Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Regulatory and Consents Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 26 April 2018

9am

Council Chamber
15 Forth Street, Invercargill

 

Regulatory and Consents Committee Agenda

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Brian Dillon

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager, Environmental Services

Bruce Halligan

Committee Advisor

Alyson Hamilton

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


Terms of Reference – Regulatory and Consents Committee

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is responsible for overseeing the statutory functions of the Council under the following legislation (but not limited to the following):

·                 Resource Management Act 1991

·                 Health Act 1956

·                 Food Act 2014

·                 Dog Control Act 1996

·                 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

·                 Heritage New Zealand Act Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

·                 Building Act 2004

·                 Freedom Camping Act 2011

·                 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

·                 Impounding Act 1955

·                 Southland Land Drainage Act 1935

·                 Southland Land Drainage Amendment Act 1938

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is delegated the authority to undertake the following functions in accordance with the Council’s approved delegations register:

 

(a)                  Maintain an oversight of the delivery of regulatory services;

(b)                 Conduct statutory hearings on regulatory matters and undertake and make decisions on those hearings (excluding matters it is legally unable to make decisions on as legislated by the Resource Management Act 1991);

(c)                  Appoint panels for regulatory hearings;

(d)                  Hear appeals on officer’s decisions to decline permission for an activity that would breach the Southland District Council Control of Alcohol Bylaw 2015;

(e)                  Approve Council's list of hearings commissioners (from whom a commissioner can be selected) at regular intervals and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to appoint individual Commissioners for a particular hearing;

(f)                    Make decisions on applications required under the Southland District Council’s Development and Financial Contribution Policy for remissions, postponements, reconsiderations and objections;

(g)                  Approve Commissioners and list members under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act  2012;

(h)                  Exercise the Council's powers, duties and discretions under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012;

(i)                    Hear objections to officer decisions under the Dog Control Act 1996.

(j)                    Hear objections and decide on matters under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 and Southland Land Drainage Amendment Act 1938.

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee shall be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers.

 

 

The Regulatory and Consents Committee is responsible for considering and making recommendations to Council regarding:

(a)                 Regulatory policies and bylaws for consultation;

(b)                Regulatory delegations;

(c)                 Regulatory fees and charges (in accordance with the Revenue and Financial Policy)

(d)                Assisting with the review and monitoring of the District Plan.


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                5

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                5

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             5

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         5

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        5

6             Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                                                               5

Reports for Resolution

7.1         Application under Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 - Mr Kevin Woolhouse          11   


1             Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2             Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4             Public Forum

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)            the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)          the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)           that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)            that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)           the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)          no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6             Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Meeting minutes of Regulatory and Consents Committee, 07 March 2018

 


 

Regulatory and Consents Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Regulatory and Consents Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 1pm.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Brian Dillon

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Darren Frazer

Left the meeting @ 1.30pm

 

Julie Keast

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Councillor Kremer, Group Manager Environmental Services, (Bruce Halligan), Team Leader, Building Solutions (Michael Marron), Team Leader, Resource Management (Marcus Roy), Communications Manager, (Louise Pagan) and Committee Advisor, (Alyson Hamilton).

 

 

 

 


1             Apologies

 

There were apologies for absence from Councillor Patterson and an apology for an early departure from Councillor Frazer.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Chairperson Macpherson, seconded Cr Keast  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee accept the apologies.

 

 

2             Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence.

 

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

 

4             Public Forum

 

There was no public forum.

 

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

 

6             Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Frazer, seconded Cr Keast  and resolved:

That the minutes of Regulatory and Consents Committee meeting held on 16 November 2017 be confirmed as a true and correct.

 

Reports

 

 

7.1

Environmental Services Group Update report for 7 March 2018 Regulatory and Consents Committee meeting

Record No: R/18/2/3169

 

Group Manager, Environmental Services (Bruce Halligan) was present for this item.

 

Mr Bruce Halligan introduced Julie Conradi a new member of the Environmental Services Group to the meeting and explained her role of Quality Assurance within Council.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Mayor Tong  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Environmental Services Group Update report for 7 March 2018 Regulatory and Consents Committee meeting” dated 28 February 2018.

 

 

Councillor Frazer left the meeting at 1.30pm.

 

 

7.2

Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Record No: R/18/2/3517

 

Policy Analyst, (Robyn Rout) and Team Leader, Building Solutions (Michael Marron) were present for this item.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Duffy, seconded Cr Keast  and resolved:

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy” dated 28 February 2018.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Notes the legislative changes to the Building Act 2004 that makes the parts of the current ‘Earthquake-Prone and Insanitary Buildings Policy’ that relate to earthquake-prone buildings, obsolete.

 

e)            Considers the draft Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018 and provides feedback.

 

f)             Recommends that the draft Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2018 be adopted for consultation by Council.

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 1.45pm                       CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Regulatory and Consents Committee HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 7 MARCH 2018.

 

 

 

DATE:............................................................................................

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:........................................................................

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

Application under Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 - Mr Kevin Woolhouse

Record No:             R/18/1/4

Author:                      Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

Purpose

1        An application has been received from Mr Kevin Woolhouse, via Preston Russell Law, seeking that Council exercises its powers under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 to require his neighbour, Mr Logan Pullar, to undertake physical works on Mr Pullar’s property in order to improve drainage on Mr Woolhouse’s property.

Executive Summary

2        Mr Woolhouse owns property at 102 Talbot Road, Te Anau. Mr Pullar owns the adjoining property to the west/south, with the parent property being 643 Kakapo Road.

3        Mr Woolhouse, via his solicitors Preston Russell Law, has alleged that Mr Pullar has undertaken physical actions and a lack of drainage maintenance which have led to regular extensive flooding of Mr Woolhouse’s property as water is unable to drain away to the south-west. Mr Woolhouse considers that this is having an adverse effect on his farm productivity.

4        Mr Woolhouse had sought that the Council requires immediate remedial action from Mr Pullar to address this situation, in accordance with the Council’s powers under Section 7 of the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935.

5        The Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 is a local Act which is more than 80 years old which has never been repealed.

6        The purpose of this Act is specified as An Act to make better provision for land drainage within the Counties of Southland and Wallace”. The empowering provisions of the Local Government Act and associated transitionary provisions from the 1989 local government reorganisation mean that these powers under the Southland Land Drainage Act have transferred from the former Wallace County Council to the Southland District Council.

7        It is understood that this application follows several years of dialogue between the parties over drainage issues, which has also involved Environment Southland.

8        Hence, rather than requiring immediate action from Mr Pullar as requested by Mr Woolhouse, the Council responded to Mr Woolhouse to indicate that the intended course of action was to proceed to a hearing.

9        This course of action is to enable both parties to have an opportunity to present their respective perspectives on the matter. Mr Woolhouse eventually agreed to this course of action and has paid the required hearing deposit.

 

Recommendation

That the Regulatory and Consents Committee:

a)            Receives the report titled “Application under Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 - Mr Kevin Woolhouse” dated 16 April 2018.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not  significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

c)            Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

 

d)           Makes the decision it considers appropriate with respect to its powers under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935, having heard all relevant information from the respective parties involved, and having received relevant technical advice from Environment Southland.  

 

Background

10      Mr Kevin Woolhouse owns a rural property at 102 Talbot Road, east of Te Anau Township.

11      His adjacent neighbour to the west and south is Mr Logan Pullar. The parent address for Mr Pullar’s property is 643 Kakapo Road and the more southerly section being 700 Kakapo Road.

12      A locality plan illustrating the respective properties is attached as Attachment A.

13      Mr Woolhouse has applied, via his solicitor Preston Russell Law, for Council to exercise its statutory powers under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 to require Mr Pullar to undertake various physical works; in order to address what Mr Woolhouse considers to be adverse effects on his property due to impediment of drainage. The actions requested to be required are outlined specifically in the letter from Mr Woolhouse’s solicitor dated 6 December 2017 attached in Attachment B.

14      The Southland Land Drainage Act is a relatively aged local statute, dating from 1935. As referred to above, powers held by the former Wallace County Council in relation to this statute have transferred to the Southland District Council via the 1989 Local Government reorganisation transition arrangements.

15      This statute dates from the era when extensive land development work was being undertaken throughout Southland to bring land into agricultural production, with associated drainage works.

16      In more recent years, the Southland District Council has had only very sporadic involvement with the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935, and the author can recall no recent hearings under this Act.

17      Generally, where the Council has been more recently involved with the Southland Land Drainage Act, it has been via Community (former Area) Engineers, and this involvement has generally taken the form of seeking to facilitate local/on site agreements between parties.

18      Mr Woolhouse has supplied various pieces of correspondence to support his request for Council action. This correspondence, and Council’s responses, are attached in Attachment B to this report.

19      As can be seen, Mr Woolhouse had initially sought that the Council takes immediate action to require Mr Pullar to undertake immediate physical work, although the extent of this was reasonably loosely defined. The author responded on behalf of the Council seeking further clarification of Mr Woolhouse’s request and indicating that the Council would not immediately take the action that he requested, but rather would propose a hearing of the matter so that both parties could present their respective perspectives, as there are usually “two sides to the story”.

20      As can be seen, the Council correspondence also suggested that an alternative to proceeding to a hearing on this matter could be for the parties to undertake external mediation to see whether they could reach a private agreement.

21      Mr Woolhouse responded, seeking progression of this matter to a hearing, and since paying the required hearing processing deposit.

22      Mr Woolhouse’s correspondence refers to history on this matter, which also involved staff of Environment Southland.

23      To inform the consideration of Mr Woolhouse’s request, the author made contact with Environment Southland, in order to gain a better understanding of the extent of Environment Southland’s prior involvement. 

24      Mr Gary Morgan, Senior Land Sustainability Officer at Environment Southland has indicated to the author that this matter has had a history of several years of Environment Southland involvement at both a staff and political level, with various suggestions made for possible resolution by Environment Southland representatives in the interests of seeking to broker an acceptable outcome to both parties. Mr Morgan has indicated that these attempts were not successful.

25      The Southland District Council holds no specific in-house expertise on rural land drainage issues, which is probably not uncommon for councils of this scale, as it is a relatively small area of demand, as indicated above. Interestingly, there is also a Land Drainage Act 1908 which applies at a national level, and was associated with former catchment boards. Most rural land drainage issues are dealt with by the Catchment Management Division of Environment Southland, although in discussions with Mr Morgan he has indicated that the Catchment Management Division staff also generally seek to direct parties towards agreed negotiated outcomes if possible.

26      It is understood that Mr Woolhouse was directed to the Southland District Council under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 after Environment Southland advised him that it had no statutory authority to require any action from either party.

27      The Council has sought advice from Mr Morgan as technical adviser to this process as to what, if any, proposed works may be appropriate and necessary to eliminate or mitigate the adverse drainage effects which are of concern to Mr Woolhouse.

28      As Committee members are aware, there are very large parts of the Southland District which have been subject to drainage interventions to direct water away from where it may naturally run or pond.

29      Often such drains, be they above or below ground, traverse several properties and rely on the appropriate ongoing maintenance from all the landowners who benefit from them if they are to remain effective. Failure to adequately maintain a drain downstream can hence generate adverse drainage effects such as extensive localised ponding on other properties which are upstream.

30      Mr Woolhouse considers that Mr Pullar has damaged the drainage network and has impeded drainage flow, thereby generating adverse effects on Mr Woolhouse’s property. He hence seeks that the actions as outlined in Section 3 of his letter to Council dated 6 December 2017 (see Attachment B) be directed to be undertaken by the Council at Mr Pullar’s cost.

31      Since receiving the letter of 6 December 2017, I requested further detail of the physical extent of works sought, and this is also included in Attachment B.

32      On-site meetings between each of the parties and Mr Morgan and the author were undertaken on 16 January 2018, as they did not desire to meet collectively. These were aimed to provide an opportunity to view the areas addressed in Mr Woolhouse’s correspondence, and also to discuss possible courses of action and ascertain whether there was any potential to collaboratively resolve the matter without it needing to proceed to a formal hearing. The summary of these meetings was as follows:

-     Mr Woolhouse considers that the key source of the issue is that a common subsurface drain which Mr Pullar and himself collectively installed some years ago has been damaged/blocked by Mr Pullar’s subsequent installation of an above-ground laneway on top of the drain with a width of approximately 6 metres, and works associated with that laneway formation. Mr Woolhouse considers that this is causing significant ponding on his property. He hence requests that the Council requires under Section 10 of the Southland Land Drainage Act that Mr Pullar excavates out and cleans out and repairs the section of this drain which is under the laneway, to restore drainage flow. As the common drain traverses under a common boundary fence which is a deer fence, this would also need to be dismantled and subsequently reinstated to enable this repair and reinstatement work to occur.

-     Mr Pullar considers that the drainage issues which both Mr Woolhouse and himself are experiencing on the lower parts of their properties in this area are not to do with damage to this common drain, and he refutes the suggestion that he has damaged this drain. Mr Pullar considers that the historical piping of previous large above ground drains on Mr Woolhouse’s property have redirected extensive amounts of water into this area, too much for the relatively small subsurface drain (which is an approximately 100 mm Novacoil style drain ) to handle.

-     Mr Pullar considers that what is required to rectify the issue is a new open drain to convey water from this area to a larger existing open drain to the North. Mr Pullar made an offer to contribute towards half the cost of this new drain and to have it located on his property, as Mr Woolhouse had signalled his opposition to having open drains on his property due to environmental concerns. Both Mr Morgan and myself have made it clear that neither Southland District Council have any jurisdiction nor any specific issues with Mr Woolhouse’s previous piping of his previous open drainage network on his farm, and that this is not a matter we will be revisiting/taking any action on as part of this hearing process

33      The day after the site visit (17 January 2018) I made contact via e-mail with Mr Woolhouse’s solicitor and put Mr Pullar’s suggested solution to him; in order to seek to ascertain whether there potential for an agreed collaborative solution which could avoid the need for the matter to proceed to a hearing.

34      I was subsequently advised by Mr Woolhouse’s solicitor that Mr Woolhouse did not want to progress this possibility and sought that the matter proceed to a hearing as soon as possible, and still seeks that the Council requires the work previously outlined in the letter of 6 December 2017 be undertaken by Mr Pullar.

35      Mr Morgan has advised me that he had previously suggested a new common drain similar to Mr Pullar’s suggestion when Environment Southland was involved in this matter, but it was understood that agreement could not be reached on this at that time.

36      Mr Morgan has provided a technical report which is attached as Attachment C which outlines his views on the matter and technical recommendations. Mr Morgan will be present at the hearing should the Committee wish to ask further questions of him.

Issues

37      The Southland Land Drainage Act implies that drainage networks should be appropriately maintained and that where this does not occur then the party which is not undertaking the required actions will be directed to do so.

38      Hence, two key issues in this instance are:

-     who is causing the issue , if there is one?, and

-     what is the extent of the appropriate remedial work required, if any?

39      The onus would appear to be on Mr Woolhouse as the applicant under the Southland Land Drainage Act to demonstrate to the Regulatory and Consents Committee that the actions which he seeks to require to be undertaken are appropriate and necessary, and will be effective in rectifying the issue. The Council has not expended any specific ratepayer resources on specialist expert advice in relation to this matter. No doubt of assistance to the Committee’s deliberations would be technical information such as the relative levels of the subsurface drain which Mr Woolhouse alleges has been damaged and the open drain on Mr Pullar’s property; but it is considered that the onus is on Mr Woolhouse as applicant to provide this type of technical information to support his requested course of action. Mr Pullar, based on the site meetings, clearly has a different view of what is required to resolve the drainage issues in this locality.

40      Both the site visit and Mr Morgan’s report are inconclusive in that regard. Hence, it is recommended that unless there is a compelling case presented at the hearing for a Council intervention under the Southland Land Drainage Act 1935, then the Committee does not make a ruling and it then becomes over to the two parties to seek to negotiate a separate outcome outside of the Southland Land Drainage Act process. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

41      The Council’s powers with respect to this matter are spelt out in the Southland Land Drainage Act, particularly Sections 5-8. Section 5 reads as follows:

42      Section 7 of the Act gives Councils the powers to constitute a “Drainage Committee” to hear the application and outlines its powers, although this is done in reasonably generic terms.

·      (1) The Council may by resolution appoint from its members a Drainage Committee for the purposes of this Act.

43     Interestingly also, Section 9 of the SLDA allows parties considered to be injuriously affected by any actions undertaken or directed by a council to seek compensation from that council.

44     As can be seen above, Section 5(2) of the Act specifies that if a party fails to undertake the works specified within a defined timeframe, then the Council or its contractor can enter the property and undertake the works. In practical terms, however, this could be considerably more difficult than this statute indicates if the relevant landowner was to oppose such access on other legal grounds, such as safety concerns under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

45     The Southland Land Drainage Act does not contain any specific appeal provisions. However, there could be the potential for a party to seek a judicial review of Council processes to the High Court if they felt inclined to do so as a result of the outcome of a process. A judicial review process would normally focus on the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the decisionmaking process followed.

46     In November 2017, the Council formally delegated authority to the Regulatory and Consents Committee the right to hear and decide Southland Land Drainage Act 1935 matters.

Community Views

47      There is no statutory requirement for the Council to seek community views in relation to this matter.

48      In referring this matter to a hearing, the Council has sought to ensure that both parties have the opportunity to express their views, rather than just relying on the perspective of one party to inform its decisionmaking.

Costs and Funding

49      The applicant, Mr Woolhouse, has previously been advised that the actual and reasonable costs of this hearing are required to be covered by him as applicant, and he has opted to proceed on this basis.

50      If the Committee’s decision was to require remedial work to be undertaken, then it would also need to direct who pays the costs of this remedial work and to be specific enough as to the extent of work required.

Policy Implications

51      There is no specific Council policy of relevance to the Committee’s consideration of this application.

Analysis

Options Considered

52      The key options available to the Committee in this instance are to :

-     Resolve not to require any remedial action, or

-     If it considers remedial action is required, resolve as to the extent of this and who has to undertake the work and by when (it is possible that the Committee may consider that both parties may be required to undertake some works to collectively address this situation, or just one party)

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – No action required

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        If who is responsible for the issue is not clear, limits potential exposure of the Council and its ratepayers to what seems to be primarily a dispute between two parties to which there would appear to be potential solutions available.

·        Would not preclude the parties from undertaking independent mediation outside of the Southland Land Drainage Act process, as has been previously suggested.

·        May not resolve this ongoing issue in this locality

Option 2 – Require remedial action

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        If the appropriate remedial action is specified and then undertaken, should hopefully resolve an ongoing concern in this locality

·        Could expose Council to legal challenge from one or more of the parties if they consider the Committee decision is not appropriate.

Assessment of Significance

53      This matter is not considered significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, as per Recommendation (b) above.

Recommended Option

54     The Recommended Option is Option 1 - no action taken by the Committee on this matter. The reason for this recommendation is that, based on the information held at the time of writing the report, there is no conclusive information to indicate that a Council intervention is required nor that Mr Woolhouse’s requested actions will definitely be successful in resolving the issue. However, Recommendation (d) above has been left relatively open as there is the possibility that additional information will be presented at the hearing that will further inform the Committee’s decisionmaking.

Next Steps

55      Following the hearing of this matter, both parties will be formally advised in writing of the Regulatory and Consents Committee’s decision with respect to this matter, within 15 working days.

 

Attachments

a             Property Information - Kevin Woolhouse

b             Various Correspondence

c             Technical Report from Gary Morgan, Environment Southland    

 


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator



Regulatory and Consents Committee

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator