9 (2) (a)
9 (2) (a)
From:
Brodie Stubbs
Sent:
Friday, 27 September 2019 9:41 AM
To:
9 (2) (a)
Subject:
Fwd: Concerns regarding the Proposed National Erebus Memorial and the Local
Board's consultation phase
Attachments:
3900164 Letter to Waitemata Local Board 2 - v4.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ian Maxwel <Ian.Maxwel @aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Date: 27 September 2019 at 7:38:05 AM NZST
To: Brodie Stubbs <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Concerns regarding the Proposed National Erebus Memorial and the Local Board's
consultation phase
FYI
Regards
Ian
From: 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2019 3:40 PM
To: David Barker <[email address]>; 9 (2) (a)
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Cc: Ian Maxwel <Ian.Maxwel @aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Subject: FW: Concerns regarding the Proposed National Erebus Memorial and the Local Board's
consultation phase
Greetings
FYI – please note that Bram Van Mel e and his team are reviewing the letter now.
Regards
9 (2) (a)
From: 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2019 3:08 PM
To:
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Cc: 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Subject: FW: Concerns regarding the Proposed National Erebus Memorial and the Local Board's
consultation phase
Please share with other relevant people.
1
Thanks
Stephen
From: 9 (2) (a)
@russel mcveagh.com>
Sent: Thursday, 26 September 2019 3:04 PM
To: 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; Pippa Coom (Waitemata Local Board)
<[email address]>; Shale Chambers (Waitemata Local Board)
<[email address]>; 9 (2) (a)
(Waitemata Local Board)
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
Waitemata Local Board)
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
(Waitemata Local Board)
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
- Waitemata
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>; 9 (2) (a)
(Waitemata Local Board)
< 9 (2) (a)
@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz>
Cc: 9 (2) (a)
@russel mcveagh.com>; 9 (2) (a)
@xtra.co.nz>;
9 (2) (a)
Subject: Concerns regarding the Proposed National Erebus Memorial and the Local Board's
consultation phase
Dear al
We act for 9 (2) (a)
, a Parnel resident with concerns regarding Manatū Taonga Ministry for
Culture and Heritage's proposal to establish a National Erebus Memorial in Dove Myer Robinson
Park.
Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of our client.
We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Kind regards
9 (2) (a)
9 (2) (a)
Solicitor
Russel McVeagh, Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 8, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
D +64 9 (2) (a)
F +64 9 367 8459
9 (2) (a)
r@russel mcveagh.com
www.russellmcveagh.com
This email contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you may not read, use, copy or disclose
this email or its attachments. In that event, please let us know immediately by reply email and then delete this email from your system. While we
use standard virus checking software, we accept no responsibility for viruses or anything similar in this email or any attachment after it leaves our
information systems. If you are interested in establishing more secure communication between us, please contact our systems administrator by
email at mail.admin@russel mcveagh.com
Please think of the environment before printing this email.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.
'Vote for the
Auckland you
love. Voting
closes
midday Sat
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY
PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message
and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar carried with our email, or any effects our email may
have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender
and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.
2
26 September 2019
Waitematā Local Board
By email
c/o Pippa Coom
email: [email address]
AUCKLAND CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED NATIONAL EREBUS MEMORIAL
1.
We act for 9 (2) (a)
, a Parnell resident with significant concerns regarding
Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage's ("
Ministry") proposed
National Erebus Memorial ("
Proposal") to be located in Dove Myer Robinson
Park. This letter is also written on behalf of 9 (2) (a)
9 (2) (a)
, who share the views of our client.
2.
We refer to our earlier letter of 9 September 2019. We have not received a
response to that letter.
3.
The purpose of this letter is to outline our client's ongoing concerns with the
Waitematā Local Board's handling of its consideration of the Proposal.
4.
Our client's concerns are set out in more detail below.
Partners
17 September Local Board Meeting
Frederick Ward
Brendan Brown
Malcolm Crotty
Joe Windmeyer
5.
At the Local Board's ordinary meeting on 17 September 2019, the Ministry tabled
Guy Lethbridge
a report seeking landowner approval for the Proposal at Dove-Myer Robinson
John Powell
Ed Crook
Park ("
Report").
Tim Clarke
Sarah Keene
Sarah Armstrong
6.
Our client is disappointed that the Ministry's intentions to seek landowner
David Hoare
Matthew Kersey
approval during the 17 September meeting were not included in the online
David Butler
meeting agenda, or communicated to interested parties in advance of the
Craig Shrive
Deemple Budhia
meeting. A critical component of the Local Government Act 2002 ("
LGA")
Mei Fern Johnson
obligations on decision-makers is to collaborate and co-operate with interested
Daniel Jones
Polly Pope
persons, and to provide those persons with reasonable access to relevant
Allison Arthur-Young
Christopher Curran
information in a manner that is appropriate.
David Raudkivi
Tom Hunt
Kylie Dunn
7.
The contents of the Report were directly relevant to a large part of the
Daniel Minhinnick
community. Our client and the interested residents who spoke at the 17
Troy Pilkington
Marika Eastwick-Field
September meeting were fortunate to have requested to attend the meeting and
Ian Beaumont
Stephen Rendall
therefore see a copy of the Report. However, they were prejudiced in only
Cameron Law
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
seeing it at the meeting itself, and other residents had no chance to consider the
Joe Edwards
Benjamin Paterson
Report. Tabling the Report under urgency deprived interested residents of the
Emmeline Rushbrook
Anna Crosbie
opportunity to express their views and raise their concerns in an informed
David Weavers
manner.
Liz Blythe
Nathaniel Walker
William Irving
3900164
1 of 3
russellmcveagh.com
Auckland Vero Centre, 48 Shortland Street, PO Box 8, Auckland 1140, New Zealand DX CX10085 P +64 9 367 8000 F +64 9 367 8163
Wellington Dimension Data House, 157 Lambton Quay, PO Box 10-214, Wellington 6143, New Zealand DX SX11189 P +64 4 499 9555 F +64 4 499 9556
8.
Further, the reasons why the Report was tabled under urgency are not clear.
Standing Order 2.4.5 of the Waitematā Local Board's Standing Orders states that
urgent items not on the agenda may be dealt with at the meeting if the presiding
member explains at the meeting the reason why the item is not on the agenda.
9.
It was not made clear at the meeting why the Ministry's request for landowner
approval was not included in the meeting agenda. The Ministry has been clear
regarding its intention to start constructing the Memorial on 29 November 2019 to
mark the 40th anniversary of the Erebus accident. Landowner approval from the
Local Board at this time was therefore an entirely foreseeable requirement.
10.
Given there is no clear basis for not including the Ministry's Report in the meeting
agenda, the Local Board's consideration of the Report under urgency at its 17
September meeting is in breach of Standing Order 2.4.5.
11.
A Local Board's breach of a standing order constitutes a breach of Clause 16 of
Schedule 7 of the LGA.
12.
Given the Board's consultation phase in respect of the Proposal introduces
further concerns under the LGA (outlined in more detail below), our client
requests that the decision to grant or deny landowner approval is deferred to the
new Local Board, which is in a position to follow due process in respect to
decisions relating to the Proposal.
Consultation phase
13.
The Board has failed to fulfil its consultation obligations in respect of the Proposal
under the LGA.
14.
Consultation that a local authority undertakes must be carried out in accordance
with the principles set out in section 82 of the LGA, which are designed to ensure
consultation is proper. As outlined in our earlier letter, while the Local Board is
given a discretion to observe the principles as appropriate, given the national
significance of the Proposal, section 82 of the LGA directs the Local Board to
have regard to the principles to a greater degree.
15.
The Board's approach to consultation does not embody the principles set out in
section 82 for a number of reasons:
(a)
Relevant information not reasonably accessible – The Local Board
leaflet includes very little information about the Proposal and directs
concerned residents to access key information about the Proposal on the
Council's website. The Local Board's email is also light on detail, and
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
directs recipients to the Local Board webpage for more information.
Providing key information online, does not afford concerned residents with
poor IT knowledge and experience, reasonable access to that information.
(b)
Persons not encouraged to present their views – The Local Board
appears to have delivered information about its consultation on the
Proposal to only a relatively small number of local residents. This is a
3900164 v4
2 of 3
small subsection of persons interested in, or affected by, the Proposal.
Interested parties who were not at the 17 September Local Board meeting,
or who have been excluded from the Local Board's relatively small target
group for consultation, have not been provided with reasonable access to
relevant information, nor have they been encouraged to present their
views.
(c)
Access to clear records of relevant decisions not provided – The
Local Board's consultation webpage does not provide interested parties
with a clear pathway to prior decisions the Local Board has made in
relation to the Proposal, such as its decision to support the Proposal in
principle at its 20 November 2018 meeting, or the Ministry's Report
presented at the 17 September 2019 meeting.
16.
Our client also takes issue with the short duration of the consultation phase. The
consultation phase is only nine working days. This time period affords residents
little time to properly consider the Proposal, including seeking any necessary
advice. This short period of consultation does not provide interested parties with
a meaningful opportunity to engage with the Local Board in respect of the
Proposal.
17.
For these reasons, 9 (2) (a)
requests that the decision to grant or deny
landowner approval is deferred to the new Local Board, which is in a position to
undertake proper consultation in accordance with the LGA principles.
Yours faithfully
RUSSELL McVEAGH
9 (2) (a)
Partner | Solicitor
Direct phone:
+64 9 (2) (a)
Direct fax:
+64 9 (2) (a)
Email:
9 (2) (a)
@russellmcveagh.com
9 (2) (a)
[email address]
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
3900164 v4
3 of 3
