Agenda of Regulatory Committee

Regulatory Committee

28 July 2020

Request to Appoint Hearing Commissioners for Private Plan Change 38 (522-524 Swanson Road, Ranui).

File No.: CP2020/07354

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the appointment of a Hearing Commissioner to hear submissions and make decisions on Private Plan Change 38 (522-524 Swanson Road, Ranui) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Private Plan Change 38 (PPC38) seeks to rezone the site at 522-524 Swanson Road, Ranui from Business – Light Industry to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zones in Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP). No other changes are proposed to the AUP.

3. PPC38 was notified on 5 December 2019 and the submission period closed on 23 January 2020. One submission, from Kiwirail Holdings Limited, was received.

4. PPC38 was notified for further submissions on 27 February 2020 and the submission period closed on 12 March 2020. One further submission, from Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, was received.

5. It is proposed that one Independent Hearing Commissioner is appointed to hear and make decisions on PPC38.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint an Independent Hearing Commissioner, with expertise in planning, to hear submissions and make the council’s decision on Private Plan Change 38 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part);

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

Horopaki

Context

6. Western Park Village Limited lodged a private plan change request for 522-524 Swanson Road, Ranui. The request seeks to rezone approximately 2.5 hectares of land from Business – Light Industry to Residential Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartment Building in the AUP.

7. The private plan change request was accepted for notification, and subsequent processing, on 26 November 2019 by the Manager – North West and Islands, Plans and Places under delegated authority, in accordance with the Auckland Council Combined Chief Executives Delegation Register (updated June 2019).

8. PPC38 was notified on 5 December 2019 and the submission period closed on 23 January 2020. One submission, from Kiwirail Holdings Limited (Kiwirail), was received. The main theme of Kiwirail’s submission is the reverse sensitivity effects, particularly noise and vibration, on residential development located adjacent to the rail corridor.

9. PPC38 was notified for further submissions on 27 February 2020 and the submission period closed on 12 March 2020. One further submission, from Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, was received. The further submission opposes the relief sought by Kiwirail.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. Analysis will be provided in the council officer’s hearings report (section 42A report) for the private plan change request. Key matters that will be considered include planning, urban design, transport, economics, and reverse sensitivity effects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11. The decision to appoint independent hearing commissioners is an administrative one and does not have any associated climate change impacts. However, this topic was considered in the clause 25 report to accept the private plan change request and will be discussed further in the section 42A report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters Department, Watercare Limited and Auckland Transport have reviewed the private plan change request and will be involved during the preparation of the hearing report.

13. Healthy Waters was satisfied that the potential adverse effects of subsequent residential development enabled by a change to residential zones could be managed through the assessment of the AUP provisions as part of a later resource consent process. The relevant objectives and policies of the AUP, including those around reducing risk of flooding, stream restoration and enhancement opportunities as raised by Healthy Waters, will be addressed in the hearing report.

14. Watercare Limited was satisfied that there was adequate capacity within the existing infrastructure to accommodate the proposed levels of future residential development on the site.

15. Auckland Transport had some concerns around the connections to Swanson Road, the Ranui Train Station and across the stream which traverses part of the site. These concerns will be addressed in the hearing report in discussion with Auckland Transport.

16. No submissions have been received from either Watercare Limited or Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

17. PPC38 is located within the boundary of the Henderson-Massey Local Board.

18. A memo, dated 13 March 2020, was forwarded to the Henderson-Massey Local Board. Informal feedback from the local board has been received. This is generally supportive of the private plan change in that it provides the opportunity for residential development that offers good quality social housing which is affordable. The feedback also raises points around the next stage of the development process such as consideration of design, reverse sensitivity, the provision of a quality interface to Ranui Domain, and connections to Ranui town centre, and public transport.

19. A report to the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s business meeting on 21 July 2020 will provide the opportunity for the local board to provide its formal view. This will allow the local board to present its view at a hearing (if one is required).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. The applicant has engaged with iwi groups with an interest in the area, providing an opportunity for feedback before the request was formally lodged with council. This included Te Kawerau a Maki, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua. No responses were received from Te Ākitai Waiohua or Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

21. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua deferred their input to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara deferred their input to Te Kawerau a Maki. Te Kawerau a Maki provided a letter which supported only the private plan change at this stage and indicated an interest in having further involvement during any subsequent resource consent process.

22. All iwi authorities with an interest in the Auckland region were sent letters when the private plan change was publicly notified. No submissions were received from iwi authorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The cost of the private plan change will be recovered from the applicant (Western Park Village Limited).

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. This process, in addition to staff reporting, ensures a high quality of informed decision-making and avoids any procedural or judicial risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Council staff will commence preparation for a hearing to take place in August or September 2020. The key next steps involve:

· contacting the appointed Independent Hearing Commissioner to check their availability

· notifying submitters of the hearing date and venue

· providing submitters with a copy of the hearing report

· Independent Hearing Commissioner conducts the hearing (if one is required)

· 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

28 July 2020

Stormwater Bylaw Findings Report

File No.: CP2020/04198

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To agree that the review of the Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015, Stormwater Bylaw 2015, is complete and request an options report that responds to the findings.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council Healthy Waters staff have prepared a findings report (Attachment A) to enable the council to complete the review of the Stormwater Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw).

3. Key findings from the review include:

· Auckland Council is responsible for the ongoing operation, maintenance, and protection of the public stormwater network, as well as flood protection and control.

· stormwater problems still exist, such as damage to the public stormwater network managed by Auckland Council, flooding, contaminant discharges, management of connections and the operation and maintenance of private stormwater systems.

· the Bylaw is an important tool to minimise risk to the operation of the stormwater network by providing a holistic set of rules, filling a regulatory gap and complimenting other regulations and legislation. The Bylaw covers similar matters as other stormwater bylaws around New Zealand and can contribute to Māori outcomes, aspirations and priorities.

· the Bylaw is an effective and appropriate regulatory tool to achieve appropriate land drainage and stormwater management by protecting stormwater network from damage, misuse and interference.

· the current Bylaw approach could be improved by clarifying rules, increase its ability to protect public stormwater networks, more effectively regulate maintenance of private stormwater systems, and align the interaction with the Auckland Regionwide Stormwater Network Discharge consent.

· the current Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications.

4. Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee endorse the findings report, complete the statutory review and request an options report. Taking this approach will progress the review and allow consideration of statutory options to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw.

5. If the findings report is endorsed, there is a low risk that members of the public or stakeholders may express concern about suggested improvements, or stakeholder engagement to date. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

6. If approved, Auckland Council Healthy Waters will develop options that respond to the findings in this report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) endorse the “Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 – 2020 Review Findings Report” in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) agree that the statutory review of the Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 is complete, including that:

i) a bylaw is still the most appropriate regulatory tool to protect Auckland’s stormwater network from damage, misuse and interference, as well as regulating the operation and maintenance of private stormwater systems

ii) the current Bylaw does not give rise to any implications and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990

iii) the current Bylaw approach to manage land drainage for the public stormwater network and ensure maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems is appropriate but could be improved.

c) request that Auckland Council Healthy Waters prepare an options report in response to the findings in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Governing Body adopted the Ture-ā-rohe Wai Āwhā 2015, Auckland Council Stormwater Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw) on 30 July 2015 (GB/2015/78). The Bylaw is mainly administered by Auckland Council Healthy Waters and Regulatory Engineering departments.

8. The primary purpose of the Bylaw is to regulate land drainage including to protect, manage and maintain an efficient and effective public stormwater network, as well as the ensure the maintenance and operation of private stormwater systems.

9. The Bylaw is aligned with the Auckland Plan 2050 by supporting the growth and development strategy and the need for infrastructure to keep up with the pace and scale of regional growth over the next 30 years.

10. The Bylaw is one part of a wider regulatory framework in the management of stormwater. Issues related to water quality and discharge of contaminants into stormwater are managed at source under the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Resource Management Act 1991, while issues related to the construction requirements are addressed by the Building Act 2004.

11. The Bylaw works in conjunction with the Stormwater Code of Practice setting standards to construct appropriate public stormwater infrastructure. This is normally undertaken through the council’s Engineering Plan Approval (EPA) process.

12. The EPA process and the regulations in the Bylaw, contribute to the outcomes of the Auckland Regionwide Network Discharge Consent (NDC) by controlling development and connections to the public stormwater network, and ensure the maintenance of private stormwater network.

The Local Government Act 2002 set out bylaw review requirements

13. A findings review of the Bylaw must be completed by 30 July 2020 to determine whether a bylaw is still necessary, and whether the current Bylaw is well drafted and meets the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

14. Following the findings review, the council can consider and propose statutory options to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw using a public consultative process.

15. If a findings review is not completed by 30 July 2020, the Bylaw will expire on 30 July 2022 and council must (if a bylaw is still necessary) make a new bylaw to avoid a regulatory gap.

Staff prepared a findings report as the first step in reviewing the Bylaw

16. Between December 2019 and May 2020, staff carried out research and engaged with a range of stakeholders to develop a findings report (Attachment A). Engagement methodology includes:

· workshops with internal staff and stakeholders, including council-controlled organisations

· discussions with mana whenua representatives at the monthly hui

· People’s Panel survey on stormwater related elements and the Bylaw

· interviews with affected parties, through video and face-to-face meetings.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

There are existing and new issues which still need to be managed

17. Land drainage problems such as property flooding, contaminant discharges affecting the stormwater network, management of pipe connections and inconsistent operation of private stormwater systems, are still common as evidenced by the feedback from technical experts, operational staff and survey respondents. Auckland Council Healthy Waters department receives thousands of requests every year to attend to issues related to the public and private stormwater network.

18. The Engineering Plan Approval (EPA) applications that council received for infrastructure related work has increased every year since 2015. This is reflective of the growth Auckland is experiencing, which highlights the need for continued management of the stormwater network under the Bylaw.

19. There is an interrelationship between the Regionwide Network Discharge Consent (NDC) granted in 2019, the Stormwater Code of Practice (SWCoP) and the Bylaw where new stormwater assets designed in accordance with the SWCoP are vested with the council to assist in achieving the outcomes of the NDC through the EPA process. Currently, reference to the NDC in the Bylaw is limited and requires strengthening to assist with the NDC implementation.

Some improvements to the Bylaw have been suggested

20. Stakeholders consider the Bylaw to be effective and efficient but suggest improvements which will be considered as part of an options report. Suggested improvements relate to:

· better alignment to the Regionwide Network Discharge Consent (NDC) by explicitly referencing the NDC and including mechanisms for better interrelationship such as conditioning for council approvals

· better protection of the public stormwater network from damage such as burying of manholes affecting access and including water sensitive design devices that form part of the stormwater network

· improved clarity of certain definitions and clauses, and best practice for bylaw writing such as using plain English and adding explanatory notes where applicable for easier understanding

· further exploration of concerns expressed by mana whenua such as Bylaw enforcement, maintenance of private stormwater systems, and infrastructure placed on Māori land historically

· enhancement of provisions related to private stormwater systems to enable council to ensure private stormwater systems are properly constructed and maintained. For example, provisions for regular inspections by council or requirements for submitting maintenance records

· improved compliance and enforcement powers such as inspections and cost recovery as deterrence.

The Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications

21. The current Bylaw does not give rise to any unjustified Bill of Rights implications. Any limits to rights or freedoms are considered to be proportionate and justifiable.

Staff recommend the Regulatory Committee endorse the findings, complete the statutory review, and request an options report

22. The findings report establishes that the public stormwater network still needs protecting, the private stormwater network requires regulation, and that the current Bylaw is still necessary, appropriate and useful alongside other stormwater management tools. The Bylaw could be improved for clarity, interrelations with other tools, private and public stormwater management, mana whenua considerations, and enforcement.

23. Staff recommend the Regulatory Committee endorse the findings in this report, complete the statutory findings review, and request an options report to consider and propose statutory options to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the Bylaw.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. While the Bylaw is not specifically about addressing climate change, stormwater is inherently closely related to the climate. The Bylaw review acknowledges climate change elements such as retreat of stormwater infrastructure and adaptability should be considered in the options report.

25. The feedback received from workshops and the survey was that climate change is an important aspect to be considered for stormwater management and the Bylaw.

26. An options report in response to the findings will ensure consistency with the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 and the Auckland Council Climate Action Framework.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The Bylaw impacts the operations of Auckland Council Healthy Waters teams. It also impacts Auckland Council teams involved in the regulation, compliance and enforcement of stormwater such as Regulatory Engineering and Regulatory Compliance departments. Relevant staff including Auckland Transport and Watercare provided feedback to the review through interactive workshops and interviews.

28. The options report will take into account the views gathered through the engagement process with the various affected parties within the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Under the agreed principles and processes for Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws 2019, the Bylaw has been classified as low interest. It is also considered to be of no impact on local governance for local boards, except for Rodney Local Board.

30. The Rodney Local Board has delegated authority to make decisions relating to stormwater management within the Te Arai Drainage District, the Okahuhura Drainage Area and the Glorit Drainage District.

31. Healthy Waters have recently been in discussion with the Rodney Local Board about the future management of the drainage districts. There will be engagement with the Rodney Local Board for the options report to seek their views specifically on the Bylaw.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. The Bylaw can contribute to the Māori Plan 2017’s key directions of Manaakitanga - Improve Quality of Life by managing land drainage appropriately and will explore Rangatiratanga – Enhance Leadership and Participation with further engagement especially through the enabling of the Regionwide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent consultations.

33. Views from mana whenua were sought at the monthly Heathy Waters project day hui in April 2020. Operational kaitiaki representing the 19 iwi participates in the monthly hui. The main concerns expressed related to issues such as the effect from decreased stormwater quality, infrastructure developments without mana whenua input, and the enforcement and monitoring of public and private stormwater systems. The options report will consider these concerns in more detail.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The cost of the Bylaw review and its implementation will o be met within existing departmental budgets. Existing staff will be dedicated to the project.

35. There will be costs associated with mana whenua engagement though the Infrastructure and Environmental Services hui, as well as public consultation required by the Bylaw review. These costs will be driven by the proposed depth of engagement.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. There is a low risk that some members of the public or stakeholders may express concern about suggested improvements to the Bylaw or stakeholder engagement.

37. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation on any proposed changes to the Bylaw.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. If approved, staff will prepare an options report for the Regulatory Committee.

39. Options Report will be presented to the Regulatory Committee in November 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dean Yee - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist, Healthy Waters

Authorisers

Andrew Chin – Head of Healthy Waters Strategy

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2020 Earthquake-Prone Building Monitoring Report (Auckland Council)	29

No.

Title

Page

a ⇩

2020 Earthquake-Prone Building Monitoring Report (Auckland Council)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regulatory Committee Policy 2020	37

No.

Title

Page

a ⇩

Regulatory Committee Policy 2020

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 13 July 2020	53

No.

Title

Page

a ⇩

Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 13 July 2020

Regulatory Committee

28 July 2020

Attachment A: for 28 July 2020

RODNEY – Local Board Area (5 Appeals)

Appellants	Bruce C McInnes	Received	2 March 2020
References	ENV-2020-AKL-000018 Council: BUN20452891 (LUC60011787, SUB60036446, LUS60050703 & DIS60048524)
Applicant:	Moir Hill Forestry Ltd
Site address	Matthew Road, Woodcocks, Warkworth
Other parties	None
Description	Appeal from submitter in relation to a hearings panel decision to grant consents to allow a subdivision to create 25 additional rural residential sites and 4 rural balance sites. The appeal relates specifically to the consideration of the effects upon the condition of Matthew Road and the users of the road.
Iwi comments	N/A
*Status*	*Mediation took place on 1 July 2020. Report to the Court outlining progress to be submitted by 31 July.*

Appellants	Infotech Accountants Ltd	Received	14 November 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000295 Council: BUN60066984 (LUC60066985 & DIS60066986)
Applicant:	Infotech Accountants Ltd
Site address	782 Haruru Road, Wainui
Other parties	N/A
Description	Appeal in relation to a hearings panel decision with respect an objection to fees charged by council for the processing of a resource consent application to establish and operate a Cleanfill, and the working day count relating to the processing of the application.
Iwi comments	N/A
Status	Court -assisted mediation took place on 20 January 2020. Settlement was no possible at that time and the appeal has been set done for hearing on 7 May. *Settled by agreement on 14 May 2020.*

Appellants	Jeanette Schimanski	Received	31 October 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000284 Council: BUN60333190 (LUC60332929, DIS60333191, DIS60333193 and DIS60334294)
Applicant:	Northland Waste Limited
Site address	183 Sandspit Road, Warkworth
Other parties	There are four s274 parties
Description	Appeal to resource consents granted to allow the applicant to to construct and operate a waste minimisation and sorting facility. The appellant owns an adjoining property that is to be subdivided to create three sites.
Iwi comments	None received
Status	Court-assisted mediation took place on 11 February 2020. Further discussion is still taking place between the parties in relation to an altered layout for the waste minimisation and sorting facility and a set of conditions to be agreeable to the parties.

Appellant	Pacey Family No.2 Trust	Received	29 August 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000187 Council: BUN60314995, LUC60315041, DIS60315040, WAT60315042 and LUS60326312.
Applicant:	Pacey Family No.2 Trust
Site address	205 Lake Road, Te Arai
Other parties	Six s274 parties
Description	An appeal against council’s decision to decline consent for the existing and future operations (expansion) of the Lake Road Quarry.
Iwi comments	Ngati Manuhiri and Te Uri o Hau are involved as s274 parties to the appeal.
Status	Environment Court hearing to be held on 9-12 December 2019.Environment Court hearing completed on 24 January 2020. Environment Court decision reaffirming Council’s decision to decline consent was issued on 13 March 2020. This matter will no longer be reported on.

Appellant	Goatley Holding Limited	Received	27 June 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000133 Council: BUN60328269, LUC60328290, DIS60328291, WAT60328292 and LUS60328463.
Applicant:	Auckland Transport
Site address	Land between State Highway 1 and Matakana Road at Warkworth
Other parties	Omaha Beach Community Incorporated
Description	An appeal to resource consents associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the Matakana Link Road – Tuhonhono ki Tai (Pathway to the Sea), a new 1.35km road between State Highway 1 (SH1) and Matakana Road at Warkworth.
Iwi comments	Iwi consultation undertaken and conditions of consents provide for cultural monitoring.
Status	Mediation held on 27 November 2019 without resolution. Discussions between the parties are ongoing. *All appeals relating to this consent were withdrawn on 13 March 2020. This matter will no longer be reported on.*

Hibiscus and Bays - Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellant	Auckland Council (Community Facilities)	Received	22 December 2017
References	ENV-2017-AKL-00075 - Council – SUB60069647
Site address	Orewa Beach Esplanade Reserve, between Kohu Street and Marine View
Other parties	Four 274 parties
Description	Appeal by the applicant against council’s decision to refuse consent to the construction of a seawall, walkway and accessory access structures at the Orewa Beach Esplanade Reserve, between Kohu Street and Marine View.
Iwi comments	Cultural values assessments were prepared by Ngati Manuhiri and Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki that confirmed conditional support for the application. The environment is highly modified and accidental discovery protocols are sought. The application was publically notified and no submissions from Iwi were submitted.
Status	Court heard from the parties, and by minute of 22 February 2018 set the appeal down for a pre-hearing on jurisdiction over the right to appeal and determined that an amicus curiae should be appointed. Affidavits prepared for the pre-hearing set for 9 April 2018 that proceeded as scheduled. The Court on 2 May 2018 released its decision confirming jurisdiction over the Council’s right to appeal. A pre-hearing of 31 July 2018 discussed timetabling, possible mediation dates and sought the appellant to clarify the appeal issues. Court assisted mediation took place on the 21st and 22^nd of February 2019. The substantive issues have been addressed and agreed between the main parties, some s.274 parties have not agreed. The matter proceeded to Court hearing for the full week of 6^th May 2019 and on the proposal as redesigned following mediation. At hearing the experts for the respondent council had considered that the amendments addressed the reasons for council’s refusal of consent in relation to adverse effects on coastal processes, landscape and recreation. Primarily the seawall was moved landwards clear of the coastal marine area. *The Court released its interim decision on 28 May 2020. Resource consents are granted to Community Facilities subject to finalising conditions of consent.* *Conditions were filed with the Court as per directions in the interim decision with section 274 parties’ comments. The* *Court has subsequently directed that ‘Auckland Council’ provides its reply to the s274 parties’ comments by 17 July 2020.*

Upper Harbour – Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellant	M. May	Received	14 January 2020
References	ENV-2020-AKL-000002 Council: LUC60340763.
Applicant:	M. May
Site address	55 Collings Drive, Lucas Heights
Other parties	None
Description	An appeal in relation to an independent commissioner’s decision on behalf of council to refuse consent for the establishment of an oversized, 105.5 m², minor dwelling and the establishment of a new garage.
Iwi comments	N/A
Status	Discussions between the parties are taking place with mediation set for 18 March 2020 if needed. This appeal has been settled via the issue of a consent order by the Court on 8 June 2020.

HENDERSON - MASSEY – Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

*Appellant*	*Megadairy Limited*	*Received*	*17 April 2020*
*References*	*ENV-2020-AKL-000037* *Council: BUN30581068*
*Applicant:*	*Yogi Divine Society NZ (Inc)*
*Site address*	*28-30 Waipareira Avenue, Henderson*
*Other parties*	*N/A*
*Description*	*An appeal by a submitter in relation to a hearing panel’s decision on behalf of council to grant consent to construct and operate a community cultural centre.*
*Iwi comments*	*N/A*
*Status*	*Discussions between the parties are taking place with Court-assisted mediation scheduled for 31 July 2020.*

Devonport Takapuna – Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellants	Gull New Zealand Limited Thomas Vauxhall Neighbourhood Society	Received	21 February 2019
References	- ENV-2019-AKL-000164 - ENV-2019-AKL-000159 - ENV-2019-AKL-000162
Site address	66 Vauxhall Rd, Devonport
Other parties
Description	Application to demolish existing structures and establish a 24-hour automated service station. An appeal from the applicant to conditions of consent and two appeals from a neighbour and group of neighbours opposing the grant of consent.
Iwi comments	The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment or raise any iwi or Treaty issues.
Status	Agreement to resolve appeals reached at mediation in Feb 2020. An Environment Court consent order resolving the appeals was issued on 20 May 2020. This matter will no longer be reported on.

WAITAKERE – Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellant	Trustees of Forest Trust and Successors	Received	19 July 2018
References	ENV-2018-AKL-000145 Council: SUB-2011-63
Site address	199 Anzac Valley Road, Waitakere
Other parties	None
Description	Appeal against hearing decision to uphold in part and dismiss in part a section 357 objection to conditions and costs of a subdivision resource consent (SUB-2011-63)
Iwi comments	The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment or raise any iwi or Treaty issues.
Status	Appeal lodged on 26 July 2018. Environment Court decision to refuse appeal issued 18 December 2018. Appealed to the High Court however there is now a five-year stay imposed by the Court against any current or new appeals lodged by P. Mawhinney of the Forest Trust. *No change.*

ALBERT-EDEN –Local Board Area (1 Appeal)

Appellant	Panuku Development Auckland v Auckland Council	Received	04 September 2018
References	ENV-2017-AKL-000176 Council – LUC60303721 & DIS60303722
Site address	198-202 and 214-222 Dominion Road and 113-117 Valley Road, Mt Eden
Other Parties	Pacific Fringe Ltd, Astrid Modrow, Chris King, John Cram, Julie Singh, June Beaumont, Krish Jayaratne, LE & JE Whiley, Michael Wang, Nancy Smith, Peter Lange, Roger Bannan, Robert Dexter, Richard Peters, Ruth Batten, Stuart Wong, Walter Kelland, Valerie Turner
Description	Appeal against a hearing commissioner’s decision to refuse resource consent for a mixed-use development comprising four new buildings with 102 residential units, nine retail units and 115 carparks. The commissioner’s grounds for refusal related to the bulk and scale of the proposal and the associated visual, shading and dominance effects, and the adverse effects on Special Character values from the loss of the Universal Building (a character-supporting building).
Iwi comments	The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment, attract submissions from Iwi or raise Treaty issues.
Status	Appeal regarding a development that has generated media, political and local interest. Council has met on a without prejudice basis with the appellant (18 and 24 September 2018). Court assisted mediation occurred on 31 October 2018, no agreement reached between the parties. Further informal discussion between the parties (December 2018). Second court-assisted mediated occurred on 16 January 2019. Mediation agreement reached – subject to various conditions being satisfied. Council to report back to the Court as to progress by 15 February 2019. A number of the s274 parties have requested further time to consider their positions. Council has filed a memorandum with the Court seeking a judicial conference on the first available date after 15 March 2019. Pre-hearing conference scheduled for 2 April 2019. The pre-hearing conference held on 2 April 2019 confirmed that the matter will proceed to a hearing on or after 15 July 2019. A timetable for evidence exchange has been issued. The Court has issued a notice of hearing confirming that the hearing will commence of 19 August 2019. Hearing commenced 20 August and was adjourned 27 August 2019. Closing submissions to be filed with the Court by 25 September 2019. The Court issued an interim decision on 9 March 2020. The Court determined that the parties should be given an opportunity to reconsider what is proposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse construction noise and vibration effects in accordance with the issues the Court has identified as problematic in the section of its interim decision about construction noise and vibration issues. A court-facilitated meeting between the parties was held on 23 June 2020. Further expert conferencing is scheduled for 1 July 2020 and a second court-facilitated meeting is scheduled for 22 July 2020.

WAIHEKE –Local Board Area (3 Appeals)

Appellants	Cable Bay Wines Ltd v Auckland Council	Received	2 February 2018
References	ENV-2017-AKL-000010 Council – LUC60127798
Site address	12 Nick Johnston Drive, Waiheke Island
Applicant	Cable Bay Wines Limited
Other parties	Stephen & Suzanne Edwards, Julie Loranger & Lindsay Niemann, Michael & Christine Poland.
Description	Cable Bay appeal Council’s decision to refuse retrospective consent relating to the unlawful establishment and use of an additional dining area known as ‘The Verandah’. The principal issues in contention relate to the scale and intensity of the activity and the general amenity / noise effects associated with the use of the structure.
Iwi comments	The application was limited-notified to neighbours. No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment. The Hearing Commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular, Part 2 of the RMA.
Status	The Environment Court directed court-assisted mediation after the expiry of the section 274 period on 15 March 2018. Three s274 parties have joined. Environment Court mediation held on 2 July 2018 on both the consent appeal and the enforcement order application. No agreements reached between the parties. Caucusing between noise experts to on 5 July 2018. No agreement reached at second mediation. The Court has confirmed a joint resource consent appeal and enforcement order hearing commencing on 7 November 2018. The appellant’s evidence is due by 7 September and the Council’s evidence is due by 21 September. Council to call Planning and Noise expert witnesses. Council’s evidence was filed with the Court on 21 September 2018. The hearing commenced on 7 November 2018 and an interim decision on the resource consent was issued on 21 November to convey the Court’s refusal of part of the application, particularly in relation to the use of the lawn for outdoor dining and drinking, and make further directions about the refinement of conditions of consent to aspects of the proposal which might attract consent. An interim decision on the application for enforcement order was issued on 28 November 2018 ordering Cable Bay to undertake various steps to limit their activities. The Court intends that the orders will substantially mirror the final resource consent conditions. Further monitoring and testing work order by the Court is ongoing. A second interim decision on the resource consent appeal was issued 22 February 2019 confirming the Court’s earlier decision to refuse consent in part. Further collaborative noise monitoring and assessment has been undertaken by the parties’ acoustic engineers and a report on this work is to be provided to the Court by 8 March 2019. This will assist the court in determining whether or not consent can be granted to a modified proposal for the restaurant, alfresco dining and outdoor functions. A judicial teleconference held on 28 March 2019. A further 1-2-day hearing to be scheduled after June. The Court has indicated that the hearing will resume for 2 days in the week of 26 August 2019. A timetable for evidence exchange issued. Evidence has been exchanged and the hearing was re-convened on 29 and 30 August 2019. The court issued a third interim decision on 15 October 2019, indicating that consent to the activity is possible, subject to the finalisation of conditions after the grant of any building consents and resolution of the dispute about ongoing conditions attaching to the 2006 consent. The parties are to provide their comments to the Court on the remaining issues by 29 November 2019. The Court issued a fourth interim decision on 10 June 2020 following consideration of the various sets of consent conditions put forward by the parties, confirming that consent is likely to be granted in part, subject to the finalisation of conditions as set out in the interim decision. The Council is directed to provide an updated version of the draft conditions by 30 June 2020 to satisfy the Court’s express requirements.

Appellants	1.Walden v Auckland Council 2.SKP Incorporated v Auckland Council	Received Received	9 June 2017 9 June 2017
References	ENV-2017-AKL-000076 ENV-2017-AKL-000077 CIV-2020-404- 000096 Council – R/LUC/2017/489, R/REG/2017/65
Site address	Donald Bruce Road, Kennedy Point, Waiheke Island
Applicant	Kennedy Point Boat harbour Limited
Other parties	Over 30 parties have joined the appeal under section 274 of the RMA.
Description	Two separate appeals opposing the construction, maintenance and use of a 186-berth marina within the coastal marine area adjacent to Kennedy Point. The marina includes floating attenuators for wave protection and floating pontoons for car parking, office and a public/café building. The council hearing canvased a large range of issues and potential effects including landscape, traffic and transport, ecology.
Iwi comments	The applicant consulted with iwi, including Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust. A cultural values assessment was provided by Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust and a cultural impact assessment from Ngai Tai ki Tamaki. Iwi sought to have input into conditions, but no submissions were lodged by iwi. The independent hearing commissioners had regard to all the information before them and considered the application in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and in particular Part 2 of the RMA 1991.
Status	The Environment Court has set down the appeals for a court-assisted mediation on 4 and 7 August 2017. Mediation on 4 and 7 August 2017 has now been completed. Mediation narrowed down some issues but did not resolve all the issues for the appellants and request for adjournment, all the section 274 parties. A timetable for exchange of evidence, caucusing of expert witnesses and Environment Court hearing date has been confirmed. All evidence and witness caucusing are complete with the hearing set for the week of 26 February 2018. Hearing commenced on Monday 26 February 2018. Hearing completed. Environment Court decision received dated 30 May 2018 granting consent to the application for a marina subject to a comprehensive set of conditions. On 31 August 2018 appellant Save Kennedy Point Inc.(SKP) filed a late appeal to High Court and an application for re-hearing in the Environment Court for reasons of lack of consultation by the applicant and Council with Ngati Poao Trust Board. High Court declined SKP Inc. application to appeal to the High Court out of time on 24 April 2019. Further reasons filed by SKP Inc on 12 August 2019 and 23 August 2019 relating to cultural grounds, traffic and costal processes. On September 2019 SKP Inc also files request to recuse the Judge, adjournment and inclusion of Maori Land Court Judge on the Court panel. Environment Court in a decision dated 5 October 2019, declined the request for recusal of the judge, adjournment of hearing and appointment of a Maori land Court judge. In a decision dated 13 December 2019, the Environment Court declined SKP Inc. application for a rehearing. At the same time Ngati Paoa Trust Board’s earlier application to join the Environment Court proceedings was also declined. SKP Inc. appealed the Environment Court decisions to the High Court on 24 January 2020. The High Court in its decision dated 19 June 2020 has dismissed the appeal by SKP.

Waitematā (4 appeals)

*Appellant*	*Govind Agarwal*	*Received*	*3 July 2020*
*References*	*ENV-2020-AKL-000081*
*Site address*	*74-80 Wellesley Street West, Auckland*
*Applicant*	*Hotel Grand Chancellor (Auckland) Limited*
*Other parties*	*None*
*Description*	An appeal by a neighbour submitter against a decision to consent an application to demolish existing buildings & construct & operate a new hotel in a 12-storey building plus partial basement. Issues raised include close proximity and los of sunlight to apartments in the adjacent building.
*Iwi comments*	*The application did not trigger any requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment or raise any iwi or Treaty issues.*
*Status*	*New appeal.*

Appellants	1. Urban Auckland, The Society for the Protection of Auckland City and Waterfront Inc. v Auckland Council; and 2. Ngāti Whātua Orakei Whaia Maia Limited v Auckland Council	Received	15 May 2019 15 May 2019
References	ENV 2019 AKL 000087 ENV 2019 AKL 000088 CST60323353
Site address	Wharf/ 11-99 Brigham Street Auckland Central
Applicant	Panuku Development Auckland Limited
Other parties	Various 274 parties in support of applicant Devonport Heritage in support of Urban Auckland
Description	Appeal against council’s decision to grant consent to construct two ship mooring dolphins and wharf access structures from the end of Queens Wharf and undertake alterations to the existing Queens Wharf structure including strengthening, bollard replacement, new piles and modifying the sub-structure.
Iwi comments	Submissions by various Mana whenua groups opposed or supported the application however were neutral by the end of the hearing. Appeal by Ngāti Whātua Orakei Whaia Maia Limited in terms of the condition on primacy.
Status	Appeals proceed to mediation on 6 August 2019 and evidence timetabling agreed. Evidence from the applicant now exchanged and that of the Council is due 29 November. The Court has released its decision on the preliminary jurisdictional question of primacy of mana whenua status regarding the setting of mana whenua conditions of consent. Also see Westhaven breakwater appeals below. The primacy matter has since been appealed on points of law by other Iwi and was heard by the High Court on 18 June 2020. Meanwhile Panuku have surrendered the mooring dolphin consent and the appeals to that decision are therefore moot. The Court has since closed its file on 18 June 2020 and the appeals finalised.

Appellants	Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki v Auckland Council Te Ākitai O Waiohua, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Te Patukirikiri, And Ngāti Maru v Auckland Council Ngāti Whātua Orakei Whaia Maia Limited v Auckland Council	Received	30 January 2019 30 January 2019 31 January 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000014 - withdrawn ENV-2019-AKL-000015 - withdrawn ENV-2019-AKL-000016
Site address	31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central
Other Parties	Ngāti Te Ata
Description	Appeal against the decision of hearing commissioners to grant resource consents for the redevelopment of existing pile moorings within the Westhaven Marina, including land reclamation, installation of new pile berths, a new car park, and a new observation deck and public open space area
Iwi comments	The applications were publicly notified. Submissions from appellant iwi were received, along with other iwi who have not lodged an appeal against these decisions.
Status	ENV-2019-AKL-000014 and ENV-2019-AKL-000015 were withdrawn on 13 January 2019. Mediation scheduled with remaining appellant (Ngāti Whātua Orakei Whaia Maia Limited) and s274 parties on the 29 April 2019. Mediation for 29 April cancelled at the agreement of all parties, appeal will proceed to a hearing, to be held on or after 19 August. A s116 application was made to allow consents to commence while appeal is determined, this was approved by EC on the 27 March 2019. Following a judicial conference in late June it was determined that: · The Westhaven Marina appeal, and the related Mooring Dolphin appeal will be heard together; · A declaration will be filed by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei that addresses the jurisdictional issue as to whether the Environment Court has the jurisdiction to determine primacy issues where relating to the wording of consent conditions. This will be determined prior to the appeal proceedings being heard. *The current status is that the appeal is on hold.* The Court has released its decision on the preliminary jurisdictional question of primacy of mana whenua status regarding the setting of mana whenua conditions of consent. This decision has been appealed by iwi groups to the High Court.

ORAKEI (2 appeals)

Appellants	Drive Holdings Limited v Auckland Council	Received	21 October 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000283 BUN60324987
Site address	75-79, 81-87, & 89-97 Tamaki Drive, 6, 8-10, 12 and 14 Patteson Avenue, 26, 28, and 30 Marau Crescent, Mission Bay
Applicant	Drive Holdings Limited
Other parties	A. Nathan, S. O. Family Trust, Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association Inc, Support Mission Bay Inc.
Description	An appeal against a decision to refuse an application to construct a mixed-use development comprising basement carparking, servicing, storage and circulation areas, seven multi-level buildings, commercial, entertainment and residential activities.
Iwi comments	The resource consent application was publicly notified and determined by commissioners in accordance with the RMA. No submissions from iwi.
Status	New appeal. The first mediation occurred on 5 February 2020. The appellant advised that design changes would be explored and presented to the parties ahead of the second mediation scheduled for 16 March 2020. The were unable to agree to settle the appeal. The Court has directed that a pre-hearing conference be held on 28 August 2020 to discuss the outstanding issues and make timetable directions required to progress the appeal to a hearing.

Appellant

Anuj Gupta

Received

17 April 2020

References

ENV-2020-AKL 000034

Council – LUC60330205, SUB60330206, WAT60330207 and WAT60344977

Site address

88 Remuera Road, Remuera

Applicant

Anuj Gupta

Other parties

The original submitter joined as a section 274 party but later withdrew.

Description

An appeal against a decision to refuse consent for a new 5 storey apartment building with basement parking in the Business Mixed Use zone. The application was limited notified to one adjoining neighbour who made a submission and appeared at the hearing. The application was refused consent due to the effects on the infringement on the submitter. The main issue related to the height in relation to boundary infringement.

Iwi comments

The application did not raise any iwi issues. The commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular Part 2 of the RMA

Status

After the lodgement of the appeal, the applicant revised its proposal to fully comply with the height in relation to boundary. The section 274 party withdrew their interest in the appeal. Based on the revised proposal which addressed the Hearing Commissioners’ concerns, agreement was reached on the revised plans. A draft consent order has been filed with the Environment Court on 10 June 2020 to settle the appeal.

HOWICK (1 appeal)

Appellant	Box Property Investments Limited	Received	9 September 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL-000176
Site address	30 & 40 Sandspit Road and 2 & 4 Reydon Place, Shelly Beach, Auckland
Other Parties	Reydon Place Residents Society Incorporated; Howick Ratepayers and Residents Assn.
Description	An appeal against a decision declining an application for consent for a 71-unit residential development.
Iwi comments	- The application was limited-notified to neighbours. No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment. The Hearing Commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular, Part 2 of the RMA.
Status	Appeal proceeded to a brief mediation on 26 November 2019. The appellant has informed the court that they seek to place the appeal on hold and explore a revised design by way of new application. The applicant has now lodged a revised application with council for a 60-unit development with a request for direct referral.

PAPAKURA – Local Board Area (2 Appeals)

Appellant

HFT Limited

Received

25 May 2020

References

ENV-2020 -AKL 000053

- Council – BUN60304805, LUC60304921, SUB60328123

Site address

28 Inlet Road, Takanini

Applicant

HFT Limited

Other parties

- Stuart Monteith

Description

An appeal against a decision to decline consent for the construction and establishment of 17 two storey units across three blocks that will contain a mix of industrial, residential, office and storage activities. Each unit is proposed to provide for a mix of activities within the unit either being a combination of industrial and residential or industrial and commercial (office/storage) on a Business- Light Industry Zone site. The consent was publicly notified, with 2 submissions in opposition received and 7 in support.

Iwi comments

No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment and no submissions were received from iwi. The commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular Part 2 of the RMA

Status

New appeal - mediation set down for 13 July 2020.

Appellant

Wallace Group Limited, BJ Wallace Trust and SJ Wallace Trust

Received

14 March 2019

References

ENV-2019-AKL 000043

- Council – LUC60311805, DIS60303201, DIS60303159

Site address

3 Popes Road, Takanini

Applicant

Alpha Dairy Limited

Other parties

- Spark NZ Ltd

Description

- An appeal against a decision to grant consents for the construction, operation and maintenance of a new dairy processing facility for the production of infant formula on a Business- Light Industry Zone site with an area of 22,372m². The consent was publicly notified, with 4 submissions in opposition received.

Iwi comments

No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment and no submissions were received from iwi. The commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular Part 2 of the RMA

Status

Mediation set down for 28 May has since been vacated. High Court proceedings on related matters scheduled for October 2019. High Court hearing held 7-9 October. Further report to the Environment Court on the appeal required 10 days following the release of the High Court decision. Decision of the High Court on CIV-2018-404-2455 was issued on 30 June and therefore a minute to the Env Court will be filed imminently.

FRANKLIN – Local Board Area (2 Appeals)

Appellant	Signature Building Ltd	Received	22 January 2019
References	ENV-2019-AKL 000009 Council – LUC60313362
Site address	17A Bell Road, Beachlands
Applicant	Signature Building Ltd
Other parties	- Beachlands Neighbourhood Voice Inc.
Description	Appeal by the applicant against the Council decision to decline consent to establish a childcare facility for 105 children and 17 staff. The consent was publicly notified, with 83 submissions received (82 in opposition)
Iwi comments	No iwi group indicated a need for a cultural impact assessment and no submissions were received from iwi. The commissioners considered the application in accordance with the requirements of the RMA 1991 and in particular Part 2 of the RMA
Status	Mediation held 29 March. No agreement reached at mediation however parties have agreed to attend further mediation in May. A revised proposal was the subject of a second mediation on 15 May 2019. Agreement was not reached, and the matter is to be timetabled for evidence exchange and hearing. Hearing scheduled for December 2019, with caucusing and evidence exchange to occur within August to November. Following expert caucusing, a judicial settlement conference has been scheduled for 18 December with evidence to be provided by planning and landscape/urban design witnesses on 29 November. The judicial settlement conference was held, as scheduled, but adjourned due to some experts not being present to answer questions from the judge. It is to be reconvened in early 2020 unless agreement between all parties is reached in the meantime. The appellant met with the Council on 24 January 2020 and revised their proposal on 29 January. The revised proposal addressed the reasons for refusal to an extent where Council could support the grant of consent, subject to conditions. The JSC was resumed on 5 May and again on 12 May and a consent order was signed by the Court on 25 June 2020, granting consent. This matter is now concluded.

Appellant	Ahuareka Trustees (No. 2) Ltd	Received	19 November 2015
References	ENV-2015-AKL-000147 Council – 42081
Site address	650-680 Whitford Maraetai Road, Whitford
Other parties	Whitford Residents and Ratepayers Association
Description	Appeal against Council’s decision to refuse consent to establish a hamlet of 186 households and ancillary buildings, a country pub and restaurant, retail and commercial units and carpark in the Whitford Rural B zone.
Iwi comments	No iwi submissions
Status	Appeal reported to the Committee in December 2015. Mediation held 11 February 2016. Appeal reported to the Regulatory Committee on 1 December 2016. Evidence exchange occurred in February/March 2017. Judicial teleconference held 30 March. Court hearing proceeded within the week 3 July 2017, with the applicants reply to be filed in writing. Decision of the Court received 15 December 2017 – appeal declined. Significant policy-based decision supporting provisions of AUP (OP). Court costs being sought, otherwise appeal matters complete. The Environment Court decision since appealed by the appellant to the High Court on 26 January 2018. A case management conference is scheduled for 6 March. Council filed its submissions on 31 August and a hearing has been set for 9 October 2018. The appellant’s lawyer requested a deferral for health reasons, which was agreed to. The hearing will now not be held until early 2019. High Court hearing held 9 May 2019 and awaiting decision. Decision of the High Court released 2 December 2019, dismissing the appeal on all grounds. The appellant has since sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. Council is opposing their leave and submissions are due March 2020. The Court of appeal declined to grant leave to appeal on 28 May 2020. The consent is declined, and this matter is now final, subject to an application for costs by the Council against the appellant.

No.

Title

Page

a ⇩

Hearings Held 1 January 2020 - 31 March 2020

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