YOU ARE IN: Your council > Council members and meetings > Auckland City Council - Works Committee

Specialist Hearings Sub-committee

Back to contents

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SPECIALIST HEARINGS SUB-COMMITTEE

HELD ON TUESDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 10.00 am

PRESENT:	Mr	G	Hill
	Mr	L	Simmons
	Mr	C	Stewart

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

   That Greg Hill be appointed as chairman for this meeting.

   CARRIED

   1A. APOLOGIES

   There were no apologies.

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

   That the minutes of the Specialist Hearings sub-committee meeting held on Tuesday, 5 August 2008, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

   CARRIED

3. EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

   There was no extraordinary business.

4. PUBLIC FORUM

   There was no public forum.

5. 61-73 DAVIS CRESCENT, NEWMARKET - HEARING OF OBJECTION TO NOTICE TO INSTALL STORMWATER DRAINS

   Mr Russell Bartlett, representing Masfen Holdings, addressed the sub-committee. Clarification was also provided by the council officer on the design alignment options.

   1. That the hearing of the objection to a notice to install stormwater drains at 61-73 Davis Crescent, Newmarket, be deferred until the Specialist Hearings sub-committee's 7 October 2008 meeting, pending the provision of additional information from the Council regarding the feasibility and practicability of an alternative route(s) (than option 8) that would avoid the stormwater drains needing to be under 61-73 Davis Crescent, Newmarket. This should include (but not necessarily be limited to):
      1. greater detail than currently provided on options 6A and 6B, in terms of the need for additional shafts, including their size, location and cost;
      2. the construction methodology of these options in terms of whether they can be achieved by trenchless construction between the shafts, open trenching or some other method;
      3. whether the road and footpath network of the area could remain open during any construction, and needed to be closed, the length of time this would involve; and
      4. the traffic implications for the immediate and surrounding area if the roads needed to be closed.
   2. That the additional information to be provided is in a form that allows a true comparison with the other options set out in the SKM Report and/or costings known to the council.
   3. That the additional information requested be made available to Masfen Holdings Ltd so that they can consider it and, if they wish, have it audited prior to the Specialist Hearings sub-committee reconvening to consider the matter.

   CARRIED

   Secretarial note:

   Following discussion of item 5, the matter was adjourned to enable Mr Bartlett and council officers and consultants to discuss a number of issues relating to the drainage proposal.

   During the adjournment of item 5, the sub-committee considered a presentation by the item 5 appellant.

6. SECTION 357 COSTS OBJECTION RE 25 SELWYN AVENUE, MISSION BAY

   Mr Cornwell spoke to his tabled submission.

   [ATTACHMENT 6]

   1. That pursuant to section 357B(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, and having taken into account the relevant matters at section 36(3) and (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the objection by David Cornwell to the invoice issued in respect of a section 125 application [Council reference LUC52020318202) to extend the life of a landuse consent for a further dwelling at 25 Selwyn Avenue, Mission Bay, be upheld in part, with the invoice reduced to a sum of $1,000.
   2. That the reasons for upholding this objection in part are that Mr Cornwell was not properly informed of the fees that would be incurred in lodging the application and was not charged the flat fee of $1,000 at the time of lodgement as should have occurred.

   CARRIED

   Secretarial note:

   1. The Specialist Hearings sub-committee understood, as set out in Mr Cornwell's evidence, that he would withdraw his appeal to the Environment Court on the matter of the refusal of the council to grant an extension to the resource consent if the entire costs were 'written off'. While this would be an 'attractive' proposition, as the Council (and Mr Cornwall) will have to expend money to 'defend' this appeal, the sub-committee is not able to compel Mr Cornwell to withdraw his appeal. Accordingly, there is no ability to write off the costs in 'return' for the withdrawal of the appeal.
   2. The Specialist Hearings sub-committee (and the council officer's report) acknowledge that Mr Cornwell was not well informed of the costs he may incur. Nonetheless, he was aware that he had to pay for the processing of the original resource consent application. The sub-committee considers that it is fair and reasonable that the $1,000.00 fee be recovered. It is noted that the actual costs incurred by the council in processing the section 125 consent was considerably more than the $1,000 fee.

   There being no further business, the chairman declared the meeting closed at 11.45 am.