Skip navigation
Council member and meetings
Specialist Hearings Sub-committee
Back to contents

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
SPECIALIST HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE
HELD ON TUESDAY, 2 JUNE 2009 AT 9.30 AM
IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, LEVEL 15
CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
1 GREYS AVENUE, AUCKLAND

PRESENT: Mr G Hill
  Mr C Stewart

  1. Top APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON

    That Greg Hill be appointed as chairperson for this meeting.

    CARRIED

  2. Top APOLOGIES

    That the apology of Les Simmons for non-attendance be accepted.

    CARRIED

  3. Top CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

    That the minutes of the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee meting held on Tuesday, 5 May 2009, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

    CARRIED

  4. Top EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

    There was no extraordinary business.

  5. Top PUBLIC FORUM

    There was no public forum.

  6. Top SECTION 357 COSTS OBJECTION RE - 197-211 GREENLANE ROAD WEST, EPSOM, CORNWALL PARK

    A copy of legal advice provided to the Subcommittee was tabled.

    [ATTACHMENT 6A]

    1. That pursuant to section 357(b) and 357(d) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) having taken into account the relevant matters at section 36 of the RMA, the objection by Cornwall Park Trust Board to the invoice issued in respect of non-notified resource consent application number R/LUC/2007/757 to undertake roading improvements in Cornwall Park in the vicinity of Bollard Avenue/Grand Drive and to provide an additional 11 car parking spaces at 197-211 Greenlane Road West, Epsom, be dismissed.
    2. That the reasons for dismissing this objection are as follows:
      1. The charges invoiced by the Council for processing the resource consent application are considered to be fair and reasonable, reflecting the true costs of processing it. Also the charges incurred are a result of assessing the application and they have not increased due to the time delays taken to process it.
      2. The objector (Mr David Haines on behalf of the applicant) accepted at the hearing of the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee (5th May 2009) that the amount charged was the actual and reasonable costs for processing the application. However he considered the time taken to process and grant the application (80 days) was excessive and clearly outside the statutory timeframes prescribed in the RMA. It was on this basis that he considered that the "Park Board's objection would be met by the Council refunding its charges for the processing of the application"
      3. The Specialist Hearings Subcommittee shares Mr Haines' concern about the length of time it took to process the application. The reason given by the Council for the delay was "caused largely by the time delays around the consent being allocated to a processing planner". It is acknowledged that the Council was, at this time, experiencing a large volume of consent applications. However the length of time taken to process the application is clearly unacceptable.
      4. The Specialist Hearings Subcommittee was further concerned that no waiver of the timeframe pursuant to section 37 of the Resource Management Act was sought or granted, either to double the timeframe (section 37A(2)(a)), or exceeding twice the maximum time if the applicant agrees (section 37A (2)(b)).
      5. The Specialist Hearing Subcommittee notes, however, that the RMA, as it currently stands, does not contain any punitive measures for councils where there is non-compliance with statutory timeframes. Nor does the Council have a policy on remitting charges where the timeframe for processing applications is not met. The Specialist Hearings Subcommittee notes that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill proposes a new regime of discounting costs where councils exceed timeframes; but is not yet law.
      6. The Specialist Hearings Subcommittee acknowledges that section 36(5) of the RMA provides a very wide discretion to councils to "remit the whole or any part of any charge.....which would otherwise be payable". However the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee considers that this discretion must be consciously exercised having regard to the criteria in section 36(4) - and these relate to the purpose of the charge itself, rather than timeframes.
      7. The Specialist Hearings Subcommittee, while recognising it has a wide discretion in terms of remitting charges and that the time to process the application was unacceptable, has determined that the charges are actual and reasonable and should not be remitted for the reasons set out above.
    3. That the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee notes that a right of appeal to the Environment Court applies to this decision within fifteen working days of the receipt of the subcommittee's decision.

    CARRIED

    There being no further business, the chairperson declared the meeting closed at 9.45 am.