DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 1 Queens Wharf - Coastal Marine Area Panuku Development Auckland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 1 Queens Wharf - Coastal Marine Area Panuku Development Auckland I hereby give notice that a hearing by commissioners will be held on: Dates: Monday, 18 February to Wednesday, 27 February 2019 Time: 9.30am (each day) Venue day 1: Reception Lounge, Level 2, Auckland Town Hall, 301 - 303 Queen Street, Auckland Venue days 2-8: Council Chambers, Ground Floor, Auckland Town Hall, 301 - 303 Queen Street, Auckland SUBMISSION AGENDA - VOLUME 1 QUEENS WHARF - COASTAL MARINE AREA PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND COMMISSIONERS Chairperson Kitt Littlejohn (Chairperson) Commissioners Trevor Mackie Juliane Chetham Sam Otter HEARINGS ADVISOR Telephone: 09 353 9587 or 021 196 2582 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz 1 WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson will introduce the commissioners and council staff and will briefly outline the procedure. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the panel. 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 a qualified interpreter can be provided. Catering is not provided at the hearing. Please note that the hearing may be audio recorded. Scheduling submitters to be heard A timetable will be prepared approximately one week before the hearing for all submitters who have returned their hearing attendance form. Please note that during the course of the hearing changing circumstances may mean the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing to be heard are requested to ensure they are available to attend the hearing and present their evidence when required. The hearings advisor will advise submitters of any changes to the timetable at the earliest possible opportunity. The Hearing Procedure The usual hearing procedure is: • The applicant will be called upon to present his/her case. The applicant may be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses in support of the application. After the applicant has presented his/her case, members of the hearing panel may ask questions to clarify the information presented. • The relevant local board may wish to present comments. These comments do not constitute a submission however the Local Government Act allows the local board to make the interests and preferences of the people in its area known to the hearing panel. If present, the local board will speak between the applicant and any submitters. • Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. The hearing panel may then question each speaker. The council officer’s report will identify any submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be asked to address the panel on why their submission should be accepted. Late submitters can speak only if the hearing panel accepts the late submission. • Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your application or your submission please ensure you provide the number of copies indicated in the notification letter. • Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. Attendees may suggest questions for the panel to ask but it does not have to ask them. No cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions – is permitted at the hearing. • After the applicant and submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification. • When those who have lodged submissions and wish to be heard have completed their presentations, the applicant or his/her representative has the right to summarise the application and reply to matters raised by submitters. Hearing panel members may further question the applicant at this stage. • The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, submitters and their representatives leave the room. The hearing panel will then deliberate “in committee” and make its decision. • Decisions are usually available within 15 working days of the hearing. 2 SUBMITTERS: Page 11 Craig Harris PO Box 3 Page 13 John Duffin 24 Beach Haven Rd Beach Haven Page 15 Coralie van Camp 19 Garden Road Remuera Page 17, Geoff Rooke 30 Beach Road Auckland Central 41 Page 20 Murray Andrew Arthur 45 Bracken Ave Takapuna Page 22 Kelsey Muir 7A Mizpah Road Browns Bay Page 24 Auckland Yachting and PO Box 106215 Auckland Central Boating Association Inc Page 30 Royal New Zealand Yacht PO Box 106215 Auckland Central Squadron Page 35 ID Tours New Zealand Ltd Lv11, 55 Shortland St Auckland Central Page 37 Stuart Blakey 13 Hanene street St Heliers Page 39 Robyn Wix 8A Tuperiri Road Epsom Page 43 Victoria Lowther PO Box 125180 St Heliers Page 45 Philip Lascelles PO Box 90145 Victoria St West Page 47 Dave Mason 64 Lyons Avenue Murrays Bay Page 49 Justin Hamilton 15 Cambria Road Devonport Page 51 Rex Armstrong 47 Dryden Street Grey Lynn Page 53 Gordon Sims 31 Sydney Street Hauraki Page 55 Simon O’Connor 37 Juniper Road Sunnynook Page 57 Cathy Wildermoth 3 Peregrine Place Birkenhead Page 59 Brian Giles 3-50 Onepoto Road Hauraki Page 61 Penelope Bieder 38 Ardmore Road Ponsonby Page 63 Luke Leuschke 10 Provost Street Ponsonby Page 65 Katherine Braatvedt 65 Ngataringa Road Page 67 Oliver Wall 2 Tole Street Ponsonby Page 69 James McLean 12 Kaimanawa Road Karaka Page 71 Jullion Nelson-Parker 24 Riro Street Point Chevalier Page 73 Phillipa Rothes Neville-Barton PO Box 175 Oneroa Page 75 Matthew Thorne 1B Levy Road Glen Eden Page 77 Pamela Lim 24 Beach Parade Waiheke Page 79 AAkorn DMC c/- Mark Kerr PO Box 5126 Wellesley Street Page 81 Douglas Colaco 489A Hillsborough Rd Lynfield Page 83 Michael John Hayman 111 Arney Road Remuera Page 85 Josie Hendry 43/15 Puriri Street Takapuna Page 87 Jeremy Crosby 72 Brixton Road Manly Page 89 Robert Cross 30 School Rd Paihia Page 91 Peter Anderson PO Box 137010 Parnell Page 93 Phillipa Goddard PO Box 100789 NorthShore Page 95 Emily May 25 Te Pene Road Maraetai Page 97 Clive Littin 4/95 Ash Street Avondale Page 99 Richard George Carvalho 46 Lynbrooke Avenue Page 101 Neil Heath 52 Duke Street Mt. Roskill 3 Page 103 Brett Indrisie 140 Bush Road Albany Page 105 Adam Crooks 6 Benders Avenue Hillcrest Page 107 Bruce Foggo 5/27 St. Stephens Ave Parnell Page 109 Martin Poulsen 5 Awatea Road Parnell Page 112 Mitchell Stout Dodd Architects PO Box 32323 Devonport Central c/- Julian Mitchell Page 114 Winston James Pond 1336 Whangaparaoa Army Bay Rd Page 116 Tania Stevenson 41 Francis Street Grey Lynn Page 118 Dermot Hurly PO Box 585 Oneroa Page 120 Mo New 5 Lyford Cres Sunnynook Page 122 Maureen Fletcher 7 Sayegh Street St Heliers Page 124 Jennifer Diane Goldsack 31 Sturges Avenue Otahuhu Page 126 Malcolm Sired 55 Church Crescent Pammure Page 128 Susan Grimsdell 1302/18 Beach Road Auckland Central Page 130 Garry Conway 36 Pahi Place Westharbour Page 132 Jeremy Haywood 47 Gibraltar Crescent Parnell Page 134 Aviation Safety Supplies Ltd 30 Mortlake Heights Tauranga Page 136 Neil Hider 15 karaka Street Takapuna Page 138 Allana Lea Owen 2 Cascade Street Freemans Bay Page 140 Christine Hobbs 26 Glen Atkinson St St Heliers Page 142 Anthony Marks 9 Parry Court Omaha Beach Page 144 Robert Gray PO Box 27 Beachlands Page 146 Sally Margaret Cleaver PO Box 79486 Royal Heights Page 148 Mavis and Barry Huff 5 Stevenson Way Cockle Bay Page 150 Bridgette Van Kessel 1 Oxford Terrace Devonport Page 152 Johannes Van Kessel 1 Oxford Terrace Devonport Page 154 Peter Fitzsimons 6B Helena Street Page 156 Tara Moreton 10 Rangitoto Terrace Milford Page 158 Raad Al-jawher 175 Bethells Road Henderson Page 160 Ruby Haazen 26 Ngaiwi Street Page 162 Dirk Hudig 54 Marine Parade Herne Bay Page 164 Michael May 19 Ealing Crescent Page 166 Janette Mary Miler 6 Clarence Road Northcote Point Page 168 Virginia Reeves 38 Speight Road Kohimarama Page 170 Andrew Boyce 32 Charles Prevost Dr Manurewa Page 172 Elsie Barker 2 Waitemata Road Hauraki Page 174 Mags Ltd c/- Martin Gillion 69 Corunna Road Milford Page 176 Regional Tourism New PO Box 1697 Zealand Page 181 Carolyn Kelly 12 Stanley Point Road Stanley Point Page 183 Victoria Still 37 Island View Drive Gulf Harbour Page 185 Graham Petrie 28A Canberra Avenue Lynfield Page 187 Suzanne Woodward 246 Portland Road RD8 Page 189 William David Barton PO Box 175 Oneroa 4 Page 191 Tony Watts 55 Captain Scott Rd Glen Eden Page 193 Wellington Chamber of PO Box 1087 Wellington CBD Commerce c/- Joshua Tan Page 198 Merilyn Savill G1/30 York Street Parnell Page 202 Creationz Consultants 59 Queens Street Northcote Point Page 204 Pamela Neville 11 Macky Avenue Devonport Page 206 Employers and Manufacturers 175 Khyber Pass Road Grafton Ass. c/- Alan MacDonald Page 212 Matthew Bai 20A Blanche Way Half Moon Bay Page 214 Gavin Alexander Still PO Box 744 Whangaparaoa Page 216 Bernard Bateman 56 Golfland Drive Golfland Page 218 Alasdair Whye 2B/20 Market Place Auckland Central Page 220 Wendy Reid 8 Derby Place Ellerslie Page 222 Victor Adrian Double 15/387 Parnell Road Parnell Page 224 RedTech Consulting Ltd 60 Sylvan Avenue Northcote Page 226 Debbie Keymer- Dixon 30 Bodi Place Ta Atatu South Page 228 Alan Gibb 30 Kiwi Road Stanley Point Page 230 Robert Bruce Gillies 76 Landscape Road Mt Eden Page 232 Kevin Hyde 342C Papamoa Beach Papamoa Beach Rd Page 234 Brian William Petford PO Box 90604 Page 236 Chris Dickson Po Box 331230 Takapuna Page 238 Patrick Cotton 14B Seaview Road Remuera Page 240 Ruskin Lewis Cranwell Apt3 21 St.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]