Agenda of Regulatory Committee

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings (required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council. The committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out in the committee’s policy). The committee is responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws. Where the committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.

The committee’s key responsibilities include:

· 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 cannot be sub-delegated)

· hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws

· appointing independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee

· 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 regulatory decision-making

· where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that the council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such appeals

· considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)

· recommending bylaws to the Governing Body for consultation and adoption

· reviewing local board and Auckland water organisation proposed bylaws and making recommendations to the Governing Body

· appointing panels to hear and deliberate on public feedback related to regulatory policy and bylaw matters

· deciding regulatory policies that are not otherwise the responsibility of another committee

· deciding regulatory policies, standards and controls associated with bylaws including those delegated to the former Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 (dogs) and GB/2014/121 (alcohol)

· receiving local board feedback on bylaw and regulatory policy development and review

· adopting or amending 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, certificates of compliance, regulatory policy and bylaws and also includes all necessary related decision-making.

In adopting a policy or policies and making any sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of decision-making 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 Regulatory Committee.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:

All Bylaws

Biosecurity Act 1993

Building Act 2004

Dog Control Act 1996

Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

Gambling Act 2003

Health Act 1956

Land Transport Act 1998

Local Government Act 1974

Local Government Act 2002

Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009

Maritime Transport Act 1994

Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

Resource Management Act 1991

Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

Waste Minimisation Act 2008

Related Regulations

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.

(ii) Power to establish subcommittees.

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.

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Initiation of Bylaw Reviews in 2020

File No.: CP2020/00235

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to start the review of eight current Auckland Council bylaws to meet statutory review timeframes under the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This is a process report to seek approval to start the review of eight current Auckland Council bylaws.

3. Bylaw reviews determine if a current Auckland Council bylaw is still needed and if any changes should be made.

4. The review of eight bylaws are scheduled to start in 2020.

5. In October 2019, the council approved a new regional policy initiation process. As required in this process, a scope for approval to start the review of the eight bylaws has been completed. The scope addresses matters in the initiation process and aligns to meet co-governance and statutory requirements.

6. Three bylaw reviews have been assessed by staff as impacting local governance. Staff recommend that individual joint working groups be established to consider statutory options for the trading and events, traffic, and signage bylaws.

7. Staff recommend the committee start the review of eight bylaws in 2020 to ensure:

· key legislative considerations are met, and to avoid any regulatory gap between when a bylaw expires and its replacement commences

· appropriate local board input is sought, particularly where it impacts local governance

· appropriate engagement is undertaken with Māori, stakeholders and the public.

8. There is a moderate risk that statutory deadlines may not be met due to changes in scope that arise through the bylaw review process. This may result in public dissatisfaction, reputational damage and failure to meet regulatory obligations. This risk will be mitigated by careful project management.

9. If approved, staff will start the eight bylaw reviews.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

a) approve the start of the review for the following eight Auckland Council bylaws in accordance with the scope and timeframes outlined in the agenda report:

i) Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015

ii) Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

iii) Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw 2014

iv) Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

v) Traffic Bylaw 2015

vi) Stormwater Bylaw 2015

vii) Construction in the Road Corridor and Other Public Places Bylaw 2015

viii) Wharves Bylaw 2015

b) appoint three sperate joint working groups, each comprised of up to two councillors, two local board chairs and one Independent Māori Statutory Board member to consider statutory options in response to findings from the review of the:

i) Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

ii) Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw 2015

iii) Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015.

Horopaki

Context

Bylaw review process

21 current bylaws, 13 reviews completed or under way, eight bylaw reviews to start in 2020

10. Auckland Council has 21 current bylaws. Statutory requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 require Auckland Council to review its bylaws. Bylaw reviews determine if a bylaw is still needed and if any changes should be made.

11. The review of 13 bylaws have been completed or are currently underway and the review of eight bylaws are scheduled to start in 2020 (Table 1).

12. The process, timeframes and approach for a bylaw review is largely determined by legislation. For example, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a review, consideration of options, a statement of proposal and public consultation.

13. If the statutory findings review date is missed, the bylaw will automatically expire after two years and a new bylaw (if required) would need to be made prior to that date to avoid a regulatory gap. The only exception to this is the review of the traffic bylaw. This bylaw was made solely under the Land Transport Act 1990 and does not expire if not reviewed.

Table 1: Status of bylaw review work

Bylaw reviews scheduled to start in 2020
· Property Maintenance	· Traffic
· Water and Wastewater	· Stormwater
· Outdoor Fire Safety	· Construction
· Trading and Events	· Wharves
Bylaw reviews that started in 2017-2019
· Dog Management (complete)	· Food (in progress)
· Health and Hygiene (complete)	· Signage (in progress)
· Public Safety and Nuisance (complete)	· Freedom Camping (in progress)
· Solid Waste (complete)	· Alcohol Control (in progress)
· Trade Waste (complete)	· Cemeteries (in progress)
· Animal Management (in progress)	· Navigation Safety (in progress)
Bylaw reviews scheduled to start in 2021
· Air Quality Domestic Fires

14. In October 2019, Auckland Council introduced an initiation process for regional policy including bylaw reviews as part of its co-governance approach. This process gives the committee ability to approve the scope for the bylaw review in particular:

· its relevance to local boards

· appointing joint working groups for bylaw reviews that impact local governance (refer Table 3).

Table 3: Local Board input to bylaw reviews

Relevance to local boards	Level of local board input on
Relevance to local boards	Options	Proposal	Deliberations
Impacts local governance^{^[1]}	ü	ü	ü
High interest^{^[2]}	û	ü	ü
Low interest^{^[3]}	û	û	ü

15. Statutory requirements and the new co-governance initiation process determine the steps for a bylaw review (refer Figure 1).

Figure 1: Bylaw review steps

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Bylaw review scope

Health, safety, nuisance, use of public places and infrastructure are all in scope

16. Table 2 sets out the matters in-scope and out of scope for the eight bylaw reviews. Generally, the matters in-scope for review include activities that may affect public health and safety, cause nuisance, misuse public places, and damage infrastructure.

17. Matters out of scope for review relate to activities regulated in other legislation or outside of council’s mandate. For example, Auckland Transport is responsible for bylaws about the construction of vehicle crossings on roads because it is a transport-related activity on the Auckland Transport System.

Table 2: In-scope and excluded from bylaw review

Bylaw Review	Matters in scope (ü) / Matters out of scope (û)
Property Maintenance	ü Includes activities on private property that could cause a nuisance ü Statutory findings report due 24 September 2020 ü Amended bylaw (if required) to be made by 24 Sep 2022 û Excludes activities on private property regulated by other legislation, for example visual amenity in the Resource Management Act 1991
Water and Wastewater	ü Includes protections for water supply and wastewater network ü Statutory findings report due 23 June 2020 ü Amended bylaw (if required) to be made by 23 June 2022 û Excludes on-site wastewater systems which are regulated by the Auckland Unitary Plan
Outdoor Fire Safety	ü Includes fires on public and private places and fire hazards ü Replacement bylaw (if required) must be made by 18 Dec 2021 û Excludes fires subject to Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017
Trading and Events	ü Includes trading, events and filming on places controlled by council ü Replacement bylaw (if required) must be made by 26 Feb 2022 û Excludes trading, events and filming on private and Auckland Transport controlled public places
Traffic	ü Includes parking and use of vehicles on council controlled public places (for example, parks and beaches) û Excludes parking and use of vehicles on Auckland Transport controlled public places (for example most roads)
Stormwater	ü Includes protecting the operation of the public stormwater network ü Statutory findings report due 30 July 2020 ü Amended bylaw (if required) to be made by 30 July 2022 û Excludes review of Auckland Unitary Plan rules which focus on managing adverse effects on the environment
Construction	ü Includes activities on Auckland Council controlled public places ü Replacement bylaw (if required) must be made by 29 October 2022 û Excludes activities on Auckland Transport roads
Wharves	ü Includes activities on Auckland Council controlled wharves ü Replacement bylaw (if required) must be made by 29 October 2022 û Excludes private and Auckland Transport controlled wharves

Three bylaw reviews impact local governance and five are low interest

18. Staff have analysed the relevance of each bylaw review (refer Table 4). This analysis shows that three bylaw reviews impact on local governance, two are relevant to all local boards (trading and events, traffic), and one (stormwater) is only relevant to the Rodney Local Board. The remaining five are assessed to be of low interest.

19. Staff recommend appointing joint working groups to consider the statutory options for the review of the trading and events bylaw and the traffic bylaw due to the impact on local governance to all local boards.

Table 4: Assessment of relevance of bylaw reviews to local boards

Bylaw	Relevance	Reasons
Property Maintenance	Low	Bylaw regulates activities on private property that received low levels of public feedback in the last review. No local governance impact.
Water and Wastewater	Low	Bylaw protects public water supply and wastewater networks across Auckland that received low levels of public feedback in the last review. No local governance impact.
Outdoor Fire Safety	Low	Bylaw regulates the prevention of fire hazards across Auckland that received low levels of public feedback. Fires (including fireworks) that impact on local governance and are of high community interest are regulated by the council’s Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw.
Trading and Events	Governance	Bylaw regulates approval and conditions for trading, events and filming on local parks, streets and in town centres. These rules may directly impact decisions on landowner approvals for trading activities, events and filming on local parks to meet local community needs and priorities.
Traffic	Governance	Bylaw regulates the use of vehicles on council-controlled land which is not part of the Auckland Transport System. These rules may impact local decisions on goals for local parks and beaches.
Stormwater	Low	Protects stormwater network across Auckland that received low levels of pubic feedback in the last review.
Stormwater	Governance (Rodney)	Rodney Local Board has delegated authority for stormwater management in the Te Arai, Okahuhura and Glorit Drainage Districts.
Construction	Low	Bylaw relates to construction activity on or near public places or infrastructure that received low levels of public feedback in the last review. These matters are also either addressed in other regulations including the council’s Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw or they are the responsibility of Auckland Transport (for example, vehicle crossings).
Wharves	Low	Bylaw relates to use of council-controlled wharves that received low levels of public feedback in the last review. These matters are also addressed in other regulations including the council’s Public Safety and Nuisance and Navigation Safety Bylaw or they are the responsibility of Auckland Transport (for example, ferry terminals).

Review of signage bylaw would also benefit from a joint working group

20. Staff recommend appointing a joint working group for the signage bylaw review. While this bylaw review has already commenced, it does impact local governance and is currently at the findings stage in the bylaw review process. This means the statutory options could be considered by a joint working group.

Key timeframes are largely determined by complexity and local board relevance

21. Table 5 shows the timeframes for each bylaw review by quarter. The timeframes for each bylaw review are largely determined by its complexity, relevance to local boards, matters in scope, legislative process and best practice approach to public consultation.

22. For example, the trading and events bylaw review is complex and impacts on local governance. This review will therefore take longer than the property maintenance bylaw review which is less complex and has low community interest.

Table 5: Key bylaw review timeframes

Bylaw / Year and Quarter

2020

2021

2022

Property Maintenance

Water and Wastewater

Outdoor Fire Safety

Trading and Events

Traffic

Stormwater

Construction

Wharves

= Public Consultation | = Decision | = Bylaw expiry

Staff recommend the committee initiates the review of eight bylaws in 2020

23. Staff recommend the committee resolve to start the reviews of the eight bylaws in 2020 identified in this report. This will enable council to meet Auckland Council’s key legislative considerations, its co-governance approach, and best practice.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. This is a process report. Climate impact will be assessed as part of each bylaw review.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. This is a process report. Input will be sought from council units directly involved in bylaw implementation.

26. Local Board Services advice was sought to identify the relevance of each bylaw review to local boards.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

27. Local board input will be sought on all bylaw reviews according to their relevance, including:

· options for the trading and events, traffic, and signage bylaw reviews through appointment of joint working groups

· the proposal for trading and events, traffic, and signage bylaw reviews

· options and the proposal for the stormwater bylaw from the Rodney Local Board due to their unique delegated authority for stormwater management in some areas

· public feedback for all bylaw reviews.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. This is a process report. Impacts on Māori will be identified through research and engagement during discovery and public consultation. Advice from the Independent Māori Statutory Board will also be sought on statements of proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. The cost of the bylaw reviews will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. There is a moderate risk that statutory deadlines may not be met due to changes in scope that arise through the bylaw review process (Table 6). This risk will be mitigated by best practice and careful project management.

Table 6: Risks and Mitigations

IF <event>	THEN <impact>	Possible mitigations
If staff identify other stakeholders that delays the adoption of a new bylaw (for example the trading and events bylaw), OR If the start of a bylaw review is delayed (for example the trading and events bylaw),	Then this may increase the risk that a new bylaw (if required) will not be made before the expiry of the current bylaw (creating a regulatory gap) or may impact on the quality of advice and result in a ‘rushed’ bylaw that may not be fit for purpose. This in turn may result in public dissatisfaction, reputational damage, and failure to meet regulatory obligations because council would not be able to use bylaw enforcement powers to prevent or respond to identified problems.	Best practice and careful project management
If the duration of a bylaw review is shortened to ‘speed up’ the process,	Then this may impact on the quality of advice, result in the committee requesting more information and making the process take longer than originally planned.
If the statutory findings report date is not met for the property maintenance, water or stormwater bylaw,	Then this will impact on the opportunity to reduce ‘peaks and troughs’ of the next bylaw review programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. If approved, staff will progress the review of the eight bylaws contained in this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Magda Findlik - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Request to Appoint a Hearing Commissioner for Private Plan Change 28 (Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2019/21628

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of an Independent Hearing Commissioner to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 28 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Private Plan Change seeks to rezone 9.34 hectares of land at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush from Business – Light Industry to Business – Mixed Use in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The request also seeks to introduce new precinct provisions over the site.

3. Four primary submissions were received on the private plan change request. The submissions raise a mixture of infrastructure, visual and transport matters. Whilst no submissions have been formally withdrawn, the applicant is close to resolving all the submissions points raised by the submitters.

4. It is considered appropriate that one independent commissioner, with expertise in planning is appointed to consider matters raised in submissions and make decisions on the private plan change request.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint one independent commissioner, with expertise in planning to consider submissions and make decisions on Proposed Plan Change 28 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make a replacement appointment in the event that the appointee in clause a) is unavailable.

Horopaki

Context

5. James Kirkpatrick Group Limited lodged a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) in November 2018. On 2 July 2019 the private plan change was considered and accepted by the council.

6. The purpose of the Private Plan Change is to establish a Business – Mixed Use zone which according to the applicant aims ‘to provide an appropriately scaled mixed use centre, with a range of supporting activities that are complementary, well designed and integrated with the surrounding area’.

7. Specifically, the Private Plan Change seeks to:

· rezone 9.34 hectares of land at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 Florence Carter Avenue, Flat Bush from Business – Light Industry to Business – Mixed Use in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

· introduce new precinct provisions over the subject site. The precinct provisions would limit the gross floor areas for retail, office and commercial services in order to avoid adverse effects to nearby centres, provide for an additional height variation control within the precinct that will change the existing 20m height limit to between 20m and 28m and to manage any potential transport effects should they arise. These precinct provisions will apply to the area covered by the entirety of the rezoning request.

8. The subject sites are also subject to several approved land use resource consents and whilst unimplemented, do provide for a wide range of activities, including traveller’s accommodation, a hotel, retail and office activities. These consents are still valid at this time. As such, the request is also seeking through this plan change to bring the zoning of the subject site into better alignment with the existing approved consents and likely future use of the subject sites

9. The Private Plan Change was publicly notified on 25 July 2019. After the closing date for submissions on 22 August 2019, 4 primary submissions were received. The summary of submissions was publicly notified on 12 September 2019 with a closing date for further submissions being 26 September 2019. No further submissions were received.

10. Submitters have raised a mixture of infrastructure, visual and transport matters. Whilst no submissions have been formally withdrawn, the applicant is close to resolving all the submissions points raised by the submitters. On this basis it is recommended that submissions on the Private Plan Change request be considered by one independent commissioner with expertise in planning matters.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. Analysis of the issues raised in submissions and recommendations will be provided in the section 42A hearing report for the proposed plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. This is a procedural report seeking appointment of a decision maker. The decision to appoint has no impact on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions.

13. The final decision on the proposed private plan change will be made in accordance with statutory processes set out in the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). These include consideration of the effects of the proposal on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. The applicant’s infrastructure report indicates that there are no fundamental water or wastewater issues associated with the proposal. Whilst a submission was received from Watercare staff on the proposal, the submission points raised was later resolved by the applicant and agreement was reached. Watercare has advised that in principle there do not appear to be any water or wastewater constraints that would prevent the rezoning of the site.

15. Auckland Transport has reviewed the private plan change request and has not reported any fundamental constraints which would prevent the plan change from being accepted. Whilst a submission was received from Auckland Transport, at the time of writing this report the submission points raised were very close to being resolved by the applicant and agreement is within reach.

16. Healthy Waters has been sent a copy of the private plan change and accompanying infrastructure assessment for review. No issues of concern have been raised.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

17. As part of the plan change process, memos were sent to both the Howick and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards advising them of the proposed plan changes and providing them with the opportunity to provide feedback. Local board views were received from both local boards in respect of the proposed plan change. Feedback received from both local boards will be included in the Council Officer’s section 42A reports.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, states that local authorities shall consult with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

19. James Kirkpatrick Group Limited consulted the relevant 10 iwi groups within the plan change area (see below). The draft private plan change with rezoning information was sent to the iwi groups via email by the applicant, providing opportunity for queries and feedback on 10^th September 2018. Two responses were received, one of which deferred their interests to other potential mana whenua groups who may have a primary iwi interest in the area. No group opposed the proposed plan change.

· Ngāti Pāoa

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Waikato – Tainui

20. All relevant iwi authorities were formally notified of the proposed plan change as part of the public notification procedure under the RMA. No submissions were received from any mana whenua group during the submission period.

21. In addition to notification Council considered the requirements under s.34(A)(1A) of the RMA as to whether or not the Private Plan Change would require a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori. It is considered that the proposal has no impact on Maori greater than the general public and therefore it is not recommended that a commissioner with tikanga experience be appointment to be the decision maker in this case.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. The cost of independent hearing commissioner will be recovered from James Kirkpatrick Group Limited.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. Hearing commissioners are appointed from the pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of elected members who hold the ‘Good Decision-making’ accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. Council staff will contact the appointed independent hearing commissioner to check their availability. The appointed commissioner will then be requested to issue directions as to whether a hearing is required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michael Luong - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Request to appoint hearing commissioners for Plan Change 34 (Special character statement for Special Character Areas Overlay - Howick Business) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

File No.: CP2020/00083

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of independent hearing commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 34 – Special character statement for Special Character Areas Overlay – Howick Business) (PC34) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. PC34 seeks to add a special character statement to the AUP for the existing Howick Business special character area (Howick Business SCA). PC34 also seeks to extend the existing Howick Business SCA to include four additional sites.

3. PC34 was notified on 24 October 2019 and the submission period closed on 22 November 2019. A total of 15 submissions were received and 10 submitters would like to be heard.

4. PC34 was notified for further submissions on 23 January 2020 and the further submission period closed on 7 February 2020.

5. It is proposed that three independent hearing commissioners with expertise in planning, special character/heritage or urban design are appointed to hear and make decisions on PC34.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint three independent hearing commissioners with planning, special character/heritage or urban design experience to hear the submissions on Plan Change 34 to the Auckland Unitary Plan

b) delegate to the independent hearing commissioners appointed in clause a) the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 34 to the Auckland Unitary Plan

c) delegate to the Chair of the Regulatory Committee the authority to make replacement appointments if necessary.

Horopaki

Context

Background to Plan Change 34

6. The Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business (SCA Overlay) manages development within the overlay so that the identified special character values of each area are maintained and enhanced.

7. Special character values are identified in the AUP in special character statements. The existing Howick Business SCA is the only special character area that does not have a special character statement in the AUP. This is a ‘gap’ in the AUP.

8. PC34 seeks to add a special character statement to the AUP for the existing Howick Business SCA. The plan change also seeks to extend the Howick Business SCA to include four additional sites because buildings on these sites contribute to the special character values of the Howick Business SCA. These four sites are part of the Howick town centre.

Public notification of Plan Change 34

9. The Planning Committee approved the public notification of PC34 on 6 August 2019.

10. PC4 was publicly notified on 24 October 2019 and the submission period closed on 22 November 2019. A total of 15 submissions were received and 10 submitters would like to be heard at the hearing.

11. PC34 was notified for further submissions on 23 January 2020 and the further submission period closed on 7 February 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Analysis of the issues raised in submissions and recommendations will be provided in the section 42A hearing report for the plan change. Key matters that require expert assessment include planning, special character/heritage or urban design.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13. The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners to hear PC34 is procedural and does not have any impact on / or from climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

14. Two of the sites proposed to be included in the Howick Business SCA are owned by the council. These sites contain the Howick War Memorial Community Centre and the Uxbridge Arts and Culture Centre. The council’s Community Facilities Department was informed of this proposal before the plan change was notified. Discussion with Community Facilities staff at that time indicated general support for the inclusion of these sites within the SCA Overlay.

15. PC34 does not seek to amend the objectives, policies or rules in the AUP, including any addressing transport or water infrastructure.

16. One submission seeks to extend the extent of the Howick Business SCA over part of the road reserve. Several other submissions raise concerns about stormwater and sewerage infrastructure. Auckland Transport and Watercare have been made aware of these submissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

17. PC34 relates to the special character values of the Howick town centre.

18. Engagement with the Howick Local Board was undertaken through the preparation of PC34. This included several memorandums and a workshop.

19. The workshop was held in March 2019 to discuss a draft special character statement. This workshop was attended by some Howick Local Board members and representatives from various Howick community groups. Feedback and comments from this workshop informed the special character statement that was notified.

20. The Howick Local Board will have the opportunity to provide feedback prior to the start of the PC34 hearing. Feedback received from the local board will be given consideration in the section 42A report for the hearing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. PC34 is limited in focus and does not result in any policy or rule changes which affect Māori in a greater way than the general public.

22. Before PC34 was notified all relevant iwi authorities were supplied a copy of the draft proposed plan change as required by Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Ngāti Tamaoho responded to this and deferred to Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki. No other responses were received from iwi about PC34.

23. No submissions were received from any iwi authorities through the public notification period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. PC34 is a council-initiated plan change. The financial costs of independent hearing commissioners is covered by the Democracy Services department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. Hearing commissioners are appointed from the pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. This process, in addition to staff reporting, ensures a high quality of informed decision making and helps to avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Council staff will start the preparations for the hearing. The key next steps involve:

· seeking further feedback from the Howick Local Board

· preparing the section 42A hearing report

· contacting the appointed independent hearing commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the section 42A hearing report

· independent hearing commissioners conduct the hearing

· council decisions released.

27. The appeal period starts after the decision is released.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 33 (131 Remuera Road) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2020/00241

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 33 (131 Remuera Road) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The private plan change seeks to rezone the site at 131 Remuera Road from Special Purpose School Zone to Business Mixed Use Zone.

3. The private plan change was publicly notified on 24 October 2019. Submissions closed on 22 November 2019. No submissions were received.

4. It is considered appropriate that one independent commissioner be appointed with expertise in planning and/or social facilities to make decisions on the private plan change request.

5. Once appointed the commissioner may wish to call a hearing or may wish to make a decision on the papers without a hearing.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint a single independent commissioner with expertise in planning and/or social facilities to make decisions on Private Plan Change 33 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in Part).

b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make a replacement appointment in the event that the appointee in clause a) is unavailable.

Horopaki

Context

6. Dilworth School Trust Board lodged a private plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) in March 2019. The request seeks an appropriate re-zoning of the site following the existing school tenant’s vacancy of the premises. A certificate of compliance has been issued to demolish the existing building housing the school. The private plan change proposes a Business Mixed Use Zone which is in keeping with the adjacent zoning of properties on Remuera Rd. The requestor has supplied adequate traffic, design and planning analysis.

7. The private plan change was publicly notified on 24 October 2019. The closing date for submissions was 22 November 2019. No submissions were received.

8. Although there has been little public interest shown toward the proposal, it does present a loss of private school zoned land within the region. It is therefore recommended that the request be considered by a commissioner with expertise in planning, ideally with a good knowledge of planning for social facilities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. Analysis will be provided in the council officer’s hearing report (section 42A report) for the private plan change request. Key issues raised will include the provision of the Special Purpose School Zone throughout the region, the most appropriate replacement zone, urban design, transport and planning matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

10. This is a procedural report seeking appointment of a decision maker. The decision to appoint has no impact on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

11. The requestors cost/benefit evaluation report (RMA section 32) has stated that all infrastructure requirements will be addressed at resource consent stage. Watercare has provided a response to say that all Watercare issues can be dealt with at resource consent stage.

12. Auckland Transport’s comment was sought at the time of lodgement and are provided on a ‘without prejudice’ basis as the road controlling authority. These also defer to the future development stage for the property and are provided to establish a ‘no surprises’ working relationship with the requestor at this later stage. Auckland Transport did not make a submission to the proposal.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

13. Dilworth School Trust Board contacted the Ōrakei Local Board on 6 March 2019 providing information of the proposed private plan change request. The local board did not have any objections to the proposal but advised that it should be publicly notified to enable anyone opposing the chance to submit. The local board was advised of the notification of the plan change but did not provide formal feedback during the submission process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. Dilworth School Trust Board consulted the relevant 15 iwi groups within the plan change area (see below). The draft private plan change with rezoning information was sent to the iwi groups via email, providing opportunity for queries and feedback on 7 March 2019. Six responses were received, three of which deferred their interests to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei as having the primary iwi interest in the area. No group opposed the proposed private plan change.

· Ngāti Pāoa

· Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Paturiri

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Waikato – Tainui

15. All relevant iwi authorities were formally notified of the private plan change as part of the public notification procedure under the RMA. Two responses were received. Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua deferred their interests to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei stated that no action was needed from them at this stage. No submissions were received from any iwi authority group during the submission period.

16. In addition to notification Council sought the opinion of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei under s.34(A)(1A) of the RMA as to whether or not PPC33 would require a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei responded that no such decision maker was required for this plan change.

17. It is considered that the proposal has no impact on Māori greater than the general public and therefore it is not recommended that a commissioner with tikanga experience be appointment to be the decision maker in this case.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. The cost of the independent hearing commissioner will be recovered from Dilworth School Trust Board.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

19. Hearing commissioners are appointed from the pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of local board members that hold the Good Decision Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and help avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. Council staff will contact the appointed independent hearing commissioner to check their availability. The appointed commissioner will then be requested to issue directions as to whether a hearing is required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Fiona Sprott - Team Leader - Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Request to appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 35 (Rezoning of land at Foster Crecent, Snells Beach)

File No.: CP2020/00242

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To appoint Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 35 (Private) Foster Crescent, Snells Beach to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 35 seeks to rezone 4.6ha of land at Lot 1 DP 149776 (which is located at the southern end of Foster Crescent, Snells Beach) from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Single House zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). The site is shown in Figure 1.

3. Five primary submissions were received on the private plan change request. The submissions primarily relate to land stability, the wastewater network, outlook, traffic, and construction effects.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint three independent commissioners, with expertise in planning, transport, urban design and tikanga to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 35 (Private) Foster Crescent, Snells Beach to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

b) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the hearing panel in clause a) in the event that a member of the panel is unavailable.

Horopaki

Context

4. Prime Property Group Limited lodged a private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) in February 2019. On 6 August 2019 the Planning Committee accepted the private plan change request for processing and public notification.

5. Plan Change 35 seeks to rezone 4.6ha of land at Lot 1 DP 149776 (which is located at the southern end of Foster Crescent, Snells Beach) from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Single House zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). The site is shown in Figure 1.

6. The private plan change was publicly notified on 24 October 2019 and five primary submissions were received. The council’s summary of submissions was publicly notified on 05 December 2019 and no further submissions were received.

7. The focus of the submissions relate to land stability, the wastewater network, outlook, traffic, and construction effects.

Figure 1: Locality Plan - Foster Crescent and surrounding area

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. Commissioners are now required to hear and make a decision on the submissions received. Analysis and advice relating to the private plan change itself will be provided in the council’s hearing report (section 42A report), to be provided to the commissioners in due course.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9. The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners is an administrative one and does not have any associated climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

10. Watercare was notified of the private plan change and has made a submission seeking a decision that ensures that the wastewater network is adequately protected. This matter will be addressed in the hearing report and considered by the appointed hearing commissioners.

11. Auckland Transport was notified of the private plan change, but did not make a submission.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

12. The private plan change will be reported separately to the Rodney Local Board to provide the opportunity for it to set out it views (if any) on the merits of the private plan change. These views can then be incorporated into the planning report to the Hearing Commissioners appointed. The appointment of the commissioners is not a matter for which the local board has any responsibility.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

13. The applicant invited ten iwi authorities with an interest in the area to provide feedback on the proposal prior to submitting the private plan change request to council. The process is discussed in the applicant’s Section 32 report. Three responses were received from iwi authorities. Two of these (from Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki and Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua) deferred to Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust. A representative of Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust attended an on-site meeting and provided a Cultural Impact Assessment.

14. The Section 32 report states that “A number of recommendations were made, which were agreed to. For example; having a representative present during ground disturbing activities adjacent to waterways; to be able to review the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; and that eels are relocated before the pond is de-watered”.

15. The report also stated “A recommendation to remove the proposed lots along the coastal edge of the subject site was not agreed to. This is because all the matters raised were addressed. For example: not building on top of the existing wastewater easement, however, the required 15m by 8m buildable area is available on each of the lots clear of the easement; reducing the chance of discovering archaeological sites as these are often close to the coastal edge, however, the Accidental Discovery Protocol will be adhered to during all earthworks activities on the site; and, not having lots along the coastal edge will provide a buffer to the coast for sediment during earthworks, however, sediment will be controlled through the subdivision consent conditions, which will require erosion and sediment control measures to be in place”.

16. No submissions have been received from any of the 19 iwi authorities that Auckland Council notified of the plan change as part of the notification process. However, in light of the matters raised in the Cultural Impact Assessment, it is recommended that a commissioner with expertise in tikanga is appointed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

17. The cost of the private plan change, including the cost of commissioners, will be recovered from Prime Property Group Limited.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

18. Hearing commissioners are appointed from the council’s pool of independent commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. This process, in addition to staff reporting, ensures a high-quality of informed decision-making and helps to avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

19. Council staff will commence preparation for a hearing to take place. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioners to check their availability;

· notifying submitters of the hearing dates and venue;

· preparing and subsequently providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report;

· Independent Hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing; and

· Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Austin Fox - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Request to appoint hearing commissioners for Plan Change 31 (Addition of Historic Heritage Places to Schedule 14) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

File No.: CP2020/00254

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 31 (Addition of Historic Heritage Places to Schedule 14) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 31 proposes the addition of six historic heritage places to Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). The plan change was notified on 29 August 2019 and has received 11 submissions and five further submissions. These submissions include a mixture of support and opposition to the plan change. The majority of the submissions and all of the further submissions are specific to a place or area proposed for inclusion in Schedule 14.

3. Hearing Commissioners are required to be appointed to continue the plan change process. The plan change is focussed on heritage and planning matters and is of public interest. Therefore the appointment of commissioners with expertise in heritage and planning are recommended.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint up to three Independent Hearing Commissioners, with expertise in planning and heritage matters, to hear submissions on Plan Change 31 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

b) appoint one local board member or councillor to be part of the Hearing Panel to hear submissions on Plan Change 31 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

c) delegate to the Independent Hearing Commissioners appointed in a) and b), the authority to make decisions on the Plan Change;

d) delegate authority to the chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments to the Hearing Panel (as contained in clauses a) and b) above) in the event that a member of the hearing panel is unavailable.

Horopaki

Context

4. The purpose of Plan Change 31 is to add six historic heritage places (five individual historic heritage places and one historic heritage area) to Schedule 14 of the AUP.

5. Plan Change 31 was publicly notified on 29 August 2019 with the closing date for submissions being 26 September 2019. The plan change received 11 submissions and five further submissions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

6. Auckland Council has received 11 submissions to Plan Change 31. The issues raised in the submissions include:

i) support for the plan change, both overall and for specific historic heritage places to be included in Schedule 14

ii) support with amendments to the plan change, particularly relating to the Upland Village Historic Heritage Area, requesting that the historic heritage area be removed

iii) opposition to the plan change, particularly relating to the Upland Village Historic Heritage Area, requesting that the historic heritage area be removed

iv) the historic heritage values present for particular places, the impact of scheduling on the value of a property and the ability for future development.

7. Five further submissions were also received. Four of these were in support of original submissions which sought the removal of the historic heritage area from the plan change. One further submission opposed an original submission which sought to amend Schedule 14.1 to remove the exclusions of the interior of the building.

8. The submissions and further submissions raise a mixture of planning and heritage issues. It is recommended that the panel hearing Plan Change 31 consist of three commissioners with combined expertise in these areas. Noting that protection of heritage is a matter of public interest, it is also recommended that a councillor or local board member be appointed as a one of the members of the hearings panel.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9. The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners is an administrative one and does not have any associated climate change impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

10. Discussions were undertaken with Auckland Transport prior to notification, due to road reserve being proposed for inclusion within the extent of place for a number of historic heritage places.

11. Auckland Transport has lodged a submission in general support of Plan Change 31, while also seeking the removal of the road reserve from the extent of place of two individual historic heritage places and from the historic heritage area. The submission will be addressed in the hearing report and considered by the hearing commissioners.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

12. The proposed plan change involves places within three local board areas; Ōrākei Local Board, Rodney Local Board and Albert-Eden Local Board.

13. Four of the six historic heritage places, including the historic heritage area, proposed to be included in the plan change are within the Ōrākei Local Board area. The board funded the historic heritage evaluation of these places.

14. An information memo was sent to the Ōrākei and Rodney Local Board members and local board advisors on 17 May 2019 to inform them of the proposed plan change. This correspondence provided an explanation of the proposed plan change and included a list of the historic heritage places to be added. A summary document of each of the proposed heritage places was also provided.

15. Council staff attended a workshop at the Ōrākei Local Board on 30 May 2019. This was an omnibus workshop on a number of planning matters occurring within the local board area. This included informing the local board of the responses to the landowner letters, which were sent out on 17 May 2019, for the proposed heritage plan change. At that time, only two responses had been received. The local board had no comments to add other than that they were satisfied with the approach taken.

16. An email was sent to the Albert-Eden Local Board advising of the proposed plan change on 19 July 2019.

17. No responses have been received from the Rodney or the Albert-Eden local boards.

18. The three local boards had a further opportunity to provide their views on the plan change from when it was notified on 29 August 2019. Any views provided by the local boards will be considered alongside submissions as part of hearing and decision process on the plan change. As at 29 January 2020, there has been no response from the local boards post-notification, to follow-up emails through the senior local board advisors, as to whether or not the local boards would like to provide their views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. The six historic heritage places included in Plan Change 31 have been identified primarily for their built heritage values.

20. The draft plan change, along with the draft s32 evaluation report, was provided to iwi authorities on 4 July 2019 prior to public notification. The letter also sought the iwi’s views on whether there was interest to appoint a commissioner with tikanga Māori.

21. One response was received from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua who advised that they had an interest in the area (but did not provide specifics of this interest), deferred those interests to Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei in the anticipation that they would provide an appropriate response, and anticipated that their future involvement would be determined following Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei’s due consideration. The other response was from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei who advised that they do not need to engage in this instance, but would be grateful if they were kept in the information loop.

22. All iwi authorities were sent letters when the plan change was publicly notified. No submissions from iwi authorities were received. No request was received to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The cost of Independent Hearing Commissioners will be managed within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. Hearing Commissioners are appointed from the pool of Independent Commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. A small number of elected members that hold the Good Decision-Making accreditation may also sit as commissioners. These processes, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making and avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. The next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed hearing commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing date and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· hearing commissioners conduct the hearing

· Auckland Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jo Hart - Planner - Planning North/West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 30 (Pukekohe Park) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

File No.: CP2020/00510

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of Independent Hearing Commissioners to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 30 – Pukekohe Park (PPC30) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. PPC30 seeks to rezone 5.8 hectares of land at 222-250 Manukau Road, Pukekohe (Pukekohe Park) from Special Purpose – Major Recreation Facility (MRF) to Business – General Business (GB) in the AUP and remove the rezoned land from the Pukekohe Park Precinct.

3. PPC30 was notified on 29 August 2019 and the submission period closed on 26 September 2019. A total of three submissions were received and two submitters would like to be heard.

4. PPC30 was notified for further submissions on 24 October 2019 and the submission period closed on 8 November 2019. No further submissions were received.

5. It is proposed that two Independent Hearings Commissioners are appointed to hear and make decisions on PPC30.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint two Independent Hearings Commissioners, with expertise in planning, transport and Treaty of Waitangi matters, to hear the submissions and make decisions on Plan Change 30 to the Auckland Unitary Plan;

b) delegate to the Independent Hearings Commissioners appointed in clause a) the authority to make decisions on Plan Change 30 to the Auckland Unitary Plan; and

c) delegate to the Chair of the Regulatory Committee the authority to make replacement appointments if necessary.

Horopaki

Context

Background to Plan Change 30 - Pukekohe Park

6. PPC30 seeks to rezone 5.8 hectares of land in Pukekohe Park from Special Purpose - Major Recreation Facility to Business - General Business zone in the AUP and remove the rezoned land from the Pukekohe Park Precinct.

7. The PPC30 site is located on the north-western corner of Pukekohe Park, a 73 hectare horse racing, motor racing and events facility. It is approximately 2km south of Pukekohe Town Centre.

8. The site is largely an open grassed area, which is occasionally used for overflow event parking.

9. The purpose of the plan change is to allow commercial development. Counties Racing Club have concluded that the proposed rezoning will enable them to make the best use of surplus land and ensure the longer-term sustainable operation of Pukekohe Park.

Public notification of Plan Change 30 – Pukekohe Park

10. On 4 June 2019, the Planning Committee approved the notification of PPC30.

11. PPC30 was subsequently notified on 29 August 2019 and the submission period closed on 26 September 2019. A total of three submissions were received and two submitters would like to be heard.

12. Public notice for further submissions occurred on 24 October 2019 and the further submissions period closed on 8 November 2019. No further submissions were received.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Analysis of the issues raised in submissions and recommendations will be provided in the section 42A hearing report for the proposed plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

14. The matters raised in this report do not have any impact on climate change as they address procedural matters relating to a request to appoint an Independent Hearing Commissioner to hear submissions and make decisions on PPC30.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. Auckland Transport (AT) has lodged a detailed submission on the plan change. AT opposes PPC30 in its entirety unless all their submission points are adequately addressed.

16. Healthy Waters has been sent a copy of the private plan change and accompanying stormwater and ecology assessments for review. The applicant, in agreement with Healthy Waters, will apply the Stormwater Management Area: Flow overlay across the entire plan change area to address stormwater management and water quality issues.

17. The applicant has provided a capacity assessment for water supply and wastewater in response to Watercare’s request. No additional issues have been raised.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

18. The applicant attended the Franklin Local Board’s business meeting on 27 November 2018, to update the board on the work being done to progress the plan change in Pukekohe Park.

19. Following lodgment of the plan change with council, staff provided a copy to the local board and their feedback was requested. The following response was received on 29 April 2019:

“The Franklin Local Board supports this application as it aligns with our local board plan outcome: A thriving local economy. It is also in line with Council’s draft structure plan for Pukekohe-Paerata. The General Business zone is more favoured to provide a wider scope of commercial activity, which would also manage reverse sensitivity.

This will provide the Racing Club the opportunity to be more sustainable and create opportunities to provide needed commercial zoned land in Pukekohe. There is a need to ensure activities that could directly conflict with the imposition of noise contours around the park are not permitted e.g. retirement village or apartments, which would be contrary to the long held desire to avoid residential living within the immediate surrounds of the park.”

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. The applicant advises that it has engaged the following iwi groups with an interest in the local area (see table below). The plan change was sent to all the iwi groups, providing opportunity for comments before the plan change request was lodged with council.

Iwi Groups	Feedback
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki	No response received
Ngāti Maru	No response received
Ngāti Tamaoho	Ngāti Tamaoho were met onsite and a Cultural Values Assessment has been completed.
Ngāti Te Ata	Ngāti Te Ata were met onsite and written feedback has been received.
Te Ākitai Waiohua	No response received
Waikato - Tainui	No response received

21. A cultural values assessment was received from Ngāti Tamaoho and a letter was received from Ngāti Te Ata. Both have made several recommendations primarily around water quality and the management of stormwater effects. The applicant has addressed these matters in their section 32 report.

22. No feedback or submission was received from any iwi on full notification of the plan change.

23. On 10 January 2020, letters were sent to all the iwi groups seeking their views on whether a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori should be appointed. Only Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki have responded to confirm that such a commissioner would be appropriate. In light of the potential cultural impacts addressed in the cultural impact assessment, staff support the appointment of such a commission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The cost of Independent Hearing Commissioners will be recovered from Counties Racing Club.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. Hearing Commissioners are appointed from the pool of Independent Commissioners due to their professionalism, expertise and experience. This process, in addition to staff reporting, ensure a high quality of informed decision-making to avoid any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. The next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Hearing Commissioners to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing date and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· hearing Commissioners conduct the hearing

· Auckland Council decision released.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jimmy Zhang - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Objection to the construction of a public stormwater line through 214 Forrest Hill Road, Forrest Hill

File No.: CP2020/00679

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider the objection to the Construction of a Public Stormwater line through 214 Forrest Hill Road, Forrest Hill (Lot 4 DP 50968) to serve 210 Forrest Hill Road, Forrest Hill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A landuse resource consent LF-2143259 was approved on 15 August 2016 to establish a minor residential unit and associated carparking. (Attachment A)

3. The current dwelling stormwater discharges to ground and does not comply with Council’s Stormwater Code of Practice as it discharges to ground and does not discharge to the public reticulation which is located within adjoining property at 214 Forrest Hill Road.

4. The proposed development consent conditions require the installation of a stormwater management system to discharge to public reticulation.

5. The applicant’s consultant Ryan Shin of Casa Consulting Group has been in communication with Benjamin Dragonson and Liping Zhao (owners of 214 Forrest Hill Road Forrest Hill Lot 4 DP 50968) via various forums and letters since 2017 and has not been able to obtain approval for the stormwater connection. (Attachment B)

6. Council’s senior development engineer (Cedric Daniel) met with the landowner’s representative Edison Xin on Tuesday 11 December 2018 to discuss the proposed stormwater connection. (Attachment C)

7. Edison Xin confirmed that Benjamin Dragonson and Liping Zhao did not intend to develop this property and that the main concern was impact of works on tenants at this property.

8. Following consultation with objecting party and Council’s Principal Engineer Hock Lee an engineering approval ENG60312220 was issued on 24 January 2018 for the installation of a public stormwater connection to the public line traversing 214 Forrest Hill Road. (Attachment D) (Attachment G includes engineering application documents which includes alternate route options).

9. Council engaged Dave Serjeant an accredited Independent Hearings Commissioner to mediate approval of the stormwater connection. (Attachment E)

10. Under email of 4 July 2019 Dave Serjeant presented his mediation report confirming that he was no able to mediate approval for the required stormwater connection. (Attachment E)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owners of 214 Forrest Hill Road Forrest Hill (Lot 4 DP 50968), pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974; and

b) subject to the hearing of the objection, resolve under section 460(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 that the proposed stormwater connection route across 214 Forrest Hill Road Forrest Hill, is the only practical route as shown on ANCHOR CONSULTING Ltd engineers drawings no. A16-0104 sheet EPA-01 revision A and sheet EPA-02 revision A.

Horopaki

Context

11. The owners of 210 Forrest Hill Road are HK Kim and N Lee (“the Applicant”). The Applicant has applied under section 460 of the Act for the council to determine, that the proposed installation of a stormwater pipe and connection to an existing Council public 300mm concrete line within 214 Forrest Hill Road being the only practical route and available connection to serve 210 Forrest Hill Road..

12. A locational aerial of the relevant properties and plans of the precise route is shown on ANCHOR CONSULTING Ltd engineers drawings no. A16-0104 sheet EPA-01 revision A, are contained in Attachment B.

13. The Applicant lodged an Engineering Approval application (reference ENG60312220) on 4 December 2017 to undertake the work to install the stormwater line. This has since been approved on 24 January 2019 subject to landowner approval of 214 Forrest Hill Road provided as Attachment A. Landowners of 214 Forrest Hill Road (Benjamin Dragonson and Liping Zhao Xu) have not approved the connection.

14. The ‘Applicant’ and its consultants have consulted with the property’s owners (Benjamin Dragonson and Liping Zhao Xu) in writing and by phone over a period of 24 months to date in order to obtain their consent to undertake the work. A copy of relevant pertinent communication demonstrates that both Benjamin Dragonson and Liping Zhao Xu have been fully informed of the extent of works and this is provided as Attachment B. The written communication has been sent to the address listed for the respective owners as well as email communication. The ‘Applicant’ has not been able to obtain consent.

15. The Council’s senior development engineer has also consulted with these landowners and has not been able to facilitate approval.

16. Attachment E also confirms the attempts by Mr Dave Serjeant, council’s independent facilitator engaged to seek a resolution. However, these attempts were also unsuccessful. Under report of 4 July 2019 the mediator proposes that the matter be set down for a hearing.

17. The Council is satisfied that the owners (‘Applicant’) of 210 Forrest Hill Road, have met its expectations of seeking all endeavors to obtain an agreement to install the stormwater line.

18. The approved stormwater reticulation provides for stormwater connection for 210 Forrest Hill Road which is a significant improvement on the current situation as this site currently discharge onto 214 Forrest Hill Road the property of Benjamin Dragonson and Liping Zhao Xu. Attachment D provides approved details of the proposed upgrade works.

19. Details of landowners is provided under Attachment I

20. Copies of S460 LGA 1974 are provide under Attachment H

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. Currently the site at 210 Forrest Hill Road discharge to ground via sheet-flow onto 214 Forrest Hill Road.

22. The proposed stormwater discharge connection will provide for discharge connection from 210 Forrest Hill Road and provide a significant improvement of stormwater management in the immediate vicinity of the overland flow path traversing 214 Forrest Hill Road.

23. The existing public stormwater line traversing 214 Forrest Hill Road and the associated downstream reticulation has the capacity to receive discharge from the proposed minor development.

24. The landowners of 214 Forrest Hill Road have confirmed that they do not intend to develop the site and hence the straightest connection route has been adopted in accordance with engineering best practice.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. The extent of the works are of a localised minor nature that does not require climate change consideration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. 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 applications for private drainage works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974. This delegation cannot be sub-delegated”. Copy of Section 460 of the 1974 Act is provided as Attachment F.

27. At the hearing, both the applicant and the objectors can present their evidence in support of their positions. After hearing all the evidence and the relevant information, the Regulatory Committee then has to make a decision. There is no right of appeal of the decision of the Regulatory Committee.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

28. 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 Dragonson and Liping Zhao Xu of 214 Forrest Hill Road.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. Under section 460 of the Act, Iwi are not considered a relevant affected party unless they are land owners through which a proposed drain is to be aligned. Council staff are not aware of any matters pertinent to the site that may be of interest to Maori. There are no sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua recorded in the Unitary plan for the site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. All costs for this process and hearing are to be met by the owners of 210 Forrest Hill Road Forrest Hill.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The proposed reticulation will significantly improve the upstream stormwater management and reduce sheet flow discharged impact on downstream property at 214 Forrest Hill Road.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. If the proposed works are approved by the committee, installation of the public stormwater reticulation will be undertaken by Council.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Landuse Resource Consent LF 2143259	47
b ⇩	Attachment B Consultant communication with 214 Forrest Hill Road	69
c ⇩	Attachment C - Council communication meeting with Ben Dragonson of 214 Forrest Hill Road	105
d ⇩	Attachment D - Engineering Approval ENG60312220 dated 24 January 2018	113
e ⇩	Attachment E - Mediator Report 4 July 2018	121
f ⇩	Attachment F - Engineering Approval Application	127
g ⇩	Attachment G - S460 LGA 1974	149
h ⇩	Attachment H - Landowner Details	159
i ⇩	Attachment I - GIS screen views	165
j ⇩	Attachment J - Anchor Consultants Ltd - Stormwater Report	171

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cedric Daniel - Senior Development Engineer

Authorisers

Hock Lee – Principal Engineer

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

Regulatory Committee

18 February 2020

Objection to stormwater works at 35 and 35A Francis Street, Grey Lynn

File No.: CP2020/00171

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater works at 35 and 35A Francis Street, Grey Lynn, pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has been working on a project to reduce flooding risk and upgrade ageing pipe infrastructure assets in the Grey Lynn area.

3. The proposed works involve the installation of approximately 350 metres of new pipeline and decommissioning an existing 100-year old pipeline that has reached the end of its usable life, and is at risk of failure.

4. The proposed route of the new pipeline passes through nine private properties and the road reserve (see Attachment A). Approval has been obtained from all private landowners, apart from the owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street (as per the process outlined in Attachment B).

5. The owners of these crossleased properties have objected on the basis that the new pipeline may reduce the value of their property (see objection in Attachment C). Council staff have met with the property owners, but have not been able to secure their voluntary approval.

6. Staff have analysed four options:

· option one: constructing the pipeline on the recommended new alignment

· option two: constructing the pipeline on the current alignment

· option three: constructing the pipeline on a new alignment which avoids the subject property

· option four: not delivering the project.

7. Due to the practical constraints of the site and risks associated with some options there are no other realistic locations for the proposed pipeline except option one. It is not feasible to avoid going through the corner of the property at 35 and 35A Francis Street. There will be no impact on, or disruption to, the property at street level.

8. For these reasons, staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee hear the objection and approve routing of the proposed pipeline through the corner of 35 and 35A Francis Street.

9. If the Regulatory Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction works could begin from mid-2020 and take approximately 12 months to complete the whole project. The pipe installation work across Francis Street (and under the subject site) will take approximately one week.

10. It has been explained to the owners that they have the right to claim injurious affection under the Public Works Act 1981.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objection by the owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street according to Clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

b) subject to the hearing of the objection, resolve that the council will proceed with the proposed stormwater works (as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report), according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

11. Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters department is responsible for managing and maintaining the public stormwater network in Auckland. The public stormwater network consists of over 6,000km of pipes and other assets (such as manholes and culverts), many of which are located on private land.

12. Section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 empowers the council to ‘construct works on or under private land or under a building on private land that it considers necessary for sewage and stormwater drainage’. Such works require either the written consent of the property owners, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 (see summary of the process in Attachment B).

13. Schedule 12 requires that affected landowners are provided with a description of the proposed works, including plans, and are given the opportunity to object to the works within one month of notification.

14. If an objection is made, a hearing must be arranged. After hearing objections, the council must then determine to either abandon the works proposed, or proceed with the works proposed, with or without any alterations that the council thinks fit.

Stanmore Road to Fife Street stormwater upgrade project

15. The Stanmore Road to Fife Street stormwater upgrade project aims to deal with existing flooding risk in the Grey Lynn and Westmere catchment.

16. The project will minimise the risk of flooding of habitable floors for storm events of up to a 100-year frequency, allowing for maximum future development within the catchment. Currently, there are approximately three habitable floors predicted to flood and four habitable floors predicted to be within 500 millimetres of the flood level in such a severe storm event.

17. In addition, there is an existing undersized 100-year old pipe under Francis Street that is in poor condition and poses a significant risk of failure. This pipe needs to be replaced as its failure could cause serious damage to surrounding infrastructure and properties, including the subject sites (35 and 35A Francis Street).

18. The project will also enable the potential future separation of the existing combined sewer network in the catchment.

19. The proposed project comprises approximately 350 metres of new stormwater pipe (900 to 1200 millimetres in diameter), running through the road corridor and private properties. The existing pipe is much smaller (525 millimetre diameter) and as a result cannot cope with current stormwater flows in the area.

20. The existing pipe along Francis Street (including a short length under 35 and 35A Francis Street) will be abandoned and sealed or removed.

Objection received from the landowners at 35 and 35A Francis Street

21. The owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street have refused to provide voluntary permission for the proposed pipeline to be installed in the location proposed, under the eastern corner of their property.

22. The consultation process with the property owners is outlined in paragraphs 27 to 34 below.

23. The owners object on the basis that the proposed pipeline could make it more difficult and more expensive to redevelop their site in the future (see Attachment C).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. The council is empowered to construct works on private land that are necessary for stormwater drainage. When determining the best option to alleviate flooding and renew existing ageing assets, the council looks at a full range of possible options to achieve the required stormwater outcomes for the public good, and at the same time, to carefully balance any impacts on individual property owners.

25. In the case of this project, council analysed four options to address flooding and renewing ageing stormwater assets from Stanmore Road to Fife Street. As outlined in Table 1 below, there are limited practical options available for this project.

26. The options considered were:

· option one: installing a new pipe as close as possible to the existing pipeline (recommended option)

· option two: installing a new pipe along the same alignment as the existing pipeline

· option three: installing a new pipe along a new alignment, which avoids the subject properties (35 and 35A Francis Street)

· option four: do nothing – do not upgrade the stormwater assets in the Grey Lynn and Westmere catchment which have reached capacity.

27. The four different options were analysed against relevant criteria as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Analysis of alignment options against key criteria

	Option one (recommended) New pipe as close as possible to existing pipeline	Option two New pipe along same alignment as existing pipe	Option three New pipe that avoids the subject property	Option four Do nothing	Significance of criteria
Relative construction safety risk	Low	Moderate	Moderate	None	Moderate
Flooding risk after project completion	Low	Low	Low	Very high	High
Flooding risk during construction	Low	High	High	None	Moderate
Interference with existing infrastructure (water, wastewater and road networks)	Minor	High	High	None	High
Cost of works	Moderate	High	High	None	Low
Disruption to property owners	Minor	Minor	Minor	None	Low

Analysing options for Stanmore Road to Fife Street stormwater upgrade project

28. Option one involves having a minimum clearance of one metre from the existing stormwater service (see Attachment D). This separation is to ensure the serviceability and functioning of the existing pipe during the construction of the new pipe. It is important to maintain a safe working space between the two pipes.

29. Option two involves tunneling the new pipeline along the same route as the existing 525 millimetre pipeline. The tunneling would be done at the same location as the existing pipeline, and as a result stormwater will have to be temporarily pumped over Francis Street.

30. As shown above, option two creates a high risk of flooding during construction because the existing pipeline is the only drainage for the area between 31 and 43 Stanmore Road. Option two will also cost more because it requires ongoing pumping and it is more difficult to carry out the work.

31. If the existing drainage is restricted, the only drainage path would be the overland flow over Francis Street, which will cause flooding to the houses in the surrounding area. The flow path over Francis Street will also cause flooding risks to the houses at 29 and 29A and 35 and 35A Francis Street.

32. Option three involves installing the new pipe along a new alignment, around the north east corner of the subject site. This could potentially be achieved by introducing additional jacking pits and manholes in the road or the berm on Francis Street. Whilst this option is technically possible, similar to option two, it is significantly more expensive, with increased risk of flooding during construction, safety risk during construction and increased interference with existing services, as shown in Table 1 above.

33. Option four (do nothing) was eliminated because it will not address the risk of failure of the existing aged pipeline, which is one of the key drivers of the project.

34. As Table 1 shows, option one is the preferred option for the following reasons:

· the risk of flooding during construction and after project completion is low

· the safety risks during construction are lower

· the route does not interfere with any existing infrastructure

· the recommended option has the lower cost of the three alignment options considered.

35. The recommended option (option one) is considered to provide the best outcomes to the community while minimising construction impacts on affected properties.

36. Some sections will be installed using trenchless methods, including the section passing through the subject property (35 and 35A Francis Street).

Consultation process with the landowners

37. Letters advising the owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street of the proposed works (dated 1 August 2019) were sent by email to the owners on 2 August 2019 (Attachment E). The letters outlined the need for the project and advised the owners of their rights and obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002 respectively.

38. A follow up phone call and email was sent to the owners on 29 August 2019.

39. An email response was received from the owners on 3 September 2019, with several questions requiring clarification.

40. A detailed response to the owners’ questions was provided on 3 September 2019.

41. Additional information was provided by email to the owners on 13 September 2019, with a plan showing the dimensions of the proposed pipeline within the owner’s property boundary.

Summary of objection received

42. On 24 September 2019, an email was received from the owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street, refusing to give consent for the proposed works (see Attachment C). The objection cited a possible reduction in the property’s value due to the presence of the proposed new pipeline, as well as possible future difficulties if they were ever to redevelop the site.

43. On 25 October 2019, a meeting was held on site to allow the owners to discuss the proposal with council’s project manager and the design engineer.

44. Council staff outlined to the owners the benefits that the new pipeline would provide, including improved protection against possible future flooding on their property caused by potential failure of the existing pipe. The existence of a new, larger pipeline may also assist with any future resource consent application for redevelopment of the site.

45. During construction, there will be no impact on the property at street level as the new pipe will be installed using trenchless methods.

46. The owners were not, however, willing to give consent and have maintained their objection.

47. On the basis that the owners have declined to give voluntary approval for the works, staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee determine to proceed with the project according to Clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002. This will allow the project to proceed to resource consent and construction.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48. One of the expected consequences of rising global temperatures is increased and more intense rainfall. To contribute to increasing Auckland’s resilience to climate change, Healthy Waters staff ensure that new assets are designed to be able to deal with these expected impacts.

49. The proposed pipe has been designed to cater for the expected range of storm events, including allowance for climate change. This has the effect of making the network more resilient to storm events and reducing the likelihood of flooding of neighbouring properties.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50. Engagement with Auckland Transport will take place as required to manage temporary traffic, as needed. No other council group stakeholders have been specifically identified.

51. There is no impact on any pipes or infrastructure managed by Watercare as a result of this project. The project allows for future network separation, which aligns with Watercare’s plans.

52. Once constructed, the pipe will form part of the public stormwater network to be maintained by Healthy Waters.

53. If the landowners object to the committee’s decision to support the works, Legal Services will support Healthy Waters staff in any court proceedings.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

54. All landowners directly affected by the proposed pipe installation have been consulted both in person and by email and informed about the project over several years. All landowners have voluntarily signed the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act landowner approval letters, with the exception of the owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street.

55. As described above, the project will have some local impacts, such as temporary open cut excavations and reinstatement work on some properties. These temporary impacts have all been carefully explained to the residents who are affected. Multiple meetings have been held on site with the individual property owners.

Local board views

56. The Waitematā Local Board has received ongoing project updates via the quarterly status reports. A more detailed project memo will be provided to the local board in February or March 2020, outlining the scope and timing for the proposed phase one construction works.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

57. Consultation with local iwi began in December 2017 and four local iwi have responded: Te Kawerau a Maki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. An invitation was sent to the four interested iwi for a site visit in August 2018. One iwi group (Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki) attended the site visit on 2 August 2018.

58. After attending the site visit, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki informed council that they have no major concerns relating to the project and requested to carry out cultural monitoring during the construction phase.

59. The above four local iwi were contacted again on 26 September 2018 to ascertain if they have any further concerns. No responses have been received.

60. Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to improved water quality through increasing the capacity of the stormwater network, and by enabling future network seperation. This is aligned with mana whenua aspirations as kaitiaki of our waterways.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61. The project can be funded from within Healthy Waters existing capital expenditure budget. It is proposed that construction will commence mid to late 2020, once resource consent has been sought and obtained.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Risks and mitigations arising from determination of the objection

Risk	Likelihood and consequence	Mitigation
Failure of existing pipe asset	Likelihood: Medium Consequence: High	The existing aged pipeline is considered to be close to failing. If the new pipeline is not installed soon, there is a risk of sudden pipe failure occurring, resulting in potential flooding and a need for emergency works.
Biological hazards of combined sewer overflows	Likelihood: Medium Consequence: Medium	Selection of an approved council contractor will ensure competence. Staff will adhere to current Health and Safety legislation and use personal protective equipment. This risk remains and will be managed by the construction contractor.
Ground settlement caused by tunnelling	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The pipeline is located at a significant depth and well away from properties. No settlement is expected, but this will be monitored during construction.
Financial risk – If the landowners appeal the Regulatory Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case. The landowners could also seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal, arguing that the public works have reduced the value of their property.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	It seems unlikely an appeal would be brought. Even if so, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being considered necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly. The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered low in this case for the following reasons: · the proposed pipe does not involve the taking of any land · the area affected by the works is a concrete driveway. The residential homes on 35 and 35A Francis Street are sufficiently far enough from the works that it is extremely unlikely that they would be impacted · the proposed methodology will cause minimal damage to the driveway which will be reinstated upon completion of the works. If the landowners are unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they will be liable to pay court costs.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63. If the Regulatory Committee determines to proceed with the project (under Schedule 12 clause 1(e)(ii)), the next step will be to notify the owners of 35 and 35A Francis Street in writing of Council’s intention to proceed with the works.

64. The objector has up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s legal team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council would look to proceed with the works from mid to late 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan - 35 and 35A Francis Street, Grey Lynn	187
b ⇩	Process for objection hearings under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002	189
c ⇩	Information provided to and notice served on property owners (correspondence log)	191
d ⇩	Detailed engineering plans (full set)	199
e ⇩	Resource Management Act and Local Government Act notification and approval letters	209

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ian Wallace – Flood Projects Team Manager

Authorisers

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

[1] Governance means review impacts assets or services that a local board has a decision-making role.

[2] High interest means review is of major interest to one or more local communities

[3] Low interest means review does not impact local governance and is not high interest

Chairperson	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	Cr Shane Henderson
	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	IMSB Chair David Taipari
	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Paul Young
Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore