DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry Into the Proposed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry Into the Proposed Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed Men’s Correctional Facility at Wiri Final report and decision produced under section 149R of the Resource Management Act Volume 1 of 2 Published by the Board of Inquiry into The Proposed Men’s Correctional Facility at Wiri Publication number: EPA 0056 ISBN 978-0-478-34865-1 (print) ISBN 978-0-478-34866-8 (electronic ISBN 978-0-478-34867-5 (CD) BOARD OF INQUIRY PROPOSED MEN‟S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AT WIRI In the Matter of The Resource Management Act And In the Matter of a referral to a Board of Inquiry under s149J of the Act of an application by the Minister of Corrections to alter Designation 288 THE BOARD OF INQUIRY Judge M Harland (Chair) Deputy Chief Judge C Fox D Hill L Auton W Burrill Prepared in September 2011 Appearances: MR S QUINN and MS K ANDERSON Counsel for Department of Corrections MR R ENRIGHT and MS H O‟CONNELL Counsel for Wiri Oil Services Limited and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Inc MR G LANNING and MR W BANGMA Counsel for Auckland Transport MR P O‟DRISCOLL Counsel for Te Akitai Waiohua MS M DICKEY and MR M ALLAN Counsel for Auckland Council and the Manurewa Local Board MS S SIMONS, Ms J VAN DEN BURGEN AND SISTER M MARTIN Counsel for Vision Manukau MS J CAMPBELL Counsel for Investment Property Holdings Limited Partnership MS P FORDYCE Counsel appointed by the Board as Friend of Submitters MR J MAASSEN Counsel appointed to assist the Board of Inquiry MR R GUNSTON AND MR R BROOKING as representatives of Prison Fellowship New Zealand MR G SMITH as representative of Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Inc SISTER A HURLEY as representative of Sisters of Mercy Wiri MR A JOHNSON as representative of the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of The Salvation Army Mr T Minhinnick as representative of Ngati Te Ata MS A WILLIAMS as representative of Wiri Business Improvement District MS S JOHNSTON as representative of Manurewa Principals Association MS A SEARLE AND MS AROHA GRAY as representatives of Child Advocacy Group MR F BUCK as representative of Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association MS C BROWN MR G AND MRS R CLARK MR D FRASER MS P GRAY MR T GREENING MS T LUXTON MR I DUNWOODIE MR R FOWLER MS D JELICICH MS A SCHAAF MS L WALL MR N ROGERS Hearing: Held at TelstraClear Pacific events centre, 770 Great South Road, Manukau Monday 2 May 2011 Thursday – Friday, 5 -6 May 2011 Monday 9 May 2011 to Friday 13 May 2011 Monday 16 May 2011 to Friday 20 May 2011 Tuesday 24 May 2011 to Thursday 26 May 2011 Wednesday 22 June 2011 Site Visits: 20 January 2011 - Pre-hearing site visit to Spring Hill Corrections Facility, the wider Clendon community and the proposed site of the Men‟s Prison at Wiri Proposal 3 May 2011 –Wiri Oil Services Limited (WOSL) terminal, Auckland Region Women‟s Correction Facility and views of the proposed sites from McLaughins Road 12 May 2011 – Various residential and other locations in the wider Manukau area, potentially affected by the proposal. 23 May 2011 – Mt Eden Corrections Facility, Korowai Maanaki youth Justice Facility, view of the proposed site from upper floors/roof of Auckland Council‟s Manukau Service Centre building at Wiri Station Road. FINAL REPORT AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY The application to alter Designation 288 is confirmed subject to the terms and conditions contained in Volume 2 of this Report and Decision. Volume 1 1 INTRODUCTION 14 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 17 2.1 Section 181 of the RMA 18 2.2 Part 6AA RMA 18 2.3 Applicable burden and standard of proof 20 2.4 Conditions 20 3 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION 21 4 THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 22 4.1 The site and its environs 23 4.2 The existing designation 26 4.3 The women‘s prison 27 4.4 Korowai Manaaki youth justice facility 29 4.5 The demographic profile of the immediately and wider impacted communities 30 4.5.1 Population 31 4.5.2 Age 31 4.5.3 Ethnicity 32 4.5.4 Community cohesion 32 4.5.5 Deprivation indices 34 5 THE PROPOSAL 35 5.1 Overview of Prison Services 36 5.2 The NoR and the objectives of the Minister of Corrections 38 5.3 Public-Private-Partnership Model (PPP) 42 5.4 Site layout and design 46 6 PLANNING DOCUMENTS 48 6.1 Overview of the planners‘ evidence 49 6.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 51 6.3 Auckland Regional Policy Statement (―ARPS‖) 51 6.4 Auckland Regional Policy Statement – Proposed Plan Change 6 52 6.5 Operative Manukau District Plan (―the District Plan‖) 52 7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES. 53 7.1 The issues and the evidence 53 7.2 Legal framework 54 7.2.1 When are alternatives required to be considered? 54 7.2.2 Adequacy of consideration of alternatives 56 7.3 The evidence 58 7.3.1 Corrections‘ case 58 7.3.1.1 The first business case 58 7 7.3.1.2 The second business case 59 7.3.2 Submitters‘ cases 61 7.3.2.1 Mr Greening 61 7.3.2.2 The Council/Local Board 61 7.3.2.3 Vision Manukau 62 7.3.2.4 The Prison Fellowship 63 7.4 Findings 63 8 IS THE ALTERATION REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE MINISTER‘S OBJECTIVES? 65 8.1 The issues and the evidence 65 8.2 The Minister‘s objectives 66 8.3 National capacity shortfall 66 8.4 Reduction in reoffending rates 70 8.5 Optimising prisoner capacity and maintaining public safety 75 8.6 PPP objectives 76 8.7 Conclusion 78 9 ECONOMIC EFFECTS 78 9.1 The issues and the evidence 78 9.2 Assessed benefits of the proposed men‘s prison 79 9.3 Methodology – EIA – v - CBA 81 9.4 Local – v – regional economic benefits 82 9.5 Findings 83 10 METHODOLOGY 84 11 CONSULTATION 85 11.1 The issues and the evidence 85 11.2 Legal provisions 86 11.3 The consultation process 88 11.3.1 Consultation methodology 89 11.3.2 What was done to consult 90 11.3.3 Review of reports 92 11.4 Was the consultation undertaken adequate? 93 11.4.1 General complaint 93 11.4.2 Specific omissions 94 11.4.2.1 Māori Community 94 11.4.2.2 Pacific Island community 95 11.4.2.3 Youth and children 96 11.4.2.4 Other impacted communities 96 11.5 Findings 96 12 SOCIAL EFFECTS 97 12.1 The issues and the evidence 97 12.2 The social impact assessment evidence 98 12.2.1 Background 98 8 12.2.2 Criticism of the SIA methodology 100 12.2.3 Response by Corrections 100 12.2.4 Findings on adequacy of SIA 102 12.3 Defining the impacted communities 103 12.4 Defining what comprises a social effect 105 12.5 Social effects which can be anticipated from a prison 106 12.5.1 Research 106 12.5.2 Social effects identified during AEE consultation 108 12.5.3 The Focus Groups 109 12.5.3.1 Youth 110 12.5.3.2 Māori 111 12.5.3.3 Pacific peoples 111 12.5.3.4 Local businesses 112 12.5.3.5 Social service providers 112 12.5.4 Submitters 113 12.6 Evaluation of the evidence of social effects by experts 113 12.6.1 Economic and employment benefits 114 12.6.2 Other benefits 115 12.6.3 Assessment of effects concerning community services 117 12.6.4 Relocation of staff and prisoners‘ families/associates 122 12.6.5 Personal safety, security and crime 125 12.6.6 Assessment of effects regarding community image, stigma and well- being 128 12.6.7 Findings of effects on behaviours and attitudes of youth 129 12.6.8 Effects on women prisoners and staff 130 12.6.9 Cumulative effects 131 12.7 Findings 133 13 FIRE AND EXPLOSION RISK EFFECTS (WOSL) 138 13.1 Overview 138 13.2 Legal and planning framework 139 13.2.1 Jurisdiction to impose additional conditions on the women‘s prison 139 13.2.2 Section 3 RMA - effects 139 13.2.3 HIPAP 4 141 13.2.4 Relevant plan provisions 144 13.3 The issues and the evidence 144 13.3.1 The Liquigas LPG terminal 145 13.3.2 Individual and societal risk/ALARP 145 13.3.3 Separation distance 147 13.3.4 Women‘s prison capacity 148 13.3.5 Mitigation measures 149 13.4 Evaluation and findings 151 13.4.1 Exposure risk and Corrections‘ responsibility 151 13.4.2 Timing of effective further risk reduction 152 9 14 EFFECTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES 156 14.1 Legal and planning framework 156 14.2 The evidence 157 14.2.1 Archaeological landscape 157 14.2.2 The site for proposed men‘s prison 158 14.3 Findings 159 15 MĀORI CULTURE AND TRADITIONS 161 15.1 The issues and the evidence 161 15.2 Cultural landscape 162 15.3 Legal and planning framework 164 15.3.1 Tangata whenua issues 164 15.3.2 Planning instruments 166 15.4 The evidence 168 15.4.1 Correction‘s evidence 168 15.4.1.1 Methodology 168 15.4.1.2 Consultation 169 15.4.2 Recorded iwi/hapu positions on the proposal prior to notification170 15.4.2.1 Ngati Te Ata 170 15.4.2.2 Te Akitai Waiohua 171 15.4.2.3 Issues common to both iwi/hapu 171 15.5 Mitigation proposed 172 15.5.1 Corrections‘ proposals 172 15.5.2 Tangata whenua positions and proposed mitigation 173 15.5.2.1 Ngati Te Ata 174 15.5.2.2 Te Akitai Waiohua 177 15.6 Evaluation of cultural effects 180 15.6.1 Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua 180 15.6.2 Te Kawerau a Maki 180 15.7 Other Māori issues and effects 184 15.8 Findings 185 16 LANDSCAPE, BUILDING PLATFORM AND DESIGN, AND VISUAL EFFECTS 185 16.1 The issues and the evidence 185 16.2 The landscape value of Maunga Matukutureia 185 16.2.1 Dr Hayward‘s evidence 188 16.2.2 Mr Goodwin‘s evidence 192 16.2.3 Ms Gilbert‘s evidence 193 16.2.4 Significance to Māori 193 16.2.5 Evaluation 194 16.3 Building platform and design 195 16.3.1 The issues and evidence 195 16.3.2 The IDMS 196 16.3.3 Development controls 198 16.3.4 Evaluation of building platform and design 200 10 16.5 Evaluation of landscape and visual effects 202 16.5.1 Visual simulations 202 16.5.2 Mitigation planting 203 16.5.2.1 The women‘s prison conditions 204 16.5.2.2 The proposed conditions 204 16.6 Overall finding 205 17 OTHER EFFECTS 205 17.1 Ecological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Auckland Plan Targets: Monitoring Report 2015 with DATA for the SOUTHERN INITIATIVE AREA
    Auckland plan targets: monitoring report 2015 WITH DATA FOR THE SOUTHERN INITIATIVE AREA Auckland Plan Targets: Monitoring Report 2015 With Data for the Southern Initiative Area March 2016 Technical Report 2016/007 Auckland Council Technical Report 2016/007 ISSN 2230-4525 (Print) ISSN 2230-4533 (Online) ISBN 978-0-9941350-0-1 (Print) ISBN 978-0-9941350-1-8 (PDF) This report has been peer reviewed by the Peer Review Panel. Submitted for review on 26 February 2016 Review completed on 18 March 2016 Reviewed by one reviewer. Approved for Auckland Council publication by: Name: Dr Lucy Baragwanath Position: Manager, Research and Evaluation Unit Date: 18 March 2016 Recommended citation Wilson, R., Reid, A and Bishop, C (2016). Auckland Plan targets: monitoring report 2015 with data for the Southern Initiative area. Auckland Council technical report, TR2016/007 Note This technical report updates and replaces Auckland Council technical report TR2015/030 Auckland Plan Targets: monitoring report 2015 which does not contain data for the Southern Initiative area. © 2016 Auckland Council This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Council's copyright and other intellectual property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication, in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This publication must not be used in any way for any commercial purpose without the prior written consent of Auckland Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Dilemma of Geoconservation of Monogenetic Volcanic Sites Under Fast Urbanization and Infrastructure Developments with Special Re
    sustainability Article Dilemma of Geoconservation of Monogenetic Volcanic Sites under Fast Urbanization and Infrastructure Developments with Special Relevance to the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand Károly Németh 1,2,3,* , Ilmars Gravis 3 and Boglárka Németh 1 1 School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand; [email protected] 2 Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, 9400 Sopron, Hungary 3 The Geoconservation Trust Aotearoa, 52 Hukutaia Road, Op¯ otiki¯ 3122, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +64-27-4791484 Abstract: Geoheritage is an important aspect in developing workable strategies for natural hazard resilience. This is reflected in the UNESCO IGCP Project (# 692. Geoheritage for Geohazard Resilience) that continues to successfully develop global awareness of the multifaced aspects of geoheritage research. Geohazards form a great variety of natural phenomena that should be properly identified, and their importance communicated to all levels of society. This is especially the case in urban areas such as Auckland. The largest socio-economic urban center in New Zealand, Auckland faces potential volcanic hazards as it sits on an active Quaternary monogenetic volcanic field. Individual volcanic geosites of young eruptive products are considered to form the foundation of community Citation: Németh, K.; Gravis, I.; outreach demonstrating causes and consequences of volcanism associated volcanism. However, in Németh, B. Dilemma of recent decades, rapid urban development has increased demand for raw materials and encroached Geoconservation of Monogenetic on natural sites which would be ideal for such outreach. The dramatic loss of volcanic geoheritage Volcanic Sites under Fast of Auckland is alarming.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2013 1 Appendix 3.1: Schedule Of
    Draft Auckland Unitary Plan – March 2013 Appendix 3.1: Schedule of Outstanding Natural Features Introduction The following criteria are used to determine the contents of this schedule, and will be used to consider any proposed additions to it. a. the extent to which the landform feature or geological site contributes to the understanding of the geology or evolution of the biota in the region, New Zealand or the earth (includes type localities of rock formations, minerals and fossils) b. the rarity or unusual nature of the site or feature; c. the extent to which the feature or site is an outstanding representative example of the diversity of natural landforms and geological features in Auckland; d. the extent to which the landform or geological feature or site is a component of a recognisable group of geologically associated features; e. the extent to which the landform or geological feature or site contributes to the aesthetic value or visual legibility of the wider natural landscape; f. the community association with, or public appreciation of the values of the feature or site g. the potential value of the feature or site for public education; h. the potential value of the feature or site to provide additional understanding of the geological or biotic history of the region; i. the state of preservation of the feature or site; j. the extent to which a feature or site is associated with an historically important natural event, geologically related industry, or individual involved in earth science research k. the importance of the feature or site to Mana Whenua; l.
    [Show full text]
  • Auckland Volcanic Field Magmatism, Volcanism, and Hazard: a Review
    1 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in New Zealand 2 Journal of Geology and Geophysics on 18 March 2020, available online: 3 http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00288306.2020.1736102 4 5 6 Auckland Volcanic Field magmatism, volcanism, and hazard: a review 7 8 9 Jenni L Hopkins*1, Elaine R Smid*2, Jennifer D Eccles2, Josh L Hayes3, Bruce W Hayward4, Lucy E McGee5, 10 Kasper van Wijk2, Thomas M Wilson3, Shane J Cronin2, Graham S Leonard6, Jan M Lindsay2, Karoly 11 Németh7, Ian E M Smith2 12 13 *Corresponding Author(s): [email protected] / [email protected] 14 15 1Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand 16 2 University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand 17 3 University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand 18 4 Geomarine Research, 19 Debron Ave, Remuera, Auckland, New Zealand 19 5 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 20 6 GNS Science, PO Box 30-368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 21 7 Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand 22 23 24 25 26 27 Manuscript prepared for submission to the IAVCEI special issue of New Zealand Journal of Geology and 28 Geophysics 29 30 31 1 32 33 Keywords 34 intraplate, monogenetic volcanism, chronology, tephrochronology, volcanic hazard assessment, faulting, 35 magma ascent rates, geochemistry, eruption scenarios, New Zealand 2 36 Abstract 37 Auckland Volcanic Field (AVF) is a basaltic intraplate volcanic field in North Island, New Zealand, 38 upon which >1.6 million people live.
    [Show full text]
  • Papatoetoe Heritage Survey 2014
    Papatoetoe Historic Heritage Survey Survey Report 2014 Cover image: Toetoe, Roscommon Road, Papatoetoe Auckland Council, 2014 Recommended citation: Auckland Council Heritage Unit (2014). Papatoetoe Historic Heritage Survey: Survey Report. Auckland Council. © 2014 Auckland Council This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Council’s copyright and other intellectual property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication, in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This publication must not be used in any way for any commercial purpose without the prior written consent of Auckland Council. Auckland Council does not give any warranty whatsoever, including without limitation, as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information or data (including third party data) made available via the publication and expressly disclaim (to the maximum extent permitted in law) all liability for any damage or loss resulting from your use of, or reliance on the publication or the information and data provided via the publication. The publication, information, and data contained within it are provided on an "as is" basis. Papatoetoe Historic Heritage Survey TABLE OF
    [Show full text]
  • Age of the Auckland Volcanic Field Jan Lindsay and Graham Leonard
    Age of the Auckland Volcanic Field Jan Lindsay and Graham Leonard IESE Report 1-2009.02 | June 2009 ISBN: [print] 978-0-473-15316-8 [PDF] 978-0-473-15416-5 Age of the Auckland Volcanic Field Jan Lindsay1 and Graham Leonard2 1School of Environment & Institute of Earth Science and Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; [email protected] 2GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040 New Zealand; [email protected] IESE Report 1-2009.02 | June 2009 ISBN: [print] 978-0-473-15316-8 [PDF] 978-0-473-15416-5 This report was prepared by IESE as part of the DEVORA Project. Disclaimer: While the information contained in this report is believed to be correct at the time of publication, the Institute of Earth Science and Engineering and its working parties and agents involved in preparation and publication, do not accept any liability for its contents or for any consequences arising from its use. Copyright: This work is copyright of the Institute of Earth Science and Engineering. The content may be used with acknowledgement to the Institute of Earth Science and Engineering and the appropriate citation. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 Project objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report 7: Landscape Assessment
    Technical Report 7: Landscape Assessment Document History and Status Revision Date Reviewed by Status 21.02.2019 R Pryor Draft 27.02.019 For Issue File Number/Name 18740 LVA01 Author J Hogan Client Euroclass Services Ltd 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 LA4 Landscape Architects have been engaged by Euroclass Services Ltd to undertake a landscape assessment of Outstanding Natural Feature 93 (ONF 93) to inform a Private Plan Change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUPOP). As part of the plan change, Euroclass Services Ltd seeks to: § rezone the existing quarry zoning associated with the Stonehill Business Park under the AUPOP to Business - Heavy Industry § remove the ONF classification from the southern part of the plan change area that generally corresponds to the site at 79 McLaughlins Road (refer to Figure 1), as this is considered to be erroneous. Figure 1. The Site and Plan Change Area In Relation to ONF93 Source: Babbage 1.2 The scope of this assessment includes: § a description of the site and setting § a review of the landscape assessment of ONF 93 undertaken as part of Landscape Evaluations of Geological Sites and Landforms of Auckland and the Identification of Outstanding Natural Features, which was prepared in 2012 and used to inform AUPOP § an assessment of the landscape values of the portion of the PC area currently located within ONF 93 27.02.2019 2 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS § conclusions as to the applicability of the ONF classifications locally and in particular to the site at 79 McLaughlins Road. 1.3 I am very familiar with the site and surrounds having previously prepared a landscape and visual assessment as part of the consenting stage for the nearby Auckland South Corrections Facility, as well as being the lead landscape architect involved in the landscape design and supervision of landscape works associated with the prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Viewshafts District Plan Changes
    Volcanic Viewshafts District Plan Changes Submission Decision requested Submitter Name Summary Part 1/1 1.1 Amend Gaynor Revill Generally supports the plan change and seeks the following amendments. Where defined viewshafts overlay zones where the permitted height exceeds the height allowed by the viewshaft; the viewshaft height should be clearly marked, and allocated immutable priority in design analysis and any hearing decision. 2/1 1.1 Amend Martin Lester Dickson I support the designated view cones to Rangitoto and Devonport mountains in the plan, indeed, I think there need to be more from East Coast Road to Rangitoto. 3/1 1.1 Amend Attn: Evan Keating (Auckland That council approve the plan change subject to the plan being amended Transport to exclude AT structures within the road reserve from the viewshaft control. Also requests that consideration be given to removing the viewshaft control from AT structures outside the road reserve. 4/1 1.1 Amend Nick Sutton Amend the plan change to offer greater/wider protection of the views of both Mount Victoria and North Head from the unique vantage point of Ngataringa Road. Amend the plan change by inserting a new viewshaft from Ngataringa Road towards Mount Victoria and North Head. 5/1 2.1 Amend Matthew Chipper Amend the boundary of the viewshaft so that 12A Church Street, Devonport is not included within the proposed volcanic view shaft zone. Submission Decision requested Submitter Name Summary Part 6/1 2.1 Amend Filipa Chipper Amend the plan to enable height restrictions to be determined by precedent / the highest building within view of the suburb for additions / alterations and developments to existing structures / buildings that are in keeping with the historical significance of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing a Temporal Eruption Record for the Auckland Volcanic Field Via Bayesian Age Reconciliation
    Constructing a temporal eruption record for the Auckland Volcanic Field via Bayesian age reconciliation Emily Kawabata, Mark Bebbington, Shane Cronin, Ting Wang Massey University, University of Auckland, University of Otago The Auckland Volcanic Field High population density, lifelines narrowly constrained - WHERE is the next eruption likely to be? 2 Spatio-temporal hazard estimates Monogenetic volcanic fields have multiple volcanoes; a new eruption is expected to create a new volcano. Events are infrequent. For land-use and emergency planning purposes: where is the next eruption likely to be? In short time frame, answered(?) by monitoring data (seismicity, gas, ...) What about in a period of repose? Probability forecast: estimate the hazard λ(x) such that the probability of an event in the neighbourhood of x , (i.e., y:||y-x|| < ∆x) ~ λ(x) π (∆x)2 We know the spatial locations of Look for spatial patterns (events are more (most) vents likely to occur `near’ previous events?) BUT! Want PRESENT DAY hazard Does the pattern change over time? 3 The Auckland Volcanic Field 51(?) small basaltic volcanoes young (~250,000 years) Most recent eruption ~600 years ago Data: • Stratigraphy, ~33 vents constrained in at least one direction • Age determinations • Paleomagnetism ~5+ vents • C14, ~13 vents • Tephrostratigraphy, 22+ tephra in 5 locations • Ar-Ar, ~4 vents • Thermoluminesence, 2 vents • K-Ar, unreliable due to excess Ar reliability Decreasing • Relative geomorphology or weathering Also: known vent locations, reasonable volume data (Allen and Smith 1994; Kereszturi et al. 2013) 4 A Monte Carlo sample of age-orderings Name Mean Age (ka) Age Error (ka) Min Order Max Order By reverse engineering the tephra Onepoto Basin 248.4 27.8 1 7 Albert Park 229.8 39.5 1 7 dispersal, Bebbington and Cronin .....
    [Show full text]
  • Auckland Council District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section
    A U C K L A N D C O U N C I L REGIONWIDE PLAN CHANGES – VOLCANIC VIEWSHAFT PROTECTION DECISIONS FOLLOWING HEARINGS ON SIX PROPOSED PLAN CHANGES HELD BEFORE INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONERS ON 11, 12, 13 AND 14 FEBRUARY 2014 IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS ACROSS AUCKLAND PLAN CHANGE 1 – HAURAKI GULF ISLANDS SECTION OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL DISTRICT PLAN COMMISSIONERS: Miss Leigh McGregor Chair Ms Melean Absolum Mr Basil Morrison COUNCIL OFFICERS: Ms Fiona Sprott Principal Planner, Auckland Isthmus Ms Panjama Principal Planner, Central Area Ampanthong Mr Christopher Turbott Principal Planner, North Shore Ms Gemma Hayes Reporting Planner, Manukau Ms Hannah Thompson Reporting Planner, Hauraki Gulf Islands Mr Nicholas Lau Reporting Planner, Waitakere Mr Brad Coombs Landscape Architect Mr Andrew McPhee Planner Ms Paulette Gagamoe Democracy Advisor - Hearings APPEARANCES The following people appeared at the hearings and presented submissions and evidence to the Commissioners on one or more of the proposed Plan Changes: Party: Represented by: Department of Corrections Peter Hall, planning consultant Uptown Business Association Mr Gary Holmes, chairman Auckland Transport Evan Keating, senior transport planner Westfield New Zealand Limited Ms Francelle Lupis, legal counsel Mr Simon Pilkinton, junior counsel Ms Rachel de Lambert, landscape architect (with Mr John Jeffcock) Mr Athol Vivier, Westfield NZ Ltd Mr Craig McGarr, planning consultant Tram Lease Ltd, Viaduct Harbour Management Mr Trevor Daya-Winterbottom, legal Ltd and Viaduct Harbour Holdings Ltd counsel
    [Show full text]
  • Volcanic Viewshafts Management Framework Proposed Methodology Applied to Seven Case Studies
    JUNE 2015 PROPOSED AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN HEARING 020 - VOLCANIC VIEWSHAFTS VOLCANIC VIEWSHAFTS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PROPOSED METHODOLOGY APPLIED TO SEVEN CASE STUDIES JUNE 2015 PROPOSED AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN HEARING 020 - VOLCANIC VIEWSHAFTS VOLCANIC VIEWSHAFTS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PART A: IDENTIFICATION The purpose of this stage is to identify the range of potential viewshafts across Auckland and qualitatively capture information about them. The identification process is not concerned with ranking one viewshaft against another, or assessing the potential impact of imposing the viewshaft. It is envisaged that the process of identification is well documented in order to provide clarity for later stages. The methodology for identification of viewshafts to be potentially protected involves consideration of the following factors: 1. Significance of the Individual Cone: • Physical stature: elevation, scale, profile, dominance, legibility • Intactness: topography, form • Character: vegetation cover, land use cover / elements • Social Value & Status: reserves / art / literature / tourism • Cultural / Tangata Whenua Values: pa sites / remnants / commemorative elements. 2. Significance of Origin Point: • Type of View: Transport Corridors (e.g. commuter and main trunk rail routes), Strategic Road Routes (nationally important) / Regional Arterial Road Routes (regionally important), parks & reserves / open spaces / beaches / promenades / sports fields / walkways & cycleways / commercial centres / community centres • Identification and Nature of the
    [Show full text]
  • Maori Gardening: an Archaeological Perspective
    Maori gardening An archaeological perspective Louise Furey Published by Science & Technical Publishing Department of Conservation PO Box 10–420 Wellington, New Zealand Cover: Pa, stone row enclosures and puke (garden mounds) at Waikekeno, Wairarapa. Photo: Kevin L. Jones, DOC. © Copyright October 2006, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISBN 0–478–14122–X This report was prepared for publication by Science & Technical Publishing; editing by Lynette Clelland and Amanda Todd, and layout by Amanda Todd. Publication was approved by the Chief Scientist (Research, Development & Improvement Division), Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. In the interest of forest conservation, we support paperless electronic publishing. When printing, recycled paper is used wherever possible. CONTENTS Abstract 5 1. Introduction 6 2. Maori cultigens 10 2.1 Kumara 10 2.2 Taro 13 2.3 Yam 14 2.4 Gourd 14 2.5 Ti pore 15 2.6 Aute 16 3. Gardening techniques 17 3.1 Garden location 17 3.2 Garden size 17 3.3 Fallowing 18 3.4 Garden preparation 18 3.5 Soil additives 19 4. Limitations to growth of Maori cultigens 20 5. Archaeological evidence of Maori gardening 23 5.1 Stone structures 24 5.1.1 Stone walls and rows 24 5.1.2 Stone alignments 31 5.1.3 Stone heaps 31 5.1.4 Stone mounds 31 5.1.5 Stone facing 34 5.2 Ditches and trenches 34 5.2.1 Steep-slope trenches 36 5.2.2 Trenches on gentle slopes 38 5.2.3 Trench boundary divisions 39 5.2.4 Wetland ditches 40 5.3 Borrow pits 44 5.4 Garden soils 46 5.5 Garden terraces 52 6.
    [Show full text]