Additional Background: The Council referred the consent application directly to the Environment Court.  This imposes some rather more vigorous procedures on both the applicant; the Council and submitters. Submitters to the application were given an opportunity to become Section 274 registered parties to the Court Action.  Registered parties  include CBRRA, Reydon Place Residents Society Incorporated (RPRSI) ; Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association (HRRA) and about 55 individuals. The Court process places a lot of emphasis on the qualifications and expertise of witnesses.  This is much more so than in the case of the earlier application for 71 apartments held before Independent Hearing Commissioners.  The Court also takes a dim view of people wasting their time.  As a result of this some 36 individuals (including couples) have agreed to support the CBRRA submission. Council now have a lawyer representing them, as does the applicant (Box Properties Investments Ltd).  RPRSI have engaged a lawyer and a Town Planner.  Probably based on the fact that this is a precedent setting case they have received a legal grant towards the cost of their lawyer, and are fund raising towards the cost of a very experienced town planner that they have engaged.  They have started fund raising towards these costs.  Our Association will be providing some financial support.  We encourage individual donations to their fund.  Their bank account details are included on our Membership form.  They are likely to need at least $10,000. In addition to the initial submission to Council on the application, we have so far been required to provide a submission to the Court; a statement of issues to be considered and a detailed submission / evidence.  All quite time consuming! There has been one relatively short hearing before Judge Kirkpatrick, the Chief Environment Court Judge.  At this he basically set a timetable for the early stages of the Court case.  This was followed up by a deadline by which all submitters had to respond to the applicant’s and the Council evidence.  That deadline date was 30 June 2021.  We do not yet have a timetable for the remainder of the Court Hearings. The appeal to the Environment Court case against the rejection of the original application to build 71 apartments has been withdrawn. The overall approach we have used has been to put a lot of emphasis on the Single House Zone description, objectives and policies as set out in the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the different criteria for interpreting these definitions, including the Evidence Act; and clauses in the AUP.  Our second key thrust has been around the environment, and how well, or badly, these requirements have been addressed by the applicant Our final submission ran to some 35 pages of very evidence-based information.  It will have been circulated to all parties to the Court action, but is not available to others as the Court regards submissions and evidence as confidential. An underlying concern is that the Howick Local Board – in this case through no fault of their own – were not consulted on the application. On a different front completely Fiona and I made a presentation to the full Council Planning Committee expressing our concerns about Integrated Residential Developments.  In preceding months we had talked to Sharon Stewart and some other Councillors on the subject, and corresponded with one of the Orakei Local Board elected representatives and local citizens.  It is good to report that the Planning Committee is considering a Plan Change on the subject.  I do not yet have a timetable.