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, 7 JULY 2009 AT 9:30 AM
IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, LEVEL 15
CIVIC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1 GREYS AVENUE, AUCKLAND

PRESENT: Mr G Hill
  Mr L Simmons
  Mr C Stewart

  1. Top APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON

    That Conway Stewart be appointed as chairperson for this meeting.

    CARRIED

  2. Top APOLOGIES

    There were no apologies.

  3. Top CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

    That the minutes of the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee meeting held on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

    CARRIED

  4. Top EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

    There was no extraordinary business.

  5. Top PUBLIC FORUM

    There were no requests to speak in public forum.

  6. Top SECTION 357 COSTS OBJECTION - 9 SHIRLEY ROAD, GREY LYNN

    Jonathan Boersen, Director Shirley Road Developments Ltd, outlined the reasons for his objection to the engineer's fees and requested that the invoice be further reduced by $640.

    1. A. That pursuant to section 48.2(a)(i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the public be excluded from the deliberations of the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee following the hearing of evidence in this matter, for the reason that a right of appeal lies in the Environment Court against the final decision of the subcommittee.

    CARRIED

    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 Jonathan Boersen to the invoice issued in respect of a non-notified resource consent application (Council reference R/LUC/2008/7799) to undertake earthworks on a site known to be subject to instability at 9 Shirley Road, Grey Lynn, be upheld.
    2. That the reasons for upholding this objection are:
      1. The parties had already agreed to a reduction of $2953.74 in the planner's fees which means that the amount in dispute was $640 of the total amount charged for engineer's fees.
      2. The Council had not commissioned a review of the engineer's fees from an engineer, which the Subcommittee considered would have been advisable in this case. Consequently, while there was no suggestion that the fees did not represent actual time spent on the job, the Subcommittee was not convinced that the engineering fees were reasonable. The opinion of the applicant, who was an experienced engineer, was that the engineering component of the resource consent should have taken 12 hours rather than the 17 hours charged, and the Subcommittee accepts that opinion.
      3. The Subcommittee agrees that an application for a resource consent does not need to include detailed technical information such as is required for a building consent . The Subcommittee accepts that it is sometimes difficult to determine how much information is required, and that it is not desirable for a resource consent to be granted if it cannot practically be implemented. However, the Subcommittee considers in this case that the level of engineering detail required for the resource consent was excessive.  

    CARRIED

  7. Top SECTION 357 COSTS OBJECTION - 92 WAIATARUA ROAD, REMUERA

    This item was deferred at the request of the applicant until the Specialist Hearings Subcommittee's 4 August 2009.

    There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 10.58 am.