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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 20 April 2021

10.00am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert St
Auckland

 

Komiti Whakahaere ā-Ture /

Regulatory Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

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

 

 

Member Glenn Wilcox

 

 

Cr Paul Young

 

Ex-officio

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

 

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Maea Petherick

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

14 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 417 830

Email: maea.petherick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 



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

20 April 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                 9

2          Declaration of Interest                                          9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                         9

4          Petitions                                                                 9  

5          Public Input                                                           9

6          Local Board Input                                                 9

7          Extraordinary Business                                     10

8          Signage Bylaw 2015 Review Detailed Options Report                                                                  11

9          Hearing request on the proposed land exchange of 25 Barbarich Drive for 50 Tihi Street, Stonefields                                              43

10        Boarding House Inspection Programme Update                                                                  55

11        Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 20 April 2021                                                             59

12        Summary of Regulatory Committee Information - updates, memos and briefings - 20 April 2021                                                        69

13        Objection to stormwater works at 104 Union Road, Howick                                                      77

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Mayor P Goff has been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)          confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 16 March 2021, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

5          Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

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

 


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

Signage Bylaw 2015 Review Detailed Options Report

File No.: CP2021/00340

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek a decision on the preferred structure and content of a new signage bylaw.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       To enable the Regulatory Committee to determine the structure and content of a new signage bylaw, staff have completed a detailed options report (Attachment A).

3.       In 2020, the committee (REG/2020/66) and the Board of Auckland Transport requested a detailed options report on a new bylaw that combined the following:

·   Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau and Ngā Kaitoko Mahi Kaikawe o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu / Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015

·   Te Ture a Rohe mo nga Tohu Pānui Pōti a Auckland Transport 2013 / the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

4.       Staff considered six options. Four options failed to implement previous decisions of the committee and the board. Staff assessed in detail the other two options for creating a new signage bylaw:

·   Option 1: Current Bylaw uses a structure similar to the current Bylaw with a focus on sign types and uses

·   Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure uses a structure similar to Chapter E23 (Signs) in the Auckland Unitary Plan with a focus on location and activity.

5.       Staff recommend that the committee request staff to prepare a statement of proposal based on Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure. Taking this approach will start the process of adopting a new bylaw that is easier to read, understand and comply with, and help future discussions about re-distributing sign rules between a bylaw and the Unitary Plan.

6.       Staff do not recommend Option 1: Current structure. Option 1 is potentially slightly less effective as its complicated structure makes it more difficult to read and harder to understand than Option 2. While current bylaw users may have to adjust to Option 2’s new structure, it will be easier for all users to read, understand and comply with after a short transition period.

7.       Option 1 would be less helpful than Option 2 in any future redistribution of signs rules between bylaws and the Unitary Plan.

8.       The committee also requested further investigation of the use of landowner approvals to ban all off-licence outlet alcohol signage on council controlled public places.

9.       Staff do not recommend using landowner approvals to ban off-licence outlet alcohol signage on council controlled public places. Staff consider that this non-regulatory action would not meet public law decision-making requirements of appropriateness.

10.     Staff will however continue to explore other methods to reduce community exposure to alcohol marketing by off-licence outlets independent of the signage bylaw review as requested by the committee in October 2020 (REG/2020/66).

11.     There is a low risk that some stakeholders or the public may express concern about a new sign bylaw based on a recommended Option 2: Unitary Plan structure. This risk is mitigated by future public consultation, where views can be expressed on the proposed bylaw.

12.     If approved, staff will prepare a statement of proposal for approval by the committee, Board of Auckland Transport and Governing Body. Public engagement will follow, with the Governing Body and Auckland Transport making a final decision by March 2022.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      agree that Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure as contained in Part A of Attachment A of the agenda report is the preferred form of a new bylaw to manage signs in Auckland.

b)      request that staff as delegated by the Chief Executive and the Board of Auckland Transport prepare a Statement of Proposal that:

i)    makes a new signage bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002, the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Prostitution Reform Act 2003

ii)   uses a structure described in Part A of Attachment A of this agenda report

iii)  addresses the matters detailed in Appendix 1 of Attachment A of this agenda report.

c)       agree that using landowner approvals is not an appropriate method to ban off-licence outlet alcohol signage on council controlled public places.

d)      note that council will continue to explore other methods to reduce community exposure to alcohol marketing by off-licence outlets independent of the signage bylaw review as requested by the committee in October 2020 (REG/2020/66).

 

Horopaki

Context

Two bylaws currently regulate signs in Auckland

13.     Two bylaws regulate signs in Auckland:

·   Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau and Ngā Kaitoko Mahi Kaikawe o Tāmaki Makaurau Ture ā-Rohe mo nga Tohu / Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Signage Bylaw 2015

·   Te Ture a Rohe mo nga Tohu Pānui Pōti a Auckland Transport 2013 / the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

14.     The Signage Bylaw minimises risks to public safety, prevents nuisance and misuse of council controlled public places, and protects the environment from the negative impacts of signs.

15.     The Election Signs Bylaw addresses public safety and amenity concerns from the negative impacts of election signs.

16.     Both bylaws align with strategic directions in the Auckland Plan 2050, including moving to a safe transport network, creating inclusive public places, quality urban form, and creating a resilient Auckland economy.

17.     Both bylaws are also part of a wider regulatory signs framework that includes the Auckland Unitary Plan (for example for billboards) and Waka Kotahi / New Zealand Transport Agency rules (for signs on motorways and state highways).

Decisions to date are to request detailed options for a new combined bylaw

18.     The Signage Bylaw will expire on 28 May 2022.

19.     The committee[1] and Board of Auckland Transport[2] decided in response to a review of the Signage Bylaw in mid 2020 and high-level options in late 2020, that:

·   there are ongoing signage issues in Auckland that continue to require regulation

·   a bylaw about signs is still required and must be adopted before 28 May 2022

·   a new signage bylaw that combines the Signage Bylaw and Election Signs Bylaw is the best option to simplify the regulatory framework, update sign standards and be easier to understand

·   more effective and efficient options for redistributing sign rules between a bylaw and the Unitary Plan should be considered during future reviews of each tool

·   staff provide detailed options for combining the Signage Bylaw and Election Signs Bylaw (Part A of this report).

Committee also sought advice on restricting alcohol marketing outside off-licence outlets

20.     At the same meetings in 2020, the committee decided in response to concerns about the exposure of young people to alcohol marketing outside off-licence alcohol outlets that:

·   evidence that advertising contributes to alcohol-related harm is strong but the attributable evidence to advertising outside off-licence outlets is weak to non-existent

·   imposing restrictions that go significantly beyond national regulatory requirements without strong supporting evidence may create legal risk for the council

·   staff prioritise proactive enforcement of off-licence outlets’ compliance with existing sign rules as an operational response

·   staff further investigate the option of using landowner approvals to ban all off-licence outlet alcohol signage on council controlled public places (Part B of this report)

·   staff further investigate other options for using a bylaw to restrict off-licence outlet alcohol signage independent of the development of a new signage bylaw.

Staff used the review findings and high-level options to prepare a detailed options report

21.     Staff used the review findings and high-level options report to develop the Signage Bylaw 2015 Detailed Options Report in Attachment A. This included defining the problem, objective and outcome, and assessing options against criteria in two parts:

·   Part A: Options to create a new signage bylaw

·   Part B: Use of landowner approval to ban off-licence alcohol signage.

The joint working group has provided feedback on the detailed options report

22.     The committee appointed a joint working group to consider statutory options in response to the findings from the review of the Signage Bylaw (REG/2020/3). The joint working group includes representatives from the committee, local boards, Auckland Transport and the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

23.     The Joint Working Party is scheduled to meet on 13 April 2020 after this agenda item is publicly available. Staff will table the group’s views on the detailed options report in Attachment A at the committee’s meeting on 20 April.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Part A: Options to create a new signage bylaw

The problem, objective and outcome relate to public safety, nuisance and misuse

24.    Based on the findings and the high-level options report, the problem, objective and outcome of Part A can be defined as follows:

Staff identified two options for creating a new signage bylaw

25.     Staff assessed in detail two options for creating a new signage bylaw. Both options update the current rules in response to earlier findings (Appendix 1 of Attachment A). The difference between the two options relates to how the rules are organised.

Option 1: Similar to current structure

Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure

· Uses a structure similar to the current Bylaw with a focus on sign types and uses

· Uses a structure similar to Chapter E23 (Signs) in the Auckland Unitary Plan with a focus on location and activity

26.     Staff also considered four other statutory options below which are not recommended:

·   retain the status quo of the current Signage Bylaw because the committee and Auckland Transport determined it needs to be updated and include election sign rules

·   amend the current Signage Bylaw because it will expire on 28 May 2022 

·   make a new signage bylaw with fundamentally different rules because both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have determined that only some rules need updating

·   revoke the current Signage Bylaw or allow it to expire because both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have determined a bylaw is still necessary.

Options were assessed for their effectiveness, efficiency and validity

27.     Staff completed a comparative assessment of the two options against assessment criteria that reflect the core objective, as well as council’s statutory duties under the Local Government Act 2002 and Land Transport Act 1998.

28.     The following table summarises the full assessment contained in Attachment A. The full assessment includes a description of what each option does, how it is implemented and its statutory authority, provides an assessment of the option, and makes a recommendation.

29.     The number of “” an option receives reflects how well it mitigates the risks of each criterion. An option with more “” means it is better at that criterion relative to the other option.

Option

Effectiveness at …

Efficiency at …

Validity at …

mitigating risks to public safety, nuisance and misuse of council controlled public places, and at protecting the environment

·    Option 1: Current structure

ü

ü

ü

·    Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure (Recommended)

üü

üü

ü

Option 2 is recommended as it is easier to understand and facilitates future changes

30.     Staff recommend Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure. This option would:

·   be more efficient, as – in the long-term – its organisation of the rules will be easier for customers to read and understand

·   potentially be slightly more effective than Option 1: Current structure as its efficiency may result in increased voluntary compliance

·   be easier to administer

·   help future discussions about re-distributing sign rules between a bylaw and the Unitary Plan.

31.     Staff do not recommend Option 1: Current structure. Option 1 is potentially slightly less effective as its complicated structure makes it more difficult to read and harder to understand than Option 2. While current bylaw users may have to adjust to Option 2’s new structure, it will be easier for all users to read, understand and comply with after a short transition period.

32.     Option 1 would be less helpful than Option 2 in any future redistribution of signs rules between bylaws and the Unitary Plan.

Part B: Use of landowner approval to ban off-licence alcohol signage

The problem, objective and outcome for Part B primarily relate to public health

33.     Based on the findings and the high-level options report, the problem, objective and outcome of Part B can be defined as follows:

Staff assessed whether option is appropriate, effective and aligned with council strategy

34.     Staff assessed the option against criteria including whether it is an appropriate use of the council’s non-regulatory powers.

35.     The following section summarises the full assessment in Attachment A.

Using landowner approval to ban off-licence alcohol signage is not recommended

36.     Staff do not recommend using landowner approval to ban off-licence outlet alcohol signage on council controlled public places. The main reason is because this action would fail to meet public law decision-making requirements about appropriateness. Council has specific bylaw-making powers for this purpose and evidence that advertising outside off-licenced outlets contributes to alcohol-related harm is weak to non-existent.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37.     No impacts from the report decision. The Signage Bylaw and the Election Signs Bylaw are regulatory tools to manage the impacts of signs and do not directly impact climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38.     The Signage Bylaw and Election Signs Bylaw impact Auckland Transport, the Regulatory Compliance Unit which administers and enforces the Bylaws, and all council operations relating to advertising and promotions (for example for events).

39.     Relevant staff provided feedback and suggested improvements that are addressed in Appendix 1 of Attachment A. Council teams are aware of the impacts of possible changes to the current Bylaws and their implementation role.

40.     While this report has been prepared in consultation with Auckland Transport it represents the views of Auckland Council staff. Auckland Transport board members provided views at the joint working group and staff will report separately to the Auckland Transport Board.

41.     The options in Part A account for the council’s and Auckland Transport’s mutually exclusive jurisdictions relating to signs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42.     The Signage Bylaw has an impact on local governance. For example, council staff seek local board input on decisions about local community events, facilities and park signage, as local boards have ‘landowner authority’ over these areas.

43.     Local board members provided informal feedback about specific signs at cluster workshops in November 2018. These concerns are addressed in Appendix 1 of Attachment A.

44.     The joint working party (which includes two local board members) supported the high-level option to create a new signage bylaw and raised a number of detailed matters that are addressed in Appendix 1 of Attachment A.

45.     Joint working party views on the detailed options report will be tabled at the meeting.

46.     All local boards will have an opportunity to provide their views on a draft Statement of Proposal before the Regulatory Committee considers it.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

47.     The Bylaw supports the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau by facilitating opportunities for Māori business owners to make their businesses uniquely identifiable and visible. Signs also have the potential to cause harm and nuisance to all people living in Tāmaki Makaurau.

48.     People identifying as Māori presented views during the review that related to specific signs. This feedback primarily identified inappropriate signage standards and ways to improve them. These views are addressed in Appendix 1 of Attachment A.

49.     Staff will engage with mana whenua and mataawaka during any future public consultation to create opportunities to provide their views on any new bylaw.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50.     There are no financial implications. The cost of reviewing the Bylaw and its implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51.     The following risk has been identified:

If…

Then…

Mitigation

Stakeholders or the public are opposed or concerned about the proposed options.

There may be negative attention to council about its Bylaw review processes and consultation to date.

Future opportunity for stakeholders and the public to provide feedback on the proposed Bylaw as part of the statutory public consultation process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52.     If Option 2: Unitary Plan-inspired structure is approved, the next steps are shown below.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Signage Bylaw 2015 Review Detailed Options Report 2021

19

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Steve Hickey - Policy Analyst

Victor Faletutulu - Graduate Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

Hearing request on the proposed land exchange of 25 Barbarich Drive for 50 Tihi Street, Stonefields

File No.: CP2021/04139

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To appoint an independent commissioner to hear submissions on the proposed land exchange at Stonefields in Mount Wellington. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council publicly consulted on a proposed land exchange at Stonefields following a Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977 process.

3.       A total of 97 submissions were received. 57 opposed the proposed land exchange, 40 supported, and six of the objectors requested to present in person at a hearing.

4.       Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee appoints an independent commissioner to hear the six submitters who requested to present their submission in person.

5.       The independent commissioner will make a recommendation on the proposed land exchange for the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee to consider in its decision-making.

6.       There is low risk of a judicial review of Auckland Council decision-making processes if Auckland Council follows the statutory process.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      appoint an independent commissioner for the proposed land exchange of 2970m2 of land at 25 Barbarich Drive with 19,425m2 of land located at 50 Tihi Street in Stonefields to

i)     hear submissions in accordance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977

ii)    consider all submissions received and make a recommendation based on matters in scope of the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 for consideration by the Parks, Arts, Community, and Events Committee in their decision-making.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       In December 2020, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved the notification of a proposed exchange of approximately 2970m2 of land at 25 Barbarich Drive with approximately 19,425m2 of land at 50 Tihi Street in Stonefields. Figure 1 below shows the two land parcels that were proposed to be exchanged.

8.       This proposal is in-principle because Auckland Council does not hold the title to 25 Barbarich Drive.

9.       Under an existing agreement, the land will vest with the council under section 239 of the Resource management Act 1991 as an unclassified recreation reserve upon deposit of the plans for the subdivision with Land Information New Zealand by the developer.

10.     As the land will vest in council as an unclassified reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 it should be afforded all the statutory protections of the Act.

11.     Staff recommended notification of the exchange as acquiring the site could benefit the local community by:

·       ensuring public access to the existing walking path

·       protecting Stonefields cultural and natural heritage

·       enlarging and enhancing the reserve on Maungarei/Mount Wellington.

Figure 1: Proposed land exchange is the area outlined in red (25 Barbarich) for the area outlined in blue (50 Tihi Street)

Public consultation findings

12.     The five-week notification period closed on 9 March 2021. A total of 97 submissions were received. Of these, 57 submitters opposed the exchange, and 40 submitters supported the exchange.

13.     The nature of objections to the proposed land exchange is in relation to loss of green space, opposition to residential intensification and traffic, and concern over appropriate compensation for the two land values.

14.     Six of the objecting submitters requested to present in support of their submission at a hearing.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee appoints an independent commissioner as the proposed land exchange involves a private development agreement with the developer, has a significant amount of opposition, and has six requesting to speak to their submissions. 


 

16.     The independent commissioner will review all submissions and hear those who wish to present their submission verbally as well. The independent commissioner will make a recommendation having considered all submissions received and based on the matters within scope of the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

17.     The recommendation will be considered as part of an agenda report to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee for decision-making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     There are no climate impacts arising from the hearing process.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     There are no council group impacts arising from the hearing process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.     The Ōrākei Local Board resolved at its meeting on 19 November 2020 that it supported in principle public notification as an initial step to provide an opportunity for the community and residents to provide their views.

21.     Community views were sought through the public notification process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22.     Consultation with mana whenua was undertaken as part of the public notification process.

23.     The iwi consulted were Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Te Ahiwaru, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board, Te Patukirikiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, and Waikato-Tainui.

24.     No objections to the proposal were received from iwi.

25.     Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki provided their support noting the exchange would provide improvement to connectivity and ensuring the preservation of the immediate Maungarei landscape.

26.     The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority has indicated it is willing to meet all costs associated with administration of the site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27.     The fees paid to the independent commissioner will be passed on to the applicant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.     Any risk of a judicial review of council decision-making processes is minimised if the process follows the statutory requirements of the Reserves act 1977.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29.     Staff will work with the independent commissioner to convene suitable dates for the hearing and notify the six submitters accordingly.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

December 2020 PACE - Proposed Stonefields Land Exchange Report

47

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

Boarding House Inspection Programme Update

File No.: CP2021/03499

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update the committee on the proactive Boarding House Inspection Programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report covers activity over the last 12 months in relation to the ongoing inspections of boarding houses across the Auckland Region.

3.       The responsibility for arranging and managing such visits currently lies with the Proactive Compliance Unit within Licensing and Regulatory Compliance. Prior to the October 2020 the visits were carried out by the Targeted Initiatives Team within the former Regulatory Compliance Unit. This has not affected the programme with visits being conducted throughout the changeover.

4.       The programme aims to visit at least three boarding houses each month. We are using a multi-agency approach, so as well as compliance staff from the Proactive Compliance Unit, the visits are coordinated to include Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) officers, Environmental Health Inspectors and inspectors from the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

5.       Officers have focused on those boarding houses identified from intelligence gathered by all of the agencies involved. A risk-based approach is then adopted to prioritise visits.

6.       Over the last 12 months, 20 inspections have been carried out. Whilst this is under the target of three visits a month, the disruptions through Covid 19 lockdowns at various levels, have reduced the ability to co-ordinate and carry out visits.

7.       The breaches observed, primarily related to unauthorised use and alterations to buildings in order to accommodate more people. The use and alterations significantly affected safety as well as sanitation. The general standard of the accommodation was poor in most of the properties visited, although not all could be regarded as unfit from a health perspective.

8.       Enforcement action was taken in almost all cases with owners being required to take remedial action. One case is under further investigation for breaches under both the Building Act and the Resource Management Act and may result in escalated enforcement.

9.       In most cases staff are working with the owners to improve the standard of accommodation and achieve compliance with the various regulations. The closure of boarding houses is avoided due to the lack of alternative accommodation for tenants.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive the update on the proactive Boarding House Inspection Programme.

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     The Boarding House Inspection Programme continues to deliver improved standards for residents as a result of the proactive intervention by the relevant agencies.

11.     The legislation for boarding house comes from the Building Act 2004, the Building Code 1992, the Health Act 1956, the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     A list of boarding houses to be visited has been determined based on intelligence held by Auckland Council and MBIE, with input from other agencies. In total there are 72 properties on the list with 36 having been visited already over the last 18 months. These will remain on the list for ongoing monitoring once compliant as a slippage in standards has been observed when no ongoing monitoring is maintained.

13.     Inspection notification letters are sent to all boarding houses to encourage the operators to take measures to ensure compliance with existing legislation.

14.     The boarding houses to be inspected are sent letters 5-10 days prior to inspection. Where intelligence suggest there is an imminent risk to residents an immediate inspection is arranged.

Multi Agency Approach

15.     Coordinating inspections with other agencies is challenging in terms of availability and resourcing. However, the approach is impactive with landlords having to account for all aspects of their business. Invariably if a landlord is lacking in one area of compliance this is reflected in other areas as well.

Results

16.     Several properties visited were illegally established boarding houses that house residents referred by WINZ or Corrections. Due to the shortage of bed space these agencies struggle to find appropriate accommodation at short notice.

17.     One property housed mental health patients. This property had serious defects to its Building Warrant of Fitness (BWoF) and was insanitary. Officers worked with them after issuing a ‘Notice to Fix’ as there was no suitable place to move the occupants to. The owner has been motivated to resolve the issues and receives ongoing monitoring.

18.     Several properties were found to be large, converted houses ranging from 5 to 21 rooms. Whilst the living conditions were satisfactory, the buildings themselves did not meet the required building standards for sleeping accommodation. Primarily this relates to fire separation and general fire safety requirements.

19.     The owner of one converted house claimed it to be a flat share arrangement and not a boarding house. He had signed agreements with all 9 occupants. Whilst he claimed it was not a boarding house, it did meet the definition of sleeping accommodation under the Building Act and as such required relevant fire safety provisions. The owner has sought an MBIE determination.

20.     One property was a large, old hospital converted to a boarding house. It had a BWoF that allowed 30 rooms. The BWoF regime had not been followed and as a result it was cancelled, and they were required to update it. Whilst they had a resource consent to house up to 100 residents, they had not met the requirements of the consent in relation to building work to convert the property and meet the relevant fire safety standards. At the time of the visit there were 58 residents. Due to the reluctance of the owner, the matter has been referred to the Compliance Investigations Team for escalated enforcement action.

21.     Whilst in most cases the boarding houses were set up as a business, a recent visit to a church run operation showed similar non-compliant issues to those run for profit. As with all other interactions with operators a graduated approach was adopted taking into account the circumstances of the individuals and the lack of suitable alternative accommodation.

22.     A growing trend has seen the development of large houses with six to eight bedrooms, multiple living areas and kitchens being using as boarding houses. Whilst they were consented as large family homes there appears to have been no intent to use them for that purpose. This type of operation is difficult to detect and relies on complaints from the community. These primarily relate to overcrowding and parking problems.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.     There are no climate impacts from this programme.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24.     This programme focuses on regulatory matters managed within Licensing and Regulatory Compliance. Whilst the Regulatory Committee has a keen interest in the progress of the programme, the Kōmiti Whakarite Parae, Mahi Toi, Hapori, Kaupapa / Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee also have a community interest and will receive a copy of the report in their May committee meeting.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25.     The boarding house proactive programme aims to address non-compliance across the region and ultimately improve living conditions and uphold the rights of tenants.

26.     Whilst most local board areas have boarding houses of some kind, disproportionally the central and southern areas have a large proportion of those known to council. These tend to be in low socioeconomic areas where tenants are more vulnerable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27.     This proactive compliance programme aims to improve living conditions and protect the rights of all tenants. Ensuring greater compliance with relevant statutes and regulations will improve living conditions for all tenants, including Maori.

28.     Officers have limited interaction with tenants when conducting inspections, but anecdotally from observations it is likely Maori are over-represented in terms of occupancy of boarding houses.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     There are no direct financial implications as these inspections have been undertaken as part of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance’s programme run by the Proactive Compliance Unit. The only revenue generated from these activities comes from the billing of time for ongoing investigations and infringements issued under the Building Act 2004 and RMA.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30.     By adopting a risk-based, intelligence led approach the programme focuses on properties that are more likely to have poor standards and therefore non-compliant. In almost all cases living conditions and safety are improved.

31.     A general inspection regime of all boarding houses would be extremely resource intensive and costly. Adopting a risk-based approach makes best use of staff time and that of other agencies involved in the programme.

32.     Whilst the list of boarding houses still to be visited is relatively large, these are prioritised according to the information provided and the concerns of the agencies involved.

33.     The increasing number of boarding houses accommodating 501 deportees from Australia is of concern from an Auckland Council staff safety perspective as many are gang affiliated. This poses a risk to staff which is mitigated by arranging for Police to accompany staff on inspections. This is similar to the approach adopted when visiting bail type hostels.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

34.     All agencies are committed to ongoing collaboration on the programme and meet regularly to share information and plan operations.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Adrian Wilson - Manager Proactive Compliance, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Authorisers

James Hassall - General Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Compliance

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 20 April 2021

File No.: CP2021/03884

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This memorandum provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the Auckland Council is a party. It updates the report to the Regulatory Committee on 8 March 2021.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 20 April 2021

 

Horopaki

Context

4.       As at 9 April 2021, there are 17 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south as set out in Attachment A.  Changes since the last report and new appeals received are shown in bold italic text.

5.       The principal specialist planners - resource consents, continue to resolve these appeals expeditiously. In the period since preparing the previous status report on 8 March 2021, there have been no new appeals lodged or appeals resolved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

6.       To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

7.       The report provides an update of consent appeals and seeks no resolution or consideration of the merits associated with them.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

8.       Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

9.       Not applicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

10.     The decision requested of the Regulatory Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to consider the relevance to Māori associated with each of the appeals at this time.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

13.     Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

14.     Not applicable.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Current Resource Consent Appeals as at 9 April 2021

61

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

Summary of Regulatory Committee Information - updates, memos and briefings - 20 April 2021

File No.: CP2021/03268

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been held or distributed to committee members since 16 March 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

4.       The following papers / memos were circulated to members:

Date

 

08/04/2021

Hearings held April 2020 – March 2021

12/04/2021

Community and Social Policy Regulatory Practice

 

5.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

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

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

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      receive the summary of the Regulatory Committee report – 20 April 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Regulatory Committee Forward Work Programme

71

b

Memo: Hearings held April 2020 to March 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memo: Community and Social Policy  Regulatory Practice (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maea Petherick - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

 

Kōmiti Whakahaere ā-Ture / Regulatory Committee
Forward Work Programme 2021

This committee deals with regulatory hearings, appointing independent commissioners and for the development of regulatory policy and bylaws.

The full terms of reference can be found here.

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

Highlight the month(s) this is expected to come to committee in 2021

no meeting

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Alcohol Licensing

Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

Report on the revenue received and the costs incurred for the alcohol licensing process – required by regulation 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013.

Note that the majority of alcohol licensing costs were recovered from the existing default licensing fees regime for the twelve months to 30 June

Confirm continuance of the default licensing fees regime

Review the default licensing fees regime after a suitable period of time has elapsed following the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal Management

Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

Report on Animal Management activities for the year ending August/Sept 2021as required by s10a of the Dog Control Act 1996

 

Note:  that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide the 2020/2021 report to the Secretary of Local Government

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boarding Houses Inspection

Licensing and Compliance Services

Update on the Auckland proactive boarding houses inspections programme.

Increase inspections from one to a minimum of three per month focusing on high-risk boarding houses identified from complaint data.

Update:  report to Regulatory Committee and the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animal management Bylaw Review

Community and Social Policy

This Bylaw promotes responsible animal ownership, including minimising impact on neighbours, the public and preventing damage.

 

Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a statement of proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

Progress to Date:

Findings Report 17 March 2020
Link to decision

Options Report 17 November 2020

Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction Bylaw 2015

Community and Social Policy

Bylaw relates to construction activity on or near public places or infrastructure.

This Bylaw will expire on 29 October 2022 and council must (if a bylaw is still necessary) make a new bylaw to avoid a regulatory gap.

Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Maintenance Nuisance Bylaw Review

Community and Social Policy

This Bylaw requires private property to be maintained well enough that doesn't create a nuisance or risk health and safety.

Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.

Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw.  If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

Progress to Date:

Review and Findings Report 1 September 2020
Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signage Bylaw Review

Community and Social Policy

This is a joint bylaw with Auckland Transport that regulates promotional signs to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance from poorly maintained or located signage.

Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw.  If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

Progress to Date:

Findings Report 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Options report 13 October 2020

Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stormwater Bylaw

Healthy Waters / Community and Social Policy

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.

Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

Progress to Date:

Findings Report 28 July 2020
Link to decision

Options Report 16 March 2021

Link to decision

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trading and Events Bylaw Review

Community and Social Policy

This Bylaw regulates businesses and events that use public spaces to make sure everyone can use them fairly and safely.

This Bylaw expires on 22 February 2022 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.

Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

Progress to Date:

Findings Report 13 October 2020

Link to decision

Options Report 16 February 2021

Link to decision

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Bylaw Review

Community and Social Policy

This Bylaw regulates the use of vehicles on council-controlled land that is not part of the Auckland transport system, like parks and beaches.

This Bylaw expires on 25 June 2022 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.

Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

Updated to commence January 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wharves Bylaw 2015

Community and Social Policy

Bylaw relates to use of council-controlled wharves.

This Bylaw will expire on 29 October 2022 and council must (if a bylaw is still necessary) make a new bylaw to avoid a regulatory gap.

Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resource Consents Appeal Update

 

Resource Consents

To provide oversight of the appeals received to resource consent decisions.

Information purposes

Monthly report

 

ü

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Regulatory Services Directorate

 

Director Regulatory Services

Report on:

·    progress implementing the Food Act 2014

·    insights into the performance, opportunities and risk of the Resources Consents Dept

·    progress implementing the Regulatory Compliance programme

·    transformation activity update

·    building consents and control

·    resource consents and regulatory engineering

For information only:

6 monthly updates

 

 

 

Progress to Date:

Provide the Regulatory Committee with an overview and an update on performance, opportunities and risks of Regulatory Services

17 November 2020
Link to powerpoint presentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Completed

Lead Department

Area of work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Decision

Community & Social Policy

Alcohol Control Bylaw review

This Bylaw provides the structure for creating alcohol bans. Individual boards use it to make decisions about local bans.

Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommend a Statement of Proposal to the Governing Body to amend bylaw.

Appoint Bylaw Panel to make recommendations to the Governing Body on the proposal after hearing and deliberating on public feedback and local board input.

Development of proposal to amend bylaw to commence in February 2020.

 

 

Finding Report 11 April 2019
Link to decision

Options Report 9 May 2019
Link to decision

Recommendation for Statement of Proposal 1 September 2020
Link to decision

Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body 29 October 2020
Link to decision

Licensing & Regulatory Compliance

Animal Management

Report on Animal Management activities for the year ending August/Sept 2020 as required by s10a of the Dog Control Act 1996

 

Note:  that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide the 2019/2020 report to the Secretary of Local Government

Adopt the 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report

Link to decision

Link to 2019/2020 Animal Management Annual Report

 

Community and Social Policy

Bylaw Review 2020-22 initiation

Initiation of new bylaw reviews. Includes ‘Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws - Agreed Principles and Processes 2019’

Council has a statutory obligation to periodically review its bylaws.

Decision on the initiation of bylaw reviews that must be completed by October 2022. Report will for each bylaw:

·    set out scope

·    legislative constraints/enablers (if any)

·    relevance to LBs

·    proposed process (including LB involvement)

·    key timeframes

·    public consultation approach

whether a joint working group for early bylaw/policy development is proposed and initiate appointment process if necessary.

Initiation Report 18 February 2020
Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Cemeteries Bylaw Review (Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014)

This Bylaw and code of practice protects health and safety and minimises potential offensive behaviour.

Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommend a Statement of Proposal to the Governing Body to amend bylaw.

Appoint Bylaw Panel to make recommendations to the Governing Body on the proposal after hearing and deliberating on public feedback and local board input.

Development of proposal to amend bylaw to commence in February 2020.

 

Options Report 9 April 2019
Link to decision

Direction Report 9 May 2019
Link to decision

Proposal to amend 1 September 2020
Link to decision

Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body 24 September 2020
Link to decision

Adopt the amended Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw 2014

link to decision

 

Building Consents

Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011 -2016 Review

2011 - Auckland Council was required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings

2018 – Due to the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, Auckland Council’s management of earthquake-prone buildings now falls under the national policy and methodology set by MBIE. Our ongoing work programme for issuing statutory EPB notices, receiving seismic assessments, and identifying residual potential EPBs is being carried out on this basis.

Note that dangerous and insanitary buildings continue to have their own local policy that is now under the management of Regulatory Compliance.

 

Update:  on the progress made in implementing Auckland Council’s regulatory obligations with regard to earthquake-prone buildings within its jurisdiction.

Approve submission 28 July 2020
Link to decision

 

Community and Social Policy

Food Bylaw Review

 

Appoint Bylaw Panel

Decision on bylaw - Due to COVID19 the decision went to the Governing Body

 

 

Adoption 30 April 2020
Link to decision

 

Community and Social Policy

Freedom Camping

This Bylaw replaces legacy requirements to manage freedom camping in vehicles, under the Freedom Camping Act.

The legacy bylaws expiry on 29 October 2022.

Decision on options to progress a council approach for a Statement of Proposal on freedom camping in vehicles.

 

Deferred to Governing Body

Community and Social Policy

Gambling Policy Reviews

The Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Act 2003 (the Acts) regulate gambling in New Zealand.  The Acts require the policies to be reviewed every three years. Auckland Council (Council) first adopted these policies in 2013.

Council reviewed them in 2017, found they were generally effective and retained both with no changes.

 

Decision: start of the Class 4 Gambling (pokie) Venue Policy and the Racing Board (TAB) Venue Policy reviews in 2020

Council reviewed in 2020, retain both with no changes.

start policy reviews 17 March 2020
Link to decision

findings review 13 October 2020

Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Navigation Safety Bylaw Review

This Bylaw sets out the rules for all vessels and people using Auckland's waters to ensure their safety.

Council has a statutory obligation to review this Bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.

Decision on whether a bylaw still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports).

Findings Report 17 March 2020
Link to decision

Options Report 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Recommend statement of proposal 13 October 2020

link to decision

Adopt statement of proposal – Governing Body – 29 October 2020
Link to decision

Community and Social Policy

Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw Review

This Bylaw applies to a range of outdoor fire activities, including outdoor cooking and heating fires, sky lanterns, traditional cooking fires, open air fires and incinerator fires.

This Bylaw expires on 18 December 2021 and must (if necessary) be replaced to avoid a regulatory gap.

Findings resulted in decision to revoke bylaw

Decision on whether a bylaw is still needed and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw (findings and options reports).

 

Findings and Options Report 13 October 2020
Link to decision

Review findings – Governing Body – 29 October 2020
Link to decision

 

Democracy Services

The Regulatory Committee Policy

The Policy incorporates the operational policy and sub delegations for the decision-making responsibilities that lie within the areas of the committee’s responsibilities.

Review District Licensing Committee (DLC) and Independent Resource Management Act (RMA) commissioner pools.

 

Decision: adopt the updated Regulatory Committee Policy

Decision: approve the appointment of the District Licensing Committee and the selection process and appointments of independent resource management commissioners for 2021 to 2024.

Recruitment process for DLC Commissioners 12 November 2019 – Governing Body
Link to decision

30 April 2020, due to COVID19 appointment of District Licensing Committee went go to Emergency Committee
Link to decision

Appointment of DLC Committee 30 April 2020
Link to decision

Approval to commence recruitment RMA Commissioners 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Adoption of the Regulatory Committee policy 28 July 2020
Link to decision

Recommendation for the appointment of independent hearings commissioners
Link to decision

Watercare / Community and Social Policy

Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015

This bylaw protects Auckland’s water sources, water supply and wastewater networks from damage, misuse and interference.

This Bylaw will expire on 25 June 2022 and council must (if a bylaw is still necessary) make a new bylaw to avoid a regulatory gap

Decision on whether a bylaw is still need and whether any changes should be made and to confirm, amend, replace or revoke the bylaw. If required, recommend a proposal and appoint a Bylaw Panel.

 

May 2020, due to COVID19 findings report went to Emergency Committee

Findings Report 28 May 2020-Emergency Committee
Link to decision

Review Options 23 June 2020
Link to decision

Recommendation for Statement of Proposal 16 February 2021

Link to decision

Adopt Statement of Proposal – Governing Body – 25 February 2021

Link to decision

 


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

Objection to stormwater works at 104 Union Road, Howick

File No.: CP2021/03269

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater works at 104 Union Road, Howick pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A developer has obtained approval from the council to connect a new nine-lot development at 24 Andrew Road, Howick to the public stormwater manhole that is located on the neighbouring property at 104 Union Road.

3.       The proposed works involve the construction of a 35-metre length pipe along the eastern boundary under the driveway of 104 Union Road. Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset.

4.       The owners of 104 Union Road have refused the developer access to their property for this purpose. Council-led efforts to facilitate an agreement have been unsuccessful.

5.       Auckland Council staff have analysed three options for connecting the development to the public stormwater network. These included extending the public network from 3 Eaglan Place (option one), extending the public network from 104 Union Road (option two – recommended) and extending the public network from 26 Andrew Road (option three).

6.       The options were assessed against various criteria such as the number of homeowners they will impact, impact on development potential, cost and constructability. Option two scores best against these criteria.

7.       After undertaking a site inspection and considering the alternative options for the pipe the council has determined that the works constitute necessary public stormwater works. Staff have issued a notice under section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowner of their intention to construct the works as a council project.

8.       The landowner has lodged a written objection to the works, on the grounds that:

·        the developer did not contribute to the landowner’s new stormwater system

·        the council has not carried out an adequate site inspection

·        the works will damage the retaining wall on 104 Union Road’s land (see Attachment B). Staff considered the grounds for objection and undertook a further site inspection which confirmed that the retaining wall could be drilled under.

9.       Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee endorse the proposed public stormwater works at 104 Union Road, Howick. These works are the best practicable option to manage the stormwater effects of the approved development at 24 Andrew Road, Howick.

10.     If approved, the pipe will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront. 

11.     If the Regulatory Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin in June 2021 (weather dependent). The pipes will be installed using a combination of directional drilling and open trenching. The works will take approximately seven to ten days to complete.

12.     The landowner has been notified that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a)      hear and determine the objections by the owner of 104 Union Road according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

b)      resolve that the council proceed with the extension of the public stormwater network from 104 Union Road to connect 24 Andrew Road (as shown in Attachment A to the agenda report), according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

13.     Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters department is responsible for managing and maintaining the public stormwater network in Auckland, much of which is located on private land.

14.     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’.

15.     Such works require either the prior written consent of the owner of the land, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

16.     Schedule 12 requires that affected owners and occupiers 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.

17.     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.

Enabling stormwater management on 24 Andrew Road

18.     A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s regulatory department to subdivide a property at 24 Andrew Road, Howick. A condition of that resource consent is that the new development connects to the public stormwater system.

19.     The developer has obtained engineering approval to connect the subdivision to the existing public stormwater manhole located within 104 Union Road (see Attachment A). The connecting pipe will run alongside the eastern boundary of the property under the driveway of 104 Union Road.

20.     Staff propose that a 35-metre length pipe is constructed using both directional drilling and open trenching. Directional drilling, where the pipe is installed by being pulled into a hole drilled underground, will be required for installing the new pipe under and through a retaining wall. Open trenching, where the ground is excavated to the required depth of the pipe, will be required for the remainder of the pipe alignment.

21.     The driveway will be fully reinstated upon completion of the works to match the existing condition. The expected duration to carry out the work is between seven and ten days.

22.     The new pipe will be vested in Auckland Council as a public stormwater asset to be owned and maintained Healthy Waters, once it is connected to the stormwater network.

Objections received from landowner at 104 Union Road, Howick

23.     The owner of 104 Union Road has refused to allow the developer to connect to the stormwater network via their property. In December 2020 the developer applied to the council to provide facilitation services to help reach an agreement with the landowner.

24.     The council undertook a strategic assessment and site investigation and confirmed its preferred option for the pipes which aligned with the developer’s proposal. This analysis was made available to the landowner.

25.     The council provided facilitation services to the parties, but they were unable to reach an agreement for access.

26.     Staff then analysed the developer’s works (as detailed below) and determined that the works are necessary public works to enable the efficient functioning of the public stormwater network, and that the council would undertake the works itself under the powers of the Local Government Act 2002. This enables public works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

27.     On 22 February 2021 the council issued a notice of its intention to construct the works under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 to the landowner (Attachment C)

28.     Following the issue of this notice, council staff have continued to communicate with the landowner, however it has not been possible to reach an agreement.

29.     Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowner had until 26 March 2021 to formally object to the section 181 notice. On 21 March 2021 an objection was received (see Attachment B).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

30.     A condition of the resource consent granted to the owner of 24 Andrew Road is that it will connect its new development to the public stormwater network.

31.     The council is empowered to construct works on private land that it considers necessary for stormwater drainage. When determining the best option, the council looks at a 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.

32.     The council analysed three alternative alignments for connecting the development at 24 Andrew Road to the public stormwater system (see Attachment D).

33.     These options were:

·        option one: extending the public network from 3 Eaglen Place across the boundary of 2 Eaglen Place

·        option two: extending the public network from 104 Union Road (recommended option)

·        option three: extending the public network from 26 Andrew Road.

34.     The three options were analysed against relevant criteria as shown below in Table 1.          

Table 1. Analysis of alignment options against various criteria

 

Option one

Extending from 3 Eaglen Place (shown in yellow in Attachment D)

Option two

Extending from 104 Union Rd (shown in red)

Recommended option

Option three

Extending from 26 Andrew Road (shown in green)

Significance

Interference with existing services

 

None

 

None

Medium

Medium

Disruption to property owners

Minor – developers have offered to re-align pipe to run along the boundary

Minor – site is currently under construction, dwelling seen on map has been removed

None

High

Cost

$$

$

$$$

Medium

Route to existing stormwater network

Less direct

55m

Most direct

31m

Least direct

95m

Low

Ability for third-party properties to connect to proposed infrastructure

Good

Good

n/a

Low

Access for future maintenance

Restricted. 3 Eaglen Place is developing and access may be gained along eastern property boundary

Good

Good

Medium

Duplication of existing stormwater infrastructure

100%

(line already exists along boundary of Union Road)

0%

0%

Medium

Impact on development potential

Medium – owners have indicated they wish to install a pool in the garden. Pipe would need to be re-aligned along boundary and have sufficient clearance

None – pipe would run alongside boundary under land designated as carparking space

None

Medium

Constructability risk

Medium

Large oak trees impacted

Low

Site is undeveloped.  Retaining wall and existing stormwater system to be accounted for

Medium

Major

Compliance with Stormwater Code of Practice – does not require pumping

Yes

Yes

No

Medium

 

Most positive

Moderately positive

Moderately negative

Most negative

Key

Analysing options for stormwater management on 24 Andrew Road

35.     Option one (extending from 3 Eaglen Place) is a less favourable option as it will involve having to construct the pipe under the drip line and trunk of multiple large trees on 2 Eaglen Place. Landscaping has taken place on 2 Eaglen Place which may not provide sufficient cover over the new pipe, presenting a construction risk. This option is also the least direct and results in duplication of the stormwater network, as the two pipes will run in parallel eventually converging to one larger pipe downstream.

36.     Option three involves pumping the stormwater out to the road to connect at 26 Andrew Road. The Stormwater Code of Practice does not support pumping in this manner as it increases the risk of flooding and requires on-going maintenance.

37.     A fourth option - do nothing - was also considered. This would see the council leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the landowner. This option is not supported as the developer has been trying to get a connection since mid-2020 and continues to hinder its approved development. Staff consider that the developer is likely to pursue a sub-optimal solution for managing its stormwater, should access to 104 Union Road continue to be refused.

38.     As demonstrated by the weightings set out in Table 1 above, option two is the preferred option for the following reasons:

·        the route does not interfere with any existing services

·        the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowner’s property, resulting in minimal disturbance

·        the land proposed to be crossed is a driveway and not land that could be developed for housing or other structures

·        the pipe route is the most logical and direct to reach the connection point

·        the route does not duplicate existing stormwater infrastructure

·        good access is available to maintain the pipe

·        the route is not dependent on pumping and complies with the Stormwater Code of Practice.

Negotiating with the landowner

39.     Negotiations with the landowner have been ongoing since October 2020. Initially negotiations were held directly between the developer and the landowner, with the council becoming involved from December 2020 onwards.

40.     The council has attempted to engage with the landowner to offer advice on the proposed works and broker an agreement including a further on-site meeting with the landowner following receipt of their objection letter. Those meetings have failed to result in an agreement for access.

Summary of objections received

41.     Table 2 details the grounds upon which the landowner objects to the works and Healthy Waters response.

Table 2. Summary of objections

Objection points

Response from Healthy Waters

The developer did not contribute to the landowner’s new stormwater system.

The stormwater works undertaken by the landowner to connect their land to the public network were undertaken at a time when the developer had not finalised its stormwater options. If the works were coordinated it would have resulted in cost savings for both the landowner and the developer. The landowner will not be responsible for any associated with the new pipe and reinstatement of its land.

Auckland Council has failed to carry out an adequate site inspection of 104 Union Road.

Council staff carried out a site inspection of 104 Union Road on 16 December 2020 (see Attachment E). Following receipt of the landowner’s objection letter, staff arranged a further site inspection on 30 March 2021 to discuss the retaining wall. Prior to undertaking the works the structural integrity of the wall will need to be confirmed to ensure that drilling between the piles can be undertaken.

The works will damage the retaining wall on 104 Union Road and are a construction risk. 

Staff have confirmed that the pipe could be drilled under and through the retaining wall between two timber piles. Prior to undertaking such work, the retaining wall would be surveyed by a building inspector/structural engineer and again during and after construction to confirm that there was no movement or damage to the wall

Recommended stormwater management option

42.     Staff recommend that construction of the proposed stormwater works proceed at 104 Union Road as per option two in this report.

43.     The works are necessary to enable development at 24 Andrew Road and to meet the council’s stormwater standards. Works are expected to take up to ten days to complete, and staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44.     Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. A key goal of the plan is to support Auckland to adapt to climate change, taking a precautionary approach and preparing for our current emissions pathway and the prospect of a 3.5 degrees warmer region.

45.     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, the Auckland Council Stormwater Code of Practice requires all new infrastructure to be designed to deal with these expected impacts and severe weather events.

46.     The proposed pipe has been designed to cater for 10 per cent annual exceedance probability (1 in 10-year average recurrence interval) 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 properties.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

47.     Watercare and Auckland Transport assets will not be impacted by the proposed works if option two is undertaken.

48.     The pipe once constructed will be vested in the council and will form part of the public stormwater network to be maintained by Healthy Waters.

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

Local impacts and local board views

49.     The Howick Local Board has not been consulted on the proposed stormwater works, as the pipe will be constructed on private land.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

50.     The developer has not consulted local iwi on the proposed stormwater works outlined in this report.

51.     Auckland Council staff notified iwi representatives of the proposed project on 31 March 2021 through Healthy Water’s monthly email of all active Healthy Waters projects. Iwi representatives were asked to signal whether they would like to be engaged on this project, however, no feedback has been received from iwi to date.

 

 

52.     Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to a better functioning stormwater management system, reducing the impact of the development on water quality.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

53.     The recommended option is the most cost effective, as it involves the shortest and most direct pipe alignment. If approved, the pipe will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront. 

54.     The council will be responsible for any proven injurious affection to private land pursuant to section 181(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Public Works Act 1981. The likelihood of an injurious affection claim being brought is considered low (see Attachment F).  Following further surveying work, the council may require the developer to supply a bond to the council to remain in place for two years following completion of the works to cover any potential claim by the landowners for injurious affection in respect of the retaining wall.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

55.     Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option two are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from option two: crossing land at 104 Union Road

Risk

Likelihood and consequence

Mitigation

Legal risk – Objectors argue that this is in fact a private pipe and Auckland Council ought to use section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 instead of section 181 Local Government Act 2002.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The pipe will be vested in the council once constructed and will form part of the public stormwater system which the council is responsible for maintaining. It is being built to the council’s standards for public stormwater infrastructure and will serve a wider catchment as the area develops further.

 

Financial risk – If the landowner appeals the Regulatory Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The Regulatory Committee and District Court’s decision-making discretion is limited only to questions of the works being necessary and compliance with legal process, and not matters of compensation.  Staff therefore consider it unlikely that an appeal would be brought. Even if it was, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly.

If the landowner is unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.

 

The landowner could 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

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 dwelling currently under construction on 104 Union Road is 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. Council engineers have determined that the risk of collapse or future damage from these works on this particular piece of land is low.

Infrastructure risk – Low quality assets being vested to the council.

Likelihood: Low

Consequence: Medium

The works will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurances to cover the risk of failure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

56.     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 landowner in writing of the council’s intention to proceed with the works. The work is proposed to be undertaken in June 2021.

57.     The landowner has up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s Legal Services team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council would look to proceed with the works in late 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Engineering planning approval

87

b

Objection letter

89

c

Section 181 Local Government Act 2002 notice

91

d

Map showing alternative alignments considered

93

e

Site inspection report

95

f

Injurious affection assessment

97

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Leigh Steckler – Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Haydn Ellis – Healthy Waters Specialist

Lucy Hawcroft - Senior Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Shaun McAuley – Team Manager, Commercial Partnerships

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Craig Hobbs - Director Regulatory Services

 



Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator



Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory Committee

20 April 2021

 

PDF Creator 



[1] Regulatory Committee resolutions in 23 June 2020 (REG/2020/30) and 13 October 2020 (REG/2020/66).

[2]  Board of Auckland Transport decisions 08 July 2020, Item 5.1 and 01 December 2020, Item 12.13.