HERNE BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED (HBRAI)
31 March 2019

Attention:
Veena Krishna MNZPI
Principal Specialist Planner – Central Resources Consents
Auckland City Council (ACC)
35 Graham Street, Level 1
AUCKLAND
CC: James Hassall, Mark White
Dear Veena

Regarding 75 Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay,
Certificate of Compliance (COC) for Boatshed on Sentinel Beach

We write to stress our continued dismay and deep concern at the repeated
attempts by the Duke family to seek consent for the demonstrably ‘illegal’
boatshed on Sentinel Beach.
It is a patent nonsense for the family to apply for a COC for a building that no
longer lawfully exists and it is time for them to cease wasting Council’s time and
accept they have erred on the law and there is no legal remedy. Furthermore,
Auckland Council planners must now put a stop to this illegal structure (and
proposed use), have it removed and Sentinel beach returned to people of
Auckland.
With respect to the current application for a Certificate of Compliance, Herne Bay
Residents Association argue that the process being proposed to seek consents in
two stages 1) seek a COC for the boatshed structure and 2) apply for a resource
consent for its use as a helipad is severely flawed.
The process is flawed because the facts, as supplied by the applicant are
contestable and a more appropriate approach would be to seek a declaration
from the Environment Court to determine whether the boatshed has any existing
use rights and if so, to what extent. The opportunity to raise this issue with the
court exists and determining existing rights is pivotal to the (any) application.
We believe too, that Counsel for the Duke family and supporting consultants B &
A Urban & Environmental are being deliberately misleading in suggesting that
Auckland Council can avoid seeking a declaration as to the question of the
boatshed’s existing use rights. For these reasons as well as those that follow,
HBRAI says Council should not allow the Duke COC application to proceed.
In relation to the issue of existing use rights, HBRAI has already clearly spelt out
the legal issues in a letter dated 8 March 2019 where is said:
1

 HERNE BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED (HBRAI)
1. “Contrary to Counsel for Duke’s strategy, it is suggested that the two
parts of the existing use rights law – the activity (use) and structure
cannot logically be separated
2. Further, the ‘abandonment’ of the boatshed’s original activity as a result
of the complete removal of the boat ramp from the sea bed is fatal and a
defect that cannot be remedied
3. The total reconstruction of the original boatshed structure right down to
the removal and rebuilding of the piles is again fatal and unable to be
legally remedied.
To assist Council in determining the best way forward, we direct you to two cases
in point, Dunstan Versus Dunedin CC CO71/07, and Hinsen Versus Queenstown
Lakes DC (2004) NZRMA 115 (ENVC). We draw your attention to section 10
subsections (2) and (4) which make it clear that the facts are against the
applicant because the statutory provisions cannot be complied with.
All the evidence clearly means that Council cannot contemplate issuing a
Certificate of Compliance and there is now no way in which the applicant can
remedy the defects. Council should also appreciate that the High Court’s
direction to e.g. reconsider the land use and Coastal permit applications does
not in any way predetermine the outcome of any such application”.
In view of the above, the B & A Urban & Environmental Report’ evaluation of
existing use rights is incorrect as it has failed to have regard to the fact that the
Duke family has ‘abandoned’ all the rights. Furthermore, the reconstruction of
the building means that it can no longer perform the function for which it was
originally permitted, e.g. it can no longer store and retrieve a large vessel.
In closing, we draw attention to the HBRAI letter dated 25 March which highlights
another of our association’s concerns about the B & A Urban & Environmental
Report which we believe is unprofessional and in parts deliberately misleading,
especially in the presentation of the boatshed. See attached photo of the current
reconstructed boatshed as evidence.
“Notwithstanding our previous letters regarding the buildings on Sentinel Beach
it is very interesting to see on the first page of the COC application, a fictitious
image of the building showing a ramp that does not exist and doors that also do
not exist. It would appear that these aspects of the building have been photo
shopped in. The presence of site workers in the photo also adds to the
impression.
It should also be noted that the photo shopped boat slipway is completely
different to the one that existed prior to it being abandoned and removed from
the seabed”.
Thank you. Please do not hesitate to contact us should any aspects of our letter
require clarification or you have additional queries. We look forward to an early
resolution to this issue which has become of considerable concern to our
members and Herne Bay residents. In the end, we believe the use and landing of
helicopters in residential areas is inappropriate and totally unacceptable.

2

 HERNE BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED (HBRAI)
Kind regards
Dirk Hudig (Co-Chair HBRAI)

Don Mathieson (Co-Chair HBRAI)

3