|
Auckland
Development Committee
10 August 2016
|
|
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Report 1 - Information
on process, statutory framework and decision making
File No.: CP2016/16901
Purpose
1. This report
provides information about the process used to develop the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan (PAUP) and the statutory framework around the PAUP process and the
decision-making requirements placed on the Council by the Local Government
(Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA).
2. This report
(Report 1) forms the first of three reports that relate to the PAUP, with the
other two reports addressing the recommendations provided to the Council by the
Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (Panel) as they relate to: the
Panel’s recommended text for the PAUP and recommended planning maps (Report 2);
and the designations appearing in the PAUP (Report 3).
3. Reports 2 and 3
set out the proposed staff response to the Panel’s Recommendations, which the
committee will be considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body
on, during a series of meetings that commence on 10 August 2016.
Executive
summary
4. Following the adoption of the
Auckland Plan by the Council, a spatial plan which was required to be a
comprehensive and effective long-term strategy for Auckland’s growth and
development[1],
the next significant planning priority for Auckland was the development of a
combined Resource Management plan for Auckland (the PAUP).
5. The development of a draft
Unitary Plan began in 2012, in accordance with the vision and foundations set
by the Auckland Plan. Legislative amendments were subsequently enacted by the
Government. Those legislative amendments created Part 4 of the LGATPA, which
provides a streamlined and unique process facilitating the preparation and development
of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). The Part 4 process is described in further
detail in Attachment C to this report.
6. The PAUP was notified for
submission between 30 September 2013 and 28 February 2014. The further
submission period occurred between 11 June and 22 July 2014. The Panel
commenced hearings in September 2014.
7. In accordance with section 146
of the LGATPA, the Panel provided the Council with its recommendations for the
PAUP on 22 July 2016 (supplementing a number of designation reports previously
provided on 18 May 2016).
8. Section 148 of the LGATPA sets
out how the Council is required to consider the Panel’s Recommendations and
notify its decisions on them. In summary, the Council must decide whether to
accept or reject each of the Panel’s Recommendations, and must publicly notify
those decisions no later than 20 working days after it is provided with the
Panel’s Recommendations. Where any of the Panel’s Recommendations are proposed
for rejection, there are additional requirements that must be satisfied by the
Council. These additional requirements include that the Council must provide
reasons supporting the rejection and an alternative solution to the
recommendation made by the Panel. Further information that relates to the Council’s
decision-making requirements, and the statutory framework for its decisions, is
provided later in this report.
9. It is in the context of the
unique process provided by Part 4 of the LGATPA that the Council is now tasked
with making its decisions on the Panel’s Recommendations. In order to assist
the Council, staff have undertaken a full review of the Panel’s Recommendations
and prepared proposed responses which will be considered at the ADC and GB
meetings commencing on 10 August 2016. The proposed staff responses are set
out in Report 2 (relating to the PAUP, with the exception of designations) and
Report 3 (designations).
|
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Development
Committee:
a) receive the report.
|
Background
and development of the PAUP
10. The need for an Auckland Unitary
Plan (AUP) was recognised by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance in
March 2009, which in turn prompted the newly amalgamated Council to work with
the Government to prepare a specific process that would enable the streamlined
development of a new combined resource management document for Auckland.
11. A detailed description of
development of the PAUP is included as Attachment A, but as a summary the
following significant steps have occurred:
a) consideration of how the Council
would develop it’s ‘combined plan’ commenced in early 2011;
b) preparation of the draft AUP
commenced in early 2012 after the Auckland Plan was adopted;
c) the draft AUP was released for
public discussion and feedback between 15 March 2013 and 31 May 2013;
d) 22 Auckland Plan Committee
workshops were held in June, July and August of 2013 to consider the extensive
public feedback in the draft AUP. All local board chairs were invited to
attend the workshops;
e) the PAUP was publicly notified for
submissions on 30 September 2013. The submission period on the PAUP ran from 30
September 2013 until 28 January 2014, with 9443 primary submissions and 3915
further submissions received by the Council;
f) hearings before the Panel
commenced in September 2014, with 249 days of hearings in total being held
before the Panel; and
g) the Panel’s Recommendations were
provided to the Council on 22 July 2016 (aside from the Panel’s Recommendations
on designations which were largely received on 18 May 2016).
12. The scale of work undertaken by
the Council’s elected members, Council staff, consultants and lawyers engaged
by Council, submitters, the public of Auckland and the Panel (and Panel staff)
in relation to the PAUP is unprecedented in New Zealand, and it is in this
context that the Council’s decisions on the Panel’s Recommendations now need to
be made.
Decision-making by the Auckland Council
Overview of the Council’s role
13. The roles of the Panel and that
of the Council are connected but distinct. An overview of the Panel’s role is
set out in Attachment B to this report, with more detail relating to the
Statutory Framework set out in Attachment C.
14. This section focuses in detail on
the Council’s role as decision-maker, including the extent to which it is
entitled to rely on the hearings process conducted by the Panel, a specialist
body, as part of its consideration of submissions (and further submissions)
and, importantly, the Panel’s Recommendations as the critical foundation of
Council’s decision-making.
15. Members of the Committee will be
aware that under the LGATPA, the Council has 20 working days to make decisions
either accepting or rejecting each of the Panel’s Recommendations[2]
on the PAUP. The decisions made by the Council need to identify the Panel’s
Recommendations that are either accepted or rejected[3].
For any rejected recommendations, the Council must give its reasons for doing
so and decide an alternative solution that may or may not include elements of
both the PAUP as notified and the Panel’s Recommendations, but that must be
within the scope of the submissions made on the PAUP.
16. The Council must publicly notify
its decisions on the Panel’s Recommendations by 19 August 2016 (unless an
extension to that deadline is granted by the Minister for the Environment).
17. It is important to note that the
Panel’s Recommendations come at the end of an (almost) 2 year hearings process.
18. In this context (and in light of
the role of the Panel), the Council will not have had the benefit of hearing
all of the submissions and evidence presented to the Panel on the PAUP and it
is legally prevented from considering “any submission or other evidence unless
it was made available to the Hearings Panel before the Panel made the
recommendation that is the subject of the Council’s decision”[4].
In practical terms, given the statutory deadline for its decisions, the Council
will be unable to fully reconsider the evidence and submissions underpinning
each recommendation made by the Panel. As such, the Council’s role is not to
conduct a full re-evaluation of the submissions, evidence and the Panel’s
hearing sessions.
The
Council’s decision-making role in more detail
19. The Council must assess the
Panel’s Recommendations within the requirements of the Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA) and the LGATPA, based on the Panel’s recommendation reports and the
reasons provided within those reports. The question the Council must ask
itself is whether, in deciding whether to accept or reject each recommendation,
does it agree that the recommended objectives of the PAUP are the most
appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and that the recommended
provisions (policies, rules, methods, etc) are the most appropriate way to
achieve those objectives?
20. There are certain matters that
the Council must consider when deciding whether to accept or reject each
recommendation, those matters it may consider, and those matters it must not
consider.
21. The Council must consider the
Panel’s recommendation reports and the reasons provided by the Panel for each
recommendation (including the accompanying recommended text and maps), in
deciding whether to accept or reject those recommendations, and in doing so
have in mind:
a) the Council’s functions under the
RMA[5];
b) the provisions in Part 2 of the
RMA[6];
and
c) any other relevant planning
documents, including the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and other
national policy statements, and the Auckland Plan, which sets the strategic
direction for Auckland and its communities[7].
22. The Council may consider
submissions or evidence that was before the Panel, and the advice of Council
staff in relation to the Panel’s Recommendations (particularly as Council staff
or advisers have been required to be present at all hearings before the Panel[8]).
The basis for any advice of Council staff is likely to be found in Council’s
evidence and closing remarks for any relevant topic (the latter generally
identifying and discussing all the competing evidence and outstanding issues).
23. Where the Council considers
submissions and evidence that were before the Panel, it needs to be careful not
to base its decisions on a selective reading of those submissions and evidence,
as this would be unfair to other submitters who had presented their evidence to
the Panel. Therefore, it is important to confine the analysis as much as
possible to discussions within the Panel’s Recommendations reports.
24. The Council must not, however,
consider the following as part of its decision-making:
a) any submission or evidence that was not before the panel;
b) any personal interests (financial or non-financial) other than
those in common with the public;
c) trade competition;
d) the Panel’s process; and
e) the Panel’s interpretation of its recommendations as being either
in or out of scope.
Accepting
recommendations
25. For each of the Panel’s
Recommendations that the Council accepts, the Council will be able to fulfil
its decision-making role by considering the Panel’s Recommendations and reasons
only. This is because the Panel, in formulating its recommendations, was
required to comply with all the requirements of section 145 of the LGATPA,
including obligations to:
a) ensure that if the Council
accepts each/any/all of the Panel’s Recommendations, all relevant requirements
(and legal tests) of the RMA, and other enactments which apply to the Council’s
preparation of the PAUP, are complied with[9]; and
b) prepare, and include with its
recommendations, a further evaluation in accordance with section 32AA of the
RMA[10].
26. Therefore, among the obligations
on the Panel arising from section 145, was a requirement to include in its
reports an examination of the extent to which the recommended objectives of the
PAUP are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA and the
extent to which recommended provisions (policies, rules, methods) are the most
appropriate way to achieve those objectives.
27. In other words, the Council is
able to place a degree of reliance on the Panel having met the various
requirements of section 145, including the obligation on the Panel just
described in paragraph 5.14 to ensure that the recommended objectives of the
PAUP are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and that
the recommended provisions (policies, rules, methods, etc) are the most
appropriate way to achieve those objectives.
28. Importantly there is no statutory
requirement for the Council to provide reasons that support a decision to
accept recommendations (unlike the position in relation to rejected
recommendations).
29. As above, the Council is entitled
to rely on the Panel having fulfilled its obligation to ensure that, were the
Council to accept its recommendations, the provisions of the RMA, or other
enactments that apply to the Council’s preparation of the PAUP “would be
complied with.”
30. The Council may also accept
recommendations of the Panel that are identified by the Panel as being beyond
the scope of submissions[11].
The Panel’s overview report provides a summary of the out of scope
recommendations made by the Panel (in Appendix 3) and, as required by section
144(6)(a) of the LGATPA, the Panel’s topic reports also specifically identify
any out of scope recommendations.
Rejecting recommendations
31. Where the Council decides to
reject any recommendation made by the Panel, it must provide reasons for that
rejection and prepare an alternative solution for the rejected recommendation[12]
(which, given the way in which the Panel’s Recommendations have been
formulated, could be any matter or PAUP provision recommended by the Panel),
together with a section 32AA assessment where necessary. The preparation of an
alternative solution, which more appropriately achieves the purpose of the RMA,
may be a complicated task.
32. There are certain requirements
relating to the deciding of an alternative solution which are set out in
subsections 148(1) and (2) of the LGATPA. Section 148(1)(b) sets out the key
requirements in terms of ascertaining whether there is scope for any
alternative solution. In that regard, for each recommendation, the Council
must decide an alternative solution which:
a) may or may not include elements
of both the PAUP as notified and the Panel's recommendation in respect of that
part of the PAUP (and which therefore may be a combination of the two); but
b) must be within the scope of the
submissions.
33. In terms of whether or not an
alternative solution is “within the scope of submissions” made on the PAUP,
this requires consideration of whether or not the proposed alternative solution
was fairly and reasonably raised in one or more submissions.
34. It is important to emphasise that
while the Panel was able make recommendations that were beyond the scope of
submissions, the Council may not decide to adopt any alternative solutions that
are out of scope of submissions made on the PAUP, the Council should also be
satisfied that any alternative solution will meet the relevant requirements of
the RMA.
35. Where the Council decides to reject
any of the Panel’s Recommendations it must also prepare reasoning that supports
that decision, including a section 32AA report (a requirement of the RMA) which
assesses (among other matters) the benefits and costs of the alternative
solution, unless a section 32 report or section 32AA report has already been
prepared as part of the development of the PAUP and / or the Council’s case
team evidence for the hearings before the Panel, which relates to that
alternative solution.
Appeal
Rights / Judicial Review
36. There are unique appeal rights
under the LGATPA, which differ from the standard appeal rights under the RMA.
Following the public notification of the Council’s decisions on 19 August 2016,
limited rights of appeal are available to the Environment Court and the High
Court.
37. In brief, in relation to the
Environment Court:
a) if the Council accepts a
recommendation made by the Panel that is identified by the Panel as being
beyond the scope of submissions made on the PAUP, any person, whether that
person made a submission on the PAUP or not, may appeal to the Environment
Court in respect of the provision or matter at issue if that person “is, was or
will be unduly prejudiced” by the Council’s decision[13].
Any appeal must be lodged within 20 working days after the public notification
of the Council’s decisions.
b) if the Council rejects a
recommendation made by the Panel, a person who made a submission on the matter
or provision at issue may appeal to the Environment Court in relation to that
matter or provision[14].
Again, any appeal must be lodged within 20 working days after the public
notification of the Council’s decisions. If the Council’s alternative solution
includes elements of the Panel’s recommendation, the “right of appeal is
limited to the effect of the differences between the alternative solution and
the recommendation”[15].
38. There are separate rights of
appeal to the Environment Court in relation to decisions on designations and
heritage orders, as set out at section 157 of the LGATPA. In short:
a) a person who is an owner /
occupier of land to which the designation / heritage order relates, and who
made a submission, may appeal to the Environment Court, against any aspect of
the decision on the designation;
b) a person who was a submitter, but
who is not an owner / occupier of land to which the designation / heritage
order relates, has a more limited right of appeal to the Environment Court
(which is limited to the extent to which the relevant Panel or Council
recommendation was rejected); and
c) the Council itself has a right of
appeal to the Environment Court against the decisions of other requiring
authorities.
39. In relation to the limited rights
of appeal to the High Court, which must be made on questions of law only[16]:
a) if the Council accepts a
recommendation made by the Panel which either resulted in a provision being
included in the proposed plan, or a matter being excluded from the proposed
plan, then any person, so long as that person addressed the provision or matter
at issue in their submission on the PAUP, can appeal that decision to accept to
the High Court on a question of law[17].
b) in relation to decisions of
requiring authorities other than the Council that accept the Council’s
recommendations to it, where a person is not an owner or occupier of land to
which a designation or heritage order applies, and that person made a
submission that referred to any aspect of the decision to accept the Council’s
recommendation, that person may appeal to the High Court on a question of law
against that aspect of the requiring authorities decision[18].
c) in
relation to decisions of the Council as a requiring authority that accept the
Panel’s Recommendations, where a person is not an owner or occupier of land to
which a designation or heritage order applies, and that person made a
submission that referred to any aspect of the decision by the Council to accept
the Panel's recommendation, that person may appeal to the High Court on a
question of law against that aspect of the Council’s decision[19].
Statutory Framework
40. So that the PAUP would be
developed in a timely manner, the Government and the Council (following the
creation of the Council pursuant to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act
2010) worked together to prepare a special piece of legislation that would
provide a streamlined, unique process for the preparation of the PAUP.
41. That special legislation is the
LGATPA[20],
with Part 4 of the LGATPA varying the traditional RMA process for the
preparation, change and review of policy statements and plans. Key provisions
from Part 4 of the LGATPA are attached to this report as Attachment C.
Description of the Panel’s Recommendations
Formulation of the Panel’s Recommendations
42. The Panel’s Recommendations
comprise three distinct parts, broadly described as follows:
a) Part 1 - The Panel’s
Recommendation Reports: these comprise an overview report, which generally
addresses all of the Panel’s Recommendations, and 58 separate recommendation
reports, relevant to the topics that were heard before the Panel (albeit with
some of those hearing topics being combined together in one Panel
recommendation report);
b) Part 2 - The Recommended Plan:
which comprises a “clean” version of the Panel’s recommended text for the PAUP;
and
c) Part 3 - The Recommended Maps /
GIS Viewer: which comprises the Panel’s recommended version of the PAUP
planning maps, created in the Panel’s GIS viewer.
Collectively, the above reports are referred to in Reports
1, 2 and 3 and in the proposed resolutions as the “Panel’s Recommendations”.
43. The Panel states in its overview
report (section 2.1.2, page 18) that “it is important to read the Overview and
relevant topic reports when comparing the Panel’s recommended version with the
notified proposed Unitary Plan”.
44. Section 2.1 of the Panel’s
overview report explains that the Panel’s report and its recommendations are
made up of these three parts, with each of those parts either containing
recommendations, or being the Panel’s recommended version of the provisions or
planning maps for the PAUP.
45. In the case of the Panel’s
separate recommendation reports, it is noted that recommendations are often
provided throughout the body of each report (including the overview report).
Significantly, the Panel indicates in its overview report (page 14) that
recommended changes to the text of the PAUP (which are numerous and not
tracked), and the recommended changes to the planning maps, are to be read as
recommendations.
The Panel’s Recommendations
46. Both the hearing topic reports
and overview report also contain a number of “recommendations” that do not
relate to the content of the PAUP, including recommendations that encourage the
Council to undertake future plan changes, consult with various parties or
advocate for certain outcomes, etc. Council staff have considered these
additional suggestions and formed the view that because these suggestions do
not relate to the content of the PAUP, they are not recommendations that
require a decision of the Council in terms of section 148 of the LGATPA. Those
additional helpful suggestions have, however, been noted and will be considered
by the Council moving forward.
47. For the avoidance of any doubt,
the proposed response to the Panel’s Recommendations has focussed on only those
recommendations that relate to the content of the PAUP.
Response to
the Panel’s Recommendations
48. The proposed staff response to
the Panel’s Recommendations is provided in Reports 2 and 3. Report 2 addresses
the Panel’s recommendations relating to the text and maps for the PAUP, while
Report 3 addresses the Panel’s Recommendations for the designations appearing
in the PAUP.
49. The staff reports to committee
have separated the Panel’s Recommendations into four categories, outlined as
follows:
a) proposed acceptances – where the
Panel’s Recommendations on any particular matter or topic do not represent a
policy shift from the Council’s closing position before the Panel;
b) proposed acceptances – where the
Panel’s Recommendations on any particular matter or topic represent a policy
shift from the Council’s closing position before the Panel, but where Council
staff consider that the policy shift is acceptable (as supported by reasons in
the committee report);
c) proposed rejections - where the
Panel’s Recommendations on any particular matter or topic represent a policy
shift from the Council’s closing position before the Panel, and where Council
staff consider that the policy shift is unacceptable and propose rejection
(these scenarios are supported by reasons in the committee report, an
alternative solution and a section 32AA evaluation where necessary); and
d) proposed rejections - where the
Panel’s Recommendations on any particular matter or topic do not represent a
policy shift from the Council’s closing position before the Panel, but where
Council staff consider that the recommendations contain technical difficulties
to the workability of the Plan that require rejection and the development of an
alternative solution (these scenarios are supported by reasons in the committee
report, an alternative solution and a section 32AA evaluation where necessary).
Local
board views and implications
50. Local Boards have played a
significant role in developing the PAUP. Workshops have been held with local
boards throughout the process, and local board chairs have been invited to
attend all relevant committee workshops and meetings. Views from local boards
on the notified version of the PAUP were also included in the local board
section of the Council submission on the PAUP. All local boards who provided
views in the Council submission were informed of the topics going into the
hearings and given the opportunity to present their views to the Panel (in
situations where their views differed from that of the Governing Body).
51. Local Board chairs were invited
to the Auckland Development Committee information meetings on the PAUP that
occurred between April and July 2016.
Māori
impact statement
52. Hui were held between the
Council, Mana Whenua and Mataawaka in developing the PAUP. The process of
developing the PAUP has assisted in fostering a positive relationship between
the Council and Mana Whenua.
53. The Independent Māori
Statutory Board and all 19 Mana Whenua entities made submissions on the PAUP.
These submissions supported the overall approach to addresssing issues of
significance to Mana Whenua and suggested amendments to lift the responsiveness
of the PAUP to Mana Whenua. Most Mana Whenua entities were active participants
in the hearings.
54. Where the Panel’s recommendation
are likely to have a specific impact on Maori, those impacts are discussed in
Report 2 under the relevant topic heading.
Conclusion
55. This report provides information
that relates to the background to the development of the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan, the Council’s decision-making role in relation to the Panel’s
Recommendations and the Council’s approach to responding to the Panel’s
Recommendations.
56. The proposed staff responses to
the Panel’s Recommendations (i.e. the proposed decision to either accept or
reject each of the Panel’s Recommendations), is found in Report 2 (which
relates to the Panel’s Recommendations for the text and maps of the PAUP) and
Report 3 (which relates to the Panel’s Recommendations for the designations
appearing in the PAUP).
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Background and development of the PAUP
|
21
|
|
bView
|
The Panel and its role in the PAUP Process
|
25
|
|
cView
|
Key provisions from Part 4 of the LGATPA
|
27
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Celia Davison - Team Leader Unitary Plan
Tony Reidy - Team leader Unitary Plan
|
|
Authorisers
|
Linley Wilkinson - Team Leader Unitary Plan
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
|
Auckland
Development Committee
10 August 2016
|
|
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Report 3 - Response to
Recommendations from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel
Relating to Designations
File No.: CP2016/16675
Purpose
1. The purpose of
this report is to provide information to enable the Council to make decisions
in response to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel’s (the
Panel’s) recommendations relating to designations included within the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).
Executive
summary
2. A designation allows works and
activities by a ‘requiring authority’ (such as a council, government
organisation or network utility operator) in a particular location, without the
need for a land-use resource consent. Designations can apply to both
privately-owned land and land owned by a requiring authority. Designations that
apply to privately-owned land restrict what landowners and occupiers can do.
3. Under the Resource Management
Act (and the special legislation applying to the PAUP), while designations
included as part of an plan review are subject to submissions and a hearing,
there is a different process for who makes the decisions on the recommendations
from the Panel. For Council‘s own designations, Council must make a decision on
the recommendations from the Panel. However for the designations owned by other
requiring authorities it can only recommend to those authorities to accept or
reject the Panel’s recommendations. The requiring authorities make the final
decisions (subject to appeal) on whether they will accept or reject the
recommendations.
4. The majority of the designations
included in the PAUP were already included in the various sections of the
Council’s operative district plan and were simply ‘rolled over’ into the PAUP.
Some new designations were also included in the PAUP. All designations included
in the PAUP were open for public submissions between 30 September 2013 and 28
February 2014.
5. At this point in the process,
the Council is required to make the following decisions:
· decisions
relating to Chapter G1.3 and Part 7 Designations of the PAUP
· decisions
relating to the Council’s own designations included in the PAUP
· decisions
relating to the recommendations it will make to other requiring authorities in
respect of their designations included in the PAUP.
6. The Council is not required to
make any decision relating to designations that were ‘rolled over’ without
modification that did not attract any submissions. These designations will be
included in the Council’s decision version of the PAUP
|
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Development
Committee:
a) accept the Panel’s
recommendations in the Introductory Designations Report set out in Attachment
E Part 1 to this report, including the Panel’s recommended amendments to the
explanatory text in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan relating to
designations, together with the further amendment to the explanatory text set
out in Attachment E Part 1 to this report (to ensure the correct map colours
are referred to).
b) accept the Panel’s
recommendations on Auckland Council designations set out in the Specific
Designation Reports listed in Attachment E Part 2 to this report.
c) accept the Panel’s
recommendations on the designations of other requiring authorities set out in
the Specific Designation Reports listed in Attachment E Part 3 to this
report, with the minor typographical corrections to the Panel’s
recommendation on Counties Power designation R3008 noted in Attachment E Part
3, and adopts them as the Council’s recommendations to those requiring
authorities.
d) request that the General
Manager Plans and Places notifies the other requiring authorities of the
Council’s recommendations in respect of their designations.
|
Comments
7. Designations in the PAUP
comprise existing designations ‘rolled over’ from legacy district plans and new
proposed designations. The Council lodged submissions on some of the ‘rolled
over’ and new proposed designations.
8. The purpose of the Council’s
submissions was to:
a) correct errors of fact, such as:
i. replacing references to
organisations that now no longer exist (e.g. Transit New Zealand, which has
been replaced by New Zealand Transport Agency);
ii. replacing references to Acts
of Parliament and codes of practice that have been repealed or superseded;
iii. deleting references to
specific rules in the various sections of the Council’s Operative District Plan
that will no longer exist in the PAUP and replacing them with equivalent
provisions;
iv. correcting parts of
designations that are unlawful; and
v. correcting the mapped boundaries
of designations.
b) clarify the wording of
designations that were considered to be unclear, unnecessarily complicated or
did not adequately protect the Council’s interests.
9. The Council did not oppose any
designations included in the PAUP, and the Council did not have an active role
in the assessment of third party submissions on designations; other than where
the Council’s own designations were involved, or where the Council was also a
submitter.
10. On 18 May 2016, the Panel
released a report on the explanation sections of the PAUP relating to
designations. The report also addressed two issues concerning a number of
designations included in the PAUP (one relating to lapse dates and the other
relating to cross-referencing). The report is entitled ‘Report to Auckland
Council Hearing Topic 074 Designations May 2016’ (Introductory Designations
Report) (Attachment A).
11. The Introductory Designations
Report includes recommendations from the Panel on ‘Chapter G1.3’ and ‘Part 7
Designations: Using Part 7’ (now proposed by the Panel to be located in Chapter
K of the PAUP). The Panel supports the Council’s preferred text amendments
presented in evidence at the hearing.
12. On 18 May and 22 July, the Panel
also released a series of reports (Specific Designation Reports) (Attachment
B) giving its final recommendations on individual designations included in
the PAUP. These reports recommend amendments to the designations of Auckland
Council and the other requiring authorities. The Specific Designation Reports
received on 18 May 2016 cover all designations in the PAUP on which the Panel
was required to report, except for:
· Auckland
International Airport designations;
· Kiwirail
designations; and
· NZ
Transport Agency designation 6727 (Newmarket Viaduct).
The Panel delivered its recommendations for these
outstanding designations on 22 July 2016 (Attachment C).
13. The Specific Designation Reports
contain the Panel’s recommendations on:
a) Notices of requirement for
designations that are already included in the various sections of the Council’s
Operative District Plan that a requiring authority wishes to be included in the
PAUP, but with modifications.
b) Notices of requirement for new
designations that a requiring authority wishes to be included in the PAUP.
c) Submissions by a requiring
authority seeking further modifications to a designation in the PAUP.
d) Submissions by other parties on
notices of requirement for designations that were included in the PAUP.
14. The Local Government (Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 does not allow the Panel to make
recommendations on any existing designations that were ‘rolled over’ unmodified
and did not attract any submissions.
15. The Council is deemed to have
approved these designations without further formality. The Council is not
required to make any decisions relating to them and they will be included in
the Council’s decision version of the PAUP. A list of these designations is
included as Attachment D.
16. This report recommends that the
Council, in its decisions on the Panel’s recommendations, accepts all the
Panel’s recommendations on the designations identified in Attachment E
to this report (with the minor alterations noted below). Attachment E is
divided into three parts:
a) Part 1 lists each
recommendation in the Introductory Designations Report that is proposed be
accepted, including one minor alteration.
b) Part 2 lists the Panel’s
reports on individual designations (i.e. the Specific Designation Reports)
relating to Auckland Council designations that are proposed be accepted.
c) Part 3 lists the Panel’s
reports on designations (i.e. the Specific Designation Reports) relating to
other requiring authorities’ designations that are proposed be accepted (with
the minor typographical corrections to the Panel’s recommendation on Counties
Power designation R3008).
17. A copy of Sections 148, 151 and
152 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 is
included as Attachment F.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
18. Local boards were provided with
the opportunity to include their views on the designations included in the PAUP
as part of the Council submission. No issues were raised by the local boards
during the submission or hearings process and council staff have not identified
any recommendations from the Panel that would have adverse implications for
local boards.
Māori
impact statement
19. In making its recommendations to
the Council in respect of the designations included in the PAUP, the Panel is
required to consider the various matters in Part II of the Resource Management
Act that relate to Māori, as well as matters relating to
the Treaty of Waitangi . Council staff have not identified any
recommendations from the Panel that would have adverse impacts on Māori.
Implementation
20. An overview of the implementation
process for incorporating designations into the Council’s decisions version of
the PAUP is included as Attachment G.
Attachments
Signatories
|
Author
|
Celia Davison - Team Leader Unitary Plan
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
