Purpose

This report covers my
Waitematā Local Board Activities during September 2015 as Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee; Deputy Chair of the Hearings Committee; Lead of the Parks and Open Spaces portfolio; Heritage, Urban Design and Planning portfolio holder; and Local Board representative on the K Road Business Association.

Executive Summary

• General Tree Protection rules were lifted on 4 September by way of the 2013 amendments to the Resource Management Act. The only legal protections for trees in urban areas now is by listing on the Schedule of Notable Trees or being in a Special Environmental Area
• Motion on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), moved by me, seconded by Chair Chambers, passed at business meeting of 8 September
• Board resolved on the Alcohol Bans to be retained beyond 31 October 2015, passed at business meeting of 8 September
• Board resolved on the Local Dog Access Rules, passed at business meeting of 8 September

• This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  Beach Road Cycleway Stage II opening: 18 September

• Freyberg Square and Ellen Melville & Pioneer Women’s Hall Designs went out for public consultation at the beginning of the month. Consultation ended on 27 September
• Presented on the Aotea Quarter Framework at Auckland Conversations on the
  

  Photo credit: Pippa Coom

  evening of 23 September

• The Myers Park Playspace won the Landscape category and went on to win the overall ‘Colour Master Nightingale Award’ across all categories, including entrants from Australia, at the Resene Total Colour Awards held on 23 September
• Parking Day saw the installation of ‘parklets’ in Lorne and High Streets on 18 September
• Salisbury Reserve: renovated playground open to the public on 25 September. Path renewal from 21 September – 2 October
• Festival Italiano: 27 September
• Reporting of resource consent applications, planning portfolio input, hearings and decisions in the Local Board area for the month of September is detailed in the Heritage, Urban Design and Planning section of this report

Comments

Notice of Motion on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)

I brought a notice of motion to the 8 September 2015 Waitematā Local Board business meeting, seconded by Local Board Chair Shale Chambers, regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). It PASSED with 6 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

I gave serious thought to the question of whether this should be a resolution at the Local Board level given that the subject matter is a multilateral treaty being negotiated by the Executive. However, two things recommended it to me as a course of action: first, the predecessor to the TPPA, NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), has established that local government actions can be grounds for a corporation to sue a state if the local government organisation acts in a way that may diminish the profits or ability to operate of that corporation. The example of Guadalcázar City, Mexico, in the ‘Background’ section below is instructive; second,  there is a resolution of an Auckland Council Governing Body committee from 2012 to which we refer (also detailed below). The Local Board is simply following up on this prior resolution of our co-governance body.

I must acknowledge the important work of Barry Coates, former Executive Director of Oxfam NZ, and Albert-Eden Local Board Member, Graeme Easte, who are asking local boards across Auckland to pass similar resolutions with the intention of bringing these to the Governing Body for further action. At the time of writing, Waitematā, Albert-Eden, Kaipatiki, Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Whau, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, and Waitakere Ranges local boards have passed motions similar to this one. Member Easte drafted the first iteration of these resolutions and his local board passed it in late-August. I amended that version before moving it at the Waitematā Local Board business meeting. The motion was CARRIED (6 in favour, 1 member abstaining) at the business meeting of 8 September 2015:

Resolution number WTM/2015/130

MOVED by Member V I Tava, seconded by Chairperson S Chambers.

a)        That the Waitematā Local Board notes that:

(i)        While the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) will hopefully generate economic benefits to New Zealand through increased trading opportunities for exporters, there are also significant potential risks to our sovereignty, environment and way of life;

(ii)       The TPPA negotiations have been conducted over the last eight years without any public disclosure of the contents let alone consultation or adequate debate about its principles or provisions;

(iii)       The only publicly available information about the detail of the proposed treaty has come about through partial leaks and overseas sources;

(iv)      Much of this agreement goes well beyond its ostensible purpose of free-trade and consists of provisions to protect the interests of multi-national corporations, including investor-state rules that would allow multi-national companies to sue our government for damages in secret tribunals if laws or regulations or policies of either local or central government affected their ability to trade or make a profit within New Zealand;

(v)      A resolution was passed by Auckland Council on 20^th December 2012, particularly clause (xii) which calls for TPPA negotiations to be conducted with “real public consultation including regular public releases of the text of the agreement and ratification being conditional on a full social, environmental and economic assessment including public submissions;”

(vi)      The Government has apparently ignored the Council resolution, and similar resolutions from other Councils and numerous other public interest organisations and refuses to release any meaningful information about the contents of the treaty

b)        That the Waitematā Local Board requests Auckland Council to:

(i)        Seek clarification from the Minister of Trade on how their recommendations are being addressed in current negotiations; and

(ii)       Make available to Local Boards and Auckland Citizens the government’s response as well as an analysis of the adequacy of undertakings to address Council’s concerns.

c)        That this resolution and background information be circulated to the Mayor and   Governing Body, and all other Local Boards.

Background

• The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is being negotiated between the New Zealand Government and 11 other trading partners making up a significant share of world trade.
• In pursuit of improved markets for our export goods the New Zealand Government is a very enthusiastic advocate for the TPPA but has consistently down-played or ignored potential risks in the long-term to the health and welfare of New Zealanders or the ability of future governments to legislate or regulate in their interests or on their behalf.
• Apart from frequent statements about the supposed trading benefits of the TPPA, the government has been very reluctant to discuss any of the potential down sides, and has provided no substantive information to facilitate informed debate on them. Official consultation has been primarily with those who stand to benefit – leaders of the primary industries and export manufacturers.  But there has been no corresponding conversation with the general public or groups who perceive potential risks (such as educational, medical, environmental, and legal bodies, trade unions and local government).
• Although frequently described as a free-trade agreement, this proposed treaty has become much broader since the United States of America became a party, containing numerous arcane chapters that provide protection for investors against domestic laws and policies (including those of local government) that may in any way limit or affect their ability to make a profit.
• In the absence of a government-led debate there has been widespread public discussion centred on partial leaks of draft chapters, or analysis of similar agreements containing investor-state rules, notably the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has covered Canada, Mexico and the U.S.A. since 1994. NAFTA is the model for the TPPA.
• Auckland Council passed a resolution on the TPPA in 2012 [see below].
• For specific instances of how Local Government can be affected by such an international agreement the experience of Canada and Mexico over the last two decades under the NAFTA is instructive. Following complaints about health effects from residents of Guadalcázar City, Mexico, local officials forced Metalclad, a Californian waste management company, to cease operations at its landfill because it contained 20,000 tons of improperly dumped toxic waste close to the town water supply. In 1997, the company sued the Mexican Government (Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1) – only national governments can be sued under the Investor State rules – for US$90 million in damages under Chapter 11 of NAFTA.  At a closed hearing held in Canada an arbitration panel awarded them $16.7 million. Although this amount was later reduced it is of deep concern that local government can be penalised like this for carrying out one of their most important roles, ensuring that their citizens have safe drinking water.

Resolution number RDO/2012/266 passed at

Regional Development and Operations Committee meeting of 6/12/2012

MOVED Cr M. A. Hartley, seconded Cr W. Walker

That the Regional Development and Operations Committee encourages the government to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements in a way that provides net positive benefits for Auckland and New Zealand, that is provided the Partnership and Agreements achieve the following objectives:

(i)        Continues to allow the Auckland Council and other councils, if they so choose, to adopt procurement policies that provide for a degree of local preference; to choose whether particular services or facilities are provided in house, by council-controlled organizations (CCOs) or by contracting out; or to require health and safety, environmental protection, employment rights and conditions, community participation, animal protection or human rights standards than national or international minimum standards;

(ii)       Maintains good diplomatic and trade relations and partnerships for Auckland and New Zealand with other major trading partners not included in the agreement, including with China;

(iii)       Provides substantially increased access for our agricultural exports, particularly those from the Auckland region, into the US Market;

(iv)     Does not undermine PHARMAC, raise the cost of medical treatments and medicines or threaten public health measures, such as tobacco control;

(v)      Does not give overseas investors or suppliers any greater rights than domestic investors and suppliers, such as through introducing Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or reduce our ability to control overseas investment or finance;

(vi)      Does not expand intellectual property rights and enforcement in excess of current law;

(vii)     Does not weaken our public services, require privatisation, hinder reversal of privatisations, or increase the commercialisation of government or of Auckland Council or other local government organizations;

(viii)    Does not reduce our flexibility to support local economic and industry development and encourage good employment and environmental practices and initiatives like Council Cadetships, COMET, and the Mayors’ Taskforce for Jobs which enable marginalized young people to develop their skills and transition into meaningful employment;

(ix)      Contains enforceable labour clauses requiring adherence to core International Labour Organisation conventions and preventing reduction of labour rights for trade or investment advantage;

(x)       Contains enforceable environmental clauses preventing reduction of environmental standards for trade or investment advantage;

(xi)      Has general exceptions to protect human rights, the environment, the Treaty of Waitangi, and New Zealand’s economic and financial stability;

(xii)     Has been negotiated with real public consultation including regular public releases of drafts of the text of the agreement, and ratification being conditional on a full social, environmental and economic impact assessment including public submissions.

General Tree Protection Rules Lifted

Pōhutukawa blossoms. Photo: wikimedia commons

As of Friday 4th of September, due to government amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) passed in 2013, the general tree protection rules which are the only legal protection for the vast majority of trees on private ‘urban’ properties will be repealed. General protection rules allowed Councils to nominate whole areas as protected but Penny Pirrit, Auckland Council’s General Manager of Plans & Places, says the changes to the RMA do not allow the council to re-introduce general tree protection rules:

Through changes to the RMA over the last few years, we are unable to include any general tree protection rules on most ‘urban’ sites. Exceptions to this include notable or ‘scheduled’ trees (which are listed in the district plans), trees within reserves, any area subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy, and trees within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA). These trees will continue to be protected under the Unitary Plan.

Trees in the Hauraki Gulf Islands, streets and parks will remain protected under the RMA after 4 September because they don’t meet the Act’s definition of ‘urban environment’. It is important to note that general protections and even scheduling are not absolute prohibitions. They simply require that a resource consent be obtained for trimming or removing protected trees. Unfortunately, the nature of the resource consent process is such that there were many cases of people having to pay significant amounts of money to have work done on trees on their property but the answer to that is to streamline processes and assess costs, not to remove protections altogether. The last five years have seen a progressive weakening of protections for trees and particularly our native species. Until a RMA amendment in 2009, any native tree over a certain size was considered to be protected and required a resource consent to be significantly trimmed or cut down. This latest law change is a disaster for tree protection in Auckland and throughout urban New Zealand.

Pōhutukawa. Photo: wikimedia commons

A 2015 study from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Auckland found that the Auckland isthmus has just six percent of its original urban forest left. Of that, 63 percent are on private land where just 15 percent of trees are protected through Auckland Council’s Schedule of Notable Trees. The Schedule and SEAs are the only remaining tools for tree protection. Sadly, human destruction of forests appears to be an inexorable process with a very long history. A recently released study published in Nature states that we have lost 46% of global tree coverage since the advent of human civilisation. We have to make dramatic changes in our treatment of non-human nature. Trees produce the very oxygen we breathe, provide homes to innumerable biota, are our greatest land-based carbon sinks, and provide visual amenity that defies quantification. New Zealanders identify strongly with many of our better-known native plant species, think of the Pōhutukawa as the icon of a (northern) kiwi summer, our reverence for a mighty Totara, the widespread public support for schemes (and actions) to protect threatened Kauri. The silver fern is no less than our national symbol. Yet, tree protection has never been weaker. This gradual erosion of our tree protection rules is moving in precisely the wrong direction.

Park(ing) Day

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As part of World Park(ing) Day, High St and Lorne St were colonised by tiny enclaves of tranquility taking up between one and three car parking spaces. This activity is described on parkingday.org as follows: ‘PARK(ing) Day is a annual open-source global event where citizens, artists and activists collaborate to temporarily transform metered parking spaces into “PARK(ing)” spaces: temporary public places. The project began in 2005 when Rebar, a San Francisco art and design studio, converted a single metered parking space into a temporary public park in downtown San Francisco. Since 2005, PARK(ing) Day has evolved into a global movement, with organizations and individuals (operating independently of Rebar but following an established set of guidelines) creating new forms of temporary public space in urban contexts around the world. The mission of PARK(ing) Day is to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban human habitat … at least until the meter runs out!’ Council published a video of the day [cued up to a part in which I’m speaking].

Portfolio Report: Parks & Open Spaces

Portfolio Responsibilities

Decision-making for and oversight of local parks and public council open spaces, including beaches, coastal walkways, reserves, sports fields, playgrounds, non-road reserve plazas and boat ramps. This includes location and naming of new parks, design and maintenance of park facilities and settings, and supporting community events and planting programmes in parks. Landowner consent delegation in respect of local parks and open spaces. Regulatory and policy oversight of local dog management. Advocacy to achieve local priorities relating to parks network development and input into the management and use of regional parks located within the local area.

Myers Park Playground Cleans Up at the Resene Total Colour Awards

Photo credit: Resene

The Resene Total Colour Awards were held on 23 September and Myers Park Playspace did exceptionally well. It won the Landscape category and went on to win the overall ‘Colour Master Nightingale Award’ across all categories including entrants from Australia.

The judges’ citation is below:

“The fun colour combination on the Myers Park Playspace has been awarded top honours in the Resene Total Colour Awards for its bold colour choices that have transformed this inner-city reserve… The Resene Total Colour Master Nightingale Award, named after the Nightingale family who founded and still run Resene today, recognises excellence in colour and paint use, and was awarded to Myers Park Playspace by Helen Kerr and Haylea Muir, Isthmus. It also won the Resene Total Colour Landscape Award. The judges described the project as fun, fun, fun! It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Dr Seuss, a collection of colourful park play pieces that are brought to life with bold energising colour.  Even on the dullest day, the oversized characters flitting in the park in bright paint colours bring a sense of joy and playfulness, irresistible to children and their parents. The colour cleverly contains the area and attracts children to play in one space. In a park that could easily have opted for primary colours, choosing a combination of orange, green and yellow ensures this play space doesn’t just fit with nature, it enhances it.  Like a bunch of freshly picked flowers, this play space’s colour scheme has a real sense of ‘pick me up’ optimism that can be enjoyed by all ages.”

Salisbury Reserve playground renovation complete

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Salisbury Reserve playground has been completely renovated including a drinking fountain and renewal of the path from the entrance of the reserve to the Petanque club. The playground was open for use on 25 September. The path from the entrance to the reserve, past the playground and up to the petanque club was renewed between 21 September to 2 October. Our official opening will be held on 14 November.

Works at Myers Park boundary with 345 Queen Street

On 9 September I approved a request to allow an arborist to do an exploratory dig around trees in Myers Park at the boundary of the park and 345 Queen Street. The building owners want to replace the retaining wall on the boundary and this is the first step. They have provided an arborist report and the Council Parks’ arborist, Simon Cook, has approved the exploratory dig.

Car Damage to Meola Reserve

Photo credit: Auckland Council Parks Department

On the evening of 8 September, a Toyota Caldina station wagon was driven into Meola Reserve and taken for an ‘illegal blat’ in the words of our paper of record (New Zealand Herald, “Off-roading hoons in deep muck after car stuck”, 9 September). Some steel fencing had been removed and muddy tyre tracks showed that the vehicle had driven well into the grass reserve, completed a loop, and become stuck just 100 metres from the entrance on its way back. Council is aware of who is the owner of the car but not who was driving at the time.

Myers Park Stage II Development

Detailed design is underway together with the stakeholder and business client consultation required for resource consent approvals. Iwi consultation and involvement in the design is ongoing. Next steps will be the lodgement of the resource and building consent applications, completion of detailed design and secondary geotechnical testing.

Fukuoka Friendship Gardens

Detailed design for the garden has been approved by the Local Board with the agreement of the Fukuoka Friendship Gardens Advisory Group. An up to date quantity survey should be complete by the end of the September which will help in finalising the cost. Indications are that the available

budget will be exceeded if the garden is to meet the specifications of our Japanese partners so discussions are underway with strategic partnerships to determine potential funding sources to make up the shortfall. Discussions are also ongoing with the Zoo to confirm their willingness to assist with the ongoing maintenance and security of the garden. The garden is expected to be complete by early September 2016 in conjunction with the 30^th anniversary celebrations of the Sister City relationship with Fukuoka.

Symonds Street Cemetery Interpretation Panels

New interpretive panels have been installed on the Symonds Street edge of the cemetery.

Photo credit: Dawn Bardsley

Portfolio Report: Heritage, Urban Design & Planning

Portfolio Responsibilities

Heritage, Urban Design and Planning covers a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory activities including city planning and growth, heritage protection, urban design requirements, Local Board resource consent application input, and bylaw development, including advocacy to achieve local priorities relating to heritage preservation, good urban design and spatial planning. Regulatory and policy oversight of local liquor licensing, signs & billboards, and brothels.

Heritage

Adaptive Re-Use of Heritage Toilets

The expressions of interest and proposal process for the five heritage toilets sites had three key objectives:

• Highlight the advantages that arise from adaptive re-use of heritage buildings. This included celebrating the history of the sites and ensuring their on-going protection.
• Use the sites to increase vitality and activity within the CBD. The focus on the process will be on concepts which combine both better urban design and preservation of the heritage elements of the sites.
• Generate income which contributes to the alternative finances of the council.

The public open days had around 90 visitors to the Custom Street property and around 70 people to the Sturdee St and Wellesley Street sites. As part of the process, large corflute boards were erected in each of the toilets where visitors could provide comments and memories about the site. This included comments about the attendants who used to work there and ideas for redevelopment. The resulting expressions of interest from the process were less in number than expected but of good quality. Ironically, the Sandringham Park toilets, the least marketable of the sites, received four expressions of interest. The Wellesley Street site received three expressions and Sturdee and Custom Street one each. There were a number of hospitality industry visitors who measured the sites. However, feedback was that they saw the fire regulations of the two underground toilets too difficult to overcome for hospitality. Ironically the need to provide toilets on the site was an additional limitation. One of the Wellesley Street proposals was a scheme to provide an open amphitheatre with underground links to other buildings. Another was a scheme to use the space as part of a postgraduate architectural project, which would use the space occasionally as workshop and presentation space. One individual, who has strong links to Unitec and a track record of social entrepreneurship, proposed leading concepts for all three CBD sites. She has raised the concept of using the Wellesley and Custom Street toilets as matching male and female spa/hair dressing with students from Unitec. Wellesley Street would be an up-market spa and Custom Street an old-fashioned barber’s shop. Sturdee Street would become a café, but would have links to the original producers market in the area. The proposer has already spoken to Turners and Growers who have expressed interest supporting redevelopment of the site.From the very beginning there has been great media interest in the site. Within the communications team at council there was a strong commitment to promoting the process as a rare ‘good-news story’ for council. The result was good media interest throughout the process, which was fortunate because there was no budget for advertising. During the expressions of interest timeframe there were two television news stories and various newspaper articles on the process. This was supported by a fifteen minute interview on the ‘New Zealand Stories’ slot of the afternoon session of Radio New Zealand. There was only one non-supportive commentary which was an opinion piece on the council’s approach to generating additional income. A component of the approach was the publication ‘Caught Short’ which told the history of the toilets. It highlighted the feminist battle to ensure public toilet facilities for women and the role of men’s toilets before homosexual law reform. The council webpage on the toilets project had over 1,000 visits and ‘Caught Short’ had around 200 downloads.

It appears that the advantages in using the highly commercial Sturdee site would off-set the more difficult Custom and Wellesley Street developments. The proposer also aimed for Creative New Zealand funding for up-cycling some of the old materials, such as the stainless steel urinals from the sites. This would be easier with a large scale of developments. The original intention was to have one or more proposers developing more detailed submissions. However, given that there is only one leading contender we are intending to establish a ‘preferred supplier’ status. This will still require the more detailed business plan, with appropriate due-diligence by both parties. However, creating a preferred supplier mandate will allow the opportunity to develop more detailed plans with Unitec and Turners and Growers. When the ideas are a little more developed we plan that the proposer presents the concepts to the local board for their comments and guidance. It will be important to tie these initiatives with other projects within the CBD. For instance, the linkages between the Suffrage Wall and the redevelopment of the Women’s toilets in Wellesley St.

Urban Design

Pioneer Women’s Centre & Ellen Melville Hall and Freyberg Square

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The concept designs for the Pioneer Women’s Centre & Ellen Melville Hall and Freyberg Square were approved at the 11 August business meeting by resolution WTM/2015/117 and went out for public consultation at the beginning of the month. Consultation ended on 27 September.

Aotea Quarter Framework

Photo credit: Dave Cowlard @photourbanist

I presented on the Aotea Quarter Framework at the Auckland Conversations of 23 September. This was a great opportunity to talk to an unusually well-informed and engaged audience about the larger principles of urbanism that are being drawn together in the area. The Quarter is an area of about 32ha and extends well outside the civic and artistic precinct surrounding Aotea Square, running from the top of Myers Park to Airedale and White Streets on the other side of Queen Street and down to Wellesley Street. 2ha of this land is Council-owned which presents a significant opportunity for planned development under direct control of Council. The carpark at the rear of Bledisloe House will be the site of the Central Rail Link’s Aotea Station, which will become New Zealand’s busiest train station on the day it opens. The Quarter will then become not just the centre of the city but the centre of the region. Consultation closes on 22 October. The most exciting and fundamental potential is for the area to tie together and unify the centre of the city with the increasingly well-developed corridors of Queen Street, Myers Park and the shared spaces of Lorne and Elliot Streets. This will support the dramatic increase in residential building that is to come in the near future at the Saint James and along Airedale and Queen Streets.

Planning

Resource Consents

The portfolio request information on resource consent applications of interest as a matter of course. The Local Board can have input into the decision on public notification of a resource consent application but not into the substantive matters of the application. The input of the Local Board is not binding on the commissioner making the decision. Nonetheless, on some significant applications we will include substantive comments along with our views on notification.

• R/LUC/2015/3134, 33 O’Neill Street, Ponsonby. Alterations and additions to existing pre-1944 dwelling. Work will be at the rear of the property to open it to northern sun and will involve less than 30% demolition. Also moving a detached studio within the back yard. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3371, 23 Melford Street, Ponsonby. Application to convert the existing carport into a double garage, extend the dwelling towards the rear and western side behind the garage. The proposal infringes on additions and alterations to a site in the Residential 1 zone, building in relation to boundary infringements on the west and east side, building coverage, front yard setback and landscaping and it also triggers the flooding and stormwater rules under the PAUP. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3328, 12 Pompallier Terrace, Ponsonby. Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling. Upon reviewing the plans and AEE, the alterations proposed are sympathetic to the existing villa and will be an improvement on the low-quality lean-to additions they will replace. Importantly for a house in the Res 1 zone, the alterations have little to no visibility from the heritage streetscape and are consistent with the Res 1 Zone objective stated in the District Plan to ‘promote the survival of this historic form and pattern of subdivision, buildings and streetscapes in Auckland’s early established residential neighbourhoods.’ We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/1462/1, 25 Hargreaves Street, Ponsonby. The development proposed is for additions and alterations to the existing two level building on the site to provide for a new six-level building containing a mix of 537m² of ground floor retail/commercial floor space along with 29 residential units. Parking for 33 vehicles is proposed, five on the road frontage of the site and twenty eight within Level 1 of the building which is accessed via a ramp on the eastern side of the site. The building exceeds the maximum height as 35.723m and the building exceeds this by between 3.2m and 4.8m. The lift overrun is approximately 5.7m over the 15m height limit. Overall, consent required as a Discretionary Activity. We recommended limited notification to the property at 101-408/23 Hargreaves Street due to the bulk and height of the proposed building at 25 Hargreaves Street and its proximity to the boundary.
• R/LUC/2015/3277, 9 Stuart Street, Ponsonby. Demolish existing building and construct a new dwelling and swimming pool with associated earthworks. The application involved the demolition of the existing two buildings on the subject site. According to the applicant’s AEE and the heritage assessment submitted to Council by the applicant, the front building was either relocated to, or constructed on, the site post 1940 and that the rear building was constructed in 2000. The heritage assessment found that building was constructed more recently than the 1940s, probably in the ‘50s-‘60s as it did not show up on the pre-1944 aerial survey and although components were pre-1940, the construction techniques were more common of the post-war period. All of this led the heritage architect to the conclusion that house was constructed in more recent years from material purchased from a demolition yard. The Council was encouraging slum clearance in the Freemans Bay area in the ‘50s and ‘60s and stock would have been abundant. Once the house is removed, the proposed development will include a two level dwelling with an internal garage, fencing (1.6 metres solid wall), courtyard and lap pool. The proposed development will infringe building coverage (by 2.1%), landscaping (by 2.7%) and paved impermeable (by 0.6%). Furthermore, the dwelling setback at 5 metres from the road boundary will infringe the front yard setback rule (the gable roof encroach upon the 5m yard by 1.4m over a width of 6m) and landscaping (21.8m² or 35.4% of the front yard will be landscaped surface, which is 8.9m² or 14.6% less than the required 50% minimum). Due to the site being within Residential 1, the fencing will also trigger a reason for consent. Given that the house has been assessed as not being heritage and the infringements of the new construction are minor, we did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/VCC/2013/1825/1, R/VCC/2014/1525/1, 59-67C St Georges Bay Road, Parnell. Variation to the approved plans for an approved residential unit and two-level flat. Variation involving an increase in height and accompanying height-to-boundary infringement. Forwarded to Parnell Community Committee for input. We have requested limited notification to all adjacent neighbours, particularly number 59, the most immediate neighbour not mentioned in the AEE, and submitted that special circumstances apply regarding notification as the matter has been to the Environment Court before.
• R/LUC/2015/3306, 309 Karangahape Road, Newton. Resource consent application for the upgrading of the K Road external façade of the building along with permitted internal modifications that would support the establishment of future retail and office tenancies (i.e. changing from the existing bar and nightclub activity on the site). No increase in floor area or additions to the building are proposed.  Restricted discretionary activity consent is required under the District Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/JSL/2015/3301, 2 Albany Road, Herne Bay. Two lot subdivision infringing development controls. Subdivision around the existing developments on site and associated infringements with the subdivision. Site has mixed zoning residential 1 and mixed use and currently used for a medical centre. Clarifications on several matters in terms of access and parking are being sought.
• R/LUC/2015/3298, 47 Marine Parade, Herne Bay. Application to remove the existing dwelling (not protected under Residential 2b) and construct a new two storey dwelling, with associated garage, landscaping and pool (located along the cliff edge). Reasons for consent include (but are not limited to), building coverage infringements, height in relation to boundary, earthworks, works in the coastal management area, front yard landscaping and new building in Residential 2b. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3305, 13-21 Hobson Street, Auckland Central. Installation and operation of two EV charging stations. Discretionary activity consent is needed for the installation of a network utility not otherwise provided for in the District Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3437, 3/152 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central. The Art Deco William Martin Chambers opposite the High Court. Internal alterations to scheduled building. Discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3429, 83 Albert Street, Auckland Central. Application for the refurbishment and addition of 5 very modern looking levels of offices on top of an existing building. However, the character of the existing heritage building will be maintained along its street frontage and will continue to contribute to the streetscape. Restricted Discretionary consent is needed for additions, alterations or demolitions within a character overlay under the Operative District Plan and for earthworks within 50m of a Mana Whenua site under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/VCC/2014/5481/1, 53 Symonds Street, Auckland Central. This application is seeking to vary an existing consent, R/LUC/2014/5481, to exceed the wind environment and glare development control standards provided in 6.12 and 6.13 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section) respectively. The application also seeks to vary condition number 10 of R/LUC/2014/5481 to provide final design details to Council for approval prior to occupation of the building rather than prior to Stage 3 of building consent. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/2325/1, 4 Ireland Street, Freemans Bay. Additions and alterations to an existing dwelling. The proposal is to undertake additions and alterations to the existing dwelling which involves an upper level loft extension to accommodate a master bedroom, new joinery and the construct a verandah at the front. The increase in building coverage is only for the verandah. The applicant has obtained written approval from the Parks Department relating to the building in relation to boundary infringement to the adjacent reserve. Written approval from 6 Ireland Street has also been obtained so we did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3488, 24 Hakanoa Street, Grey Lynn. In the Res 1 zone so any external alterations trigger resource consent. Application includes recladding of the existing dwelling; internal reconfiguration with new windows and joinery to be installed; removal of accessibility ramp (to the front entrance) and replacement with external steps and new timber gate. The entrance step (as it is over 1 metre in height) will infringe the front yard controls as it is considered as a building. Deck extension (to the rear of the dwelling). Construction of an in ground swimming pool to the rear of the dwelling; and construction of a new garage and carport area along the western boundary. A small portion of the garage infringes the height in relation to boundary controls (114mm vertically by 3800mm horizontally). Given that written approvals have been provided from the affected neighbours at 22 and 26 Hakanoa Street, we did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3418, 78 Brown Street, Ponsonby. The proposal involves additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, including a rear extension, a new basement level with parking, and a new pool with landscaping. The reasons for consent include infringements to the earthworks, height to boundary (117mm reducing to nothing over a length of 660mm and 98mm reducing to nothing over a length of 481mm) , building coverage (4% exceedance), private open space, front yard landscaping (infringed by 2.4%) & driveway gradient controls under the Operative Plan, along with an infringement to the stormwater rules in the PAUP as the proposal involves additional impermeable surface where stormwater is directed combined sewer network. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3439, 95 Lincoln Street, Ponsonby. Additions and alterations to an existing dwelling involving construction of a double garage down the side of the property, internal alterations and to the rear of the dwelling and landscaping works. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3226, 208 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby. Change the street façade of the building. The application is to replace the present façade that will include shop windows and the convenience store would be converted to a café.  It is not intended to change the carparking layout or numbers. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3451, 135 John Street, Ponsonby. Additions and alterations to an existing dwelling to accommodate a single basement garage, rear extension, removal of chimney and installation of solar panels. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3486, 21 Fife Street, Westmere. Additions to an existing dwelling. The dwelling extension for the application below is at the rear  (51m²) and south side (13m²). The carport at the front of the site will be converted to a garage (no closer to the front boundary and floor area extended 9m² at the rear). This is in the Residential 5 Zone and the two reasons for consent are building in relation to the southern boundary and over permitted building coverage by 10%. All adjoining property owners and occupiers have given their written approvals so we did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/JSL/2015/3494, 39 Regina Street, Westmere. Two lot subdivision and construction of a new dwelling on each lot. Joint land use subdivision (JSL). It is a non-complying activity as it is infringing density by 1m². The application is also applying for infringements of: earthworks (650m²); height in relation to boundary on the western boundary; front yard landscaping infringement by 9m²; private open space, the 6m diameter circle is marginally obstructed by the dwelling by approximately 0.39m. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3545, R/REG/2015/3669, R/REG/2015/3670, 4 Brown Street, Ponsonby. Application to construct a mixed-use development. The application site is in Business 2 and Conservation Interface Area and involves: Construction of basement parking of 143 spaces with a total shortfall of 115 spaces. This will be divided into 3 levels of basement parking; Construction of retail tenancies and courtyard on the ground floor; Commercial tenancies on the first floor; and a residential penthouse on the top floor. The proposal will trigger various reasons for consent. This includes: Earthworks (under District Plan and PAUP); activity within 30m of residentially zoned sites; a residential unit; development controls – landscaping and HIRB (max vertical length of 2.3 metres over 7 metres horizontally) on to Brown Reserve; shortfall of 115 parking spaces; one dedicated loading space; non-compliance with the gradient for the access; 100 and more parking spaces; diversion of groundwater and dewatering (ALWP and PAUP); and, soil Disturbance (NES). We communicated details of the consent to representatives of Grey Lynn and Ponsonby residents and asked for limited notification to residential properties in the immediate surrounds as they will be most affected by the parking shortfall which will put pressure on already strained on-street parking for residents. Also given the proximity to them of the proposed new building under rule 8.7.1 of the District Plan (this would apply only to neighbours within 30 metres of the boundary). R/REG/2015/3669, R/REG/2015/3670: Groundwater diversion and discharges from contaminated land associated with a new mixed use building. The regional consents are required for the excavation works proposed as part of the application for the mixed use development (R/LUC/2015/3545). In particular, a contaminated site discharge consent is required as the ground contamination assessment identified contaminants on site exceeding the ALWP permitted activity criteria, and also the proposed works exceeds the permitted activity volumes. Groundwater diversion and dewatering consent is required for the construction of the basement parking. The Local Board recommended limited notification to residential properties in the immediate surrounds as they will be most affected by the parking shortfall of 115 spaces which will put pressure on already strained on-street parking for residents. Also given the proximity to them of the proposed new building under rule 8.7.1 of the District Plan, this would apply only to neighbours within 30 metres of the boundary.
• R/LUC/2015/3527, 79 Airedale Street, Auckland Central. Resource consent application for the complete redevelopment of the site to provide a 17 level permanent accommodation building containing 93 apartments and 46 parking spaces. Consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity overall for design and appearance (new building) transportation matters (loading space shortfall and parking space dimensions) and earthworks. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3537, 36-38 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central. Temporary activity – Globe Theatre. Resource consent application for the construction of a temporary, full-scale ‘pop-up’ working replica of Shakespeare’s famous Globe Theatre (Pop-up Globe) in the heart of Auckland, within the Aotea Arts Precinct (car parking area on SE corner of Mayoral Drive and Greys Ave) . The Theatre structure (approx. 26m in diameter by 12m in height) with a capacity of 950 persons, which would occupy the proposed site for a period of approximately 4 months. Pack in starting January with final performances anticipated to occur around 23 April 2016. The structure will then be deconstructed over a period of two weeks, and the site reinstated by the end of business on 6 May. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3529, 101 Queen Street, Auckland Central. Resource consent application for a new the retail interior fit-out and associated signage for a scheduled building. Restricted discretionary activity consent is needed for restoration, alternations or additions to all or part of a scheduled item under the Operative District Plan and discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3554, R/REG/2015/3564, 100 Halsey Street, Auckland Central. Consent is sought for an Integrated Development Plan covering the block of Wynyard Quarter bound by Halsey Street, Pakenham Street West, Daldy Street and Gaunt Street, and land use consent for two buildings for various hotel, entertainment, car parking, and office purposes. Consent matters include; Integrated Development Plan with height control infringement; demolition (of part of the existing bus depot workshop and associated offices annexure)  and construction of buildings; public car parking; maximum parking space infringement; the provision of more than 100 parking spaces; earthworks; and the development of a contaminated site and short term discharge. Enquiries are ongoing about this application.
• R/LUC/2015/3557, 149-159 Quay Street, Auckland Council. Resource consent application to construct a first floor storage platform for wheelie bins and ground floor cardboard storage associated with the Maritime Museum. Consent is required for a restricted controlled activity for alterations to a building in the Viaduct Harbour Precinct. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3567, Shop 1C/55-57 High Street, Auckland Central. Resource consent application to form a new opening in the inter-tenancy wall between units within a scheduled building. Restricted discretionary activity consent is needed for restoration, alternations or additions to all or part of a scheduled item under the Operative District Plan and discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3615, 198 Queen Street, Auckland Central. Resource consent application for alterations to a scheduled building to provide a new shop fit-out for  Peter Alexander (sleepwear) store. Restricted discretionary activity consent is needed for restoration, alternations or additions to all or part of a scheduled item under the Operative District Plan and discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The current tenant is Spark. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3506, 592 Great North Road, Grey Lynn. Establish a new restaurant in the existing building that is the ASB on the corner of Great North and Tuarangi Rd in the Surrey Crescent shops. There will be internal alterations, removal of the canopy over the main entrance (apparently a 1980s addition), removal of the Tuarangi Road fence and construction of a new light-weight free standing glass and steel frame enclosure over an external court yard area. Consent is required because it is a character defining site; activity within 30 metres of a residential zone, there are development control infringements for frontages and noise, a parking and loading zone shortfall. We communicated details of the consent to representatives of Grey Lynn and Ponsonby residents as well as business owners, all of whom expressed strong views. The Local Board has requested limited notification of this application to the surrounding businesses and residences as the proposed development is removing its own garages x 3 and hardstand additional car parking at the rear of its building and is relying on parking on the local roading network. This will have significant implications for existing businesses whose parking is already under pressure. Late night noise issues will be the main concern for nearby residents requiring their notification.
• R/LUC/2015/3593, 240 Broadway, Newmarket. Demolition of the existing building on the subject site and the construction of a new nine storey building (31m in height). The ground floor will contain retail, the mezzanine will contain food and beverage, the upper seven levels will contain apartments. The application makes provision for the re-design and construction of the currently rather compromised accessway between Broadway and Station Square. The accessway is to be built at Council’s expense. There are two character defining buildings currently on the site and the design has made no attempt to retain even the façades of these buildings. We have asked for public notification of the application on this basis.
• R/VCC/2007/4169/1, 70 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central. Consultation is triggered by the fact that the proposal slightly exceeds the maximum total floor area ratio of 8:1 by a factor of 0.8:1; this is two metres additional to the eastern side. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/VCC/2012/3145/16, 4 Williamson Avenue, Ponsonby. Application to vary the consent conditions on Lot 2 of Vinegar Lane. The variation includes partial exceedance of the 15m height limit, reduction in the floor to floor heights; minor exceedance of the 16m height limit, reduction in minimum private open space and reduction in ground floor glazing. The non-compliance with the controls under the Vinegar Lane Urban Design Manual has been approved by the Urban Design Panel of Vinegar Lane. We communicated details of the consent to representatives of Grey Lynn and Ponsonby residents and Crummer Road residents living adjacent for comment. Given the minor impact in the context of a very large project, and the lack of objections from those informed, we did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3615, 198 Queen Street, Auckland Central. Resource consent application for alterations to a scheduled building to provide a new shop fit-out for  Peter Alexander (sleepwear) store. Restricted discretionary activity consent is needed for restoration, alternations or additions to all or part of a scheduled item under the Operative District Plan and discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The current tenant is Spark. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3626, 183 Karangahape Road, Auckland Central. Resource consent application for refurbishment of St Kevin’s Arcade, a Heritage B scheduled building.  The application seeks a standardised approach to deal with signage and includes the replacement of non-original floor tiles. Other ‘permitted’ works  included repairs to the wall tiling and repainting of interior and front exterior façade. Restricted discretionary activity consent is needed for restoration, alterations or additions to all or part of a scheduled item under the Operative District Plan and discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The plans show what will be an appropriate restoration which will very substantially improve the amenity of the arcade. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3631, 30 Emily Place, Auckland Central. The proposal is a conversion of a currently unused bar/ lounge in an existing accommodation building to an apartment with the ancillary use of conducting educational seminars from the unit. Consent is required for conversion of an existing building to permanent accommodation; a shortfall of the minimum outlook of 6 metres; and for an education activity over 100 square metres. Overall the application is considered a restricted controlled and restricted discretionary activity. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3658, 22 Queen Street, Auckland Central. External alterations to scheduled building. Resource consent application for additions and alterations to a retail unit located within a scheduled building. Restricted discretionary activity consent is needed for restoration, alternations or additions to all or part of a scheduled item under the Operative District Plan and discretionary activity consent is needed for modifications to buildings, structures or the fabric or features of a scheduled place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3723, 29-33 Shortland Street, Auckland Central. The proposal is to attach two signs to the Shortland Street frontage of the building known as General House, a category B scheduled building.  A restricted discretionary activity consent is required for the erection of a sign on a heritage building. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3725, 6 Quay Street, Auckland Central. Establish a motor vehicle sales premises within an existing building. Resource consent application for establishing a motor vehicle sales premises within an existing building. Discretionary activity consent is required for Motor Vehicle Sales in the Quay Park Precinct 1 area under the Operative District Plan. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3718, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland Central. Vector is proposing to install and operate an electric vehicle charging station (EV charging station ) within the former Oriental Markets carpark at Britomart Place. Discretionary activity consent is needed for the installation of a network utility not otherwise provided for in the District Plan. This consent is being processed by the Major Infrastructure Team. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/SUB/2015/3608, 1 Vinegar Lane, Grey Lynn. Six-lot unit title subdivision around an approved mixed use development. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/VCC/2012/3145/17, 6 Vinegar Lane, Grey Lynn. Change of conditions under s127 of R/LUC/2012/3145/20 (Vinegar Lane). The variation specifically related to Lot 20, Vinegar Lane. It is noted that an application to vary the conditions of the original application has been granted (referenced R/VCC/2012/3145/6. Under this application, a variation was granted for a floor area ratio of 4.45:1 and the additional height infringement up to a maximum height of 16 metres for the rooftop pavilion and pergolas. The variation under the current application (R/VCC/2012/3145/17) includes the following: a reduction in the floor area ratio of 4.44:1; reduction in the floor to floor height; non-compliance with the permitted height allowance for the roof top structures, being the pergola and lift/stairs overruns.  The design manual allows for an additional 1 metre higher than the maximum 15m building height to a maximum area equivalent to 10% of the building footprint for closed in structures and 30% for open structures. The structure in this regard is approximately 200mm over the 16 metres height limit. Local residents and resident’s association heads were forwarded the application by me and asked for feedback. No concerns were raised and we did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3760, 27 Herne Bay Road, Herne Bay. In Conservation Area C. Extension of the existing garage to create more space allowing for easier vehicle access. To stay in keeping with the existing lean-to on the northern side of the garage, the materials and roof pitch are kept identical on the proposed southern side extension. Three windows are included in the proposed garage door and have been squared up in keeping with the windows along the front of the existing dwelling. There is no infringement of the landscaped area or the height in relation to boundary rules. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3774, 78 Wanganui Avenue, Herne Bay. In Conservation Area C. New roof extension. A number of the surrounding properties have had roof extensions. The extension would be comprised of a Dutch gable at each end of the new ridge and be visually complementary with the existing roof pitch. Infringement of 8m maximum height limit by 27.1cm. There is an existing height in relation to boundary infringement that has already been consented, this addition would not alter or worsen the existing infringement. Council Heritage’s input was as follows: ‘We have supported this type of development with a Dutch gable at each end of the new ridge in the past. The main planes of the roof forms were never punctuated with dormers or other protrusions. The roof pitches should be identical throughout.’ This advice has been reflected in the designs. We did not have input into the notification decision.
• R/LUC/2015/3784, 124 Garnet Road, Westmere. The proposal is to demolish the existing rear portion of the dwelling and carport and construct a new addition at the rear. The existing rear portion of the dwelling appears to be constructed in 1992 with an approved resource consent for the extension to the existing dwelling (R/LUC/1992/80) and it was further altered in 2008 through a building consent. Only a portion of the existing pre-1944 dwelling will be demolished. We are awaiting information from the architect to clearly indicate in the demolition plan what is pre-1944 and what is constructed after to determine if the proposal infringes the PAUP rule.
• R/LUC/2015/3692, 23 Castle Street, Grey Lynn. Application to demolish part of an existing building, less than 30%, and construct a new addition to a residential dwelling. Main infringement is infringement of the 8m maximum height boundary by 31cm. The infringing part of the building is in the centre of the build and does not infringe height in relation to boundary limits. Council’s heritage architect has given an endorsement in principle to the design. We did not have input into the notification decision.

Resource consent matters of significance this month

Decision: New Zealand International Convention Centre

Consent GRANTED, including the air bridge over Hobson Street, with conditions.

Notified Hearing: 30 Seccombes Road, Newmarket

TRC/2015/1116. Application to remove four scheduled, native trees (two Pōhutukawa, two Tōtara) from a private property at 30 Seccombes Road which is right on the border between Albert-Eden and Waitematā but just within Waitematā. Overall, the application is assessed as a discretionary activity. We insisted on a publicly notified hearing which has been granted, submissions closed on 2 October.

Decision: Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland Central

R/REG/2015/1417. Waterfront Auckland’s resource consent for the Michael Parekowhai artwork to be sited at the northern end of Queens Wharf has been GRANTED.

Application: 208-212 Karangahape Road, Newton

R/LUC/2015/3358. New commercial and residential building (62 units), 35m in height. Demolition of existing building but the (modified) heritage K Road façade of the building at 208 will be retained and incorporated into the new building design. No onsite carparking will be provided. The building will also front onto Cross Street. Overall, the application will be a ‘non-complying’ activity due to a number of infringements to the development controls. The main infringement of concern to the local board is a minor infringement of the E10 Mount Eden volcanic view protection control. However, this will be minor, by between 0.56m and 0.835m. The application has been before the Auckland Urban Design Panel; the Panel’s comments were taken on board and several design changes made. There are design assessment criteria within the District Plan and a specific set of Design Guidelines for K Road which are contained within Annex 3 of the District Plan. There is also the new K Rd Plan 2014-44. It is anticipated that the applicant provide an appropriate level of assessment against all of these matters to show how the proposed design addresses the criteria and guidelines – at this stage it does not appear the applicant has provided sufficient assessment. Council requested further assessment as part of a s92 RMA request. On 14 September, we were informed by the supervising planner that the application was rejected due to in the lack of an infrastructure report.  Council also asked the applicant to provide a more detailed assessment of the proposal against the District Plan criteria. The application was re-submitted with the requisite infrastructure report and additional analysis on 23 September. The application has not yet been reviewed by Council’s urban designer.

Variation of consent conditions: Great North Road – Strategic Special Housing Area, 189 & 193-197 Great North Rd and 1 Turakina Street, Grey Lynn

R/VCC/2015/410/1. Amendment to proposed basement parking structure from a stacked parking system to a two level basement design. This will result in amendments to conditions 1, 18 , and 19 of the approved resource consent due to the change to the basement floor plans, removal of the single mobility parking space and a reduction in long-term residential cycle parking over the site. I informed Grey Lynn and Arch Hill residents associations’ representatives and asked for their input. No concerns were raised so we did not have input into the notification decision.

Unauthorised Demolition: 23 Albany Road, Herne Bay

In February 2015, resource consent was granted for additions and alterations to the villa at 23 Albany Road. The works included lifting and excavating the house to create a basement garage and living accommodation, partial demolition of the roof, demolition of the existing sleep out and garage, and the construction of ground floor extensions. The proposed additions are sympathetic to streetscape and heritage character of the neighbourhood. No resource consent has been granted to remove the villa from the site. Auckland Council’s monitoring inspectors have visited the site and assessed the consented plans against the works that have taken place.  There is a discrepancy in that more of the house has been demolished than was consented. Inspectors had not been made aware that works had commenced and therefore had not inspected the site until we were informed by members of the media. Resource Consenting and Heritage staff are working with the homeowner and his advisors to ensure that the final rebuilt house is in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure that the completed house is sympathetic to the streetscape and character of the conservation area. The owner lodged a retrospective consent application (R/VCC/2015/24/1) on 18 September for a change of conditions to allow the demolition of the majority of the dwelling.

The Local Board requested public notification of this application. This is retrospective consent for an almost total demolition of a heritage building in a Res 1 zone in Conservation Area C and Category B historic heritage area (PAUP). There is little higher protection outside of scheduling of the site, yet no attempt was made by the owners to advise or consult with Council when it became clear that they would demolish the building over and above what was consented. This demolition in such a sensitive area has drawn considerable public interest – including media attention. I also submitted that Special Circumstances exist as per s94A(4) RMA. In Murray v Whakatane DC [1997] NZRMA 433, Elias J stated that in determining what may amount to special circumstances it is necessary to consider the matters relevant to the application as a whole, not merely those considerations stipulated in the test for notification.

If it is possible to demolish significantly more than has been consented in an area that purportedly has a high level of heritage protection and all that is required is a s127 application on a non-notified basis then the policy objectives of these areas are not being achieved and a practice of ‘efficient breach’ is being accepted.

Application: ‘1 Mills Lane’ Tower, 46-56 Albert Street, Auckland Central

R/LUC/2015/3726, R/REG/2015/3727. Land use consent is sought for the construction and use of a new 29 level (plus ground levels) office tower and a 5 level (plus ground level) hotel on the site of the APN/New Zealand Herald building. A separate resource consent application (R/LUC/2015/918) has already been granted which covers the demolition of the existing structures on site and the associated earthworks including regional earthworks, soil disturbance on HAIL land and the removal of fuel tanks. The proposal will provide parking for 220 vehicles in 3 basement levels underneath the office tower and 35 spaces at ground level (Mills Lane). The build will involve the removal of some trees on Wyndham Street (5 Black Alders) and Albert Streets (2 Magnolias) to provide the continuous verandah required by the District Plan rules along the frontage. In any event, all the trees along this part of Albert Street will be removed and replaced with natives when the trenching of the street is done for the City Rail Link. The office tower will provide a through site link traversing from the corner of Wyndham and Albert Street down through the building to Mills Lane. Regional consent is sought for the take and diversion of groundwater in order to facilitate the proposed basement and its construction. We did not have input into the notification decision.

Regulatory

Alcohol Ban Review

A recent amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 requires alcohol bans to be evidence-based. This has required councils throughout the country to review their alcohol bans. For bans to continue there must be documented evidence that any area with an alcohol ban has experienced a high-level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse through the consumption of alcohol. Public submissions ended on 17 July and the Local Board Hearings Committee – of which I am Deputy Chair – heard public submissions on 5 August. The key recommendations of the panel were that:

• 45 alcohol bans meet the new higher statutory threshold and should be retained; and
• 52 alcohol bans do not meet the new higher statutory threshold and should be allowed to lapse.

The panel retained 39 alcohol ban areas as proposed and received sufficient new evidence for one additional alcohol ban to be retained in Vermont Reserve. The panel also reviewed the geographical area and times of a number of areas that resulted in sex areas being subsumed into existing ban areas and two new areas being created. Changes from the proposal were:

• Subsume the two areas known as Grey Lynn Park 1 and 2 into a new Grey Lynn Park area;
• Subsume the Te Uringutu Reserve into the City Centre alcohol ban area;
• Separate the Newton Town Centre alcohol ban area (including Dacre Reserve A) from the City Centre alcohol ban area;
• Separate Basque Park from the Newton Town Centre area (to retain its night-time only alcohol ban); and
• Subsume the two night-time bans within the geographical extent of the Newmarket Town Centre alcohol ban area.

The pre-existing bans lapse on 31 October 2015 with only those we have explicitly approved (by Resolution number WTM/2015/139) at the 8 September business meeting continuing. The Local Board has delegated authority to consider evidence to make or remake an alcohol ban post-31 October.

Local Dog Access Rules

The Council must have a dog policy and the Dog Access Bylaw gives effect to this policy. The policy and bylaw must set out areas where dogs are prohibited, where they will be required to be on-leash, where they can be off-leash and designated dog exercise areas. The Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) to review access rules ended on Friday 17 July. Our Local Board Hearings Committee – of which I am Deputy Chair – heard public submissions on 12 August.

The key recommendations of our Hearings Committee were:

• apply an under control off-leash rule west of Meola Reef Reserve and east of Garnet Road up to the western headland of Marine Parade Beach
• apply an amended time and season rule from the western headland of Marine Parade Beach to Curran Street and Judges Bay as follows:

• apply an under control on-leash rule to all beach and foreshore areas east of Curran Street, excluding Judges Bay
• replace the general wildlife rule with specific rules on the Meola Reef Reserve foreshore to prohibit dogs north of Meola Reef and on-leash east of Meola Reef to Garnet Road
• align the summer season period for parks with the beach summer season period
• retain the time and season rule on Cox’s Bay Reserve
• amend the current under control off-leash rule for Seddon Fields and Victoria Park to under control on-leash
• enlarge the northern under control off-leash area on Grey Lynn Park to north of the pathway running from Dryden Street to Arnold Street
• reclassify Meola Reef within the fenced area as a designated dog exercise area
• reclassify all other dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas
• remove the general rules for picnic and fitness areas.

We resolved at the 8 September business meeting (Resolution number WTM/2015/140) to approve these recommendations and adopt the new rules with a commencement date of 24 October 2015.

Meetings / Events Attended / Appearances

1 September:

• Local Board workshop
  • Securing the Ngahere Terrace connection
  • Continuing Central Joint Funding Committee
  • AT update
  • NZTA update

3 September:

• Parks portfolio monthly meeting
• Spoke to NewstalkZB about the lifting of general tree protection rules

8 September:

• Local Board business meeting

9 September:

• Attended Auckland Development committee workshop

10 September:

• Local Board workshop
  • Smoke Free Phase 2 Implementation
  • Auckland Transport
    • Quay Street Cycleway preliminary design
    • New network public consultation
    • Wynyard Quarter Phase 2 Roading Upgrade

15 September:

• Local Board workshop
  • Regional Facilities Auckland: Auckland Stadiums Strategy
  • Proposal for a marine industry site in Wynyard Quarter

16 September:

• Auckland Doman Committee workshop

17 September:

• Parks portfolio monthly meeting and site visit
  • Takutai Reserve
  • Salisbury Reserve
• Meeting with Daniel Marshall Architects for report-back on area analysis for Great North Road SHA

18 September:

• Beach Road Cycleway: Phase 2 opening

22 September:

• Local Board workshop
  • Proposed Special Housing Areas
• Workshop on elected member professional development

23 September:

• Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
• Presented on the Aotea Quarter Framework at Auckland Conversations

24 September:

• Panellist on NewsTalkZB’s drive-time segment ‘The Huddle’
• Parnell Heritage AGM

27 September:

• Attended Festival Italiano as a guest

28 September:

• Appearance on Paul Henry Show panel

29 September:

• Local Board Workshop
  • Bi-monthly report to the Board updating ongoing projects
  • City Centre Integration
  • Victoria Park
  • Low Carbon Implementation Plan