BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
Topic 080
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act (LGATPA) 2010
AND
IN THE MATTER of Topic 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General)
AND
IN THE MATTER of further submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report (PIR)
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF LARISSA BLAIR CLARKE ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL
TOPIC 080
(PLANNING – COASTAL REZONING AND COASTAL PRECINCTS – ONEHUNGA 3 NEW (PORT OF ONEHUNGA), MT WELLINGTON 1 NEW (PORTS OF AUCKLAND, GABADOR PLACE)
26 JANUARY 2016
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
Index 1. SUMMARY ...... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ...... 3 4. SCOPE ...... 3 5. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP ...... 4 6. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR GABADOR PLACE PRECINCT ...... 5 7. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR THE PORT OF ONEHUNGA ...... 10 8. SEAWALLS ...... 13 9. CONCLUSION ...... 13
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 1
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
1. SUMMARY
1.1 My name is Larissa Blair Clarke. I am a Planner in the Unitary Plan Team within the ‘Plans and Places’ Division of the Chief Planning Office at Auckland Council. I am providing planning evidence for Auckland Council (Council) in relation to Topic 080 General Rezoning and Precincts.
1.2 My Evidence in Rebuttal (EIR) is complementary to the evidence of Ms Kathryn Coombes who has provided the ‘main’ planning evidence in relation to ‘Coastal rezoning and precincts’ and addresses a number of other matters raised by submitters in her EIR for Topic 080.
1.3 My evidence in rebuttal addresses points raised by witnesses for the Port of Auckland Limited (POAL), specifically the evidence of Mr Mark Arbuthnot and Ms Jennifer Hart. The key areas I address in this statement of rebuttal evidence are:
(a) Bespoke provisions for the Gabador Place Precinct:
(i) I support an amendment to the proposed control designed to manage overland flow paths (within the Gabador Place precinct) to address the matters raised by Ms Hart;
(ii) With respect to Coastal hazards I comment on the methodology used to determine the extent of coastal defences in relation to Gabador Place and generally acknowledge Mr Arbuthnot’s support of the proposed control.
(b) Bespoke provisions for the Port of Onehunga:
(i) In response to Ms Hart’s evidence, the flood prone area, identified within the Port of Onehunga site, is proposed to be removed from the Council GIS viewer;
(ii) An amendment is proposed to the Auckland-wide Natural hazards provisions, including the addition of a new activity to Activity Table 1 ‘flood hazards’ and introduce a permitted activity control to correspond to this. This requires a consequential change to the Auckland –wide Natural hazards provisions in section H.4.11 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 2
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
(iii) I confirm that in my opinion provision for marine and port operations are included in the Auckland-wide natural hazards provisions in a manner which I consider achieves the relief sought by Mr Arbuthnot. As such I consider no further amendment is required.
1.4 I also propose a consequential amendment to the Central Port precinct to achieve consistency with the control which applies to flood hazards in the Gabador Place precinct and in the Minor Port zone.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 My name is Larissa Blair Clarke. I am a Planner in the Unitary Plan Team within the ‘Plans and Places’ Division of the Chief Planning Office at Auckland Council.
2.2 I provided Evidence in Chief (EIC) for Topic 080 (General) Rezoning and Precincts specifically in relation to the Gabador Place precinct and the Port of Onehunga precinct sought by the POAL.
2.3 Details of my qualifications and past experience are set out in Attachment A to my EIC for both Topic 039 and 022.
2.4 No mediation has been held for this Topic. However, I have met, had email correspondence, and/or discussed issues with, several of the submitters, including Ms Karen Baverstock and Mr Philip Airey in relation to Stolthaven’s relief sought and Mr Mark Arbuthnot in relation to POAL’s submission points.
3. CODE OF CONDUCT
3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.
4. SCOPE
4.1 My evidence in rebuttal addresses points raised by witnesses for the POAL, specifically the evidence of Mr Mark Arbuthnot and Ms Jennifer Hart.
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 3
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
4.2 I have discussed the relief sought by the POAL, contained in the evidence of Mr Arbuthnot, with Dr Claudia Hellberg, Mr Nick Brown, Mr David Mead, Ms Sarah Sinclair and Dr Natasha Carpenter.
4.3 I respond to the matters raised by Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Hart in relation to:
(a) Bespoke provisions for the Gabador Place Precinct:
(i) Flood hazards- overland flow path control;
(ii) Coastal hazards- comment on the methodology used to determine the extent of coastal defences.
(b) Bespoke provisions for the Port of Onehunga:
(i) Flood hazards- removal of the flood prone area mapped in the Council non-statutory GIS viewer;
(ii) Flood hazards- proposed permitted activity and associated control to be included in the auckland wide natural hazard provisions for the Minor Port zone;
(iii) Coastal hazards- I confirm that in my opinion activities are adequately provided for through the Auckland-wide provisions and that no further amendment is required.
5. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP
5.1 Consequential amendments are required to the Natural hazards section of the PAUP as a result of my Evidence in Rebuttal (EIR).
5.2 As set out below I support the addition of an additional line in Activity table 1 ‘flood hazards’ and the addition of a permitted activity control associated with this control to be included in Council’s proposed version of H.4.11 Natural hazards. In addition, I support the consequential amendment to the flood hazards control (3.1A) within the Central Port precinct K.3.7.
5.3 While not a part of the PAUP I note that the non-statutory flood hazard information in the Council GIS viewer is proposed to be updated to reflect the removal of the flood prone area with the Port of Onehunga area.
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 4
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
6. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR GABADOR PLACE PRECINCT
6.1 Mr Arbuthnot has provided evidence in relation to the bespoke provisions sought by the Ports of Auckland (Industrial and Trade Activities (ITAs) stormwater, other discharges and natural hazards). Mr Arbuthnot says that bespoke provisions are no longer being pursued in relation to ITAs, stormwater and other discharges.
6.2 The reason for this is discussed at paragraphs 5.121 and 5.13 of Mr Arbuthnot’s evidence and I understand from this statement that comprehensive management of the precinct may be considered less viable as a result of multiple tenancies. In relation to bespoke natural hazards provisions Mr Arbuthnot notes that these provisions were addressed in Topic 022 Natural hazards and Flooding. While I agree that these provisions were addressed initially addressed in Topic 022, in my opinion it was anticipated by POAL and Council that a more detailed consideration of the provisions suitable for Gabador Place site and the Port of Onehunga would be undertaken in relation to Topic 080 General Rezoning and Precincts.
6.3 In my view, this more detailed consideration, separate from that of the Central CBD Port is of relevance in considering the differing physical location, proposed use and activities and the nature of the hazards present.
Flood hazards
6.4 Both Council and POAL have, when considering bespoke provisions for flood hazards, proposed that the flood hazard (overland flow path control) promoted in Topic 022 for inclusion in the Central Port precinct also be applied at Gabador Place and the Port of Onehunga. Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Hart prefer the control proposed by POAL, while I prefer Council’s control wording, as now amended in Attachment A to Ms Coombes’ Evidence in Rebuttal for Topic 080.
6.5 Mr Arbuthnot considers that the control proposed by POAL “…provides appropriate flexibility as to how overland flow paths are addressed within the Gabador Place site, while at the same time protecting against any increase in adverse flooding effects on other properties”2
1 Paragraph 5.12, M Arbuthnot EIR on behalf of POAL, dated 18 December 2015. “POAL has also undertaken a review of its existing and proposed operations at Gabador Place, and concluded that it is unlikely that the facility will be developed in a comprehensive manner in the near future. This is because the constraints, discussed above, are such that there may be a range of different tenants at the facility and, over time, less use of the facility for purely marine and port related activities. As such, POAL will continue to lease the Gabador Place facility to third parties, meaning that associated discharges (ITA, stormwater, or other) from the land will not be managed comprehensively and, where necessary, resource consents will be sought on an individual basis.” 2 Paragraph 5.12 M Arbuthnot EIC, Ports of Auckland Limited Topic 080
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 5
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
6.6 Ms Hart at paragraphs 3.5 to 3.9 discusses the suitability, from an engineering perspective, of the control proposed by POAL. Ms Hart notes that in her opinion the POAL version should be preferred as:
(a) The control adequately addresses flooding effects on upstream/neighbouring properties;
(b) Provides flexibility in relation to the exact location of overland flow paths;
(c) Enables alternative solutions where overland flow paths are modified due to the erection of new buildings or structures within the Gabador Place Precinct and provides the POAL with an either/or option in relation to capacity or ponding, where ponding within the precinct may be provided for as a trade-off for reducing capacity. Ms Hart gives an example which illustrates where such a ‘trade-off’ may be enabled by the POAL control.
I address the matters raised by Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Hart below.
Ability to address effects on upstream properties
6.7 I disagree with Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Hart that POAL’s control, which provides for the relocation of overland flow entry points3, is adequate for addressing effects on upstream properties and that the POAL control is a more efficient control.
6.8 Council’s proposed control requires that the entry point not be moved. This control does not refer to ponding concerns alone but is interested with the preservation of the capacity of the flow path, as well as the potential for ponding, as should the entry point be moved. Overland flow paths upstream of the site are likely to follow a formed or natural route. Changes to landforms are likely to be needed to redirect the overland flow path to the new exit point (entry point into the precinct).
6.9 I consider that the implication of the standard proposed by POAL would be that works will be required outside the site and agreement to these works may need to be reached with the upstream property owner. Otherwise, the standard would be breached. This would often make the control difficult, if not impossible to meet. There is also a level of uncertainty in the control since questions arise as to the extent to which checks at building consent stages (assuming that no resource
3 Paragraph 5.20, M Arbuthnot, on behalf of POAL, Topic 080 dated 18 December 2015 1. New buildings or structures including fences and retaining walls located in overland flow paths for 1 % AEP events must ensure that: a. if the entry point of the overland flow path is moved, the change in entry point shall not result in additional ponding beyond the inland boundary of the Gabador Place Precinct boundary; and …
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 6
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
consents are triggered by the new building or structure) can adequately address whether ponding will, or will not 'occur'. The check will require information as to the nature of the overland flow path on the adjacent property and evidence that any required physical works outside the site will occur so that ponding does not occur. These issues are, to my understanding, beyond the scope of a Building Consent process.
6.10 Council's proposed standard requires a resource consent to change the entry points of an overland flow path into the precinct. This ensures that off-site effects are fully analysed and appropriate, enforceable conditions of consent can be imposed. Based on the above, I remain of the opinion that this is an appropriate control.
6.11 My other concern relates to the interface of the precinct provisions with those in the Auckland-Wide Natural hazard provisions, as they appear in Council’s preferred version. The western, or upstream, boundary of the precinct as detailed Figure 1 below abuts third party land and a portion of public road. Council’s preferred version of Chapters H.4.11 and H.4.12 includes a rule in Activity Table “F1 Flood hazards” which provides for activities in overland flow paths. The activities of relevance in this case are:
…
39. Modifying the alignment of an overland flow path within a site but not P diverting the entry or exit point or reducing its capacity: 40. Diverting the entry or exit point, piping or reducing the capacity of any part RD of an overland flow path: …
47. Any activity within flood prone areas, floodplains, overland flow paths which RD is unable to comply with permitted activity controls
6.12 Therefore, consent to relocate/divert the exit point of the overland flow path from the third party land into the Gabador Place precinct would be required to be obtained under the Auckland Wide provisions.
6.13 In the case of the Central Port precinct the upstream ‘neighbour’ was almost exclusively Auckland Transport. This enabled a more holistic understanding of the land use and the potential effects, including the stormwater infrastructure in place and proposed for the area. In this case also a consent process was viewed to be a more appropriate method for assessing the effects. In the case of Gabador Place, an understanding of the relationship between land uses is more complicated. I
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 7
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
remain of the view that assessment through a consent process remains the most appropriate process as it provides for greater consistency of management of the flood hazards between the neighbouring zone and the precinct and enables a robust assessment of all relevant characteristics of the flow path should the entry be relocated.
Figure 1: Location of Gabador Place precinct, showing neighbouring land and indicative location of overland flow paths.
Identification of flow paths
6.14 Ms Hart in her evidence states that a possible advantage of the POAL alternative is that: "It also provides a practical means of addressing entry points that are mapped less than accurately (as discussed above), while still controlling any potential effects"4.
6.15 The merits and accuracy of the non-statutory information provided in the GIS viewer and in the layer in the PAUP has been canvased at prior hearings5; I do not intend to revisit these matters.
6.16 I understand Ms Hart's point to be that where a mapped overland flow path does not exist, then shifting the entry point of that overland flow path will not require a consent. However this assumes that shifting any mapped overland flow path requires consent. As discussed in evidence on 022, the existence or not of an overland flow path can only be determined on-site. The overland flow paths that are mapped on Council's GIS are indicative only. Where it is determined that an overland flow path does not exist (through exchange of information with council), then no consent is required.
4 Paragraph 3.6, EIC J Hart, on behalf of POAL, Topic 080 5 Topic 022 Natural hazards and Flooding and Topic 026 Non-statutory information
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 8
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
6.17 Also I note that through information being provided to Council in the event that flow path entry point is identified and proposed to be relocated, the GIS viewer may be improved/updated to better reflect the nature and location of flood hazards.
Alternative solutions
6.18 Finally in relation to Council's proposed standard and POAL's alternative, Ms Hart raises the issue of a potential double up of requirements for buildings or structures within overland flow paths within the precinct, where effects from that development do not extent beyond the site. In her view, either clause (b) or (c), as drafted by POAL6, is sufficient to deal with effects; it is not necessary to achieve them both. That is, there is no need to provide an alternative route for the overland flow, if the effect of blocking the route is confined to within the precinct.
6.19 Given that the Ports do not have a downstream neighbour, I agree that there is no need to ensure an alternative route from the point of view maintaining the conveyance function of the overland flow path through multiple properties, if the effect of ponding from blocking an overland flow is contained within the site.
6.20 Having read the evidence and reviewed the proposed standard, I propose the following amendment to the standard (also included as Attachment A in the EIR of Ms Coombes):
1. New buildings or structures including fences and retaining walls located in overland flow paths for 1 % AEP events must ensure that: a. any ponding of floodwater caused by any new building or structure must not extend beyond (upstream of) the inland boundary of the precinct; or an alternative flow path of equivalent hydraulic capacity must be provided within the site; and b. the hydraulic capacity of the flow path must be maintained; c. the entry point of the flow path into the precinct must not be altered.
6.21 I consider this to be a clearer manner for representing the control while providing for the flexibility sought by POAL and supported by Ms Hart.
Coastal hazards
6.22 I generally concur with Ms Hart’s more detailed description of the coastal edge at Gabador Place, and acknowledge her observation that the coastal margin appears in equilibrium in this area. However, I consider there are limitations of relying on the use
6 …ab. any ponding of floodwater caused by any new building or structure must not extend exceed beyond (upstream of) the inland boundary of the Gabador Place Pprecinct; or
bc. the an alternative flow path of equivalent hydraulic capacity of the flow path must be provided maintained;…
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 9
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
of historic aerial photographs for such an assessment. Having discussed this methodology with Dr Natasha Carpenter and Ms Sarah Sinclair I understand that it is not possible to confidently ascertain the condition of coastal structures and if the coast is in equilibrium based solely on aerial photographs. I note in response to Ms Hart’s description of the rock rip-rap armouring observed in the Tamaki estuary that such defences may reflect that a coastal erosion hazard (real or perceived) is being managed and that such structures can manage but do not necessarily remedy the underlying erosion hazard and have a finite life inherent in their design as previously discussed in the EIC of Ms Sinclair for Topic 022.
6.23 I also acknowledge Ms Hart and Mr Arbuthnot’s agreement with the control proposed to apply in relation to the Gabador Place precinct, and concur with Mr Arbuthnot that there remain outstanding matters between Council and submitters regarding the definition of coastal hazards (erosion). I continue to support the position advanced in my evidence for Topic 022.
7. BESPOKE PROVISIONS FOR THE PORT OF ONEHUNGA
7.1 It is my understanding that the Port of Onehunga is proposed to continue to be used for marine and port operations, and the other activities enabled by the Minor Port zone until such a time as the land use may change or the facility be sold.
Flood hazards
7.2 I have discussed the presence of the flood prone area with Dr Claudia Hellberg7 and Mr Nick Brown8 of Auckland Council’s Stormwater Department and understand that based on the information provided by Ms Hart, Council supports the removal of the flood prone area referenced as ‘Flood prone ID 13546’ from the non-statutory layer in the GIS and PAUP viewer (non-statutory layer).
7.3 Ms Hart and Mr Arbuthnot also prefer the application of the flood hazard control set out at paragraph 5.34 of Mr Arbuthnot’s EIC. Mr Arbuthnot notes that this control could be incorporated as a control in the precinct or into the Auckland wide controls. No ‘track change’ amendment is proposed by Mr Arbuthnot in respect to the Auckland wide controls.
7 Auckland Council, Stormwater Department Strategic Planning Team Manager 8 Auckland Council Stormwater Flood Planning Team Manager
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 10
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
7.4 Council9 does not support the use of a precinct for the Port of Onehunga, therefore should a variation from the Auckland wide rules be required, this would need to be accommodated in Chapter H.4.11 (Council’s combined Natural hazards and Flooding provisions). Ms Hart has agreed with the observations contained in my EIC (based on the Council GIS viewer) that overland flow paths are present within the site and appear to originate within the site. The outstanding issue in relation to flood hazards would therefore appear to me to be the manner in which the exit point and management or the flow path may be managed within the site.
7.5 Under the Auckland wide rules the same controls would apply in the Minor Port zone as set out in paragraph 6.13 above. An additional activity is also applicable in this location and that is:
37.Construction, operation, maintenance and minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities service connections, marina, marine and port activities and electricity generation activities
These listed activities are provided for in Activity Table F1 ‘flood hazards’ as a permitted activity subject to permitted activity controls. This activity could be adapted or expanded upon to include ‘Marine and Port facilities’ and ‘Marine and Port accessory structures and services’. Alternatively the inclusion of ‘buildings and structures’ within the Natural hazards activity table may also be possible through reference to the Minor Port zone specifically.
7.6 Such provision as a permitted activity within the activity table would be subject to a permitted activity control10. There are some minor differences between the wording of this control and Council’s version of the control supported for the Gabador Place precinct. While the two controls are similar the control in the Auckland wide provisions has been subject to a separate hearing process and as a result I propose instead the addition of a new activity to Activity Table 1 ‘flood hazards’ and an additional permitted activity to reflect the amendment to the standard in relation to the Gabador Place precinct. The activity and standard are to read as follows:
9 Paragraph 29.15, K Coombes EIC, Auckland Council, Topic 080 10 Councils closing statements for Topic 022, H.4.11 Natural Hazards: 3. Network utilities, service connections, marina, marine and port activities and electricity generation Infrastructure, including road construction, maintenance and resurfacing a.the path and capacity of the overland flow path where it enters from or exits to the adjoining sites must not be altered by the works, except where the overland flow exits into the CMA or a permanent stream, in which case the exit point may be varied. or crosses the road must not be altered by the works, and b. the capacity of the overland flow path must be maintained. where any structure is placed across the overland flow path or piping of it occurs, provision must be made for a secondary flow path that can accommodate the overland flow in a way that will not cause or increase flooding of neighbouring properties, in the event of blockage of the main flow path or when the capacity of the obstructed path is exceeded, during a 1per cent AEP storm event.
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 11
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
Activity Table F1 Flood Hazards … 37A. In the Minor Port zone buildings or structures including fences and retaining walls located in overland flow P paths for 1 % AEP events
…
2. Controls
2.1 Permitted activity controls Any permitted activity that does not comply with the below controls is a restricted discretionary activity …
2.1.4 Activities within overland flow paths … 4. In the Minor Port zone buildings or structures including fences and retaining walls located in overland flow paths for 1 % AEP events must ensure that:
a. any ponding of floodwater caused by any new building or structure must not extend beyond (upstream of) the inland boundary of the zone; or an alternative flow path of equivalent hydraulic capacity must be provided within the site; and
b. the entry point of the flow path into the precinct must not be altered.
c. Buildings and structures in the Minor Port zone must be provided for as permitted activities in section I.9.1 Activity Table- Minor Port zone
7.7 This approach ensures that the application of the control is linked to the activities that the Minor Port zone seeks to enable in this location. Should development be proposed which is not provided for as permitted in the zone, assessment of the characteristics of the flow path and the proposed diversion can be considered.
7.8 In order to achieve consistency across the plan I also propose a consequential amendment to the Central Port precinct at K.3.7 of the PAUP to align with the approach taken in the Gabador Place precinct and in the Minor Port zone. I have set out the proposed amendments below in magenta highlight:
3. Development Controls
…
3.1A Natural Hazards, Flood hazards: Overland flow paths
Buildings or structures including fences and retaining walls located in 1 per cent overland flow paths:
a. any ponding of floodwater caused by any new building or structure must not extend beyond (upstream of) the inland boundary of the Port Precinct; or an alternative flow path of equivalent hydraulic capacity must be provided within the site; and
b. the hydraulic capacity of the flow path must be maintained
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 12
Evidence in Rebuttal- Larissa Clarke -26 January 2016
c. the entry point of the flow path into the Precinct must not be altered.
Coastal hazards
7.9 Mr Arbuthnot seeks a similar course of action, for addressing natural hazard matters either through the Auckland-wide or through bespoke provisions, in relation to coastal hazards. As discussed in paragraph 13.4 of my EIC for Topic 080 “New Marine and Port accessory structures and Marine and Port services and new Marine and Port Facilities located in the Ferry Terminal, Marina, and Minor Port zones” are provided for as permitted activities within the Minor Port zone, effectively achieving the same outcome. Therefore I acknowledge the relief sought by Mr Arbuthnot, and confirm that in my view Auckland Council’s preferred version of the provisions in the Auckland Wide Natural hazards section (H.4.11) of the PAUP achieve the outcome sought by Mr Arbuthnot.
8. SEAWALLS
8.1 Ms Coombes in her EIR has proposed amendments to a number of provisions within the PAUP in order to more clearly address the matter of ‘hard protection structures’ (including seawalls) within the Coastal Marine Area, Minor Port zone and relevant precinct, across a number of sections of the PAUP. I support the amendments proposed by Ms Coombes.
9. CONCLUSION
9.4 I consider that the amendments to the Gabador Place precinct and the Auckland- wide natural hazards and flooding provisions outlined in this evidence are the most appropriate means of giving effect to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement, New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Resource Management Act 1991. In my view, no other amendments are required in response to the evidence of the submitters on Topic 080.
Larissa Blair Clarke 26 January 2016
Larissa Clarke/ 080- Minor Ports-Coastal precincts/ Onehunga 3 NEW (Port of Onehunga), Mt Wellington 1 NEW (Ports of Auckland, Gabador Place) 13