DOCSLIB.ORG

The Auckland District

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Auckland District I hereby give notice that a meeting will be held on: Date: Tuesday 8 June 2021 Time: 9:30am Meeting Room: Boardroom Venue: Ground Floor, Auckland Town Hall, 301 Queen Street THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT LICENSING COMMITTEE APPLICATION FOR ON LICENCE RENEWAL BY COOK BROTHERS BARS FORT STREET LIMITED AT 16-20 FORT STREET, AUCKLAND, 1010 TO TRADE AS MR MURDOCHS MEMBERS Chairperson Marguerite Delbet Member Patricia Reade Member Richard Pamatatau Laura Ager HEARINGS ADVISOR Contact Telephone: or 027 247 2794 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee will introduce the Panel Members sitting on the hearing committee and he/she will briefly outline the procedure for the hearing. The chairperson also confirms that they and the committee members don’t have any conflicts of interest and are able to consider the application impartially. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the committee. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair. Any party intending to give written or spoken evidence in Māori or speak in sign language should advise the hearings advisor at least five working days before the hearing so that an interpreter can be provided. Catering is not provided at the hearing. The Hearing Procedure The usual procedure for a District Licensing Committee Hearing is: • The applicant will be called upon to present his/her case either personally or through a representative. The applicant may be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses in support of the application. All witnesses will be required to take either an oath on the Bible or an affirmation. After the applicant has presented his/her case, the committee may have questions for them and their witnesses. The chairperson then invites the reporting agencies (Police, Medical Officer of Health and licensing inspector) and any objectors to ask questions. This questioning is called cross-examination. Members of the District Licensing Committee may ask questions to clarify the information presented. • Reporting agencies (Police, Medical Officer of Health and licensing inspector) are then called upon to speak. They can make submissions and are then sworn in (by oath or affirmation) if they are going to present any evidence. The agencies must answer questions from the committee. The applicant and objectors may also ask them questions when it’s their turn to cross-examine • Objectors who wish to speak will be called next. Objectors may speak themselves or be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. Each speaker will be required to take either an oath on the Bible or an affirmation. Objectors cannot introduce new grounds for objecting, but can present evidence to support their reasons for objecting. The committee members or chairperson may question the objector or their witnesses. The applicant and the reporting agencies can also ask questions about the evidence • Once objections and cross-examination has finished, the applicant or his/her representative has the right to summarise the application and reply to matters raised by objections. Members of the District Licensing Committee may ask further questions of the applicant at this stage. • The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, objectors and their representatives leave the room. Sometimes the chairperson will give a verbal decision; otherwise the District Licensing Committee will then deliberate and will release its decision in writing in due course. Should you wish to present written submissions or evidence in support of your application or objection please ensure you provide the number of copies as indicated on your notification letter previously sent to you. At any stage during the hearing, members of the District Licensing Committee may ask questions. Date: Friday 28 May 2021 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 2. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Members of the committee to confirm whether they have a conflict of interest in relation to the application. 3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS The chairperson will outline the process for the hearing of evidence from the parties. 4. APPLICATION Application by Cook Brothers Bars Fort Street Limited for an On Licence Renewal, at 16-20 Fort Street, Auckland Central, 1010. The following papers are provided in relation to an On Licence Renewal application by Cook Brothers Bars Fort Street Limited for premises situated at 16-20 Fort Street, Auckland Central, 1010 Auckland to trade as Mr Murdochs. Alcohol Licensing Inspector’s Report Page 5 Application Page 22 Police Report Page 38 Medical Officer of Health Report Page 39 Public Notices Page 40 Objections – See list below Page 75 OBJECTORS: Page 75 Kamal Seth 62 Queen Street Auckland Central Page 77 Bruce and Judith Clements 6A/62 Queen Street Auckland Central Page 81 Patricia Marryatt 2C/62 Queen Street Auckland Central Mark Walker & Body Page 83 Corporate 373645 7C/62 Queen Street Auckland Central Page 3 Report on an on-licence renewal application under section 129 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 To: Auckland District Licensing Committee From: Scott Evans, Alcohol Licensing Inspector Date: 4 February 2021 1. Application description Applicant’s name: Cook Brothers Bars Fort St Limited Site address: 16-20 Fort Street Auckland Central Auckland 1010 Trading name: Mr Murdochs Style of licence: Tavern Risk rating: High (16-25) Application number: 8220052771 Date application made: 7 April 2020 Changes being sought? No 2. Executive summary This is a report an on-licence renewal application. The criteria found at section 131 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) apply to the application. A waiver has been granted (attached) for the late submission of the application. The applicant does not seek any changes to the licence. Four public objections have been made. Police do not oppose the application. The Medical Officer of Health does not oppose the application. I do not oppose the application. 3. External reports and public objections 3.1 Police Police reported on the application on 22 April 2020 and do not oppose the application. 5 3.2 Medical Officer of Health The Medical Officer of Health reported on the application on 23 April 2020 and does not oppose the application. 3.3 Public notices The application has been publicly notified as follows: Type Date Second date (if relevant) alcoholnotices.co.nz 10 April 2020 N/A Sunday Star Times 19 April 2020 26 April 2020 Objection period expiry 5 May 2020 N/A 3.4 Public objections Four public objections have been made within the required timeframe. The objections have been made by the following persons: • Mark Walker & Body Corporate 373645 • Kamal Seth • Bruce and Judith Clements • Patricia Marryatt All four objectors live at the Quest on Queen Serviced Apartments/Portland Tower which is approximately 50 metres away from the premises. The objectors appear to have greater interest in the application than the public generally because they are located within 1km of the proposed licensed premises. The objections raise concerns about noise, disorder and alcohol related harm, the suitability of the applicant due to the alleged noises issues, and the open roof area at the premises. These issues relate to the following sections of the Act: • Section 105(1)(a) of the Act – The object of the Act. • Section 105(1)(b) of the Act – Suitability of the applicant. • Section 105(1)(d) of the Act – Trading hours at the premises. • Section 105(1)(e) of the Act – The design and layout. • Section 131(1)(c) of the Act – Amenity and good order. The matters brought up in the objections will be covered throughout my report. 6 4. The applicant The applicant is a private company which is permitted to hold an on-licence under section 28(1)(b) of the Act. A copy of the company’s certificate of incorporation from the New Zealand Companies Register has been provided with the application. The applicant has been operating the current licence at the premises for over a year, however they were also jointly operating the previous licence at the premises under a different company structure for the past decade. The applicant also runs the nearby Glass Goose and La Zeppa venues. The applicant has proven from the operation of these venues that they have the relevant experience to run a premises of this type. I have had numerous discussions with the managing director (James Arnott) and operations manager (George Eason). The applicant is aware of the issues raised by the objectors, in particular with noise and have been proactive in finding a solution. They have undertaken noise testing in the area and developed a suitable noise management plan for the premises. The applicant has also supplied an alcohol management plan (attached) that is suitable for the premises. The applicant is aware of its responsibility under the Act. The existing licence has no endorsements. There are no concerns with the applicant’s suitability. 5. The premises 5.1 Design and layout The principal entrance to the premises is accessed off Fort Street. The premises are a rooftop bar where part of the roof is open. This creates an outdoor type area within the premises. Most of the premises is easily visible from the point of sale, however the applicant is also aware that staff should have a roving presence across the premises to monitor patrons. The licensed area is more precisely identified on the plan date stamped as received by Auckland Council on 7 April 2020. The applicant has indicated on the application form that they wish to make no changes to the current designations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Voting: Why Bother?
    1 Voting: Why Bother? OTENE: My name is Otene Reweti, and I work for Auckland Council. My job tonight is to open our time up here at another Auckland Conversation. My karakia that I will use tonight is the council standard, actually — Whakataka te Hau — and it talks about the winds and the cold. The winds that blow on to the land, the winds that blow offshore,and the winds that bring the cold, the snow, the frost. But every day, as the sun breaks through the dawn, it gives us a glimpse of, perhaps, a glorious day. To me, that talks about the voting as well, because is it going to be a wind of change? Is it going to be the normal wind that blows into Tamaki Makaurau? Whatever the wind that blows, perhaps let our blessing be that it brings a glimpse of something glorious for Tamaki Makaurau. Let us give thanks this evening for that. Your part in this, as you know, to those who usually attend the Conversations, when you hear the words "tuturu whakamaua kia tena", your response is "tena". We're going to have a practice because people like to have a practice. Here we go. Tuturu whakamaua kia tena. CROWD: tena! OTENE: OK, 'tena' sounds really tired this evening. (laughter) We want "tena!" because we're looking forward to something tonight, looking forward to the conversation that's going to happen. - Tuturu whakamaua kia tena! - CROWD: tena! OTENE: That's much better. tena's wide awake. Your next response — after the words "haumi e, hui e", your response is "taiki e".
    [Show full text]
  • Property Information Resources Guide Resources for Property Research
    Auckland Council Archives Property information resources guide Resources for Property Research • When researching a property, a good place to start is with a property file which can be ordered via the Auckland Council website. These files are managed by the Building Consents Department. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/buying-property/order-property-report/Pages/order-property-file.aspx • A property file provides documents such as building and resource consent documents and any correspondence with the Council about the property. • The contents of the file will depend on whether the Council is aware of work done on the property, how old the building is and what property information has survived from the legacy councils. But what if there is nothing on the property file? Auckland Council Archives Resources for Property Research • Auckland Council Archives holds a range of records useful for researching the histories of properties. • There are many types of property related records that are common to the legacy councils across Auckland. • However, there can be some regional differences and gaps in our holdings. • There are some property records that are unique to certain councils. 35 Grey Street, Onehunga Auckland Council Archives AKC 024/15 Building Permit Information • The Municipal Corporations Act 1876 gave local councils the power to create by- laws to deal with building issues. Even so, until about the mid-20th century the introduction and enforcement of building regulations by councils was inconsistent. • For instance, Birkenhead Borough Council building by-laws in 1910 required people to make a building application and to lodge plans and specifications with the Clerk, but there is no mention that duplicate copies were to be supplied for council records.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Auckland Council's Council Controlled Organisations
    Review of Auckland Council’s council- controlled organisations REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PANEL July 2020 PrefacePreface In January 2020 when we began this review, no panel member had any inkling of how challenging the next six months would prove to be, particularly with the impact of COVID-19, which forced us to conduct many meetings online – reinforcing to us the value of face-to-face interactions. Our terms of reference proved very broad indeed, spanning more than a dozen discrete topics, which made it difficult, in spite of our best efforts, to avoid writing a lengthy report. To do justice to many of these topics meant coming to grips with complex legal and factual material. There was also the challenge of writing a report the public could understand. However, we feel privileged to have had the opportunity to examine the council-controlled organisations, or CCOs, and develop what we hope are practical measures to correct the problems we identified. We thank all those who took the time and effort to participate in whatever form. Their contributions, whether in the form of documents, briefing papers, written submissions or interviews, are gratefully acknowledged. All were willing to assist us openly and constructively. We especially acknowledge the co-operative and constructive approach taken by CCOs themselves to our many requests of them. Council staff, too, deserve acknowledgement for their contribution, especially in helping us understand some of the intricacies of council policy and operations relevant to our review. We are indebted to our secretariat members Claire Gomas, Trudi Fava and Ross Chirnside. We also thank those council staff who assisted us with briefing notes and for arranging our many stakeholder interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • An Integrated Approach to Managing Auckland's Coast
    IPWEA NZ CONFERENCE 2017 DUNEDIN An Integrated Approach to Managing Auckland's Coast Paul Klinac Team Manager: Coastal and Geotechnical Services Engineering and Technical Services Unit Auckland Council. [email protected] IPWEAIPWEA NZ NZ CONFERENCE CONFERENCE 2017 DUNEDIN 2017 DUNEDIN Presentation Outline 1. Auckland's coastal environment 2. Coastal hazard context (and related issues) 3. Regulatory framework 4. Valuing the coast (assets and related uses) 5. Development of a coastal management framework & management tools • 3,100km of coastline (multiple harbours and offshore islands). • 21,000km of inland waterways. • 26 Regional Parks (~200km of undeveloped coastline). • Characterised by extensive reclamation & modification in response to urbanisation and varying degrees and types of coastal hazards. Parks Coastal Assets: Coastal defence and public access Coastal Assets Asset Count Area size (m2) Replacement Value Boat Ramps 284 38,309 $8,044,997 Jetties 3 351 $983,796 Pontoons 22 853 $1,844,510 Seawalls 796 122,067 $183,378,249 Wharves 95 13,455 $27,494,696 Grand Total 1200 175,037 ~$222 M (300M) Note: The above is confined to Parks structural assets and does not include green assets or assets under the jurisdiction of Stormwater, Auckland Transport or related CCO’s. Coastal Hazard Context: • Predominance of development immediately landward of eroding soft sedimentary cliffs or within low-lying areas. • Climate change (1m SLR by 2115) and future growth will exacerbate existing hazards. • Impacts will vary but will include: - Increased erosion and land instability; - More extensive inundation and more frequent storm surges; - Reduced performance and failure of infrastructure; and - Increased infrastructure maintenance costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Costs and Maintenance of Water-Sensitive
    Understanding Costs and Maintenance of WSUD in New Zealand Activating WSUD for Healthy Resilient Communities Understanding Costs and Maintenance of WSUD in New Zealand Activating WSUD for Healthy Resilient Communities Funded by the Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities National Science Challenge Sue Ira (Koru Environmental) Robyn Simcock (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research) July 2019 Cover: Green infrastructure (from top left): Christchurch raingarden, Auckland no-mow swales planted in native rushes, and Stoke mown swale with large trees Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Project overview .......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Understanding the costs and maintenance of WSUD - scope and risks...................... 6 1.4 Report content ............................................................................................................. 7 2. Understanding and determining cost .................................................................................. 9 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton City Council the DRAFT NEW ZEALAND RAIL PLAN
    Submission by Hamilton City Council THE DRAFT NEW ZEALAND RAIL PLAN 15 May 2020 1.0 KEY SUBMISSION POINTS 1.1 Hamilton City Council (HCC) supports the focus on rail. 1.2 HCC considers that a Rapid Regional Rail Authority should be established to progress regional passenger rail and to optimise investments. 1.3 HCC considers that a priority action should be to consider hydrogen opportunities. 1.4 HCC requests activities that support the Hamilton to Auckland Passenger Rail be priority funded as well as the establishment of a Waikato/Hamilton Metro Rail Service. 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 HCC welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Draft New Zealand Rail Plan. 2.2 On 17 February 2020, HCC also provided early feedback (prior to the formal engagement process) to the Ministry of Transport on the Draft New Zealand Rail Plan 2019. 2.3 This submission replaces the earlier February 2020 submission. 2.4 We would like to congratulate the Government on its foresight in developing the Draft New Zealand Rail Plan (DNZRP). 2.5 HCC notes that the DNZRP states that: • The rail network has suffered from under-investment and significant parts of the network are facing a state of managed decline. • Over the next decade investment is needed to retain the current level of service from the national network and to achieve a reliable and resilient national freight network, providing a platform for further investment to support growth in rail freight. • In Auckland and Wellington early investment in the metro rail networks has seen passenger growth outstrip expectations.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Pdf (1
    E-newsletter: No 90. May 2011 Deadline for next issue: Wednesday 15 June 2011 Guest Message from a Council Member Hi everyone… Welcome to the May newsletter. I’ve just returned from tramping the Matemateonga track in the Whanganui National Park - although the weather wasn’t what we asked for, any opportunity given to me to ‘rough it’ in these wonderful places is hard to refuse. This area is one of the largest remaining areas of lowland forest remaining in the North Island—natural forest now covers only approximately 24% of New Zealand. This year, 2011, has been declared the International Year of Forests by the United Nations General Assembly. It is to raise awareness on sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. Make a difference by planting a tree. Keep an eye out for any local planting days. For those in the Auckland region mark in your calendar the Northern Regional Park planting days. At the conference last year, I was interested in Colin Meurk’s talk on recombinant ecosystems and a side visit to one on one of the field trips. It’s great to see Paula Warren is having success at a Porirua ‘wasteland’ site. Keep the photos coming in for our on-line library—we have reached 22,000 images, which is a great achievement, but we are always after more. Finally, subscriptions are due, follow the links for renewals. Catch you all later. Kerry Gillbanks Auckland Council In memory of Phil Knightbridge Jose Watson with additional contributions from friends Department of Conservation botanist and Plant Conservation Network member Phil Knightbridge died on Tuesday 26 April 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • You Can't Live in a Resource Consent
    January 2018 A mixed bag of house price growth You can’t live in a Across all 47 cities and districts in New Zealand resource consent with a complete house price data set1, house prices grew significantly from the turn of the century until the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2007. Still, Unsurprisingly, the biggest factors affecting growth varied from 75% to 190%. house prices are population growth, (lack of) During and after the GFC, however, widespread housing stock growth, and interest rate declines. growth did not continue. In areas like Auckland, Queenstown, Selwyn, and Tauranga, prices Further, the population’s preference is for fewer continued to rise strongly. Conversely, areas like people per dwelling (PPD) than in the past. This Clutha, Gisborne, South Taranaki, and Whanganui means that, all else equal, housing supply saw broadly flat prices between 2007 and 2016. actually needs to grow faster than the population to keep prices stable. What has driven this divergence across New Zealand post-GFC? In slow-growing areas of the country, prices have remained subdued as house supply has easily As always, supply and demand kept up. But in Auckland, prices have risen As with any product, the price of housing is sharply because too few houses have been built determined by supply and demand. We would relative to the massive population growth, expect that as population grows, the demand for despite a large amount of land available to housing would increase and put upward pressure develop through the Unitary Plan. on prices. Or if demand for housing is sufficient, as interest rates go down, prices will rise.
    [Show full text]
  • AC1805 How Unauthorised Building Work Is Assessed
    How unauthorised building work is assessed The purpose of this document is to provide information for building owners about how Council deals with unauthorised building work e.g. building work that should have had a building permit (constructed before 1 July 1992) or a building consent (constructed on and from 1 July 1992).1 What is a certificate of acceptance (CoA)? A certificate of acceptance (CoA) can only be applied for if building work was constructed without a building consent on and from 1 July 1992. A CoA provides a limited assurance, in certain circumstances, that the Council has inspected unconsented building works, or building works undertaken urgently, and is satisfied to the best of its knowledge and on reasonable grounds, to the extent that it has been able to determine, that the building work complies with the New Zealand Building Regulations 1992 (Building Code). A CoA may be issued on a limited or qualified basis only, if it is unable to properly satisfy itself that the works comply with the Building Code. Because the Council will not have had the opportunity to assess and approve an application for building consent, it is likely that it will not have had the ability to inspect the work during construction to ensure it has been done in accordance with the Building Code. After works are complete it may be difficult, expensive or impractical for the Council to carry out an effective inspection of the building works that will enable it to satisfy itself that the building works are compliant with the Building Code, and there may be no other effective means of determining compliance other than through inspection.
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of New Zealand Nelson Registry I
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE CRI-2021-442-2 [2021] NZHC 652 UNDER Section 229(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 IN THE MATTER of an appeal against conviction under the Dog Control Act 1996 BETWEEN DONNA MARY NEWLANDS Appellant AND NELSON CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 3 March 2021 (AVL); further material received 25 March 2021 Counsel: Appellant in person G A Rainey for Respondent Judgment: 29 March 2021 JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J [1] Ms Newlands was convicted of two charges under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the DCA), namely being the owner of a menacing dog (an American Pitbull Terrier named Baloo) that: (a) contrary to s 33E(1)(a) of the DCA, she allowed to be at large in a public place without a muzzle; and (b) contrary to s 57 of the DCA, attacked a domestic animal—a Papillon named Jasmine. NEWLANDS v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 652 [29 March 2021] [2] Ms Newlands pleaded guilty to the former charge and not guilty to the latter. But Judge Tuohy in the District Court found the second charge proven.1 He sentenced Ms Newlands to pay $1,000 emotional harm reparation to Jasmine’s owner, and he ordered that Baloo be destroyed. [3] Ms Newlands now appeals both her conviction and sentence on the “attack” charge, but her principal focus is on overturning the destruction order. To succeed in that endeavour, she must either prevail in her conviction appeal or persuade the Court that Judge Tuohy was wrong to find that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant declining to make such an order.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Response Titirangi Toilet
    28 January 2021 Kimberley Li Senior Planner - Auckland Council Email: [email protected] Further information response for proposed toilet at land adjoining 400 Titirangi Rd, Titirangi - LUC60334605 Dear Kimberley, Thank you for your further information request letter dated 15 October 2020 (Attachment 1). Please see below our response to each point in the same order as that provided within your letter. Enclosed with this letter are the following supporting attachments: Attachment 1 - Auckland Council Information Request Letter Attachment 2 – Urban Solutions Planning and Risk Assessment Attachment 3 – Alternative Sites Location Plan Attachment 4 – Alternative Positioning Plans Attachment 5 - Visual Impact Plans Attachment 6 – Visual Impact Assessment Addendum Attachment 7 – Revised Internal Plan 1. An initial Feasibility Report of potential sites in Titirangi was produced by Stellar Projects, with a subsequent Planning and Risk Assessment undertaken by Urban Solutions Projects in February 2020 (Attachment 2). Their detailed independent options assessment was used to identify potential sites for the toilet, with the key criteria comprising the need for the facility to be in an accessible central location and close to parking and public transport. The sites are illustrated on the map in Attachment 3. The alternative locations which were carefully and fully reviewed comprised the following: • Option 1 – Existing car parking space in front of the former toilet block, Titirangi Road Auckland Council were unsuccessful in obtaining consent for the toilet in this location and there were various site constraints, notably: - There were no easements, - Watercare Services Limited raised concerns about the potential new public wastewater line and the development would have resulted in the loss of a disabled parking bay.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 LDEG COMMITTEE Land Development Engineering Group
    Ensuring Quality LDEG Infrastructure 2020 LDEG COMMITTEE Land Development Engineering Group Wellington-Taranaki Representative & Chair Tony McGlynn —(Developments Team Leader, Palmerston North City Council) Tony arrived in New Zealand (from Letterkenny, Co Donegal Ireland) in 1984. He started working with general contractors E.Carson & Sons Ltd (Upper Hutt). After 10 years on numerous large drainage projects in the Wellington region. He began working as a contracts officer for Lower Hutt City Council. After a short time, he became contracts engineer LDEG Chair managing the Water Services division’s maintenance contracts for the city. In 2004 Tony moved north to the Manawatu area where he worked for Horizons Regional Council. Project manager for the construction of stormwater pump stations on the lower Manawatu drainage scheme. The work also included managing farm drainage schemes and stop-bank maintenance. After 4 years working at Horizons Tony moved to his current position as Developments Team Leader with Palmerston North City Council. Tony enjoys the challenge of working with the development community and ensuring that a consistently high standard of infrastructure is achieved. Outside of work Tony’s passions are playing music and woodwork using recycled NZ wood. Northern Representative Glenn Broadbent (Auckland Council) Glenn lead a small team of engineers responsible for the approval of land development, concepts and physical works, in the Albany Basin and Eastern Bays of North Shore before shifting to Auckland City Environments business unit to learn more about subdivisions within an urban environment. Glenn foresaw the benefits of creating a team of engineers that would provide the engineering input to consents and created the first Development Engineering team at Auckland Council in 1997.
    [Show full text]