Agenda of Regulatory Committee - Tuesday, June 15, 2021

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

15 June 2021

Appointment of independent commissioners to consider submissions made under s.24 of the Reserves Act 1977

File No.: CP2021/04223

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request that the Regulatory Committee appoint independent commissioners to consider submissions received following public notification of Auckland Council’s intention to revoke the reserve status (under s.24 of the Reserves Act 1977) of 20 reserves that have been approved for disposal in principle by the Finance and Performance Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Finance and Performance Committee approved 83 properties for disposal on 16 July 2020 (FIN/2020/31) and on 17 September 2020 (FIN/2020/57) as part of the Emergency Budget, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes. Eke Panuku Development Auckland, on behalf of Auckland Council, has commenced work on completing the required statutory processes.

3. For the properties that are classified as reserves under the Reserves Act 1977, revocation of reserve status (in accordance with relevant Reserves Act requirements) is a prerequisite to lawful disposal. Accordingly, in February 2021, council publicly notified and sought public and iwi submissions on its intent to revoke the reserve status for 21 of the properties. Property details are in Attachment A.

4. 1,344 submissions and three petitions have been received from the public, and two submissions from mana whenua. A breakdown of submissions from the public is in Attachment B.

5. We have suspended the process for one property following receipt of a submission from the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

6. We recommend the appointment of independent commissioners to consider the submissions received and to provide recommendations to the council.

7. The independent commissioners’ recommendations will be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee for a decision on whether to forward requests for reserve revocations to the Minister of Conservation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) appoint six independent commissioners (with Reserves Act and Kaupapa Māori experience) in three pairs to consider the submissions received following the public notifications of the proposals to revoke the reserve status of 20 properties across Auckland set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) direct that the reserves will be apportioned between the pairs of commissioners by area and that each pair of commissioners will consider the submissions received and make recommendations in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, for consideration by the Parks, Art, Community and Events Committee.

c) direct that the commissioners will hear those objectors who have expressed a wish to be heard on their submissions.

d) delegate authority to the Chairperson of the Regulatory Committee to make replacement appointments should any independent commissioner appointed under recommendation a) above be unavailable.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Finance and Performance Committee approved 83 properties (in two schedules) for disposal on 16 July 2020 (FIN/2020/31) and on 17 September 2020 (FIN/2020/57) as part of the Emergency Budget, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes.

9. Several of these properties are reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The principal statutory requirement for these properties is to undergo a reserve revocation process under s.24 of the Reserves Act 1977.

10. The Reserves Act 1977 prescribes a process for the revocation of reserve status. Completion of this process, including public and iwi notification, is necessary before land classified as a reserve may be lawfully sold.

11. Following receipt of submissions and consideration by an independent commissioner, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee will consider if revocation of the reserve status should be referred to the Department of Conservation. Final decision-making rests with the Minister of Conservation, who considers the proposal, any objections received and the Council’s resolution including its rationale for seeking to revoke the reserve status.

12. 21 reserves approved in principle for disposal by the Finance and Performance Committee were put forward for public and iwi notification. Property details are in Attachment A.

13. Iwi were notified on 20 January 2021, and public notification started between 24 and 26 February 2021, depending on the publication dates of local newspapers. Notices were placed on the reserves and on Auckland Council’s website. Letters were also sent to adjoining owners. The closing date for submissions was 31 March 2021.

14. The advertised closing date for submissions was 31 March 2021, which was subsequently extended to 14 April 2021. A second tranche of notices advertising this extension was published in local newspapers, and the closing dates were changed on all notices on the Council’s website.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. A total of 1,344 individual submissions have been received across the 21 properties publicly notified for reserve revocation. The majority of these submissions are concerning three reserves in the Howick local board area.

16. In addition to the individual submissions, we have received three petitions: one for Aberfeldy Road (575 signatories), one for 11R Birmingham Road (74 signatories), and one general petition covering reserves in East and Central Auckland (10 signatories).

17. For this report, the three petitions have been counted as individual submissions. A breakdown of submissions from the public is in Attachment B.

18. We received a submission dated 16 April 2021 from the Tūpuna Maunga Authority regarding 3R Taylor Road, Māngere East. We have sought legal advice regarding this and have therefore suspended the reserve revocation process for this property. This property is included in attachments A and B for information.

19. We recommend the appointment of independent commissioners with Reserves Act and Kaupapa Māori experience to consider the submissions received.

20. The geographical spread of the reserves and the number of submissions received make it impractical to appoint a single commissioner to consider all submissions across all properties. We therefore recommend the appointment of six commissioners in three pairs, with each pair to consider submissions about reserves in a specific area as follows:

· East Auckland (five reserves)

· Central Auckland & Māngere (seven reserves)

· West Auckland, North Shore & South Auckland (eight reserves)

21. We recommend that one pair of commissioners is required in each area to consider these submissions rather than a panel of commissioners.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22. It is not known at this point what the potential future use of these sites would be and therefore what the potential impacts could be on carbon emissions.

23. While the future use for the sites is not known, the proposed reserve revocation and disposal is likely to lead to land use changes. We recognise that any form of construction and development can increase emissions.

24. Emissions associated with any potential redevelopment can be reduced through development standards agreed through a future development agreement, application of Panuku’s Homestar 6 policy and requirements to reduce carbon emissions in commercial developments.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Council’s Community Investment team assessed all the subject sites against council’s open space provision policies and has determined they are not required for open space purposes. The Community Investment team supports the reserve revocation of these sites.

26. Relevant council departments and CCOs have been consulted about the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of the sites as part of the emergency budget asset recycling programme. No substantive feedback was received in response.

27. Council departments have not been consulted regarding the appointment of independent commissioners.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. Local boards were consulted regarding the proposed disposal of properties as part of the Emergency Budget asset recycling proposal. They provided mixed feedback on the proposals with some boards supporting, some conditionally supporting and some opposing. Some opposition concerned specific properties, and some concerned all opportunities.

29. The feedback received is contained in the Finance and Performance Committee reports 16 July 2020 (FIN/2020/31) and 17 September 2020 (FIN/2020/57).

30. We are still seeking local board feedback on the proposals to revoke the reserve status of these properties. Local board views will be reported to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee together with the findings of the commissioners.

31. We have not sought local board views on the appointment of independent commissioners.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. As part of the Emergency Budget process 19 mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the asset recycling proposal. No issues of cultural significance were raised.

33. As part of the reserve revocation notification process mana whenua iwi authorities were again contacted regarding the proposal to uplift the properties’ reserve status. Two objections have been received: one covering 15 properties, and one for a single property.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. There are no financial or legal implications beyond those normally associated with the appointment of commissioners. The costs of the independent commissioners will be met by Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. Given strong public interest in the proposed reserve revocation of these properties, we consider it is prudent to appoint independent commissioners, as this will help contribute to a robust process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The independent commissioners’ reports on the consideration of submissions and objections will be submitted to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee for a decision on whether to forward a request to the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status of the properties.

37. If the Committee resolves that the reserve status should be uplifted, council officers will forward the resolutions, the commissioner’s reports and the submissions to the Department of Conservation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Property Details	15
b ⇩	Summary of Objections	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carl May - Portfolio Specialist

Authorisers

Letitia Edwards - Head of Strategic Asset Optimisation (Acting)

Marian Webb – General Manager Assets and Delivery

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2021

Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 15 June 2021

File No.: CP2021/07728

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 30 April 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 15 June 2021.

Horopaki

Context

4. As at 2 June 2021, there are 20 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 30 April 2021, there have been two new appeals lodged and two appeals resolved.

6. The appeal by Australasia Property Management Limited is against council’s decision to refuse their applications to construct 53 new residential dwellings and to undertake associated earthworks and subdivision at 12 and 46 Abbotts Way, Remuera. The application was limited notified and proceeded to hearing. The development within the Residential-Mixed Housing Suburban zone is overall non-complying due to the reclamation and piping of a stream.

7. The other appeal by Country Lifestyles Limited, is to the dismissal of an objection under section 357(3), being to the return of a resource consent application under section 88(3). The application, returned as being incomplete, seeks a land use consent for a retirement village development in the Rural - Rural Production Zone.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9. 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

10. Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

11. Not applicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

16. Not applicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Region-wide appeal register for June 2021	29

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning
Authoriser	Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	41

Regulatory Committee

15 June 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
Area of work and Lead Department	Reason for work	Committee role (decision and/or direction)	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			ü
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 Decision Report 11 May 2021 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 Detailed Options report 20 April 2020 Link to decision			ü
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 Decision report 11 May 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	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 Memo update: Hearings held April 2020 to March 2021 Link to memo 11 May 2021 Link to PowerPoint presentation				ü

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 COVID-19 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 COVID-19 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

15 June 2021

Objection to public stormwater extension and connection to public network across 12 Crete Avenue Milford

File No.: CP2021/06455

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To consider the objection to the construction of an extension to the Public Stormwater network and connection to a line within Crete Avenue across 12 Crete Avenue, Milford (Lot 5 DP 4796) to serve 75 Kitchener Road, Milford (Part Lot 1 DP 31421).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

2. To consider the objection to the construction of an extension to the Public Stormwater line and a connection to public reticulation across 12 Crete Avenue, Milford (Lot 5 DP 4796) to serve 75 Kitchener Road, Milford (Part Lot 1 DP 31421).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The engineering approval ENG60360588 for stormwater and wastewater connections and shared access way was issued under letter dated 23 September 2020 for the works associated with the subdivision BUN60363886 (Attachment A).

4. The subdivision consent BUN60363886 was approved on 25 November 2020 for three residential dwellings (Attachment B).

5. The current dwelling stormwater discharges to ground and does not discharge to public reticulation. The required discharge is proposed via the public network which was to be established via a new public manhole and network extension under engineering approval ENG60349185 for the residential development at 12 Crete Avenue, Milford (Lot 5 DP 4796). The approved development consent conditions require the discharge connection to the new public stormwater system required for 12 Crete Avenue, Milford. (Attachment C).

6. The applicant’s project manager Alex Coburn of QPC BuildGroup has been in communication with Xia Wu and Qining Xu who represent Zhonggui Chen the owner of 12 Crete Avenue, Milford. Alex Coburn has not been able to obtain approval and has offered various compensation options. Xia Wu is understood to act as the representative for the owner who is understood to be residing in China. (Attachment F) Xia Wu has no legal association with the property at 12 Crete Avenue as confirmed under email of 17 October 2020 and by Landonline documents included under Attachment H. Responses have primarily been received through Xia and also via the solicitor Julian Dawson and William Li the engineering consultant. All email communication has been confirmed to be delivered to Zhonggui Chen.

7. The public stormwater system extension required for 12 Crete Avenue, Milford was approved under engineering approval ENG60349185 letter dated 18 December 2019 (Attachment C).

8. Council’s senior development engineer has communicated with the owner (Zhonggui Chen) and Xia Wu via email and has not been able to meet face to face to discuss the required stormwater connection and has not been able to gain approval following communication via various forums (Attachment F).

9. Contrary to Council policy and Stormwater Code of Practice the engineering approval ENG60349185 for 12 Crete Avenue was issued silent on the requirement to provide for an upstream discharge connection. In accordance with the Stormwater Code of Practice it is standard practice to include provision for upstream catchment discharge connections.

10. Following consultation with Council’s senior legal counsel a supplementary engineering approval was issued under letter of 8 January 2021 in accordance with the Stormwater Bylaw (GB/2015/78 of 30 July 2015) requiring provision for the stormwater discharge connection for 75 Kitchener Road (Attachment D).

11. Under email of 8 February 2021 Council provided details of why the proposed connection was the only practical and least intrusive reticulation for the required stormwater connection and requested an approval response from the landowner by Friday 12 February 2021. The memo was copied to the landowner’s solicitor (Attachment E).

12. Following various memos to coordinate the works to avoid unnecessary remedial work and avoid delays the landowner continued to object to approving access to undertake the discharge connection works and instructed their consultant William Li of EQ Engineers Consulting Ltd not to accommodate the works in the execution of the stormwater and accessway works required for 12 Crete Avenue, Milford (Attachment F).

13. The stormwater connection to the public line had been constructed but the accessway works had not yet commenced as illustrated by the site photograph evidence (Attachment E).

14. Xia Wu then lodged a formal complaint under email of 10 February 2021 and Darren Connery, Team Leader, Regulatory Engineering North West provided a formal response under email of 17 February 2021 (Attachment G).

15. Xia Wu met with Council (Paul Howes, Manager, Regulatory Engineering North West and Darren Connery, Team Leader, Regulatory Engineering North West) on 24 February 2021 and Xia Wu again emphasised that she was strongly opposed to approval of access to allow the stormwater works to be completed and formal minutes were recorded of this meeting (Attachment G).

16. Council engaged a mediator to facilitate gaining approval of landowner at 12 Crete Avenue. Xia and Simon Wu, Barry Kaye (planner and commissioner) and Louie Balajadia (engineer) represented the landowner during mediation. Mediation was not able to obtain approval for the proposed works. The option of kerb discharge via a combination pumped and syphon system was pursued during the mediation meeting (Attachment J).

17. Kerb discharge is not permitted where public reticulation is available within the immediate vicinity.

18. Kerb discharge requires specific approval from Auckland Transport and they have confirmed that they would not approve kerb discharge in this instance under email of 25 May 2021 (Attachment E).

19. The proposed stormwater reticulation is consistent with the advice Council provided under Peter Nagel email of 19 June 2012 (Attachment E).

20. Under email of 7 May 201 Tony Wu notified Council of cancellation of the stormwater works and retaining the connection (Attachment C).

21. Under letter of 12 May 2021 Council issued a revised engineering approval ENG60360588 to include all stormwater works approved under ENG60349185 for 12 Crete Avenue to provide for the required stormwater discharge connection for 75 Kitchener Road.

22. The stormwater from 75 Kitchener Road currently discharges to ground and the proposed reticulation will significantly reduce the risk of stormwater discharge onto 12 Crete Avenue.

23. The proposed stormwater connection is required and the approved reticulation is the only practical and least intrusive option available.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owners of 12 Crete Avenue, Milford (Lot 1 DP 44646), pursuant to section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.

b) resolve, subject to the hearing of the objection, under section 460(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 that the proposed stormwater and wastewater connections route across 12 Crete Avenue, Milford, is the only practical route as shown on Lamason Consulting Ltd engineers drawing 003 revision B and 004 revision A.

Horopaki

Context

24. The owners of 75 Kitchener Road, Christopher Edwin and Gay Florence Costain (“the Applicant”) has applied under section 460 of the Act for the council to determine that the proposed installation of a stormwater pipe and connection to an existing Council public line within Crete Avenue as being the only practical route and available connection to serve 75 Kitchener Road.

25. Details of the relevant properties and plans of the precise route is shown on the Lamason Consulting Ltd engineers’ drawing L1963 sheet 003 revision B and sheet 004 revision A (Attachment A).

26. The Applicant lodged an Engineering Approval application (reference ENG60360588) on 21 July 2020 to undertake the work to install the stormwater line. This has since been approved on 23 September 2020 subject to landowner approval of 12 Crete Avenue. (Attachment A) Landowners of 12 Crete Avenue have not approved the connection and strongly object to the connection.

27. The ‘Applicant’ and its consultants have consulted with the property’s owners in writing and by phone to obtain their consent to undertake the work. A copy of relevant pertinent communication demonstrates that the property owners have been fully informed of the extent of works and this is provided as (Attachment F). The written communication has been sent to the addresses listed as well as by email communication. The ‘Applicant’ has not been able to obtain consent.

28. The Council’s senior development engineer has also consulted with these landowners and has not been able to facilitate approval. (Attachment F).

29. Meeting Minutes (Attachment G) also confirms the attempts by Council’s Regulatory Engineering leadership team to seek a resolution. However, these attempts were also unsuccessful.

30. The landowners of 12 Crete Avenue have expressed strong opposition to the connection and have not provided any reasons or relevant concerns that need to be considered.

31. The Council is satisfied that the owners (‘Applicant’) of 75 Kitchener Road, have met its expectations of seeking all endeavors to obtain an agreement to install the stormwater line.

32. The approved stormwater reticulation provides for stormwater connection for 75 Kitchener Road which is a significant improvement on the current situation as this site currently discharges to ground and is not connected to the public network

33. Details of landowners is provided under Attachment H and it must be noted that neither Xia Wu nor Simon Xu have any legal entitlement or authorization associated with 12 Crete Avenue.

34. Copies of S460 LGA 1974 notifications are provided under Attachment I.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

35. Currently the site at 75 Kitchener Road stormwater discharges to ground via sheet-flow within the site.

36. The proposed stormwater discharge connection will provide required connection for 75 Kitchener Road to the public reticulation system and will provide an improvement to stormwater management in the immediate vicinity.

37. The existing public stormwater line to which the proposed reticulation will discharge to requires that detention tanks be installed to restrict discharge to predevelopment levels.

38. The proposed direct connection to the public line in Crete Avenue is in accordance with engineering best practice, is the shortest, least intrusive route and is compliant with Council’s Stormwater Code of Practice.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40. Within the framework of the Regulatory Committee’s Terms of Reference from the Governing Body, the Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for “hearing and determining applications for private drainage works on private land under the Local Government Act 1974. This delegation cannot be sub-delegated”. Copy of Section 460 of the 1974 Act is provided as Attachment F.

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. The Local Board is not advised of service connection requests under the Act. Further, the determination of this objection requires no consultation beyond the owners of 12 Crete Avenue, Milford.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44. All costs for this process and hearing are to be met by the owners of 75 Kitchener Road, Milford.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45. The proposed reticulation will improve the upstream stormwater management and reduce sheet flow discharge impact on downstream property at 12 Crete Avenue, Milford.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46. The installation of the public stormwater reticulation will be undertaken by Council upon the Hearing approval of the proposed work.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - ENG60360588 for 75 Kitchener Road	55
b ⇩	Attachment B - Subdivision Consent BUN60363886	77
c ⇩	Attachment C - ENG60349185 for 12 Crete Avenue	145
d ⇩	Attachment D - Supplementary ENG60349185 for 12 Crete Avenue	179
e ⇩	Attachment E - Stormwater Options Considered	199
f ⇩	Attachment F - Communication	219
g ⇩	Attachment G - Xia Wu Complaint & Meeting Minutes	327
h ⇩	Attachment H - Landowner Details	351
i ⇩	Attachment I - Council s460 Notification	359
j ⇩	Attachment - J Mediation	373

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Cedric Daniel - Senior Development Engineer

Authorisers

Paul Howes - Manager Regulatory Engineering North West

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2021

Objection to stormwater works at 120A New Windsor Road

File No.: CP2021/04350

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater works at 120A New Windsor Road 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 two-lot new development at 8 Batkin Road, New Windsor to the public stormwater manhole that is located on the neighbouring property at 120A New Windsor Road.

3. The proposed works involve the construction of a 12-metre long pipe which will run along the eastern boundary of 120A New Windsor Road (see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval). Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset.

4. The owners of 120A New Windsor Road have refused the developer access to their property for this purpose. Council-led efforts to facilitate an agreement have been unsuccessful.

5. Council staff have analysed three options for connecting the development to the public stormwater network (see Attachment B). These included extending the public network from 120A New Windsor Road (option one - recommended), extending the public network from 15 Batkin Road (option two) and extending the public network from 18 Batkin Road (option three).

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

7. After undertaking a site inspection (see Attachment C) and considering the alternative options, Auckland 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 works will devalue their property (see Attachment D). Staff have considered this objection and believe that the works will have minimal impact on development potential.

9. Staff recommend that the Regulatory Committee endorse the proposed public stormwater works at 120A New Windsor Road, New Windsor. These works are the best practicable option to manage the stormwater effects of the approved development at 8 Batkin Road, New Windsor.

10. If the Regulatory Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin August 2021 (weather dependent). It is proposed that the pipe will be installed by directional drilling to minimise disturbance to the site. The works will take approximately four days to complete.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owner of 120A New Windsor Road according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

b) approve that the council proceed with the extension of the public stormwater network from 120A New Windsor Road to connect 8 Batkin 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

12. 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.

13. 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’.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 8 Batkin Road

17. A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s regulatory department to subdivide a property at 8 Batkin Road, New Windsor. A condition of that resource consent is that the new development connects to the public stormwater system.

18. The developer has obtained engineering approval to connect the subdivision to the existing public stormwater manhole located within 120A New Windsor Road via 10 Batkin Road (see Attachment A). The owner of 10 Batkin Road has consented to the works. The connecting pipe will run alongside the eastern boundary of 120A New Windsor Road.

19. Staff propose that a pipe is constructed using directional drilling methodology, which involves thrusting the pipe from 10 Batkin Road under the garden of 120A New Windsor to connect to the existing public stormwater manhole in the north-eastern corner of 120A New Windsor Road. The proposed construction will take between two to four days.

20. The existing stormwater manhole on 120A New Windsor Road is currently covered with overgrown vegetation and debris which will be cleared as part of the construction works. Minimal reinstatement will be required as the area around the manhole is undeveloped.

21. The new pipe will vest 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 120A New Windsor Road, New Windsor

22. The owner of 120A New Windsor Road has refused to allow the developer to connect to the stormwater network via its property. In June 2020 the developer applied to the council to provide facilitation services to help reach an agreement with the landowner.

23. 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.

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

25. 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 pursuant to its powers under 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.

26. On 8 December 2020 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 E)

27. 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.

28. Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowner had until 31 January 2021 to formally object to the section 181 notice. The parties continued to negotiate terms of an agreement post this date, however on 29 March 2021 the landowners formally objected to the stormwater works (see Attachment D). Despite being outside the timeframes for lodging an objection the council accepted the objection and referred the matter to a hearing before the Regulatory Committee as prescribed by schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

29. 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.

30. The council analysed three alternative alignments for connecting the development at 8 Batkin Road to the public stormwater system (see Attachment B).

31. These options were:

· option one: extending the public network from 120A New Windsor Road across 10 Batkin Road (recommended option)

· option two: extending the public network from 15 Batkin Road

· option three: extending the public network from 18 Batkin Road.

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

33. 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 early 2020 with no agreement forthcoming. Staff consider that the developer is likely to pursue a sub-optimal solution for managing stormwater if access to 120A New Windsor Road continues to be refused.

Analysing options for stormwater management on 8 Batkin Road

34. Option two involves pumping stormwater out to the road to connect at 15 Batkin 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. In addition, option two is likely to have a moderate interference with existing services and is less direct than option one.

35. Option three has high constructability risk due to the close proximity of existing structures. In addition, this option would impact 11 property owners and will be the most disruptive. The pipe route is 70-metres long making this option the least direct and the most expensive. It is also the option that could most impact on development potential of various properties. Lastly, this option poses the risk of duplicating existing stormwater infrastructure.

Table 1. Analysis of alignment options against various criteria

	Option 1 120A New Windsor	Option 2 15 Batkin Road	Option 3 18 Batkin road	Significance of criteria
Affected property owners	2	0	11	Low
Interference with existing services	None	Medium	Medium	Medium
Disruption to property owners	Minor	Minor	Medium	High
Cost	$	$	$$$	Medium
Route to existing stormwater network	Most direct 12m (7.5m on property)	Less direct 47m	Least direct 70m	Medium
Duplication of existing stormwater infrastructure	0%	0%	10%	Medium
Impact on development potential	None	None	Medium	Medium
Constructability risk	Minor	Minor	High	Major
Ability for private infrastructure to access	n/a, 120A has a connection	Restricted	Good	Low
Access for future maintenance	Good	Good	Restricted
Compliance with Stormwater Code of Practice	Yes	No – dependent on pumping	Yes	Medium

Most positive

Moderately positive

Moderately negative

Most negative

Key

36. As demonstrated by the weightings set out in Table 1 above, option one 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

· low construction risk

· the land proposed to be crossed is a garden on a steep slope near the property boundary which has inherent limitations on how it could be developed.

· the pipe route is the most logical and direct to reach the connection point – 12 metres in total with 7.5 of those metres crossing 120A New Windsor Road

· 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

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

38. The council has attempted to engage with the landowner to offer advice on the proposed works and broker an agreement including offers of compensation. Those meetings have failed to result in an agreement for access.

Summary of objections received

39. Following receipt of the objection letter from the landowner in late March 2021 the council redesigned the alignment which reduced the impact of the works on the development potential of 120A New Windsor. Despite this new alignment the landowner has continued to refuse to agree to access claiming that the new pipe will devalue 120A New Windsor Road.

40. The landowner is entitled to make a claim for injurious affection pursuant to s.63 of the Public Works Act where a ‘substantial injurious affection to a person’s land is caused by the construction of a public work’. The council considers the risk of injurious affection in this case as being low due to the location of the pipe being so close to the boundary (see Attachment F – Injurious Affection Assessment).

Recommended stormwater management option

41. Staff recommend that construction of the proposed stormwater works proceed at 120A New Windsor Road as per option one in this report.

42. The works are necessary to enable development at 8 Batkin Road and to meet the council’s stormwater standards. Works are expected to take up to four days to complete, and staff will work with the landowner to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. The proposed pipe has been designed to cater for 10 percent 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

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

47. 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

48. The Whau 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

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

50. Council staff notified iwi representatives of the proposed project through Healthy Water’s monthly email of all active Healthy Waters projects on 31 March 2021. 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.

51. 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

52. The recommended option is the most cost effective for the council, 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.

53. 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). Nevertheless, the council will 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 landowner for bridging costs.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54. Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one is shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from option one: crossing land at 120A New Windsor 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: Low	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 garden, the dwelling on 120A New Windsor 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 garden 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. · The pipe would be located on land which has a limited development potential
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

55. 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 August 2021.

56. 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 will proceed with the works in August 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Engineering Planning Approval for the project	385
b ⇩	Map showing alternative alignments considered for the project	387
c ⇩	Site inspection report	389
d ⇩	Letter of objection from the owners of 120A New Windsor Road	391
e ⇩	Local Government Act Notification to the property owners	393
f ⇩	Injurious affection assessment	397

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Leigh Steckler - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Shaun McAuley - Commercial Partnerships Team Manager

Authorisers

Craig McIlroy - General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Regulatory Committee

15 June 2021

Objection to stormwater works at 22A Stanley Avenue, Milford

File No.: CP2021/04792

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed stormwater works at 22A Stanley Avenue, Milford pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A developer has obtained resource consents and engineering plan approval from the council to connect a new development at 28 Dallinghoe Crescent, Milford to the existing public stormwater network that is in the road corridor opposite 51 Stanley Avenue, Milford.

3. The proposed works involve the construction of a 77 metre length pipe under the driveway of 22A Stanley Avenue, Milford (see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval). The work is estimated to take up to ten days. Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in the council as a public stormwater asset.

4. The owners of 22A Stanley Avenue, Milford 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 (see Attachment B). These included extending the public network from 51 Stanley Avenue (option one – recommended), extending the public network from 21A Dallinghoe Crescent (option two) and extending the public network from 22 Dallinghoe Crescent (option three). The options were assessed against various criteria such as the number of homeowners they will impact, impact on development potential, cost and constructability. Option one scores best against these criteria.

6. 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. It has issued a notice under section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowners of its intention to construct the works as a council project.

7. The landowners have lodged a written objection to the works, on the grounds that they consider the works will put their property at risk and request that an alternative alignment is pursued (see Attachment C – objection letter).

8. If the Regulatory Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin August 2021. It is proposed that the pipe will be installed by horizontal directional drilling, which is a trenchless methodology designed to minimise disruption caused by construction. The works will take approximately ten days to complete, with the portion of work on the objecting landowner’s land taking two days.

9. It has been explained the affected property owners that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory Committee:

a) hear and determine the objections by the owners of 22A Stanley Avenue, Milford 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 51 Stanley Avenue to 28 Dallinghoe Crescent (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

10. 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.

11. 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’.

12. 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.

13. 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.

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

Enabling stormwater management on 28 Dallinghoe Crescent, Milford

15. A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s Resource Consents department to subdivide a property at 28 Dallinghoe Crescent, Milford. A condition of that resource consent is that the new development connects to the public stormwater system.

16. The developer has obtained engineering approval to connect the subdivision to the existing public stormwater manhole located on the western berm of Stanley Avenue opposite number 51 Stanley Avenue, Milford (see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval). The connecting pipe will cross under the driveway of 22A Stanley Avenue.

17. Staff propose that a 77 metre length pipe is constructed using a trenchless method, which involves drilling a small hole from 28 Dallinghoe Crescent then pushing the pipe underground through to the manhole located on 51 Stanley Avenue. This method would not involve digging up the landowner’s driveway.

18. The methodology chosen to undertake the works will result in the property being temporarily impacted by construction noise and vibrations only. The expected duration to carry out the work on the landowner’s property is two days and the driveway will remain accessible throughout.

19. Upon connection to the public stormwater network and submission of all necessary documentation to vest the pipe in Auckland Council, the new pipe will be owned and maintained by Healthy Waters.

Objections received from landowners at 22A Stanley Avenue

20. The owners of 22A Stanley Avenue have refused to allow the developer to connect to the stormwater network via their property. The developer applied to the council to provide facilitation services to help reach an agreement with the landowners.

21. Facilitation sessions commenced in July 2020. However, no agreement was reached. The council then analysed the developer’s works (as detailed below) and determined that the works are necessary drainage works, and that it would undertake the works itself as a council project pursuant to its powers under the Local Government Act 2002. This enables the works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

22. The council issued a notice of its intention to construct the works to the affected landowners under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002 on 8 March 2021.

23. Following the issue of this notice, the council continued to communicate with the landowners. However, it has not been possible to reach an agreement.

24. Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowners had until 12 April 2021 to formally object to the section 181 notice. On 7 April 2021 an objection was received.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

25. 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, considers impacts on individual property owners.

26. The council analysed three alternative alignments for connecting the development at 28 Dallinghoe Crescent to the public stormwater system (see Attachment B – map showing alternative alignments).

27. These options were:

· option one: extending the public network from 51 Stanley Avenue (recommended option)

· option two: extending the public network from 21A Dallinghoe Crescent

· option three: extending the public network from 22 Dallinghoe Crescent.

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

Table 1. Analysis of alignment options against various criteria

	Option 1 51 Stanley Ave (Shown in yellow)		Option 2 21A Dallinghoe Cres (Shown in blue)		Option 3 22 Dallinghoe Cres (Shown in green)		Significance
Affected property owners	1 (other cross lease properties not impacted)		1		7 (crosses x2 driveways of multiple owners)		Low
Interference with existing services	Medium (road network, wastewater pipe in driveway of 22 Stanley Ave)		Medium (road network)		Medium		Medium
Disruption to property owners	Minor		Minor		Medium		High
Cost	$$		$		$$		Medium
Route to existing stormwater network	Least direct 77m		Most direct 26m		Less direct 40.4m		Medium
Duplication of existing stormwater infrastructure	0%		0%		0%		Medium
Impact on development potential	None (Driveway)		Minor		Minor		Medium
Constructability risk	Medium (road network)		Medium (road network)		Medium (existing structures close by)		High
Ability for private infrastructure to access connection	Good		Poor		Good		Low
Access for future maintenance	Good		Good		Restricted		Medium
Compliance with Stormwater Code of Practice	Yes		No – option is dependent on pumping		Yes		High
Key
Most positive		Moderately positive		Moderately negative		Most negative

Analysing options for stormwater management on 28 Dallinghoe Crescent

29. Option two is not recommended as it would require pumping water uphill to connect into the public system. Auckland Council’s Stormwater Code of Practice does not support pumping in this manner as it increases the risk of flooding (should the pump fail) and requires on-going maintenance to remain effective.

30. Option three is not recommended as there is a medium to high constructability risk in laying the pipe so close to existing structures. In addition, this option would impact multiple property owners and access for future maintenance of the pipe would be restricted.

31. The council also considered a fourth option – do nothing. This would involve the council walking away from the situation and leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the owner. This option is not supported, as it means the developer is likely to pursue either options two or three. As described above, these options would mean the council inherits stormwater infrastructure which does not comply with its Stormwater Code of Practice or is difficult to access for maintenance purposes. It also increases the likelihood of 28 Dallinghoe Crescent discharging to the kerb in lieu of a better solution and in contravention of its resource consent.

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

· the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowners’ 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

· there is a minor construction risk associated with these works

· the route does not duplicate existing stormwater infrastructure.

33. In addition to these factors, Healthy Waters engineers have determined that option one can be constructed using a trenchless method, which would have minimal impact on 22A Stanley Avenue.

Negotiating with the landowners

34. Negotiations with the landowners have been ongoing since early 2020. Initially negotiations were held directly between the developer and the landowners, with the council becoming involved from July 2020 onwards.

35. The council has attempted to engage with the landowners to offer advice on the proposed works and broker an agreement but has been unsuccessful at getting the owners to agree to terms of access.

36. Attachment D shows the council’s response to the objection letter and offer to attend a mediation meeting.

Summary of objections received

37. Table 2 below 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 proposed route will place 22A Stanley Crescent at risk	The proposed works will not increase the flooding risk at 22A Stanley Avenue, but will ensure that stormwater from 28 Dallinghoe is managed effectively. Prior to undertaking the works further investigations would be undertaken to ensure that the retaining wall on the property is structurally sound and will be monitored for movement during construction.
Other stormwater management options available	See options analysis above. Staff have assessed the preferred option as being the most efficient alignment in terms of stormwater management. Other options are also difficult in terms of constructability and in one case would be in contravention of council’s own stormwater Code of Practice. They would also create challenges for council in terms of future access and maintenance.

Recommended stormwater management option

38. Staff recommend that construction of the proposed stormwater works proceed at 22A Stanley Avenue as per option one in this report.

39. The works are necessary to enable development at 28 Dallinghoe Crescent and to meet the council’s stormwater standards. Works are expected to take up to 10 days to complete, and staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

40. Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. Some of the key elements of the plan include how we will 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.

41. 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.

42. 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

43. Watercare assets will not be impacted by the proposed works if option one is undertaken. All wastewater lines will be located prior to construction. A Works-Over Approval will be applied for prior to the works commencing.

44. Auckland Transport assets will be impacted by the proposed works if option one is undertaken. When the engineering planning approval was granted, the implications to Auckland Transport of the pipe crossing the road corridor were considered. A Corridor Access Request will need to be made prior to the works commencing. Staff do not anticipate any objection to this request from Auckland Transport.

45. 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

46. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has not been consulted on the proposed stormwater works, as the pipe will be constructed on private land and vested as part of the regional stormwater network.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

48. Council staff notified iwi representatives of the proposed project 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.

49. 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

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

51. 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 E – injurious affection assessment.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52. Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment of the recommended option. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one are shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from option one: crossing land at 22A Stanley Avenue

Risk	Likelihood and consequence	Mitigation
Legal risk – The landowners 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 landowners appeal the Regulatory Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	Given that 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, it is considered 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 landowners are unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.
Financial risk – The landowners 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 residential home on 22A Stanley Avenue 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. If the landowners are unsuccessful, they will be liable to pay court costs.
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

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

54. The landowners have 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	407
b ⇩	Map showing alternative alignments	409
c ⇩	Objection letter	411
d ⇩	Auckland Council’s response to objection letter	413
e ⇩	Injurious Affection Assessment	415

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Leigh Steckler - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Shaun McAuley - Commercial Partnerships Team Manager

Authorisers

Craig McIlroy - General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

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

Author	Michelle Judge - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents