nuisance as specified in the notice or, if considered necessary, remove the dog from the land or premises.

Relevant Council procedures

19. 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 Dog Control Act to remediate nuisance barking^{^[1]}.

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

Conclusion

21. Council officers have responded to complaints about barking from Ms Pope’s property for over a year. Officers have encouraged, advised and supported the dog owner and neighbours in an attempt to abate and minimise the nuisance through voluntary action, including the use of electronic bark collars.

22. Ms Pope has taken some steps to remedy the nuisance and these have been partially successful but the council still receives complaints about barking.

23. The issuing of the noise abatement notices is reasonable in all of the circumstances of this case. The use of electronic bark collars has demonstrated that when properly fitted they effectively abate nuisance barking.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

24. Local board view has not been sought.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

26. There are no implementation issues at this stage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Number of complaints received	77
b View	Noise abatement notice	79
c View	Objection to noise abatement notice	81
d View	Statement from neighbours A	83
e View	Statement from neighbours B	87
f View	Statement from neighbours C	91
g View	Bark monitoring form from neighbour A and B	97
h View	Bark monitoring form from neighbour C	99
i View	Aerial photographs of Arkles Reserve and vicinity	101
j View	Statement from Animal Management Officer	103
k View	Complaint from 18 March 2016	109

Signatories

Authors

Geoff Keber, Manager Animal Management

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Hearings Committee

23 May 2016

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: Onehunga Enhancement Society Incorporated v Auckland Council – Old Mangere Bridge, Mangere

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