I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 20
September 2016
2.00pm
Level 26
135 Albert Street
Auckland
|
|
Hearings Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr Penny Webster
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
|
|
|
|
Cr Chris Darby
|
|
|
|
Cr Calum Penrose
|
|
|
|
Member David Taipari
|
|
|
|
Cr Wayne Walker
|
|
|
|
Member Glenn Wilcox
|
|
|
Ex-officio
|
Mayor Len Brown, JP
|
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
|
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
|
Louis Dalzell
Democracy Advisor
15 September 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8135
Email: louis.dalzell@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
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
20 September
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 for resource consent applications associated with the
Omaha Wastewater Treatment Plant 9
8 Appointment of
independent commissioners: Notice of Requirement made by Auckland Transport for
Lincoln Road, Henderson 13
9 Appointment of
independent commissioners to hear and make recommendations on the Notice of
Requirement by Auckland Transport to alter the City Rail Link Designation 405
(Aotea Station, Albert Street) 19
10 Delegation for council
staff to participate as interested parties - Cowie Street Residents’
Association & Others v Auckland Council, ENV-2016-AKL-000172 25
11 Local board involvement in
resource consent processes 47
12 Noting the urgent decision
of 1 September 2016 to appoint independent commissioners 55
13 Determination of an
Objection to a Stormwater Connection through 33 Barrack Road, to service 19B
Banks Road, Mount Wellington. 63
14 Consideration of
Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
15 Procedural
Motion to Exclude the Public 67
C1 Resource Consent Appeals: Status
Report 20 September 2016 67
At the close of the agenda apologies had been received by Mayor Len
Brown, JP, 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, 23 August 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
20 September
2016
|
|
Appointment
of independent commissioners for resource consent applications associated with
the Omaha Wastewater Treatment Plant
File No.: CP2016/17683
Purpose
1. To appoint independent commissioners to hear submissions and make
decisions on resource consent applications by Watercare Services Limited
(Watercare) to undertake upgrades and continue the operation of the Omaha
Wastewater Treatment Plant (OWWTP).
Executive
summary
2. Watercare
has applied for a package of resource consents to allow for the ongoing
operation and upgrading of the OWWTP. The applications include wastewater
discharge permits, land use consent and an air discharge permit.
3. The
application package has been submitted to the Hearings Committee to appoint
commissioners. As the project is regarded as potentially contentious, staff
recommend that independent commissioners are appointed, due to the
council’s involvement as the applicant (Watercare being a
council-controlled organisation) and the public profile of project. Staff also recommend
that the commissioners who are appointed have planning, wastewater engineering,
ecology and mana whenua values expertise.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint three independent commissioners to hear submissions and
make a decision under section 104 of the Resource Management Act on the
associated applications for resource consents REG-67919,
REG-67921, REG-67923 and LAN-67924 for the operation
and upgrading of the Omaha Wastewater Treatment Plant.
b) delegate
to the chairperson appointed in (a) above the authority to make decisions on
the resource consent applications should no submissions be received or a
hearing not otherwise be required.
c) delegate
authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to make a replacement
appointment should any of the independent commissioners appointed in (a)
above be unavailable. If a replacement appointment is required following the
end of the current political term and prior to the new council being sworn
in, the replacement appointment shall be approved under staff delegation.
|
Comments
4. Watercare
have sought a package of resource consents to discharge
treated wastewater to land at the OWWTP and the Omaha Beach Golf Course (OBGC).
Watercare has also sought an air discharge permit associated with the operation
of the treatment plant and land use consent to undertake vegetation works to
establish a new irrigation field at the OWWTP.
5.
The proposal addresses the ongoing operation and
improvement of the OWWTP, which serves the townships of Omaha, Point Wells and
Matakana. Upon treatment at the plant site, the resulting effluent is
discharged to land at both the plant and at the OBGC, with the following
discharge volumes proposed (for a 35 year duration):
|
Discharge Location
|
Daily Limit (m3)
|
Annual Limit (m3)
|
Combined Annual Limit (m3)
|
|
OWWTP
|
2,200
|
195,00
|
300,000
|
|
OBGC
|
2,100
|
203,000
|
6.
The proposed discharge is less than the
currently permitted limits consented under Regional Permits 34100 and 34101 and
have been based on monitoring and investigations undertaken by Watercare over
the past two years.
7.
The discharges take place to land, using
irrigation fields at the OWTTP and to the greens and fairways at the OBGC.
Additional discharge points are also available to dunes at the OBGC should they
be needed.
8.
Furthermore, the applicant seeks to expand the
irrigation fields at the OWTTP to accommodate the proposed discharges. This
will involve the installation of new irrigation infrastructure within a 9.1 ha
area of regenerating bush at the OWTTP. This will require some alterations to
existing vegetation, although large-scale clearance has not been proposed by
the applicant.
9. Watercare
has stated that the disposal fields will be operated on a variable basis,
depending on local soil and weather conditions, although the OBGC is the
preferred discharge during summer months give its irrigation demands. This is
to prevent surface runoff and ground saturation, which would impair the
treatment process and increase the scale of adverse effects associated with the
OWTTP. In order to ensure the efficient operation of the OWTTP, Watercare have
provided a range of parameters regarding the state of the disposal fields, such
as groundwater levels, with these parameters included as draft consent
conditions in the submitted AEE.
10. Watercare have sought a new air discharge permit associated with the
treatment plant’s operation. No significant odour or other offensive
discharges are proposed, with the permit providing for the day to day treatment
of wastewater.
11. The proposal
is driven by the need to replace the existing discharge permits which expired
in 31 May 2015, although the OWWTP’s operation is still
currently provided for under s124 of the Resource Management Act.
Population growth in the Omaha area also requires the function of the OWWTP to
change.
12. Consents have
been sought under the following planning documents:
· Auckland
Council Regional Plan: Air Land Water;
· Auckland
Council District Plan (Rodney Section); and
· Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan.
13. Overall,
consent has been sought for a discretionary activity.
14. The consent
applications are to be notified on 11 August 2016 with submissions closing on 8
September 2016. Submissions are expected, given the fully notified status of
the applications and type of activity proposed.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
15. The report invites the committee to appoint independent hearing
commissioners, which is not a matter within the delegated authority of local
boards.
16. Watercare have advised that they have engaged with the Rodney Local
Board and council staff are aware of the local board’s interest in the
application.
Māori
impact statement
17. The applicant has advised that its staff have directly engaged with
19 mana whenua through its regular Kaitiaki Forum. Seven mana whenua entities
expressed an interest in the project and one, Ngati Manuhuri, has also been
involved with the Omaha WWTP Consultative Group (which is run by Watercare).
18. In addition, all mana whenua entities associated with the Rodney
Local Board area were also notified on 11 August 2016 of the applications.
General
19. 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.
20. The public
profile of the project, its location, and public interest in wastewater
disposal, raise the possible contentious nature of the project, although
officers are not aware of any media interest in the proposal.
21. Therefore,
staff recommend that the Hearings Committee, in accordance with the Hearings
Committee Policy, should appoint independent commissioners as decision makers
for these applications. It is recommended that the commissioners who are
appointed have planning, wastewater engineering, ecology and mana whenua values
expertise.
Implementation
22. Following the
decision to appoint a hearings panel and if submissions have been received and
submitters wish to be heard, staff will set a hearing date. The hearing would
likely occur in late 2016/early 2017.
23. In the event
that no submissions are received, it is proposed that the decision on the
resource consents be made by the chairperson of the appointed Hearings Panel.
24. All costs
associated with processing of the resource consent applications are recoverable
from the applicant.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Tim Hegarty - Senior Planner - Major Infrastructure
Projects
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
Appointment of independent commissioners: Notice of Requirement
made by Auckland Transport for Lincoln Road, Henderson
File No.: CP2016/18430
Purpose
1. To
appoint independent commissioners to make a recommendation and decisions under
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) on a Notice of Requirement (NoR) by
Auckland Transport (AT) for Lincoln Road, Henderson.
Executive
summary
2. This
NoR is for a designation for the construction of improvements (including road
widening) on Lincoln Road and local road connections. The works are known
as the Lincoln Road Corridor Improvement (LRCI) project. A map of the project
area is provided at Attachment A.
3. The
proposed works will occur over an approximate 1.3 kilometre length of both
sides of Lincoln Road from Te Pai Place and Pomaria Road to the intersections of
Triangle Road/Central Park Drive. It will include works in adjacent local
road connections and connections to the State Highway 16 (Lincoln Road
Interchange).
4. At
AT’s request, Auckland Council will publicly notify the NoR subject to
receiving further information from Auckland Transport. Staff recommend that
independent commissioners be appointed to hear submissions on the NoR because
the applicant is an Auckland Council-controlled organisation.
5. Accordingly,
this report seeks that the committee appoint independent commissioners to make
a recommendation under section 171 of the RMA on the NoR.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint
three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, transport and
landscape design, to hear and make, under section 171 of the Resource
Management Act 1991, a recommendation on the Notice of Requirement by
Auckland Transport.
b) delegate
authority to the chairperson of the Hearing Committee to make replacement
appointments should any of the appointed independent commissioners in (a)
above become unavailable. If a replacement appointment is required following
the end of the current political term and prior to the new council being
sworn in, the replacement appointment shall be approved under staff delegation.
|
Comments
6. The
Lincoln Road corridor provides an arterial road connection from State Highway
16 (SH16) to the Henderson Metropolitan Centre. The corridor is a developing
mixed business area. It also provides access to Waitakere Hospital and a range
of social infrastructure, including educational and community facilities.
7. The
route is coming under increasing pressure due to growth from commuter and
business related traffic, resulting in increasing congestion. It is currently
used by 42,000 vehicles per day, and general traffic is expected to increase by
at least 1% per annum for the foreseeable future. Lincoln Road also has a poor
safety record, with a total of 446 crashes recorded between 2008 and 2012
(crossing and turning collisions account for 36% of crashes).
8.
To address these issues the NoR proposes to designate land for the
construction, operation and maintenance of improvements to Lincoln Road.
9.
AT’s objective is to secure the road corridor to enable the
construction of the following roading works:
·
an additional bus and high occupancy vehicle (transit) lane on
each side of the road
·
shared and segregated cycleways and footpaths on both sides of
the road
·
upgrades at seven intersections and installation of a raised
median
·
two vehicle lanes in each direction
·
a new service lane at the rear of 300 to 312 Lincoln Road
·
provision of space for stormwater treatment and associated
infrastructure
·
removal of some on-street and some off-street car parks
·
replacement vehicle crossings and driveways and front yard
fencing and landscape strips
·
removal of street trees
·
removal of trees located within Daytona Reserve and Te Pai
Reserve
·
the creation of a temporary yard to store construction material
and equipment.
10.
The NoR includes land required temporarily as part of the construction
process. Once the works are completed the designation boundaries will be
reviewed and the designation is expected to be reduced in part, pursuant to
section 182 of the RMA, to a location sufficient to protect the road and enable
its ongoing operation and maintenance.
11.
Section 176 of the RMA provides that once a designation is included in a
district plan, land owners may not, without AT’s written consent, do
anything on the land affected that would prevent or hinder the project to which
this NoR relates. That protection also applies in the interim once the NoR is
served with the council under section 178 of the RMA.
12. Pursuant to
section 184(1)(c) of the RMA, AT proposes a lapse period of ten years for the
implementation of the proposed designation.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
13. From 2013
onwards quarterly updates have been provided by AT to the Henderson-Massey
Local Board. These updates have taken the form of discussions, workshops,
site visits and e-mail correspondence.
Māori
impact statement
14. Prior to
lodgement, Auckland Transport consulted with Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Whatua o
Orakei, Te Akitai Waiohua, Te Runanga O Ngati Whatua, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua,
Ngati Whatua O Kaipara and Ngati Tamaoho.
15. Te Kawerau a
Maki supports the project subject to recommendations. The recommendations
include a strong support for the inclusion of a shared pedestrian/cycle path,
bus lanes, and a vegetated median strip. Te Kawerau a Maki has requested that
any mitigation planting (especially within the median strip) is carried out
through replantation schemes using eco-sourced vegetation. Te Kawerau a Maki
has also recommended stormwater neutrality and advocated for enhancement/treatment
mechanisms over and above TP10. There is a particular request that a waharoa or
pou be established at the northern end of Lincoln Road to denote the
threshold/gateway into Hikurangi.
16. Ngati Whatua
o Orakei attended hui and outlined areas of interest. These were stormwater
management, biodiversity, cultural assessment, accidental discovery protocol
and Maori urban design / art during detailed design phase.
17. Te Akitai
Waiohua and Te Runanga O Ngati Whatua requested ongoing consultation which has
been actioned.
18. Ngati Whatua
O Kaipara initially deferred to Ngati Whatua o Orakei then requested ongoing
engagement.
19. Ngati Te Ata
Waiohua and Ngati Tamaoho have been invited to different hui to discuss the
project.
20. E-mails have
been sent to all interested iwi on progress of the project including
anticipated timelines, prior to lodgement.
21. Iwi groups
will have the opportunity to make submissions to the NoR once the application
is publicly notified.
Implementation
22. The
procedure for assessing NoRs is set out in sections 168-179 of the RMA.
23. There
are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with
the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs for processing the NoR,
including any notification and hearing / commissioner costs are recoverable
from Auckland Transport.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Lincoln Road Corridor Improvements Project Area
|
17
|
Attachments
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Douglas Sadlier - Principal Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
Appointment of independent commissioners to hear and
make recommendations on the Notice of Requirement by Auckland Transport to
alter the City Rail Link Designation 405 (Aotea Station, Albert Street)
File No.: CP2016/20031
Purpose
1. To
appoint independent commissioners to make a recommendation on a Notice of
Requirement by Auckland Transport for the alteration to Designation 405 (City
Rail Link) in the Auckland Council District Plan: Central Area Section 2005
(Plan Modification 82).
Executive
summary
2. On
2 May 2016 the Auckland Council received the Notice of Requirement (NoR) from Auckland
Transport (AT) to alter the City Rail Link (CRL) Designation. The NoR was
limited notified on 28 July 2016. Four submissions have been received within
the notification period, and one late submission has now been received. The
late submitter has confirmed that they wish to be heard, and as such a
substantive hearing is now required.
3. As
AT is an Auckland Council-controlled organisation, it is recommended that a
hearings panel made up of independent commissioners with expertise in planning,
legal, engineering and mana whenua matters be appointed from the
council’s list of independent commissioners to make a recommendation on
the NoR under section 171 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
4. Staff
note that a hearings panel has been appointed to hear regional consent
applications in respect of the CRL project along approximately the same segment
of the area affected by this NoR application. Staff recommend that the same
panel of commissioners are appointed to consider this Notice of Requirement application.
The areas of the CRL Designation 405 subject to changes through this
application are shown in Attachment A to this report.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) appoint four independent commissioners with expertise in planning,
legal, engineering and mana whenua matters to hear submissions and make a recommendation on a Notice of Requirement for the alteration to
Designation 405 (City Rail Link) pursuant to section 171
of the Resource Management Act 1991.
b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Hearings Committee to
make a replacement appointment should any of the independent commissioners
appointed in (a) above be unavailable.
|
Comments
Proposal
5. The CRL Designation (Designation 405) provides for the construction
and operation of the CRL along the length of Albert Street between Lower Queen
Street and Myers Street. In May 2016, council received the Notice of
Requirement from AT for the alteration of this designation which involves changes to the Aotea Station design and designation boundaries, and
includes works within Kingston Street, Albert Street, Victoria Street West, and
adjacent properties located outside the current boundaries of the designation.
6.
The NoR was limited notified
on 28 July 2016. The closing date for submissions was 30 August
2016. Council received four submissions within the specified notification
period. None of these submitters want to be heard. On 12 September 2016
the council received a late submission on the NoR application. The late
submitter has requested to be heard and now a substantive hearing is required.
Consideration
General
7.
The Hearings Committee’s Hearings Policy,
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.
8.
Given AT is a council-controlled organisation,
and the location of the proposal in a high public use area, the application
falls into the ‘significant’ category as defined by the Hearings
Policy. Therefore, it is recommended that the Hearings Committee in
accordance with its policy appoint independent commissioners to hear the submission
and make a recommendation on council’s behalf for this application.
9.
The NoR relates to a proposed alteration to the
existing designation. The potential effects of the proposal relate to
transport, construction noise and vibration, amenity, historic heritage and
mana whenua values.
10. Given the above matters to be considered, council staff recommend
that the commissioners’ areas of expertise includes planning, legal,
engineering and mana whenua values..
Local
board views and implications
11. The
Waitematā Local Board has
been briefed on the project including the changes to the Mt Eden and Aotea
stations.
Māori
impact statement
12. AT
submitted as part of the NoR application an assessment of the potential effects
on the cultural and spiritual landscape values for mana whenua. The
proposed alteration works to the Aotea Station will be within a scheduled Māori Heritage Site/Site and Place of
Significance to Mana Whenua (Nga Wharau a Tako) identified in the Operative
Central Area District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
13. Mana
whenua groups participating in the CRL Mana Whenua Forum were identified as an
affected party during the notification of the NoR. No submissions were
received from them.
14.
Conditions of the CRL Designation require that mana whenua continue to be
engaged with, and provide for an on-going role in the design and construction
of the project. A forum for such engagement has already been established by AT.
Implementation
15. There
are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with
the appointment of hearing commissioners. The costs of the hearing
commissioners will be met by the applicant.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Plan showing changes to the CRL designation –
Aotea Station
|
23
|
|
Authors
|
Panjama Ampanthong - Principal Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
Signatories
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
Delegation for council staff to participate as interested
parties - Cowie Street Residents’ Association & Others v Auckland
Council, ENV-2016-AKL-000172
File No.: CP2016/20029
Purpose
1. To
advise the Hearings Committee of a new appeal and to seek delegation to
participate in the proceeding as an interested party under s274 of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
Executive
summary
2. The
council has received an appeal from Cowie Street Residents’ Association
& Others. The appeal is against Auckland Transport’s confirmation of
its requirement for a designation for Proposed Plan Modification 380 Notice of
Requirement and associated resource consents approved by council to enable the
construction, operation and maintenance of a new road and the closure of an
adjoining one to Laxon Terrace, Newmarket. These works include the construction
of a bridge over the existing Newmarket Branch Railway Line.
3. Council
is the consent authority in relation to the resource consents. Accordingly the
council is involved in the resource consent appeal as the respondent.
4. Council’s
solicitors have filed a notice with the Environment Court seeking to join the
appeal proceedings as an interested party under s274 of the Resource Management
Act 1991. This was filed on 30 August 2016.
5. Council
staff are now seeking specific delegations to participate as interested parties
in the appeal proceedings on the Notice of Requirement.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) delegate
the council’s Senior Solicitor - Litigation and Regulatory and the Team
Leader, Planning – Central and Islands to participate as interested
parties under s274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to the
appeal Cowie Street Residents’ Association & Others v Auckland Council (ENV-2016-AKL-000172) against Auckland Transport’s confirmation of its’
requirement for a designation (Proposed Plan Modification 380 Notice of
Requirement) and the associated resource consents approved by council.
b) authorise
the council’s representatives to participate in mediation on the
appeals for the purpose of resolving the issues of appeal, or narrowing the
issues in advance of any Environment Court hearing.
|
Comments
6.
The Notice of Requirement by Auckland Transport
and associated resource consents relate to land in Sarawia Street, Laxon
Terrace, Cowie Street and Newmarket Park, Newmarket. Specifically, the notice
of requirement is for the purpose of enabling the construction, operation and
maintenance of a new road connecting Laxon Terrace to Cowie Street, including
the construction of a bridge over the existing Newmarket Branch Railway Line
and the closure of the existing grade connections between Sarawia Street and Laxon
Terrace Newmarket. A locality and application plans are contained in Attachment
A.
7.
The closure of the existing at grade railway level
crossing and the construction of a bridge over the Newmarket Branch Line is
intended to improve pedestrian and traffic safety and realise improvements to
rail frequency from the introduction of more efficient electric trains. The
proposed new road is designed to be a low speed environment with traffic
calming measures proposed at several locations. Apart from a 200m2
area required to be taken from 9 Cowie Street the land to be used for the
project is owned either by the Council or KiwiRail. The existing pedestrian and
cycle access from Newmarket Park to Laxon Terrace and Youngs Lane is proposed
to be relocated as part of the project (with access now proposed from Sarawia
Street). Auckland Transport proposes to complete the construction work in
mid-2017, dependent on the appeal process for both the Notice of Requirement
and resource consents.
8.
The application was publicly notified on 7 October 2015
at the request of the applicant and 11 submissions were lodged on each of the
Notice of Requirement and the resource consents, with a further combined
submission from KiwiRail. The application and submissions were heard by independent
hearing commissioners. The commissioner’s recommendation on the Notice of
Requirement decision to grant consent was issued on 10 June 2016 subject to
conditions. Auckland Transport confirmed the notice of requirement as
recommended by the independent hearings commissioners with two minor amendments
to two conditions. A copy of the Council’s decision on the resource
consent and Auckland Transport’s decision on the notice of requirement
are available on request.
9. The key concerns raised in the appeal (in summary – refer Attachment
B) relate to:
· The
council’s decision is inconsistent with Part 2, s5(1) of the
Resource Management Act 1991;
· The
adverse effects on the environment will be more than minor and will not be
avoided, remedied or mitigated and that the purpose of the Act will not be
achieved.
· Decision
is inconsistent with relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Council
Operative District Plan (Isthmus Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary
Plan and Regional Policy Statement, National Policy Statement for Freshwater
Management, NES for Contaminated Land, Coastal Policy Statement and
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act;
· Inadequate
consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of
undertaking the work, contrary to s171(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act
1991 and the works and designation are not reasonably necessary for achieving
the objectives of the respondent for which the designation is sought, contrary
to s171(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991;
· The
adverse effects on character and amenity will be more than minor in relation to
Cowie Street and Newmarket Park. The proposed road and bridge will create
significant adverse visual effects and a dominant presence in Cowie Street;
· Removal
of vegetation and mature trees and required works will have a more than minor
effect on Newmarket Park;
· The
proposed stormwater treatment measures will not ensure that contaminants will
be removed from stormwater that will be discharged into Hobson Bay;
·
Proposed earthworks will occur in an area with a history of
subsidence and instability.
10. The
appeal seeks that the requirement for the designation be
cancelled.
11. Staff are of the view that there is merit in entering into
discussions and /or court-assisted mediation with the parties in the first
instance to either resolve the appeal or narrow down the issues for any
Environment Court hearing.
12. Council’s legal services staff have filed a notice with the
Environment Court requesting that council join as a party to the proceedings in
respect of the appeal against the decision. This was filed on 30 August 2016
(refer Attachment C).
13. Delegation is sought from the Hearings Committee to enable the
council’s representatives to participate in the appeal proceedings,
including involvement in mediation or other alternative dispute resolution
methods.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
14. Local
board views were incorporated into the hearing report on the Notice of
Requirement and resource consent applications. While local boards represent the
views of local communities, local boards do not have a role in Environment
Court proceedings. At the time of writing this report, the Waitemata Local
Board had not been briefed on this particular appeal matter.
Māori
impact statement
15. The
applicant, Auckland Transport consulted with, and will continue to consult
with, mana whenua throughout the project. The consultation has included six hui
and two site visits between September 2014 and May 2015. Joining the
appeals on the Notice of Requirement is neutral in terms of the impact on Māori. Auckland Council is the
respondent for the resource consent appeals.
Implementation
16. The Hearings Committee has the delegated authority to consider and
determine, in accordance with the council’s delegations and policies, the
position on any appeal lodged with the Environment Court. Delegations to
help effective case management will assist discussion or court mediation on a
“without prejudice” basis that may promote settlement.
17. The resolution of appeals by agreement between the parties, where
possible, provides the best financial outcome and use of staff resources.
Where agreement cannot be reached, specialist resources can still be reduced by
negotiations, even though evidence preparation and presentation at a court
hearing will still proceed.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Locality and Application Plans
|
29
|
|
b⇩
|
New Appeal to the Notice of Requirement -
ENV-2016-AKL-000172
|
39
|
|
c⇩
|
Notice to participate as S274 party
|
45
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee-Ann Lucas - Principal Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
Local board involvement in resource consent processes
File No.: CP2016/20479
Purpose
1. To
report and adopt the recommendations of the Local Board involvement
in Resource Consents Working Party.
Executive
summary
2. At its meeting of 23 May 2016
the Hearings Committee resolved to establish a working party to review the role
of local board in the resource consenting process. Its broad aim is to identify
ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of processes by which local
board views and preferences on resource consent applications that are of
interest to the people in their areas can be conveyed to decisions makers, and
consider other related matters including local board involvement in decision
making.
3. The working party met on
three occasions to explore a range of input options. This report
identifies the preferred options of the working party for further
consideration.
4. A resolution is sought from
the Hearings Committee adopting the proposed changes to current practices
around the involvement of local boards in resource consenting, as recommended
by the Local Board involvement in Resource Consents Working Party.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) note
the ability of local boards to express views and preferences on any
application pursuant to section 15 of the Local Government ( Auckland
Council) Act 2009.
b) adopt
the recommendations of the Local Board involvement in Resource Consents
Working Party. The following improvements/adjustments to the
current process to be made are as follows:
i) Existing
local board-identified triggers for provisions of full details of resource
consent applications, for the purpose of making comment on notification, be
reviewed and refined (particularly once the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
becomes operative),
ii) Enhanced
training is provided to local board members (in the first instance as part of
the induction process),
iii) The
purpose of the Resource Consents weekly list is principally for information
purposes rather than comments and will be clearly communicated to local
boards,
iv) A
standard practice is developed and endorsed to enable local boards to speak
to their local views and preferences when a hearing occurs in relation to a
resource consent application,
v) That
the Hearings Committee policy on elected members sitting on hearings panels
within their own local board area is supported, with close attention to
consideration of issues of conflict of interest on a case by case basis.
c) refer the recommendations contained in (b), above, to the
governing body for information purposes only early in the next political
term.
|
Comments
Background
5.
In 2011 the governing body agreed to a process by which
local boards could make the interests and preferences of people within their
areas known on resource consents. For particular consent applications that met
triggers set by the local boards, the process allows local boards to provide
comments to be considered as part of the notification decision.
6.
The comments process has achieved its primary purpose
of making the interests of local boards on particular resource consents known.
The instigation of a review looked at a range of matters including whether
there were other means by which the views of local boards could be obtained and
delivered in a more effective and efficient way.
7.
A background discussion document was prepared
following consultation with resource consent and local board staff. The
document set out a range of possible options. The strength of the seven options
were ranked again eight principles. The table setting these relative strengths
from the discussion document is provided as Attachment A. The numbering
of the Options 1 to 7 from this table is the same as those referenced below.
8.
Following consideration of the document the
Hearings Committee at its meeting of 23 May 2016, resolved to set up a working
party of governing body and local board members and a member of the Independent
Māori Statutory Board. The
working party would work through the options and report back to the committee.
Any recommended revision to the current processes would then be reported to the
governing body early in the new political term. The committee resolution is
provided as Attachment B.
Working party meeting
1
9. The working group was
presented with a background to the review and the statutory context of the
current processes. The group worked through the options from the discussion
document, combinations of options and possible alternatives.
10. Agreement was reached to set aside a
number of less feasible options. Option 1 was set aside because the working
party acknowledged that local boards do have a role in reporting on matters of
interest (i.e. resource consent) and these views and preferences must be
considered. Option 6 was set aside because delegation of the power to make a
submission with an associated right to appeal could see council simultaneously
holding contrary positions on an application, that is approval as regulator,
and rejection by way of appeal as submitter. The Ōrākei Local
Board Option 4 was not taken further as parts of it could still be considered
under either Options 3 or 5.
11. The agreement from the first meeting was
that there should be further analysis and discussion around Options 3, 5 and 7,
as numbered on the table in Attachment A. The working party meeting
notes were distributed back to the local boards to enable any further comment
to be presented via the local board representatives at the subsequent working
party meetings.
Working
party meeting 2
12.
The strengths of the remaining options to be
further considered were set out in a further report with a list of pros and
cons for each option. Again these pros and cons referenced back to the guiding
principles of statutory correctness, effectiveness, efficiency, meeting
timeframes, reputation and visibility, being customer centric, risk adverse and
ensuring natural justice.
13. Discussion on the options to improve the
current processes has led to an outcome that can be summarised as:
· Reliance on weekly lodgment lists alone would not effectively
identify those applications of interest to local boards
· There is a need to streamline and refine the triggers to more
effectively identify those applications that the local board will likely seek
to provide comment. In any case the triggers will need to be reviewed
once the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan becomes operative and triggers based on
controls contained in legacy plans become irrelevant
· Opportunity to be provided for local boards to make an oral presentation
in support of their views and preferences as part of a hearing on a notified
application (in alignment with 15(2)(c) of the LGACA) and hearing commissioners
are to be made aware of this process
· No delegation from the governing body is required for local boards
to make an oral presentation as part of a hearing on a notified application
· There is no need to change the current Hearings Committee policy
where local board members may be appointed as part of a hearings panel for
significant and contentious applications. That could involve a local board
member from outside of the local board area in which the application lies where
local board comments are being provided.
Working party
meeting 3
14. A third working party meeting was held
on 6 September 2016. Its purpose was to review and confirm the details of this
report to the Hearings Committee.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
15. The working party meeting process
provided the opportunity for feedback and comment from the wider local boards
via the four local board representatives on the working party. The minutes from
the second working party meeting were discussed at the local board chairs forum
on 26 August 2016. The options agreed at working party meeting 2 were
circulated to all local board members for further feedback by Friday 2
September 2016. Feedback was presented and considered at the third
working party meeting.
Māori
impact statement
16. The means by which local boards may
input into resource consent processes in not a matter that directly impacts on
Māori. A member of
the Independent Māori
Statutory Board was appointed deputy chair of the working party.
17. Resource consents where applicable are considered in accordance
with the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in particular
Part 2.
Implementation
18. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 allows for the
views and preferences of people within local board area to be made known,
through the local board, and considered with decision-making. This can be
accommodated without governing body delegation for both the notification
consideration and provision of comments at hearings.
19. A core purpose of the working party review was to improve the
effectiveness and timeliness of the local board input processes. The
improvements suggested will help ensure appropriate financial outcome for applicants and the use of staff
resources.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Table 2 of Discussion Document
|
51
|
|
b⇩
|
Committee Resolution 23 May 2016
|
53
|
Attachments
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
Noting the urgent decision of 1 September 2016 to
appoint independent commissioners
File No.: CP2016/19979
Purpose
1. To
note a decision made under urgency to appoint commissioners to make a decision
on the Notice of Requirement for the Takanini Stormwater Conveyance Corridor.
Executive
Summary
2. Leigh
McGregor (chair), Alan Pattle, Gavin Lister, and William Kapea to make a
decision on the Notice of Requirement for the Takanini Stormwater Conveyance
Corridor (Papakura Plan Amendment 48).
3. The
decision was made under urgency under Section 2 and 5.1.1 of the Hearings
Committee policy and terms of reference. The matter needed to be
considered prior to next Hearings Committee meeting on 20 September 2016
because of the related resource consent application which is expected to be
considered prior to the next committee meeting.
4. The
decision was made by Chairperson Linda Cooper, Deputy Chairperson Penny
Webster, and member Glenn Wilcox on 1 September 2016.
|
Recommendations
That the Hearings Committee:
a) note
the decision of 1 September 2016 to appoint Leigh McGregor (chair), Alan
Pattle, Gavin Lister, and William Kapea to make a decision on the Notice of
Requirement for the Takanini Stormwater Conveyance Corridor (Papakura Plan
Amendment 48).
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Appointment of hearing commissioners for the Takanini
Stormwater Conveyance Corridor notice of requirement
|
57
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
|
Hearings Committee
20 September
2016
|
|
Determination of an Objection to a Stormwater
Connection through 33 Barrack Road, to service 19B Banks Road, Mount
Wellington.
File No.: CP2016/19784
Purpose
1. To hear and determine an objection to a proposed stormwater line
connection.
Executive
summary
2. This
report accompanies the determination of an objection pursuant to section 460 of
the Local Government Act 1974 (“the Act”). The
property at 19B Banks Road, Mount Wellington, does not have a stormwater
connection to council stormwater drains. The immediate surrounding catchment in
general lacks stormwater infrastructure. To enable site development, the owners
of 19B Banks Road have endeavoured but failed to negotiate access through 33
Barrack Road to install a new stormwater connection. Consequently, the owners
at 19B Banks Road have requested Council to exercise its powers under section
460 of the Act to enable the works to be carried out.
3. The
property owner of 33 Barrack Road, Percy Charles Wong has not responded to the
‘Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain on
Private Land’, served under the Act. Further
attempts to contact Mr Wong, who lives in Sydney, Australia, via email, for a
response has not been successful. Section 460 of the Act provides a right to be
heard by a committee of Council. Delegation to determine this matter lies with
the Hearings Committee.
4. It
is recommended that the Hearings Committee hear and determine the objection.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Hearings Committee:
a) hear
and determine the objection by the owner of 33 Barrack Road,
pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.
b) endorse, pursuant to Section 460(1) of the Local Government Act
1974 the proposed drainage works connection and its associated route through
the land at 33 Barrack and 13 Banks Roads, to service 19B Banks Road Mount
Wellington, as referenced on plan titled ‘Proposed Public Stormwater
Network Plan’ by Babington and Associates Project no. 130801 and dated
11 July 2014.
|
Comments
Background
5. The owners of 19B Banks Road are proposing a 4-lot subdivision of
their property. As part of the development, they are required to adequately
discharge their stormwater and wastewater. To comply
with council’s drainage requirements the owner seeks to install a
stormwater line from an existing manhole in Barrack Road and extend it through
the neighbouring properties of 33 Barrack Road and 13 Banks Road to service 19B
Banks Road. Aerial photos of the immediate surrounds with existing service
overlay and contour overlay are provided at Attachments A and B. A plan
of the proposed stormwater line is contained within Attachments C.
6. In
November 2014, a formal application under section 460 of the Local Government
Act 1974 was received by council. The owners of 19B Banks Road have endeavoured
but failed to negotiate access to 33 Barrack Road to install a 280mm public
stormwater connection by way of directional drilling and open trench. The line
will eventually be vested to council as public stormwater infrastructure.
Consequently, the owners have requested council exercise its powers under the
Act to enable the works to be carried out.
7.
In regards to the other affected neighbours,
J.A. Taylor and N.D. Taylor, the owners at 13 Banks Road, through whose land
the proposed drain would also be laid, have given their written consent
(conditional) for the drainage works. Refer Attachment G.
8.
In June 2015, during one of Mr. Wong’s
trips to Auckland, a meeting between Mr Wong and council engineers was held
during which the section 460 process was explained in detail. At the time, Mr
Wong appeared willing to accept the servicing option. He advised that he would
visit Mr Taylor, the owner of 13 Banks Road, and get back to the council
engineer. His subsequent response was of the nature that Mr. Taylor and himself
were exploring opportunities to market their properties together and until such
time this was fully done, he was not in a position to respond with respect to
Mr Singh’s (19B Banks Road) right of entry request.
9.
Council engaged the services of an independent
mediator, Mr Barry Kaye, in March 2016 to facilitate discussion between the
parties however an outcome was not reached. Refer to Attachment F. Mr
Wong’s response to Mr. Barry Kaye was similar to that provided to council
engineers in June 2015.
10.
In May of this year, council served ‘A Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land’ on
Mr. Alan Taylor of 13 Banks Road and Mr. Percy Charles Wong of 33 Barrack Road.
Refer Attachment E. Mr. Taylor responded with a conditional approval (Attachment
G) but to date no formal response has been received from Mr. Wong.
11.
The owner of 19B Banks Road, Mount Wellington,
has met the requirements of the Act with regards to using the powers of Section
460. They have sought to negotiate access to the neighbouring property to
undertake drainage works.
12.
Due to the lack of availability of public
stormwater lines in the catchment and the lie of the land, there are no other
practical alternatives.
13.
The alternative of extending the line within the
site to Banks Road and then to run it through to Barrack Road would be uphill
against gradient.
14. The alternative of onsite soakage was further ruled out due to the
geology in the area. A global aquifer study for council by Pattle Delamore
Partners shows that the area is predominantly clay. Soakage is therefore not a
viable option for stormwater disposal.
15. Auckland
Council’s Stormwater Unit, as the proposed future owner of the line, has
indicated that they support the proposal. This stormwater connection will
adequately service the proposed subdivision at 19B Banks Road and future
development in the catchment. The existing public stormwater line has been
assessed as providing sufficient capacity to receive stormwater from a
complying development in terms of building coverage.
16. The council’s stormwater engineers consider that the proposed
stormwater line route is the best option for stormwater disposal. The owner of
19B Banks Road would be required to design and build the works to an
appropriate standard through an Engineering Works Approval process.
Consideration
17. Within the framework of the Hearings Committee’s Terms of
Reference from the Governing Body, the Hearings Committee has the
responsibility for “Hearing and determining the matters regarding
drainage and works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and
Local Government Act 2002. This delegation cannot be sub
delegated”.
18. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objector can present
their evidence in support of their positions. At the time of reporting there is
no indication as to whether Mr Wong will seek to object. However the committee
will still need to be satisfied that the proposal is the only practicable route
before endorsing this option, whether or not there is an objection to be heard.
The Hearings Committee will then make a decision.
Local board views and implications
19. The
Local Board is not advised of service connection requests under the Local
Government Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no
consultation beyond the owners of 33 Barrack Road and 13 Banks Road.
Māori impact statement
20. Managing
and protecting natural resources is a matter of national importance under
section 6 of the Resource Management Act, and so is recognising and providing
for the relationship of Māori
with ancestral water and other taonga.
21. It
is recognised that stormwater works which impact on the mauri of waterways are
of significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitaki of natural
environments. The proposed works will concentrate rainfall on the site but does
not alter flow within the catchment and has no identified impact on the mauri
of surrounding waterways.
22. Under
Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974, iwi are not considered a relevant
affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to
be aligned.
Implementation
23. The
determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of
33 Barrack Road and 13 Banks Road, Mount Wellington.
24. If
this stormwater pipeline and connections are approved, all costs incurred in
carrying out the said work shall be payable to the council in the first
instance, and recoverable from the owner of 19B Banks Road, Mount Wellington
pursuant to s460(3) of the Local Government Act 1974.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇨
|
Aerial Photo Location Plan (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b⇨
|
Aerial Photo - Contours and Public Infrastructure
(Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
c⇨ 
|
Stormwater Proposal Plan (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
d⇨
|
Correspondence (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
e⇨
|
Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land
(Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
f⇨
|
Mediation Outcome (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
g⇨ 
|
Landowner consent - 13 Banks Road (Under Separate
Cover)
|
|
|
h⇨
|
Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (Under
Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Clarke McKinney - Principal Planner Hearings and
Resolutions
Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents
|
|
Hearings
Committee
20 September
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 Resource Consent Appeals: Status
Report 20 September 2016
|
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each
matter
|
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)
|
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this
resolution
|
|
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
In particular, the report contains information that could
compromise the council in undertaking without prejudice negotiations of these
appeals that are before the Environment Court.
|
s48(1)(a)
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be
likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for
withholding exists under section 7.
|
