Palmerston North City Council

Transcription

1 Palmerston North City Council Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Hearings Committee [Part I Public], held in Council Chambers, Civic Administration Building, Palmerston North on Wednesday 14 July 2016, commencing at 10.00am Members Present: Councillor Tangi Utikere (in the Chair) and Councillors Leonie Hapeta and Aleisha Rutherford. NOTES: (i) (ii) The meeting adjourned at 3.20pm and resumed again at 3.32pm in that part of the meeting held with the public excluded. The Committee resolved to exclude the public to allow a decision to be made for the reason that the decision was subject to a right of appeal under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 section 48(2)(a)(i). The decision was released to the public and is recorded in the public part of the proceedings Hearing of Objection Pursuant to Section 357(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, 3404 and 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. Consideration was given to: (i) s, dated 29 March 2016, 18 April 2016 and 17 May 2016, from Mr Les Fugle on behalf of Aokautere Land Holdings Limited. (ii) (iii) (ii) Statement of Evidence, dated 14 July 2016, from Mr Les Fugle on behalf of Aokautere Land Holdings Limited. tabled. Statement of Evidence, dated 12 July 2016, from Mr Phil Pirie on behalf of Pirie Consultants tabled. Statement of Evidence, by the Senior Planner Mr Craig Auckram Palmerston North City Council. The following people appeared before the Committee: Mr Les Fugle of Aokautere Land Holdings Limited and Mr Phil Pirie of Pirie Consultants, and read their statements of evidence. Mr Craig Auckram, Senior Planner, Mr Simon Mori, Head of Planning Services, Mr Robert van Bentum, Water and Waste Services Manager and Mr Dave Charnley, Urban Designer of Palmerston North City Council/ Mr Auckram confirmed his report and made the following comments:

2 Extraordinary Hearings Committee, 14 July 2016 REF # Mr Auckram stated that there were only three applications relevant to the Hearing that S88 of the RMA Schedule 4 (Information required in an application for resource consent) formed the basis for applications. He believed the role of the Committee was to consider, if sufficient information had been provided by the applicant under that Schedule. Mr Charnley confirmed his evidence and stated that the height of the earthworks mounds was a visual estimation. Right of Reply Mr Pirie noted that most properties were not affected by the earthworks as they have high fences and the earthworks were not visible. Both Mr Pirie and Mr Fugle expressed their frustration in not being able to resolve various matters on these applications with Council staff and asked if the Chairperson of the Hearings Committee would be able to assist in moving the applications by way of mediation. The Committee reserves its decision and: Exclusion of Public The COMMITTEE RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely agenda item 1. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public was excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution were as follows: General subject of each matter to be considered 1 Hearing of Objection Pursuant to Section 357(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, 3404 and 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter Right of Appeal Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution (d)

3 Extraordinary Hearings Committee, 14 July 2016 REF # This resolution was made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public were as follows: 1. Hearing of Objection Pursuant to Section 357(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, 3404 and 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. LGOIMA 48(2)(a)(i) Right of Appeal. The meeting adjourned at 3.55pm The meeting resumed again at 9.33am on 18 July 2016 The meeting adjourned again at 10.03am Consideration of Objection Pursuant to Section 357(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 Objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, 3404 and 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. The meeting resumed at 10.50am on Monday 8 August 2016 NOTE: When the meeting resumed on Monday 8 August 2016 Councillor Leonie Hapeta was not present Further consideration was given to the evidence before the Committee on the Objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, 3404 and 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED: 14.1 That the application for Objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, 3404 and 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North, pursuant to Sections 357(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991, be actioned as set out in the decision (attached) That the Applicant's suggestion of potential provision of services be able to be accessed through private land be referred to the Chief Executive in the first instance." 14.3 That copies of the decision be served on the Applicant, Council Officers and be available for public inspection. The meeting finished at 11.00am Monday 8 August 2016 CONFIRMED THIS 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 C H A I R P E R S O N

4 PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER of section 357 (3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 And IN THE MATTER of a notice of objection to determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, SUB 3404 and SUB 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. HEARINGS COMMITTEE: PLACE OF HEARING: Councillor Tangi Utikere (Chairperson) Councillor Leonie Hapeta Councillor Aleisha Rutherford Council Chamber 32 The Square Palmerston North DATE OF HEARING: 14 July 2016 DATE OF DECISION: 8 August 2016 APPEARANCES: For the Applicant: Mr Les Fugle Aokautere Land Holdings Limited Mr P H Pirie Consulting Surveyor Pirie Consultants Limited For the Palmerston North City Council: Mr Craig Auckram Senior Planner Mr Simon Mori Head of Planning Services Mr Robert van Bentum Water and Waste Services Manager Mr Dave Charnley Urban Designer DECISION I THE OBJECTION [1] The Applicant, Aokautere Land Holdings Limited pursuant to section 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991 ( RMA ) has lodged an objection to the determination that applications for Resource Consents are incomplete for

5 2 SUB 3375, SUB 3404 and SUB 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North. [2] On 26 February 2016, Pirie Consultants Limited, on behalf of Aokautere Land Holdings Limited, submitted a Subdivision and Land Use Consent application for the extension of Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North and associated earthworks at 50 Johnstone Drive. The application was given file reference SUB [3] On 7 March 2016, and in reliance with section 88(3) of the RMA, the Council notified the applicant that it had determined that SUB 3375 was incomplete [4] On 15 March 2016, a sub-division application and associated land-use consent was lodged with Council. The application was given file reference SUB [5] On 30 March 2016, and in reliance with section 88(3) of the RMA, the Council notified the applicant that it had determined that SUB 3404 was incomplete. [6] On 7 April 2016, a sub-division application and associated land-use consent was lodged with Council. The application was given file reference SUB [7] On 12 April 2016, and in reliance with section 88(3) of the RMA, the Council notified the applicant that it had determined that SUB 3430 was incomplete. [8] On 18 April 2016 an was sent to Council from the applicant, objecting to the decision dated 12 April [9] On 18 April 2016 an was sent to Council from the applicant seeking clarification on a number of points within the S88(3) letter. [10] On 22 April 2016 Council responded to the letter from the applicant detailing their response. [11] On 17 May 2016 an was sent to Council from the applicant, objecting to the return of the application SUB II THE LAW [12] Section 88(3) of the RMA authorises the Council to, within 10 working days after an application was first lodged, determine that the application is incomplete if the application does not a. Include the information prescribed by regulations; or b. Include the information required by Schedule 4. [13] Section 88(3A) states that the Council must immediately return an incomplete application to the applicant, with written reasons for the determination. [14] Section 88(4) states that after an application has been returned as incomplete, that if that application is lodged again with the Council, that application is to be treated as a new application. [15] Section 357(3) of the RMA states:

6 3 A person whose application to a consent authority is determined to be incomplete under section 88(3) has a right of objection to the consent authority. [16] The Council has delegated this authority to the Hearings Committee, which has the power in its absolute discretion to dismiss the objection or uphold the objection in whole or in part. III EVIDENCE The Applicant [17] Mr Fugle stated that he was authorised to speak on behalf of Aoukatere Land Holdings. [18] Mr Fugle and Mr Pirie presented their evidence outlining the background to the development and the surrounding area. [19] Mr Fugle stated that it was wholly improper for Council to raise matters that were not directly relevant to the application(s) and therefore the Committee must disregard all unrelated issues raised that were not matters to be considered with S88. [20] The applicant believed that whilst there were three objection notices before the Committee, it should be noted that Council had received five objection notices; SUB 3270 submitted on 3 December 2016 and SUB 3510 returned on 13 June With each returned application an explanation of why it was returned was included. [21] Mr Fugle stated that the intent and scope of the project, to make Johnstone Drive a through road, has to satisfy the requirements of the local residents, Woodgate Gospel Church members, who have a proposed new school and Church development on adjoining land, and Council. Due to financial limitations and construction difficulties it was intended that the road be formed in two stages. [22] The Applicant s plan to have Abby Road extended to connect with Johnstone Drive requires filling the Abby Road gully which also provides an opportunity create more sections in the subdivision of Abby Road, Woodgate Court and Johnstone Drive. Work began on this under consent RM 2446, however earthworks were not completed before the consent lapsed in [23] Mr Fugle believed that Council was resistant to the proposal to extend Johnstone Drive and that there was an apparent unwillingness for the development to proceed as proposed. Consent to construct the road was first applied for in December 2015, however this had been frustrated by the demand for public notification. This has meant that the land that Woodgate Gospel Trust now owns does not have practicable access to their property. [24] Mr Fugle noted that Mr Auckram stated that the proposal was an attempt to advance development in an ad hoc manner. However Mr Fugle highlighted that the property had capacity for some 700 lots hence financial need for the development to be carried out in stages and that Council had approved numerous stages throughout the Aokautere area. Mr Phil Pirie confirmed that

7 4 the development was not ad hoc but a staged development in accordance with a general pattern of development of the land. [25] A stop work order had been issued by the Environment Court for land at 177 Aokautere Drive and 50 Johnstone Drive on 22 January Mr Fugle queried if it was necessary for Council to file an ex parte injunction application to have works cease as following discussions with Council officers, he believed that there were no substantive issues regarding the earthworks. [26] On 25 February 2016 an application was lodged (SUB 3375) that expressly excluded any earthworks in the Abby Road Gully and solely dealt with the creation of the road to vest. It was believed that the application contained all the necessary information and was to the same standard as previous applications, therefore the applicant was surprised the application was returned on the basis of it being incomplete. [27] On 14 March 2016 a further application was lodged (SUB 3404), rather than lodging an objection to the return of SUB This application was also returned even though all matters stated for the rejection of the previous application had been dealt with and the reasons for the return of SUB 3404 were completely different. [28] On 31 March 2016 a fourth application was submitted which provided even more detail than what was stated for in the previous applications. Outlined below are the reasons for the Council s rejections and Mr Pirie s responses; a. Plans Mr Pirie believed it was hard to understand how too much information was provided as it was provided to give a full and detailed picture of the overall development. b. Stockpiles He noted that the additional items requested were not previously required and he considered them unnecessary. These requests had never been required for any previous developments Mr Pirie had consulted on. c. Stockpile Dust He submitted that there was no basis for this and if there were concerns they would be mitigated by conditions of consent. d. Services He believed full details were provided with the application. e. Horizons Regional Council Consent His view was that the consent application to Horizons Regional Council was separate to the application made to Council and that there was no legal requirement for them to do so for the same circumstances. f. Vesting of Road He identified that the report stated that the area was to vest as road and was also shown on plan 2043/131. g. Consultation with Council Mr Pirie did not believe there was any need to further consult with

8 5 Council regarding the extent of construction along Designation 93 as this alignment was in accordance with the designation. h. Engineering Assessment He submitted all the engineering information was provided and was the same that was provided in the previous applications with no issue being raised at that time. i. Rules Assessment He noted that an assessment was provided for all of the relevant rules of the District Plan. j. Rule (e) Mr Pirie advised the Committee that an assessment was provided. [29] Mr Pirie stated that all of the consent applications submitted, provided all of the necessary information to enable Council to be fully aware of what was being applied for, what the outcome would be, and to fully assess the situation and to decide what consent conditions need to be imposed. The Council [30] Mr Auckram, Senior Planner, Palmerston North City Council confirmed the contents of his pre-circulated written report. [31] Mr Auckram stated that there were only three applications relevant to the Hearing and that he had assessed the latest application, SUB 3430, as it contained the greatest amount of information. He had nonetheless determined that SUB 3430 was still inadequate, and on that basis if it was inadequate, then the preceding two applications would also be inadequate. [32] Mr Auckram noted that S88 of the RMA Schedule 4 (Information required in an application for resource consent) formed the basis for applications. He believed the role of the Committee was to consider, if sufficient information had been provided by the applicant under that Schedule. [33] Council noted that SUB 3430 did not sufficiently address: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Engineering issues including management of any stockpile to avoid adverse effects. An assessment of the visual and amenity effects of stockpiling adjacent to the proposed road. The location and effects of removal of the earthworks after two years as indicated in the covering letter to the application in section 3.4. Servicing of development relying on access for the future road. An adequate assessment of the activity and its effects against the relevant provisions of the District Plan.

9 6 [34] Mr Auckram also noted that there were a number of Objectives and Policies of the District Plan in relation to the Residential Zone that were not considered as part of the application. [35] The applicant had stated that Council should source the plans and maps and add them to the applications. Mr Auckram noted that it was incumbent upon the applicant to submit a complete application and not for Council to compile the application. [36] Mr Dave Charnley confirmed his pre-circulated written evidence and advised he had completed a site visit of the earthworks and had given a visual estimation of the earthworks mounds to be 1.8 to 2.0 metres in height. IV FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR DECISION [37] We have considered all of the evidence, and have fully taken into account the relevant provisions of the RMA before arriving at the following findings and reasons for them. [38] We agree that the function of the Committee is to determine if the Council was justified in deciding to return applications (SUB 3375, SUB 3404 and SUB 3430) under S88 of the RMA Schedule 4 (Information required in an application for resource consent), on the grounds that they were insufficient. [39] In doing so, we must make our determinations based on the information submitted in the application, not new information provided as part of this hearing. While we may consider the information presented during the hearing to provide a context for the application and decision-making process, such additional information may fall outside the scope that was available to the Council at the time the decision to reject the application as insufficient was made. [40] We now turn to address each of the component grounds upon which the Council rejected the application SUB 3430 as insufficient under S88 of the RMA. [41] Lack of information relating to Engineering issues including management of any stockpile to avoid adverse effects. We agree that whilst additional information was provided to the hearing it was not provided as part of the application. As such, the Council is justified in determining the Application as insufficient on this basis. [42] No assessment of the visual and amenity effects of stockpiling adjacent to the proposed road. All parties were aware that the Hearings Committee were to undertake a site visit. This took place on 18 July It was clear as a result of the site visit that the stockpiles in situ adjacent to the proposed road, were in excess of 1.8 metres. This is consistent with the expert evidence provided to the Committee by Mr Charnley. As assessment of the potential visual and amenity impact of such stockpiling was not included within the Application and accordingly, the Council is justified in determining the Application as insufficient on this basis.

10 7 [43] No analysis of the location and effects of removal of the earthworks after two years as indicated in the covering letter to the application in section 3.4. The hearing was told that the earthworks could potentially stay for an indefinite period of time. While we accept this may be an option, no information was included in the Application as to how these effects could be mitigated. As such the Council is justified in determining the Application as insufficient on this basis. [44] No provision of information relating to the Servicing of development, relying on access for the future road. Whilst some information had been supplied, it did not sufficiently address how access and servicing would be managed. While Mr Fugle invited the Committee to consider how the potential for servicing across private land could be accommodated, that is outside the scope currently before this Committee. As such, the Council is justified in determining the Application as insufficient on this basis. [45] Requirement for an adequate assessment of the activity and its effects against the relevant provisions of the District Plan. The applicant has relied on previous information that had been submitted with previous applications. The suggestion that staff collate aspects of the application on behalf of the applicant, results in a component of such costs falling upon the general ratepayer. In the current context this is not in accordance with Council s expectations. Accordingly, the Council is justified in determining the Application as insufficient on this basis. [46] We accept that on the basis that the information supplied as part of application SUB 3430 was insufficient, then the information supplied with SUB 3375 and SUB 3404 were also to be considered as insufficient, and that Council was justified in rejecting the Applications under S88(3). V DETERMINATION [47] On the foregoing grounds, we uphold the determinations that applications for Resource Consent are incomplete; SUB 3375, SUB 3404 and SUB 3430 at 33 Johnstone Drive, Palmerston North and therefore dismiss the objection. Dated this 8 TH day of August 2016 Cr Tangi Utikere Chairperson Cr Aleisha Rutherford Member