DOCSLIB.ORG

Auckland BEFORE a BOARD of INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Auckland BEFORE a BOARD of INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) AND IN THE MATTER OF Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY for the East West Link Project STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF ANDREW PETER MURRAY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Traffic and Transportation Including Walking and Cycling Dated: 20th June 2017 Barristers and Solicitors Auckland Solicitor Acting: Pat Mulligan Email: [email protected] Tel 64 9 358 2555 Fax 64 9 358 2055 PO Box 1433 DX CP24024 Auckland 1140 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCING 2 4. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 3 5. EVIDENCE OF MR DAVID SMITH FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 5 6. EVIDENCE OF MR DUNCAN TINDALL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 11 7. EVIDENCE OF MR ROD MARLER FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 14 8. EVIDENCE OF MR GRAEME MCINDOE FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 16 9. EWL CONNECTIVITY AT ALFRED STREET 19 10. EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL DAVIES FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 28 11. EVIDENCE OF ANTHONY CROSS FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 29 12. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN BROWN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 30 13. EVIDENCE OF MIMOUK HANNAN FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL 32 14. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN COOMBES ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 34 15. EVIDENCE OF KATHRYN KING FOR AUCKLAND TRANSPORT 36 16. EVIDENCE OF LEMAUNGA SOSENE FOR THE MĀNGERE-ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD 38 17. EVIDENCE OF JOSEPHINE BARTLEY FOR THE MAUNGAKIEKIE-TĀMAKI LOCAL BOARD 39 18. EVIDENCE OF IAN CARLISLE FOR MERCURY NZ LTD 39 19. EVIDENCE OF JOHN PARLANE FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD 40 20. EVIDENCE OF MARK LUKER FOR KIWI PROPERTY GROUP LTD 46 21. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED (POAL) 46 22. EVIDENCE OF DON MCKENZIE FOR JACKSON ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES 48 23. EVIDENCE OF JOHN BURGESS FOR TRAMLEASE 48 24. EVIDENCE OF WES EDWARDS FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD AND KERRY WILSON FOR 8 SYLVIA PARK ROAD BODY CORPORATE AND SYL PARK INVESTMENTS 51 25. EVIDENCE OF AMANDA KINZETT FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 56 26. EVIDENCE OF GREGOR HOHEISEL FOR ONEHUNGA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 57 27. EVIDENCE OF MR STEPHEN LASHAM FOR AOTEA SEA SCOUTS 59 28. EVIDENCE OF E. KIRK, MĀNGERE BRIDGE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION AND THE MĀNGERE HISTORIC SOCIETY 60 ANNEXURE 1: ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE 62 ANNEXURE 2: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CAR PARKING ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE 67 ANNEXURE 3: ACCESS TO SH1 AND SH20 FROM ALFRED STREET 74 BF\57020889\1 ANNEXURE 4: CRASH ANALYSIS FOR ALFRED STREET INTERSCETION 75 ANNEXURE 5: CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIMES TO/FROM MT WELLINGTON HIGHWAY 77 BF\57020889\1 1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1.1 Subsequent to preparation of my EIC, I have read the evidence provided by submitters and participated in five conferencing sessions (expert and non-expert). I have also worked with the project team on revised drawings and designation Conditions that address many of the issues raised. I respond here to transport issues (including walking and cycling) to over 20 evidence statements, so I have not summarised those responses here. 1.2 I have however noted some key themes and outcomes from the evidence and conferencing process, including: (a) The experts recognise that, if approved, a subsequent detailed design process would be undertaken for this Project. A significant number of issues raised in evidence by submitters related to uncertainty about design details and the conferencing sessions were able to clarify the intent of many design features, especially in relation to property access; (b) The overall methodology for the transport assessment, including the modelling and associated benefits, has not been refuted by the transport experts. Some local modelling queries or issues were raised in Onehunga and Mt Wellington, however the results of the modelling have not been materially disputed. (c) Many issues raised in evidence relate to access, including to the coastal edge, Onehunga Wharf and specific properties. In this regard I have undertaken additional assessments, including: (i) Walking, cycling and vehicle access to the full coastal edge, which I conclude is significantly improved as a result of the Project (ii) Consideration of a full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street, which I conclude would have significant detrimental effects on the transport outcomes of the Project; (iii) Access to properties on Sylvia Park Road, where I conclude that some movements may require a longer detour route, but in many cases this is off-set by improved access for other movements. There is a possibility that access to 8 Sylvia Park Road could be moderately affected if specific traffic features are not able to be confirmed as feasible in detailed design; and BF\57020889\1 Page 1 (iv) Revised modelling in the Mt Wellington area that confirms earlier assessments that a significant adverse effect of the EWL is not expected on Mt Wellington Highway. (d) I also consider that the majority of desired outcomes for walking and cycling facilities sought by submitters during the design process have been reflected in the revised and additional Conditions provided in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins. 1.3 Having reviewed the submitter evidence and attended conference I can confirm that my opinions expressed in EIC regarding the substantial travel time, travel reliability, bus access and walking and cycling benefits of the Project have not changed, and hence I still consider that it strongly meets the Project Objectives. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Andrew Peter Murray. 2.2 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 2.1 – 2.4 of my statement of evidence in chief (EIC) dated 12 April 2017. 2.3 I have been engaged by the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency) to undertake an assessment of the traffic and transportation effects of the East West Link Project (the Project), for which the Notices of Requirement (NORs) and resource consent applications have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). My EIC described this assessment and its findings, and my rebuttal evidence responds to the evidence of submitters within my area of expertise. 2.4 I prepared two EIC statements: (a) 1: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects (except walking/cycling); (b) 2: Assessment of walking and cycling facilities. 2.5 In this rebuttal statement I address both traffic and walking/ cycling issues. 2.6 I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read the 'Code of Conduct' for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code. 3. PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCING 3.1 I attended the following expert and non-expert conferencing sessions; (a) Traffic and Transportation (expert), Wednesday 24th May 2017. BF\57020889\1 Page 2 (b) Waikaraka Park and Cemetery (multi-disciplinary expert), Friday 26th May 2017 (c) Access to individual properties (non-expert), Tuesday 30th May 2017 (d) Neilson Street Area (multi-disciplinary expert), Tuesday 6th June 2017 (e) Traffic and Transport (Mercury NZ Ltd Site) (expert), Thursday 8th June 20171 3.2 Throughout this statement I refer extensively to the expert traffic and transport Joint Witness Statement (24 May), which I refer to here as the JWS. 3.3 I have also attended liaison meetings with Auckland Transport, Bike Auckland and Auckland Council experts and staff on specific design detail and proposed Conditions. I am also aware that a ‘Consenting Phase Agreement’ is being developed between NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport (as discussed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wickman). I understand this agreement addresses the ongoing working relationships between the agencies, especially to address any integration issues between the State Highway and Local road networks. 4. SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 4.1 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I address each statement of evidence as they relate to transportation matters within my area of expertise. Some common issues have been raised by more than one expert, so where possible I have used cross-references rather than repeated the response. The exception to this is in relation to the request from Auckland Council for full vehicle access to the EWL at Alfred Street, which I have addressed as a single topic. 4.2 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I will respond to the evidence of: (a) David Smith (Auckland Council - Panuku) (b) Duncan Tindall (Auckland Council) (c) Rod Marler (Auckland Council - Panuku) (d) Graeme McIndoe (Auckland Council) (e) Michael Davies (Auckland Transport) (f) Anthony Cross (Auckland Transport) (g) Stephen Brown (Auckland Council) (h) Mimouk Hannan (Auckland Council) 1 The report is incorrectly labelled as Thursday 7th June 207 BF\57020889\1 Page 3 (i) Kathryn Coombes (Auckland Council) (j) Kathryn King (Auckland Transport) (k) Lemaunga Sosene (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board) (l) Josephine Bartley (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board) (m) Ian Carlisle (Mercury NZ Ltd) (n) John Parlane (Kiwi Property Group Ltd) (o) Mark Luker (Kiwi Property Group Ltd) (p) Don McKenzie and Alistair Kirk (Ports of Auckland Limited - POAL) (q) Don McKenzie and Jim Jackson (Jackson Electrical Industries) (r) Wes Edwards (8 Sylvia Park Road and Kerry Wilson (8 Sylvia Park Road Body Corporate and Syl Park Investments) (s) John Burgess (TramLease) (t) Amanda Kinzett (Onehunga Business Association) (u) Gregor Hoheisel (Onehunga Business Association) (v) Stephen Lasham (Aotea Sea Scouts) (w) E. Kirk (Māngere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association and the Māngere Historic Society) 4.3 The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters raised.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in THE
    IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider Notice of Requirements and applications for Resource Consent made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the East West Link roading proposal in Auckland. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE LEMAUNGA LYDIA SOSENE ON BEHALF OF THE MANGERE-OTAHUHU LOCAL BOARD CONTENTS CLAUSE PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2. MOLB'S VIEWS ON THE PROPOSAL ............................................................................ 1 3. GENERAL ....................................................................................................................... 3 Lemaunga Sosene_ Board Member _ FINAL need signature - 29238877 v 1.DOC 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 My name is Lemauga Lydia Sosene. I am the Local board chairperson of the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (MOLB or board). 1.2 The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (the Board) supports the proposed East- West Link development in principle, subject to some comments on specific matters set out below. 1.3 The Board also supports the general objective of this development, such as, improved access ways and facilities between SH20 and SH1 along the northern edge of the Mangere inlet and surrounding areas, including the Princes Street junction for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrian safety. 1.4 The East-West Link Connection development aligns with key transport priorities set in the Mangere-Otahuhu Board Plan’s outcome “A well- connected area”: Improving connections in our area through safer streets, quality public transport, cycle ways and greenways. to live in a place that is easy to travel around. This is important to the well- being of our community... crucial to delivering our economic aims of developing tourism and growing businesses in our area.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Airline Representatives New
    BOARD OF AIRLINE REPRESENTATIVES OF NEW ZEALAND LAND VALUATION AUCKLAND AIRPORT - MARKET VALUE ALTERNATIVE USE MARCH 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROPERTY REPORT ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2 2.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION & TENURE ............................................................................................. 4 2.3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT & ZONING .................................................................................. 7 3.0 VALUATION OF MVAU LAND ............................................................................................... 8 3.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 VALUATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................. 9 4.0 DETAILED MVAU VALUATION ........................................................................................... 10 4.1 (A) & (B) AIAL LAND HOLDINGS ........................................................................................ 10 4.2 (C) & (D) HIGHEST & BEST ALTERNATIVE USE ASSESSMENT ............................................... 10 4.3 (E) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT / AMENITIES / DEVELOPMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Otahuhu Historic Heritage Survey
    OTAHUHU HISTORIC HERITAGE SURVEY Overview Report PREPARED FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL BY MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD IN ASSOCIATION WITH LYN WILLIAMS LISA TRUTTMAN BRUCE W HAYWARD CLOUGH & ASSOCIATES LTD JP ADAM RA SKIDMORE URBAN DESIGN LTD FINAL August 2014 OTAHUHU HISTORIC HERITAGE SURVEY 2013 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Brief .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 The Study area ................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Methodology and Approach .............................................................................. 5 1.4 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 5 1.5 Overview of report structure and component parts ........................................... 7 2.0 ŌTĀHUHU STUDY AREA-SUMMARY OF HISTORIC HERITAGE ISSUES ....... 9 2.1 Built Heritage Overview and recommendations ................................................ 9 2.2 Overview and recommendations in relation to geology .................................. 12 2.3 Overview and recommendations in relation to archaeology ........................... 13 2.4 Overview and recommendations Landscape History ...................................... 13 2.5 Overview and recommendations related to Maori Ancestral Relationships and issues identified. ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan 2013
    MANGERE-- OT- AHUHU- ARE- A PLAN maHERE A-ROHE O - - - MANGERE-OTAHUHU - - - M ANGERE-OTAHUHU AREA PLAN 2013 HE- MIHI- - M ANGERE-OTAHUHU AREA PLAN Tuia ki te rangi, Te riu o Waikato ki ‘Te tāhuhutanga o te waka Tuia ki te whenua, o Tainui’ – Ōtāhuhu ki ‘Ngā hau Māngere’ Tuia ki te ngākau tangata. – Māngere, mai anō i te tihi o te Pane o Mataaho – whakarongo atu, whakarongo mai! Te mihi tuatahi ki te Matua Nui i te Rangi, koia nei te tīmatanga me te mutunga o ngā He mihi maioha, he mihi aroha, ki te whenua mea katoa. i hīkoitia e rātou mā. Kua ngaro ō rātou tapuwae, ēngari ko ō rātou wairua, He mihi ki a Kīngi Tūheitia me tōna hoa ka mau tonu. rangatira, a Atawhai, tae atu ki tā rāua whānau e noho mai nā i runga i te ahurewa o He mahere rautaki , he kaupapa-ā-rohe, hei te Kīngitanga – Pai Mārire. arataki i ngā mahi kei mua i a tātou katoa. Ki ngā tini mate o te wā – Ko te wawata, kia haere whakamua tonu, kia haere, haere, haere. tutuki hoki i runga i ngā whakaritenga katoa – hei oranga mō te rohe ‘Te pai me te whai Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, rawa o Tāmaki’. Te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, Tihei mauri ora ki te whaiao ki te ao mārama. Noho ora mai. Bind the sky, From the boundary of Waikato to where Bind the earth, ‘Tainui Waka was carried overland, up-turned’ Bind the heart of man. – Ōtāhuhu, to the ‘Lazy Winds’ – Māngere, and on again to the summit of the ‘Head of Mataaho’ – Māngere Mountain – listen! The first acknowledgement is to our Heavenly Father, the source and end of This is an acknowledgement of love and all things.
    [Show full text]
  • An Auckland Land Value Annual Database
    An Auckland Land Value Annual Database Arthur Grimes & Yun Liang Motu Working Paper 07-04 Motu Economic and Public Policy Research April 2007 Author contact details Arthur Grimes Motu Economic and Public Policy Research [email protected] Yun Liang Motu Economic and Public Policy Research [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (programme on Infrastructure) for providing the funding to make this research possible. We also thank Quotable Value New Zealand for providing the data on which this research is based. Finally we thank our colleagues in the programme, David Mare, Steven Stillman, Philip McCann and Jacques Poot for comments on our initial thoughts on the construction of this database. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research PO Box 24390 Wellington New Zealand Email [email protected] Telephone +64-4-939-4250 Website www.motu.org.nz © 2007 Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without permission of the authors. Motu Working Papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion. They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review or editorial treatment. ISSN 1176-2667. i Abstract We construct an annual land value database at the meshblock (MB) level for the Greater Auckland region. The database provides a resource for research work that requires land values (per hectare) across the region. The data is based on valuation records sourced from Quotable Value New Zealand (QVNZ). It covers seven Territorial Authorities (TAs): Rodney District, North Shore City, Waitakere City, Auckland City, Manukau City, Papakura District and Franklin District.
    [Show full text]
  • Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Meeting Held on 20/03/2019
    MĀNGERE‐ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD Tranche one list of parks ‐ as at 19 February 2019 Site Description Street Suburb Research Additional Research Tranche 1 Anarahi Park Waterlea Avenue Mangere Bridge From 'ana', a cave, and 'rahi', many or great. Possibly named after volcanic caves in the area. Yes Archboyd Road Reserve Chelburn Crescent Mangere East Yes Ashgrove Reserve Bader Drive Mangere Yes Avenue Road East Esplanade Avenue Road Otahuhu Main Street, one of the principal streets for many years as it led to Shroff’s Wharf, Reserve was re- named Avenue Road in 1912.189 Yes Beach Rd Esplanade 8r Beach Road Favona Possibly named due to close proximity to the beach/ocean Yes Beach Road 4r Beach Road Favona Possibly named due to close proximity to the beach/ocean Yes Beach Road Reserve Beach Road Favona Possibly named due to close proximity to the beach/ocean Yes Ben Lora Park Ben Lora Place Mangere East Ben Lora is a place name in Argyle, Scotland Yes Black Bridge Reserve Walmsley Road Mangere Black Bridge Stream is nearby - the original Maori name for this stream The area, now commonly known as ‘Black Bridge’ was traditionally known as ‘Te is Ararata. Ararata’. The head of the inlet located in the vicinity of Hinau Road and Molesworth Place, Māngere, was formerly the northern outlet of a large wetland which extended over the Bader Drive area until the late nineteenth century. Te Ararata (Black Bridge, Māngere) was formerly an important Te Waiōhua kāinga and was subsequently part of the Maori Militia settlement established by Governor Grey and the Tanui ariki Te Wherowhero in 1849.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Board Information and Agreements Draft Long-Term Plan 2012-2022
    DRAFT LONG-TERM PLAN 2012-2022_ VOLUME FOUR LOCAL BOARD INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS DRAFT LONG-TERM PLAN 2012-2022_ VOLUME FOUR LOCAL BOARD INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS About this volume About this volume This is Volume Four of the four volumes that make up the draft LTP. It is set out in two parts, one which provides background on the role of local boards, their decision-making responsibilities and some general information about local board plans and physical boundaries. The second part contains the individual local board agreements for all 21 local boards, which contain detailed information about local activities, services, projects and programmes and the corresponding budgets for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. Here we have also included additional information like ten-year budgets for each board and a capital projects list. What this volume covers: the status of draft local board agreements how to have your say during the public consultation period an overview of the local boards local board activities information on the development of local board plans and agreements local board financial information including a consolidated statement of expenditure on local activities about each local board, with an overview of the local board including their strategic priorities and a message from the chairperson draft local board agreements for each local board covering scope of activities levels of service and performance measures local activities including key initiatives and projects expenditure and funding notes to the local board agreements contact details, how to contact your local board, including individual contact details for each local board member an appendix to each Local Board information section which includes their expenditure statements and capital projects for the ten-year period 2012 to 2022.
    [Show full text]
  • Average Deprivation Scores for Census Area Units
    Average Deprivation Scores for Census Area Units For administrative purposes, Statistics New Zealand The first table lists the CAUs, as well as the codes for divides the country into about 1900 Census Area Units the District Health Board (DHB) and Territorial Authority (CAUs) of unequal population size. Each is made up (TA) to which each belongs, and for each provides the of many meshblocks. At the time of the 2006 Census CAU deprivation decile and the population-weighted there were 1927 CAUs and 41,376 meshblocks. The average deprivation value. As with the NZDep2006 small NZDep2006 index of deprivation was created from area deciles, the value 1 indicates a CAU in the 10 per 23,786 NZDep2006 small areas that were, in general, cent least deprived CAUs in New Zealand, and the value either one meshblock, or two nearby meshblocks. 10 indicates that the CAU is in the 10 per cent most deprived CAUs. CAU averages and deciles are missing For many purposes it is useful to have an idea of the – indicated by a period – for CAUs where the usually deprivation characteristic of CAUs, which are often linked resident population was insufficient to calculate any to natural neighbourhoods, such as suburbs. Users component NZDep scores. should be aware though that there may be considerable variation in deprivation among the small areas that make An alphabetical index of the CAU names is provided after up the CAUs. This variation will be hidden when using an this table for cross-reference. average deprivation statistic for the CAU. Each CAU is part of one of the 21 DHBs.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 14 Special Zones and Ordinances
    PART 14 - CONTENTS - PART 14 SPECIAL ZONES AND ORDINANCES General Introduction This part of the Scheme contains a number of miscellaneous topics, zones and ordinances that relate only t o an isolated situation or provide for particular land uses with special characteristics that make them difficult to classify within any of the preceding parts of the Scheme. Each topic covered in this part is substantially self-contained within an introduction, objectives and policies, and ordinances. 14.1 RURAL (AIRPORT PROTECTION) ZONE 14. 1. 1 Introductory Statement 14.1 .2 Zone Statement 14.1 .3 Ordinances 14.1 .3 .1 Permitted Development, Uses and Buildings 14.1.3 .2 Special Requirements in Relation to Conditional Uses 14.1 .3 .3 Bulk and Location Requirements 14.1.3.4 Subdivision of Land in Rural (Airport Protection) Zone 14 .2 BOAT HARBOUR ZONE 14.2 .1 Zone Statement 14.2 .2 Objectives and Policies 14.2 .3 Ordinances 14.2.3 . 1 Permitted Development, Uses and Buildings 14.2.3.2 General Requirements 14.2.3.3 Subdivision 14.2.3.4 General Ordinances 14.2.3 .5 General Bylaw 14.2.3.6 Controlled Use Assessment Criteria 14.3 DISTRIBUTION ZONE 14.3 . 1 Zone Statement 14.3 .2 Objectives and Policies 14.3 .3 Ordinances 14.3 .3 .1 Permitted Development, Uses and Buildings 14.3.3.2 Performance Standards 14.3.3.3 Bulk and Location Requirements 14.3.3.4 Landscaping 14.3 .3 .5 Design and External Appearance - Favona Road 14.3.3.6 Parking 14.3.3 .
    [Show full text]
  • Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020
    Te Poari ā-Rohe o Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Te Rīpoata ā-Tau 2019/2020 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Annual Report 2019/2020 Volume 2.9 MĀNGERE-ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT 2019/2020 MĀNGERE-ŌTĀHUHU LOCAL BOARD ANNUAL REPORT 2019/2020 Mihi He kōrero mō tēnei rīpoata Tuia te rangi e tuu iho nei, Bind the sky on high, About this report Tuia te papa e takoto ake nei, Bind the earth below, Tuia ki te waahi ngaro, Bind all that which is not seen, This annual report tells the story of how Auckland Council has ki a raatou maa. and them now passed. performed in delivering services in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board He kura ka tangihia, he maimai aroha. We acknowledge and we remember them. area from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. Ka mihi ki te whare o Pootatau We honour the house of Pōtatau Te Wherowhero me te ahurewa tapu o Te Kiingitanga. and the sacred mantle of the Māori King Movement. You can read about our progress, expenditure, service CONTENTS performance and challenges faced in 2019/2020. Me whakahoonore hoki a Kiingi Tuuheitia, We acknowledge the leadership of King Tūheitia, It’s part of the wider annual reporting package for Mihi ................................................................... 2 pai maarire ki a ia me toona whare. may peace be with him and his household. the Auckland Council Group and meets our Local Government Act 2002 obligations to report on our About this report ......................................... 3 Mai i Te Riu o Waikato ki Te Taahuhutanga From Waikato to Ōtāhuhu where the Tainui waka performance against agreed measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona Built Heritage Survey 2016
    Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona Built Heritage Survey Cover illustration: St James Church, built in the 1850s, 27 Church Road, Māngere Bridge. Photo: Matthews & Matthews Architects Ltd, May 2016 Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona Built Heritage Survey, Rev 2, Final Auckland Council Heritage Unit (June 2016). Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona Built Heritage Survey. Auckland Council © 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. 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. 1 Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona Heritage Survey- Final, February 2017 Executive summary The Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona Heritage Survey is part of the broader Auckland Heritage Survey (AHS) programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Mangere Town Centre Historic Heritage Survey
    MANGERE TOWN CENTRE HISTORIC HERITAGE SURVEY PREPARED FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL BY MATTHEWS & MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS LTD IN ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUGH & ASSOCIATES LTD JP ADAM RA SKIDMORE URBAN DESIGN LTD NOVEMBER 2013 MANGERE TOWN CENTRE HISTORIC HERITAGE SURVEY 2013 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Brief 4 1.2 The study area 5 1.3 Methodology and approach 5 1.4 Acknowledgements 5 1.5 Report Structure 7 2.0 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC HERITAGE ISSUES 9 2.1 Built heritage: Overview and recommendations 9 2.2 Urban design: Overview and recommendations 11 2.3 Geology: Overview and recommendations 11 2.4 Archaeology: Overview and recommendations 12 2.5 Landscape history: Overview and recommendations 12 2.6 Māori ancestral relationships and issues: Overview and recommendations 13 APPENDICES 15 APPENDIX 1: HISTORIC THEMATIC OVERVIEW APPENDIX 2: BUILT HISTORIC HERITAGE Appendix 2.1 Currently scheduled historic heritage places Appendix 2.2 Places prioritised for research APPENDIX 3: URBAN DESIGN SUMMARY APPENDIX 4: GEOLOGY APPENDIX 5: ARCHAEOLOGY APPENDIX 6: LANDSCAPE HISTORY APPENDIX 7: MĀORI ANCESTRAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH MĀNGERE- ŌTAHUHU: AN OVERVIEW 3 MANGERE TOWN CENTRE HISTORIC HERITAGE SURVEY 2013 • Investigate the local history, based on 1.0 INTRODUCTION an understanding of key themes in its development. 1.1 Brief • Consider the area holistically and use research, analysis and field surveys to This is a historic heritage survey of the assess archaeological sites; special Māngere town centre. The aim is to provide character and design context; sites of research, analysis and recommendations for: significance to Māori; natural landscape including geology and open space, • historic heritage places and areas parks and gardens.2 • special character • Seek to identify heritage values through • the natural landscape/geology consultation with mana whenua and the • archaeology community3.
    [Show full text]