Agenda of Regulatory Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 18 May 2017

9.30am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert St
Auckland

Regulatory Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Wayne Walker
Members	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	IMSB Chair David Taipari
	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

(Quorum 5 members)

Kalinda Gopal

Governance Advisor

12 May 2017

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8132

Email: kalinda.gopal@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Regulatory Committee

18 May 2017

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 5

2 Declaration of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of Minutes 5

4 Petitions 5

5 Public Input 5

6 Local Board Input 5

7 Extraordinary Business 5

8 Notices of Motion 6

9 Determination by the Regulatory Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection at 296A Hillsborough Rd, to service 298 Hillsborough Road, Mount Roskill 7

10 Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Draft Variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park 25

11 Trading and Events in Public Places Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017 27

12 Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 18 May 2017 51

13 Information Report - 18 May 2017 63

14 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

15 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 69

C1 Noting the urgent decision of 5 April 2017: IFS Trust v Auckland Council - 223 Falls Road, Warkworth, New Resoruce Consent Appeal 69

1 Apologies

Apologies from Deputy Mayor B Cashmore, Mayor Hon P Goff, Cr J Watson and Deputy Chairperson W Walker have been received.

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.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 12 April 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 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.

7 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.”

8 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Regulatory Committee

18 May 2017

Determination by the Regulatory Committee of an Objection to Proposed Stormwater Connection at 296A Hillsborough Rd, to service 298 Hillsborough Road, Mount Roskill

File No.: CP2017/07097

Purpose

1. To hear and determine an objection to a stormwater line connection.

Executive summary

2. This report accompanies the hearing of an objection pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 (“the Act”). The proposed site to be created at 2/298 Hillsborough Rd, Mount Roskill, does not have an immediately available stormwater connection to council stormwater drains. To enable site development, the owners of 298 Hillsborough Road have endeavoured but failed to negotiate access through 296A Hillsborough Road to install a new stormwater connection. Consequently, the owners at 298 Hillsborough 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 296A Hillsborough Road, L. D. Guo, has not responded to the council’s ‘Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land’ notification served under the Act. Further attempts to contact Mr. Guo, who appears to live in Fiji, via email and phone for a response, have not been successful.

4. Section 460 of the Act provides a right to be heard by a committee of Council. While no objection to council’s notice has been received the property owner has refused to provide their consent and a decision pursuant to section 460 of the Act from a committee of Council is still required. Delegation to undertake such hearings lies with the Regulatory Committee.

5. It is recommended that the Regulatory Committee hear and determine the objection.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the application lodged by the owner of 2/298 Hillsborough Rd, for the construction of a private drain through the neighbouring property at 296A Hillsborough Road, Mt Roskill, pursuant to section 460 and Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1974.

b) endorse the proposed connection and its associated route through the neighbouring land at 296A Hillsborough Rd, Mount Roskill, for the drainage works generally as set out in the officer’s report, pursuant to Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced on plan titled Engineering Plan by CKL Consultants Project no. T3417 and dated 18 August 2016.

Comments

Background

6. The owners of 298 Hillsborough Road are proposing a 2-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 the property of 296A Hillsborough Road and extend it to a new manhole to be constructed on the property of 2/298 Hillsborough Rd. A concept plan of the subdivision and proposed storm water line is contained as Attachment C. Aerial photos of the immediate surrounds with existing service overlay and contour overlay are provided at Attachment A and Attachment B.

7. In September 2016, a formal application under section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 was received by council. The owners of 298 Hillsborough Road had endeavoured but failed to negotiate access to either 296A Hillsborough Road, or 300A-D Hillsborough Road to install a 150mm public stormwater connection by way of pipe thrusting. Consequently, the owners have requested council exercise its powers under the Act to enable the works to be carried out. The proposed line will eventually be vested to council as public stormwater infrastructure.

8. In regards to the other potential routes for the pipe, although attempts were made to contact the owners of 300A-D Hillsborough Road, this option was disregarded due to the technical difficulty of thrusting pipes close to house foundations, and the complexity of negotiating with four separate property owners to traverse the common access way for the 300 Hillsborough Road block.

9. Initial attempts were made to contact Mr. Guo of 296A Hillsborough Road during October-December 2016 via notification letters. After no response was received to any of these, Council served on Mr Guo in February 2017 ‘A Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain on Private Land, under the Local Government Act 2002 Twelfth Schedule’. Additional copies of the notice were also sent to two persons who had been involved in the initial negotiations with CKL as his agents. The Notice of Intent is provided in Attachment D.

10. One agent (Michael Wu) responded to the Notice, but stated that he was no longer representing Mr. Guo.

11. A phone message was left after office hours on 7 March 2017, purportedly representing Mr. Guo, but attempts to reply on both the phone number and email address provided in the message were unsuccessful. An email that was supposedly sent to respond to the Notice was never received by Council.

Consideration

12. The owner of 298 Hillsborough Road 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 however without success.

13. Council’s engineers are supportive of the proposal in that the connection through the property of 296A is considered to be the most practical route.

14. The alternative to have onsite soakage was ruled out due to geology in the area. The global aquifer study for Council by Pattle Delamore Partners shows that the area is predominantly clay and soakage therefore is not a viable option for stormwater disposal.

15. The alternative of connecting to the public stormwater line in the kerb in front of 296 Hillsborough Road would not be possible by gravity feed as the kerb-line sits well above the ground level of the future site.

16. The alternative to connect to the public stormwater line behind 300A-D Hillsborough Road was explored by the applicant. However this would be technically challenging due to the risk of thrusting pipes near existing house foundations. This option also has the added complexity of negotiating with four separate property owners.

17. Due to the general lack of availability of public stormwater in the catchment and the lay of the land, there are considered to be no other practical alternatives.

18. Council considers that the proposed stormwater connection would adequately service the proposed subdivision at 2/298 Hillsborough Road, Mount Roskill 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.

19. The council’s stormwater engineers consider that the proposed stormwater line route is the best option for stormwater disposal. The owner of 298 Hillsborough Road will be required to design and build the works to an appropriate standard through an Engineering Works Approval process.

20. Within the framework of the Regulatory Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Regulatory 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”.

21. At the hearing, the applicant will have the opportunity to present their evidence in support of their application. After hearing the evidence and the relevant information, the Regulatory Committee then has to make a decision consistent with the provisions of section 460 of the Act.

22. It is not expected that the owner of 296A Hillsborough Road will attend the hearing; however they will have been further notified of the date and time that this application is to be heard.

Local board views and implications

23. The local board is not advised of service connection requests under the Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 296A Hillsborough Road, Mount Roskill.

Māori impact statement

24. Under section 460 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. The connection will be to an existing piped system rather than a natural waterway.

Implementation

25. The costs of the application and hearing processes are met by the applicant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aerial photo of the immediate surrounds	11
b ⇩	Aerial photo of with existing service and contour overlays	13
c ⇩	Subdivision concept plan and proposed storm water line	15
d ⇩	Notice of Intention to Construct a Drain	19
e ⇩	Section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974	21
f ⇩	Local Government Act 2002 Twelfth Schedule	23

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 May 2017

Appointment of Independent Commissioners: Draft Variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park

File No.: CP2017/05719

Purpose

1. To appoint independent commissioners to hear submissions and make recommendations on the draft variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.

Executive summary

2. Council has initiated a variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (RPMP) to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.

3. Public consultation was initiated in December 2016 and feedback from this first phase of consultation has been used to develop a draft variation which will be notified in May 2017.

4. The commissioners will need to consider a range of issues relating to the Local Government Act, Reserves Act, the management of natural ecosystems and mana whenua interests.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint three independent commissioners to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Environment and Community Committee on the draft variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.

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

Comments

5. The land at Piha (the Byers property) comprising 78 ha was purchased by council in 2014 as an addition to the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. The land adjoins the southern end of Piha beach and contains a number of unique visitor attractions, such as ‘The Gap’ beach, a coastal blow hole and a herbfield of selliera repens, known as the ‘tennis court’. The area has high cultural significance to Te Kawerau a Maki who own the adjoining Taitomo Island, being the only remaining land in their ownership on the west coast. The land offers the opportunity to complete the missing link in the Hillary Trail between Mercer Bay and Piha.

6. A draft concept plan was prepared mid 2016 and discussed with the Waitakere Ranges Local Board in November 2016. An open day was held in December 2016 and the public were invited to comment on the draft concept plan.

7. The draft concept plan focused on the development of tracks and visitor safety and information features. A number of the submissions raised concerns relating to the fact the land consists of low scrubland infested with gorse and other weed species that are vulnerable to fire and called for stronger policy direction on the management priorities, especially around vegetation management and enhancement and visitor management. For these reasons it is recommended that the policy contained in the variation to the Regional Parks management Plan 2010 (RPMP) be articulated in the form of a special management zone consistent with similar locations within the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.

8. While the land is held under the Local Government Act public consultation on the variation is following the Reserves Act 1977 process which provides for a two stages of public consultation. The first stage has been completed in the form of the concept plan and the feedback on this has been used to develop the draft variation. The second stage, notifying the draft variation is planned to commence in May 2017 with the submission period open until July 2017, with hearings planned in September 2017.

Consideration

General

9. On 16^th May 2017 the Environment and Community Committee considered the notification of the intention to vary the RPMP to include the land at Piha.

10. Given the range of matters to be considered in making its determination, Council officers recommend that the commissioners’ areas of expertise include the Reserves Act, the Local Government Act, park management and iwi interests.

Local board views and implications

11. A workshop was held with the Waitakere Ranges Local Board in November 2016 to determine their input into the drafting of the concept plan. The subsequently made submissions on the first round of public consultation together with 8 community groups and 75 individuals.

12. Many of the submissions echoed the concerns of the local board and in particular the need for more formal management policies.

Māori impact statement

13. All iwi with mana whenua interests in the Waitakere Ranges were notified of the intention to prepare a concept plan. Te Kawerau a Maki indicated their special interest in the land and has been engaged from the outset in the development of the draft concept plan. A commissioner with expertise in mana whenua relations is therefore recommended to ensure the policy appropriately considers mana whenua issues.

Implementation

14. 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 Auckland Council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation Department.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Neil Olsen - Parks and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 May 2017

Trading and Events in Public Places Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017

File No.: CP2017/01771

Purpose

1. For the Committee to consider and approve the Trading and Events in Public Places Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017 (the Shared Spaces Guidelines).

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport adopted new bylaws for trading and events in public places. These bylaws, in force since 1 July 2015, provide for the fair and consistent regulation of commercial activities in public places across Auckland.

3. Regulation extends to the unique shared spaces that have arisen in Auckland since 2011. Shared spaces remove the traditional distinction between footpath and road so that vehicles and pedestrians can share the space. They are spaces that enable economic activity and vitality. Shared spaces are also actively utilised by businesses for a range of commercial, primarily hospitality related, activities.

4. It is important that regulatory provisions in the bylaws are responsive to shared spaces and the broader aims of activation and economic development. In recognition of this, Council directed staff to:

“h) … to report back to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on any guidelines or policies developed in consultation with key stakeholders to guide staff involved in the implementation of this bylaw.”

5. The draft Shared Spaces Guidelines have been developed in collaboration with the Auckland Design Office and Auckland Transport.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) approve the Trading and Events in Public Places Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017.

Comments

Background

6. The Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw was adopted by Council in February 2015. The Bylaw regulates the following activities:

· markets and stalls

· mobile shops

· outdoor dining

· fundraising

· offering commercial services

· distribution of promotional material and/or goods

· street performances / busking

· pavement artists

· events and filming

· outdoor display of goods.

Regulatory Committee has delegated authority to approve guidelines

7. Council requested staff report back to the Regulatory Committee on any guidelines or policies developed in consultation with key stakeholders to guide staff involved in the implementation of the bylaw (GB/2015/4).

8. Further, Auckland Transport has delegated to Auckland Council the ability to make resolutions which relate to street trading under the bylaw, which includes the ability to adopt guidelines by resolution (ATD/2015/01).

9. The Regulatory Committee has delegated authority to endorse the guidelines on behalf of Auckland Transport and to make resolutions under Part Three of the bylaw.

10. The draft Shared Spaces Guidelines were developed to provide guidance to staff involved in the implementation of the bylaw. The guidelines evolved out of the review of the legacy bylaws and subsequent development of the bylaw. During the bylaw review process, compliance staff highlighted the need for Auckland-wide operational guidelines to support the enforcement of the new bylaw.

Shared Spaces Guidelines and key principles

Auckland-wide operational guidelines required to support enforcement of events and trading in shared spaces

11. Staff acknowledge the need for region-wide operational guidelines that provide a clear, practical and consistent approach to implementing the bylaw. Specific guidelines for shared spaces enable staff to consistently manage compliance issues within these unique areas that are not covered under the general guidelines, as well as having regard to individual variations created for each shared space design and layout.

Proposed Shared Spaces Guidelines

12. The Shared Spaces Guidelines have been developed to be consistent with the following:

· the Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012

· chapters 5 & 6 of the Auckland Transport Code of Practice – Street Amenities

· street Amenities in the Road Corridor Guidelines, Asset Management and Systems, 2013

· operational guidelines and principles for shared zones in New Zealand (Conference paper, March 2014)

· existing operational policies, guidelines and practices for managing trading activities in the public space.

13. The Shared Spaces Guidelines key principles assist in providing a shared space where/which:

· pedestrians can stop and use street furniture

· premises can create outdoor dining experiences to patrons

· provides a desirable inner city destination

· operates as a low speed and low frequency vehicle environment where vehicles and pedestrians share the space

· is beneficial for mixed-use activities including dining, shopping and walking

· is a safe alternative road environment for cyclists and vulnerable road users.

Options

14. Two options are presented for consideration:

· option 1: use the general guidelines previously approved by council for the Auckland region (status quo), or

· option 2: approve the Trading and Events in Public Places Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017.

15. The tables below assess the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with each option.

Assessment of Option 1: use the general guidelines previously approved by council for the Auckland region (status quo)

	Analysis
Advantages	· no additional time required to implement new guidelines · no training required
Disadvantages and Risks	· possibility of inconsistent approach of implementation · there is a lack of delineation between the Accessible and Activity zones under the current general guidelines as there is no kerb line, thereby creating a conflict between pedestrians and vehicles · current general guidelines do not allow for the unique design principles required for the safe operation of trading activity in a shared space area · current guidelines provide only for trading activities within what would be the accessible zone in a shared space area, thereby creating a conflict with the trading activity and the sight impaired
Risk mitigation	· continual workshops / training to improve knowledge on the implementation of bylaw · declining applications for outdoor dining areas within a shared space area due to conflict with the trading activity and pedestrians (i.e. sight impaired)

Assessment of Option 2: adopt specific guidelines for trading activities in shared spaces

	Analysis
Advantages	· clear guidelines for the design and layout for shared spaces along building frontages and providing certainty to officers when assessing applications for trading activities within those areas · availability of shared space guidelines for members of the public · resolves any conflict between Accessible and Activity zones within a shared space area · providing greater collaboration between Bylaws, the Auckland Design Office and Auckland Transport, in the assessment of applications for trading activities within shared space areas
Disadvantages and Risks	· staff not familiar with Shared Space design guidelines when assessing an application for outdoor dining in a shared space area
Risk mitigation	· training required on new guidelines · regular liaison required with the Auckland Design Office and Auckland Transport for proposed trading activities in a shared space area

Consideration

16. Staff developed the draft Shared Space Guidelines with the assistance of the Social & Community Policy department and in collaboration with the Auckland Design Office. Auckland Transport assisted to improve the draft guidelines and ensure they were consistent with their internal guidance. All parties provided their endorsement of the final draft.

17. Staff circulated the draft Shared Space Guidelines internally for review and to Auckland Transport for endorsement. Feedback was collected from the People’s Panel and business association surveys along with submissions during the bylaw review. The management of trading activities needs to take into account the following principles:

· quality and amenity

· accessible and safe environments

· appropriate locations

· diversity and suitability of activities

· non-privatisation of public place

· minimising impacts of activities

· transparency and efficiency.

18. Advice from Auckland Transport was that the draft Guidelines needed to align with the design principles contained in the Auckland Transport Code of Practice – Street Amenities and the Street Amenities in the Road Corridor Guidelines.

Local board views and implications

19 Local boards provided feedback during the Trading in Public Places Bylaw review and development of the new bylaw. This included workshops held with each local board, through the Local Board Chairs Forum and requests for information throughout the review process.

20 Throughout the bylaw review process local boards raised that there is a need for a clear and consistent approach to the bylaws implementation and to ensure that sufficient resources are in place for its enforcement. Some local boards also stated that they would like to be involved in the approval process. Local boards are currently involved in approving trading activities undertaken on local parks and reserves.

21 Local boards have not been specifically consulted on these guidelines for shared spaces as they are seen as primarily an operational matter providing clarity to compliance staff on how to manage these areas.

Māori impact statement

22 Māori representatives provided feedback during the Trading in Public Places Bylaw review through a Kaitiaki Forum (25 June 2013), a northern Hui (22 October 2013) and a southern Hui (23 October 2013). There were no issues that were identified as having a significant impact on Māori. Most of the feedback focused on ensuring that the bylaw and associated operational policies or guidelines would not restrict participation in trading activities and events. In addition the bylaw would continue to support individuals and communities to develop and sustain both managerial and entrepreneurial capabilities.

23 The Shared Spaces Guidelines have not specifically been introduced or discussed with Maori representatives, but have been developed to be consistent with the views of Māori representatives, which were sought during the bylaw development phase in 2013.

Implementation

24 A communication strategy will be developed for businesses directly affected by the adoption of the Shared Spaces Guidelines.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Trading and Events in Public Places Shared Spaces Guidelines 2017	31

Signatories

Author

David Brimble Senior Advisor, Bylaws and Compliance

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 May 2017

Resource Consent Appeals: Status Report 18 May 2017

File No.: CP2017/08778

Purpose

1. To provide an update of all current resource consent appeals lodged with the Environment Court.

Executive summary

2. This report provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the Auckland Council is a party. It updates our report of 31 March 2017 to the Regulatory Committee.

3. If committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews (phone: 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the first instance.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 18 May 2017.

Comments

4. As at 8 May 2017, there are 19 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south as set out in Attachment A. Changes since the last report and new appeals received are shown in bold italic text.

5. The Resolutions Team continue to resolve these appeals expeditiously. In the period since preparing the previous status report, there have been four new appeals and three appeals have been resolved.

6. The new appeal by Kumeu Property Limited is against the Council’s decision to refuse consent to establish and operate an aged care facility with 102 hospital beds and 157 assisted living beds at 455 Taupaki Road, Taupaki. The site lies within the Countryside Living zone and concerns expressed within the decision relate to effects on rural character and visual amenity, traffic and on-site servicing.

7. The appeal, Matakana Coast Trail Trust v Auckland Council from a submitter relates to part of a decision to grant consent to a 207-lot rural-residential subdivision of multiple sites located in and around Moir Hill Road, Ahuroa. The appeal specifically relates to the lack of a condition requiring a shared path walking and cycling trail to be provided through parts of the sites’ providing public access between Watson and Dorset Roads.

8. A further appeal, IFS Trust v Auckland Council, is an appeal by the applicant to the decline of resource consents to subdivide a property at 223 Falls Road, Warkworth within the Future Urban Zone. The subdivision into 9 lots, comprise three esplanade reserve lots, a lot to vest in Council, a lot to vest as road, and five residential lots.

9. The appeal by Liangguo (Tony) Xu is from the applicant against the refusal of retrospective consent for the conversion of two existing dwellings into boarding houses with no on-site manager at 42 Clayburn Road, Glen Eden.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Local Board views have not been sought as this report is a report on current resource consent appeals and does not seek any specific decisions in relation to the appeals.

Māori impact statement

11. The decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to decide each appeal.

12. The Resource Management Act 1991 includes a number of matters under Part 2, which relate to the relationship of Tangata Whenua to the management of air, land and water resources. Maori values associated with the land, air and freshwater bodies of the Auckland Region are based on whakapapa and stem from the long social, economic and cultural associations and experiences with such taonga.

Implementation

13. Environment Court appeal hearings can generate significant costs in terms of commissioning legal counsel and expert witnesses and informal mediation and negotiation processes seek to limit these costs. Although it can have budget implications, it is important that Auckland Council, when necessary, ensure that resource consents maintain appropriate environmental outcomes and remain consistent with the statutory plan policy framework through the appeal process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 8 May 2017	53

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Resolutions Team Manager

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 May 2017

Information Report - 18 May 2017

File No.: CP2017/07341

Purpose

1. To note progress on the forward work programme. (Attachment A).

2. To provide a public record of memos, workshop or briefing papers that have been distributed for the Committee’s information since 9 March 2017.

Executive summary

3. This is regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

4. The following papers were circulated to members:

· 29 March 2017 – workshop re: Compliance priorities presentation

· 30 March 2017 - Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review memo.

5. The workshop papers and any previous documents can be found on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

· at the top of the page, select meeting “Regulatory Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

· under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6. Note that, unlike an agenda decision report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) receive the information report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regulatory Committee forward work programme	65
b	29 March 2017 workshop re Compliance priorities presentation (Under Separate Cover)
c	30 March 2017 - Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw Review memo. (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services