DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment Ōrākei Pl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment Ōrākei Pl Ōrākei Play Network Gap Analysis – recommendations 1) Neighbourhood, suburb and destination playground provision Discussion Definitions of neighbourhood, suburb and destination parks are provided in the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 (appendix 1). The type of play space in a park does not necessarily correspond to the park classification. The play space may be more or less significant than the park classification would suggest. To provide a more accurate reflection of the play network, play space typologies, using the same terminology of neighbourhood, suburb and destination, have been applied (see appendix 2 for definitions). These are based on the Open Space Provision Policy but focus on play elements. Suburb play offers a greater range of play activities for more age groups. A wider range of people spend more time there than at a neighbourhood playground. They contain a greater range of supporting infrastructure. Neighbourhood playgrounds generally provide facilities for the two younger age groups, 0-8 years. Investments in the suburb play network, rather than the neighbourhood play network, offer more benefits to larger catchment areas. Schools, particularly primary schools, play a part in enhancing the neighbourhood play network. As they are not within council control and are unavailable during school hours and during after school activities their influence is limited. They can be considered to supplement the park network, but it is not suggested that they replace park improvements. There are no destination playgrounds in the Ōrākei Local Board area. Recommendation 1a) Upgrade neighbourhood parks to suburb park facilities to fill gaps Gap 1: Newmarket and western Remuera (across both the Waitemata and Ōrākei Local Board areas) • Shore Road Reserve – add to existing play space • Mt Hobson Domain – consider new play space in partnership with the Maunga Authority Gap 2: Ōrākei, Mission Bay and Kohimarama • Patteson Reserve – add to existing play space Gap 3: St Heliers north • Glover Park – add to existing play space • Maskell Reserve – add new neighbourhood play space (potential conflict with off-leash dog park) • Dingle Dell – add informal nature play Gap 4: St Heliers south • Glen Atkin Reserve - add informal nature play • Most opportunities to fill this gap are within the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board area, using Apirana Reserve, Eastview Reserve) Gap 5: St Johns • Swainston Reserve – upgrade and add to existing poor-condition play space. Recommendation 1b) Create a destination play space Gap 6: Okahu Bay/Ōrākei Domain B combined • Upgrade facilities at Okahu Bay. Okahu Bay is an ideal place for a destination playground. It has a unique cultural identity based on the Whenua Rangatira with a waka inspired play structure. It has the best example of accessible play in the Ōrākei Local Board area with the only structure that is fully accessible by wheelchair and fully accessible surfaces. More accessible items for a wider range of accessible needs could be added. It lacks only the older age categories 13-17 and health and fitness. Gap 7: Colin Maiden Park • Add a destination playground to Colin Maiden Park. Colin Maiden Park is already a destination venue for a range of sports. It currently has no play facilities although several options for play locations are included in the Colin Maiden Park Masterplan. A destination play space would complement the other facilities in the precinct. It would provide facilities for caregivers and other siblings during booked sport hours. It would encourage more visits outside of booked sport hours. 2) Age group provision Age group Present in play spaces 0-4 26/29 5-8 26/29 9-12 17/29 13-17 9/29 Health and 3/29 fitness 0-4 years discussion Play for the 0-4 years age group has been provided at 26 out of 29 play spaces. In 7 play spaces this play provision is minor. No addition to the network is needed. Instead the quality of play can be improved during renewal. Recommendation 2a) Improve the quality of 0-4 years play The quality of 0-4 years play can most easily be improved during renewal. The parks that are due for renewal are: • Crossfield Reserve • Ellerslie Domain • Bonnie Brae Reserve. 5-8 years discussion Play for the 5-8 years age group has been provided for in 26 out of 29 play spaces. In 3 play spaces this play provision is minor. No addition to the network is needed. Instead the quality of play can be improved during renewal. Recommendation 2b) Improve the quality of 5-8 years play The quality of 5-8 years play can most easily be improved during renewal. The park due for renewal is: • Crossfield Reserve. 9-12 years discussion Play for the 9-12 years age group has been provided for in 17 out of 29 play spaces. In 3 play spaces this play provision is minor. Further investment in existing play spaces can fill this gap. The quality of play can be improved during renewal. Recommendation 2c) Fill a gap in 9-12 years play • Ellerslie Domain • Crossfield Reserve • Waiatarua Reserve Recommendation 2d) Improve the quality of 9-12 years play • Shore Road Reserve • Swainston Reserve (to replace Merton Reserve) 13-17 years discussion Play for the 13-17 years age group has been provided for in 9 out of 29 play spaces. Further investment in existing play spaces can fill this gap. Recommendation 2e) Fill a gap in 13-17 years play • Shore Road Reserve • Rutherford Reserve • Swainston Reserve (to replace Merton Reserve) • Okahu Bay • Glover Park • Madills Farm Health and fitness discussion Health and fitness equipment is targeted towards adults. Facilities for the health and fitness group has been provided for in 3 out of 29 play spaces. Recommendation 2f) Fill a gap in health and fitness facilities • Ōrākei Basin • Madills Farm • Waiatarua Reserve • Little Rangitoto Reserve • Crossfield Reserve • Shore Road Reserve • Tamaki Drive (consider places on the road reserve as well as parks) 3) Specialised play provision Specialised play has been divided into several categories: sound, water, sand, nature, courts and wheeled play. Provision in these specialized categories is much lower. Play spaces are generally traditional structures within a marked footprint. Although the materials and character of the playgrounds are being upgraded through renewal, the structures still focus on climbing, swinging, spinning and balancing skills. The concrete lizard at Patteson Reserve is the only example of something that is different to a traditional play structure. Specialised play Present in play Minor play category spaces element Sound 7/29 3/7 Water 2/29 0/2 Sand 2/29 0/2 Nature 8/29 3/7 Learn-to-ride 3/29 - Skate 3/29 - BMX 1/29 - Basketball/netball 6/29 - Tennis 2/29 - Sound play discussion Sound play, although present in 7 play spaces is generally minor and limited to one or two interactive panels on the main climbing structure. Sound play can be useful in providing play opportunities for all abilities (particularly those without sight or without the strength to climb). Recommendation 3a) Improve sound play • Okahu Bay • Patteson Reserve • St Heliers Beach Reserve • Bonnie Brae Reserve • Wharua Reserve Sand and water play discussion Sand and water play are present in only 2 play spaces at Playtime Park and Selwyn Reserve. The coastal location and beaches at Okahu Bay, Selwyn Reserve, Kohimarama, St Heliers, Karaka Bay, Tahuna Torea and Wilsons Beach provide many opportunities for sand and water play. This is the most natural setting for sand and water play. Sand and water play in the Selwyn Reserve play space is unnecessary and could be relocated to another reserve during renewal. Potential sites are Little Rangitoto or Wairua Reserve. Alternative play opportunities could occupy this space at Selwyn Reserve. Ōrākei Basin and the Waiatarua Reserve wetland are two large water bodies where swimming and contact with the water is discouraged. With confidence in water quality and an innovative design, it could be possible to incorporate an element of play into these areas. Artifical water play could be included and promoted within the water feature in Ellerslie town centre or added if a civic space were developed in Remuera town centre. Recommendation 3b) Improve sand and water play • Ōrākei Basin • Waiatarua Reserve • Civic space water features in Ellerslie and Remuera town centres • During renewal relocate sand and water play from Selwyn Reserve to Little Rangitoto Reserve or Wairua Reserve Nature play discussion Generally, nature play in the Ōrākei Local Board area is a token modification to the landscaping around existing structured play spaces. Additional stepping stones, humps or mounds add to the play value. Only Cliff Face Park incorporated a maze within an area of planting. The recent development in Wairua Reserve and Tahapa Reserve include an obstacle/balancing trail. These are still constructed play elements. Unstructured nature play, taking advantage of existing natural play features within reserves, is missing. Parks near bush areas, tree groves or fallen trees or with interesting contours are ideal for nature play. Some well-established specimen trees offer opportunities as a natural climbing structure. The contours of the maunga at Maungarei (Mt Wellington) and Ohinerau (Mt Hobson) offer interesting opportunities if this aligns with the aspirations of the Maunga Authority. In some cases, the existing playgrounds have limited options for nature play. The gap could be filled more innovatively in native bush areas or through activations and educational programmes. Waiata Reserve, Kepa Bush, Dingle Dell Reserve and Tahuna Torea Nature Reserve combine areas of water, bush and grass. Ellerslie Domain has an easy opportunity to incorporate the surrounding gardens into the play space. Michaels Avenue Reserve and Glover Park could expand beyond the existing footprint into natural areas of the park. Waiatarua Reserve and Wharua/Portland Reserve offer bush and wetland opportunities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Annexure a to Procedural Minute 6
    Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Appendix 3.1 Schedule for the Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Owner/ Approral/ Sub#/ Point Name Theme Topic Subtopic Summary Submission Type Support Evidence Comentary Investigate 81 Mt Royal Rd, Mt Albert, and all other lava cave Appendix 3.1 - Schedule for the entrances, for inclusion in the SEA schedule [Note - relates to Outstanding Natural Outstanding Natural Features ONFs. Refer to Albert-Eden Local Board Views, Volume 26, page 5716-3481 Auckland Council Features (ONF) Rules Overlay Add 30/103]. Local Government no iv Investigate the 'Spring', located under Crystal Motors at 11 Ruru Appendix 3.1 - Schedule for the St, Eden Terrace, for inclusion in the SEA schedule [Note - Outstanding Natural Outstanding Natural Features relates to ONFs. Refer to Albert-Eden Local Board Views, Volume 5716-3482 Auckland Council Features (ONF) Rules Overlay Add 26, page 30/103]. Local Government no iv Auckland Volcanic Appendix 3.1 - Schedule for the Include volcanic features in former outlying district such as Cones Society Outstanding Natural Outstanding Natural Features Franklin within the PAUP including Pukekohe Hill, Puni Mountain, 4485-11 Incorporated Features (ONF) Rules Overlay Add Pukekohe East crater. Key Stakeholder no iv Auckland Volcanic Appendix 3.1 - Schedule for the Cones Society Outstanding Natural Outstanding Natural Features Include Pukekohe Hill and Puni Mountain as outstanding natural 4485-13 Incorporated Features (ONF) Rules Overlay Add features. Key Stakeholder no iv Auckland Volcanic Appendix 3.1 - Schedule for the Cones Society Outstanding Natural Outstanding Natural Features Apply V1 and V2 overlays to volcanic reserves and surrounding 4485-21 Incorporated Features (ONF) Rules Overlay Add Includeareas.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
    Volcanic Viewshafts and height sensitive areas rules - Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts survey coordinates Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Summary of Decisions Requested Sub#/ Point Name Theme Topic Subtopic Summary Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-20 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Protect views between Maunga. Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-152 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Retain all the viewshafts listed Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-153 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Add additional viewshafts which protect iconic explosion craters Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-154 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Add viewshaft to protect views to Panmure Basin from the top of Mt Wellington Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-155 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Add viewshaft to protect views to Orakei Basin from Kepa Road Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-156 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Add viewshaft to protect views to Orakei Basin from Upland Road crest. Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-157 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Add viewshaft to protect views to Rangitoto from Lucerne Road, Remuera Volcanic Viewshafts and height Appendix 3.3 - Volcanic view shafts 93-158 Geoscience Society of New Zealand sensitive areas rules survey coordinates Add viewshaft to protect views to Mt Wellington from Lunn Ave-Abbotts Way intersection.
    [Show full text]
  • FT3 Rangitoto Island
    Rangitoto re‐visited: new insights to an old friend Jan Lindsay Andrew Needham Ian Smith Pre‐conference field trip Auckland 21 November 2010 School of Environment Rangitoto re-visited: new insights to an old friend Field Trip leaders Jan Lindsay, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, [email protected] Andrew Needham, School of Geosciences, Monash University, Australia Lucy McGee, School of Environment, The University of Auckland Tracy Howe, IESE, The University of Auckland Overview Rangitoto is one of Auckland’s more iconic landscape features. Standing like a bastion in the Waitemata harbour, Rangitoto last erupted some ~550 years ago after Auckland was settled by Maori, and is therefore the youngest volcano in the Auckland Volcanic Field (Lindsay 2010). Recent research has revealed more about Rangitoto’s history, which will be discussed ascending its summit and exploring its various volcanic features. The ferry departs from the downtown ferry terminal at 9.15am and Devonport at 9.25am, and will leave Rangitoto at 3.45pm. The walk is a moderate one on rough tracks and requires sturdy footwear and a moderate level of fitness. Key Facts Maori name: Rangitoto, derived from the phrase ‘Nga Rangi-i-totongia-a Tama-te-kapua’ - the days of the bleeding of Tama-te-kapua - captain of the Arawa waka, referring to a battle between Tamatekapua and the Tainui at Islington Bay (e.g. Murdoch 1991). Location: Auckland City. Part of the Auckland Volcanic Field Height: 260 m Age: Formed during two eruptions, 600 and 550 years ago (ca 1400 AD and 1450 AD) Composition: Basalt lava, scoria and ash Volume volcanic material: About 2 cubic km Introduction Rangitoto Island is a graceful, almost symmetrical, volcanic cone which dominates the skyline to the north-east of Auckland City (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Crustal Xenoliths from the St. Heliers Volcanoes, Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand K.B
    Catalogue of Crustal Xenoliths from the St. Heliers Volcanoes, Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand K.B. Spörli and P.M. Black IESE Report 1-2013.01 | November 2013 ISBN: [print] 978-0-9876566-4-3 [pdf] 978-0-9876566-5-0 Catalogue of Crustal Xenoliths from the St. Heliers Volcanoes, Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand K.B. Spörli*1, 2 and P.M. Black1 1 Geology Programme, School of Environment, University of Auckland 2 Institute of Earth Science and Engineering (IESE), University of Auckland *[email protected] IESE Report 1-2013.01 | November 2013 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. Photos, from left to right: 1) thin section of amphibolitic schist (plain polarized light). 2): Typical boulder of tuff with xenoliths. 3) Thin section of rodingite with garnet (black) replacing a crack-seal vein (x polarisers). TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Investigations at the Waimahia Inlet Residential Development (HPA Authority 2014/574)
    Archaeological investigations at the Waimahia Inlet Residential Development (HPA authority 2014/574) report to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Tamaki Makaurau Community Housing Ltd Arden Cruickshank and Jaden Harris CFG Heritage Ltd. P.O. Box 10 015 Dominion Road Auckland 1024 ph. (09) 309 2426 [email protected] Archaeological investigations at the Waimahia Inlet Residential Development (HPA authority 2014/574) report to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Tamaki Makaurau Community Housing Ltd Prepared by: Arden Cruickshank Reviewed by: Date: 15 July 2014 Matthew Campbell Reference: 13-0555 Th is report is made available by CFG Heritage Ltd under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. CFG Heritage Ltd. P.O. Box 10 015 Dominion Road Auckland 1024 ph. (09) 309 2426 [email protected] Report distribution New Zealand Historic Paces Trust, Auckland New Zealand Archaeological Association (fi le copy) CFG Heritage Ltd (fi le copy) University of Auckland General Library University of Otago Anthropology Department Tamaki Makaurau Community Housing Ltd Te Akitai Waiohua Nga Manawhenua o Tamaki Makaurau – Tamaki Collective electronic copies may be obtained from www.cfgheritage.com/13_0555waimahiainlet.pdf Introduction Tamaki Makaurau Community Housing Ltd are establishing an aff ordable hous- ing development of up to 300 residential units on Crown Land at Weymouth (Sec 1 SO 362124), a block of 15.9 ha east of Weymouth Road and west of Waimahia Creek (Figure 1). A super lot consent and bulk earth works consent has been granted by the Auckland Council to commence site works (ref: 42510 SP 11081).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Plan Change 22
    Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part Plan Change 22 (PC22) Additions to Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua, Schedule 6 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay, Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage Public notification: 21 March 2019 Close of submissions: 18 April 2019 This is a council initiated plan change In accordance with Section 86B (3) of the RMA the proposed plan change rules have immediate legal effect. Note: Amendments proposed by this plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) are underlined for new text and struckthrough where existing text is proposed to be deleted. The use of …. Indicates that there is more text, but it is not being changed. These are used when the whole provisions if too long to be included. Proposed amendments to Chapter L: Schedule 12 - Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule - Text Notes: 1. New text is shown as underlined and deleted text as strikethrough. 2. Only the amendments to the schedule proposed to be amended are shown. 3. * Denotes that the site exception rule applies Chapter L: Schedules Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Proposed change/s: Add the following text for 31 additional sites and places of significance Schedule Nominated by Mana Name Location Description ID Whenua 076. Paruroa & Nihotupu Waitakere Ranges Regional Parkland Battle site between Big Muddy Creek and Scenic Drive 077. Onepū Western section of Paritai Reserve, Battle site Whakatakataka extending to Tamaki Drive and coast from Ngapipi road to Ngaiwi Street. 078*. Te Ipu Pakore 14-22 Boston Road, Mount Eden Fresh water spring / Battle site 079.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Methods for Estimating Tephra Source and Dispersal
    STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TEPHRA SOURCE AND DISPERSAL A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Statistics at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Emily Kawabata 2016 Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Abstract Tephra refers to any pyroclastic fragments ejected from a volcanic vent and its dispersal is one of the major hazards with explosive eruptions. The attenuation of tephra fall thickness is most commonly estimated after contouring field measurements into smooth isopachs. I explicitly describe the variability in thickness by using a semiempirical tephra attenuation relation as a link function. This opens the way to fitting models to actual tephra observations through maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). The method is illustrated using data published from the 1973 Heimaey eruption in Iceland. Complex eruptions commonly produce several phases of tephra fall from multiple vents. When attempting to precisely reconstruct past eruptions from the geological record alone, separate phases are often indistinguishable. Augmented by a mixture framework, the MLE attenuation model was able to identify the sources and directions of tephra deposition for the 1977 Ukinrek Maars eruption in Alaska, US, from only the tephra thickness data. It was then applied to the unobserved 1256 AD Al-Madinah eruption in Saudi Arabia. The estimation of the spatio-temporal hazard from a monogenetic volcanic field is criti- cally dependent on a reconstruction of past events.
    [Show full text]