Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991
PROPOSAL Resource consent applications by Panuku Development Auckland to extend the north- western breakwater and causeway (via land reclamation) at Westhaven Marina to connect to the north-eastern breakwater to create public open space, a car park area for public and private use, and access to new marina berths, including the replacement of existing pile moorings at 31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central.
These GRANTED. The reasons are set out below.
Application numbers: LUC60318164, DIS60318166, CST60318167, DIS60320011 Site address: 31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central Applicant: Panuku Development Auckland Hearing commenced: Tuesday 23 and Wednesday 24 October, 9.30am Hearing panel: Robert Scott (Chairperson) Dr. Wayne Donovan Basil Morrison Heike Lutz Shona Myers Appearances: For the Applicant: Derek Nolen, Legal Kate Stubbing, Legal Rod Marler, Corporate – Context and Waterfront Strategy Thomas Warren, Corporate – Project Description & Engagement Craig Fitzgerald, Noise and Vibration James Dilley, Navigation Safety Stephen Brown, Landscape Simon West, Marine Ecology Stephen Priestly, Infrastructure and Coastal Processes Todd Langwell, Traffic Engineering Vijay Lala, Planning
For the Submitters: Empire Capital Limited was represented by: • David Boersen
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 1 LUC No.: LUC60318164 • Craig Shearer, Planning
Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Patukirikiri, Ngāti Maru,and Ngāti Tamatera were represented by: • Aidan Warren and Kuru Ketu, Legal • Luke Faithful, Planning • Karen Wilson
Te Akitai O Waiohua was represented by: • Karen Wilson
Ngati Whatua Orakei represented by: • Robert Enright, Legal • Ngarimu Blair, Deputy Chair, Ngati Whatua Orakei Trust Board • Dr Malcolm Patterson
For Council: Daniel Kinnoch, Principal Specialist Planner Ashishika Sharma, Coastal Kala Sivaguru, Coastal Tanisha Hazelwood, Hearings Advisor Hearing adjourned 24 October 2018 (3.30pm) Commissioners’ site 24 October 2018 visit Hearing Closed: 14 November 2018
INTRODUCTION
1. This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (“the Council”) by Independent Hearing Commissioners Robert Scott, Dr Wayne Donovan, Basil Morrison, Heike Lutz and Shona Myers appointed and acting under delegated authority under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”).
2. This decision contains the findings from our deliberations on the applications for resource consent and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA.
3. The applications were publicly notified on 22 May 2018. A total of 19 submissions were received, with nine submissions in support, nine submissions in opposition and one submission taking a neutral stance.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 2 LUC No.: LUC60318164 The Site and its Environs
4. Westhaven Marina is located at the western end of the Auckland Waterfront and to the immediate south east of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It encompasses an area bounded by the Auckland Harbour Bridge to the west, St Marys Bay and the Northern Motorway to the south and the western edge of the ‘Western Reclamation’. The marina includes some 1,950 berths which are made up of mostly marina berths and a smaller number of pile moorings. The reclaimed areas provide carparking area and public access and there is a public boat ramp located at Pier Z.
5. There are currently two entrances for vessels into the marina, the main entrance is located at the eastern end and is some 270m wide and the second, smaller entrance is located at the western end, being 60m wide. The second entrance is used mostly by racing yachts and vessels sailing to the upper reaches of the Waitemata Harbour.
Occupation and Public Access
6. The occupancy of the Westhaven Marina under section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) relies on a coastal occupation consent granted in 2012 which includes all the water space (including structures) in and around the marina and a “Vessel Transiting Area” at the eastern entrance. This coastal permit is for 35 years and expires in 2045.
7. The land included within the Westhaven Marina is private land but is subject to a conservation covenant under the Reserves Act 1977 over areas adjacent to and adjoining the CMA for the purpose of public access and recreation
Site visit
8. Following the hearing of evidence and adjourning the hearing, we visited the site on the afternoon of 24 October 2018. We familiarised ourselves with the marina, its structures and buildings and its area of occupation. We spent some time at the eastern end of the western reclamation area overlooking the proposed reclamation area, western entrance and existing pile moorings.
9. Our site visit was highlighted by two pods of orca which we observed entering the marina through the western entrance and that proceeded to swim around the area comprising the existing pile moorings and exit via the same entrance. We record this observation, as it is relevant to the matter of construction noise effects and disturbance, the proposed conditions of consent to prevent harm to marine mammals and we discuss this later in this decision.
Summary of Proposal
10. The application is set out in section 3 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) dated September 2018 submitted by Tattico Limited and in the evidence of
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 3 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Mr Rod Marler – Director Design and Place at Panuku Development (Panuku) and Mr Thomas Warren – General Manager of Marina at Panuku. The application seeks consent for a reclamation to extend the north-western breakwater and causeway with the north-eastern breakwater to provide public car-parking, access to berthage and public access, including a public viewing platform. These works are proposed to facilitate the conversion of 103 pile moorings to 117 marina berth including associated pontoons, ramps and gangways.
11. The proposed reclamation will be approximately 35m in width resulting in a footprint on the seabed of approximately 13,000m² tapering to an above sea level usable land area of 6,300m². It is proposed that approximately 60% of the reclamation area will be used for carparking with the remaining 40% used for public open space including cultural elements. It is proposed that the reclamation, in linking the existing reclamation to the eastern breakwater, will close the western marina access leaving the eastern entry as the sole vessel entrance to the marina.
12. The public open space component will be on the northern side of the proposed reclamation and includes walkways, native planting and a viewing platform shaped as a figurative waka. The AEE refers to this as the “waka headland”. A public walkway ranging in width from 5m to 10m would be formed around the southern side of the reclamation ensuring full public access to all areas adjoining the coastal marine area (CMA).
13. In recognition of the potential cultural effects of the proposed reclamation and the relationship of iwi with Mana Whenua with the Waitemata Harbour, the applicant initially proposed 19 pouwhenua within the public spaces immediately in front of the waka headland. The purpose of the pouwhenua was to represent the 19 iwi with Mana Whenua and their association with the Waitemata Harbour. However, following the close of submissions and in response to a submission from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whaia Maia Ltd (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei) opposing “collective recognition of 19 iwi authorities” the pouwhenua were removed from the proposal. In its place the applicant now proposes to establish a forum to engage with all iwi with Mana Whenua and to assist with how they would express tikanga and fulfil their role as kaitiaki.
14. The applicant seeks to impose security access in the form of locked gates to the proposed marina pontoons and berths so that only marina berth holders can access the berths. The proposed berths will range between 16m and 32m in length to cater for larger vessels and is promoted by the applicant on the basis that there is demand for this scale of berthage.
15. To form the reclamation, it is proposed to use up to 75,000m³ of dredged material and mixed with concrete to form “mudcrete”. The dredged material is intended to be sourced from dredging associated with dredging approved as part of the 36th Americas Cup defence (AC36) to be hosted in the nearby Viaduct Basin area. The reclaimed land would be protected from wave action with rock armour around the sloping outer faces of the reclamation.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 4 LUC No.: LUC60318164 16. For the formation of the marina berths the existing timber mooring piles will be removed and replaced with new timber or concrete piles to be drilled into place to secure marina pontoons, gangways and ramps.
17. Stormwater generated on the proposed reclamation is to be treated via raingardens and tree pits prior to discharge to the CMA. A total of ten raingardens of appropriately 25m² in area is proposed.
Activity status
18. The proposal requires a number of resource consents under national, regional and district planning instruments. These were generally not in dispute by the parties and were set out in the Council section 42A hearing report (hearing report) as follows:
NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS)
• Land use consent for disturbance of a piece of land where the duration of the activity is likely to be longer than 2 months, and no detailed site investigation has been prepared is a discretionary activity under regulation 11(2).
Land Use Consents (s9)
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (“AUP”)
Westhaven – Tamaki Herenga Waka Precinct
• Observation areas, viewing platforms and boardwalks, where located on reclaimed land, are a restricted discretionary activity under rule I213.4.1(A31).
Stormwater permits (ss14 & 15)
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)
• Diversion and discharge of stormwater runoff from impervious areas not otherwise provided for is a discretionary activity under rule E8.4.1(A10).
Discharge permits (s15)
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)
• Discharges of contaminants into air, or into water, or onto or into land not meeting controlled activity Standard E30.6.2.1 is a discretionary activity under rule E30.4.1(A7). This consent is required as the applicant is unable to comply with standard E30.6.1.2(4) in terms of proposed duration of soil
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 5 LUC No.: LUC60318164 disturbance. The controlled activity standards under E30.6.2.1 are also unable to be complied with.
Coastal permits (s12)
Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)
Westhaven – Tamaki Herenga Waka Precinct
• Reclamation not otherwise provided for is a discretionary activity under rule I213.4.1(A3), as coastal works under s12(1) of RMA.
• Capital works dredging is a restricted discretionary activity under rule I213.4.1(A6), as coastal works under s12(1) of RMA.
Granting consent to the two activities listed above will also grant consent to any incidental discharge of contaminants into water associated with those activities, pursuant to section 15 of the RMA.
• Observation areas, viewing platforms and boardwalks, where located within the coastal marine area, are a restricted discretionary activity under rule I213.4.1(A31), as coastal works, occupation and use under ss12(1), 12(2) & 12(3) of the RMA.
• Underwater vibratory piling is a restricted discretionary activity under rule F2.19.8, as coastal use under s12(3) of the RMA.
Consent for Hard Protection Structures
19. A matter of dispute between the applicant and the Council was the need for a separate consent for “hard protection structures” as a coastal permit under section 12 of the RMA (with a limited 35 year consent duration) for the proposed rock armour around the proposed reclamation. The Council officers stated that the consent for the rock armour was required as follows:
• Rock revetments as a hard protection structure are a discretionary activity under rule F2.19.10(A142), as coastal works and occupation under ss12(1) and 12(2) of the RMA.
They referred to the definition in the AUO-OP which defines Hard Protection Structures as:
Hard protection structure Includes:
• seawalls;
• rock revetments;
• groynes;
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 6 LUC No.: LUC60318164 • breakwaters;
• stop banks
• retaining walls; or
• comparable structure or modification to the seabed, foreshore or coastal land that has the primary purpose or effect of protecting an activity from a coastal hazard, including erosion.
20. Mr Derek Nolan, as legal counsel for the applicant submitted that the rock armour was an integral component of the reclamation design and therefore was not subject to a separate consent requirement. He submitted that all environmental effects that would arise with rock armouring of a reclamation would also be fully considered as part of the reclamation activity (including effects on natural character, visual and landscape effects and its functional need) and therefore additional consents were not needed. He added that should the reclamation be granted, the consent holder would be required to maintain the reclamation, which included the rock armour, and that this made the need for a separate coastal permit unnecessary. We also heard evidence from Mr Stephen Priestley – the applicant’s coastal processes expert, confirming that the rock armour was an integral part of the reclamation design.
Finding
21. We agree with the applicant and are of the view that although the AUP-OP defines hard protection structures and reclamations separately, these are activities that can occur mutually exclusively or together as an integrated whole. For this reason we consider that this justifies separate definitions in the AUP-OP and different consent requirements. However, where the hard protection structure forms an integral part of the reclamation, we are of the view that these should be considered in an integrated manner as part of the overall reclamation activity and as a component of the land that would be created by the reclamation. Accordingly, we find that no additional coastal permit is required for hard protection structures as it is a component that is an integral part of the reclamation design.
Recent Notified Plan Changes
22. The Council notified Plan Changes 14, 15, 16 and 17 on the 29 November 2018, with some of the provisions having immediate legal effect.
Council response
23. We have been provided with a memorandum from the Council planner (Mr Kinnoch) that a number of proposed changes affect the proposal and these summarised as follows:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 7 LUC No.: LUC60318164 a. new requirement at standard E9.6.1.3 requiring the new high contaminant generating car park to be designed with an accompanying stormwater management device that complies with Guidance Document 2017/001 Stormwater Management Devices in the Auckland Region (GD01).
b. Changes to Objective F2.14.2(2) and Policy F2.14.3(3) clarifying the status of existing marinas. Mr Kinnoch states that these changes to not affect activity status or the recommendation to grant consent.
c. Rule F2.19(1A) - Activity Tables, clarifies the situation of when an activity is covered by more than one rule. This affects the activity status of a “hard protection structure” when is part of a reclamation and whether separate consents are required. The Mr Kinnoch states that that reclamation is the more specific activity being undertaken in relation to the new rock armour, rather than treating the latter as a separate activity under rule F2.19.10(A142). This is discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
d. Rule F2.19.4 (Note 2) Clarifies that no rules under F2.19.4 Activity Table apply to the proposal and that all disturbance is incidental to the construction, placement, alterations, removal or demolition of coastal marine area structures.
e. Rule F2.19.8 (Note 4) has been renumbered.
f. Rule F2.19.8 (Note 6) and Rule F3.4.3(A34) have been amended to clarify the occupation status of activities. The Note states that occupation consents do not provide for exclusive occupation unless specifically sought. Mr Kinnoch states that specific occupation of the common marine and coastal area has been sought in the application and addressed in s42A report but this rule change affects the permitted baseline which assumed that exclusive occupation existed whereas this rule change makes it a restricted discretionary activity.
g. A new Rule F2.21.1.4 adds a new accidental discovery protocol.
h. A new matter of discretion in F3.8.1(6) regarding occupation of the common marine and coastal area and assessment criteria F3.8.2(6) for occupation of the common marine and coastal area.
24. With regard to the changes in Proposed Plan Change 15 Mr Kinnoch concludes that the changes have no material effect on the recommendation on the applications. He adds that the proposed changes do clarify some matters, including whether consent is required for the rock armour component of the reclamation, and occupation of the coastal marine area by permitted activity structures.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 8 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Panuku response
25. We have also received a response from Mr Nolan for Panuku on these plan changes. Mr Nolan acknowledges the changes in PC14 regarding GD01 replacing TP10 but adds that neither document is relevant to the proposal. Mr Nolan however, states that the applicant confirms that Standard E9.6.1.3 will be complied with and that and advice to that effect would be appropriate.
26. Regarding new Rule F2.19(1A) Mr Noland agree with the Mr Kinnoch that the new rule strengthens the applicant interpretation (and our finding) that only a reclamation consent is required.
27. Regarding new Rules F3.4.3(A34) and F2.19.8 - Note 6 relating to occupation of CMCA. Mr Nolan agrees that the new rule requires a specific occupation consent for any new structures notwithstanding if they have an existing occupation consent. Mr Noland also agrees that exclusive occupation needs to be specifically sought if that is part of a proposal to occupy the CMCA. Mr Nolan recommends a new Condition seeking exclusive occupation as part of any consent.
28. With regard to new and additional matters of discretion and assessment criteria, Mr Nolan agree with Mr Kinnoch that these matters have been adequately addressed in the application and evidence before the Commissioners.
29. Finally, Mr Nolan recommends wording for an advice note concerning accidental discovery of sensitive material in accordance with F2.21.1.14.
Submitter response
30. We have also received a response from the Mr Aiden Warren on behalf of the Mana Whenua in Opposition. Mr Aiden Warren refers to the changes relating to occupation of the CMCA and makes the following remarks:
(a) It is clear under the plan change that occupation consents do not provide for exclusive occupation;
(b) The existing consents do not provide legal authority for what is sought by the applications;
(c) The result is that the activity status is fully discretionary; and
(d) Mr Kinnoch was correct in stating that the Council’s permitted baseline assessment is affected by the proposed plan and therefore is out of date, i.e. there is no discretion to disregard adverse effects from occupation of the water space.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 9 LUC No.: LUC60318164 31. Mr Aiden Warren submits that at the plan changes will have an impact on the application. He adds that Council have not understood the cultural impacts as they relate to the plan changes and, generally, the Application.
32. We have had regard to these proposed changes, and PC15 in particular, and have taken them, and the above responses, into account as part of our evaluation and findings for this proposal.
Status of the Applications
33. While the applicant and Council agreed that the proposal requires resource consent for a discretionary activity, we note that it was initially lodged as a non- complying activity. We are advised by the reporting planner that the initial activity status related to the legacy regional coastal plan which had statutory effect at the time it was lodged. As that plan no longer has statutory effect (as of 31 May 2018), that activity status no longer applies. We have viewed the public notice for the application and note that it was publicly notified as a discretionary activity but the revised AEE (dated September 2018) still referred to the legacy plan non- complying activity status. For that reason a number of submitters refer to a non- complying activity status in their submissions. We acknowledge this as an error and therefore confirm that the proposal requires resource consent for a discretionary activity.
34. The proposal involves multiple resource consents, under the NESCS and the AUP-OP. Best practice suggests that where there is an overlap between the consents and/or the effects of the activities – so that consideration of one could affect the outcome of another – the appropriate practice is to treat the applications together. In this instance, the activity statuses under the relevant planning frameworks are for a discretionary activity under both the NESCS and the AUP- OP and the consents required sufficiently overlap to be considered together with a discretionary activity status overall.
Relevant statutory provisions considered
35. We have considered the application in terms of the matters set out in section 104 which requires us to, subject to Part 2, have regard to–
(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
(b) any relevant provisions of—
(i) a national environmental standard:
(ii) other regulations:
(iii) a national policy statement:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 10 LUC No.: LUC60318164 (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and
(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
36. Despite all section 104 considerations being “subject to Part 2”, the Court of Appeal in RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2018] NZCA 316 has held that consent authorities “must have regard to the provisions of Part 2 when it is appropriate to do so”. The Court of Appeal went on to find that there may be situations where it would be “appropriate and necessary” to refer to Part 2 when considering consent applications, including where there is doubt that a plan has been “competently prepared” under the RMA.
37. We find that the AUP-OP, in relation to this proposal, has addressed the relevant Part 2 matters and there are no identified issues with the competence of its preparation. We also find that the relevant provisions of the district plan and regional plan provisions of the AUP-OP have "given effect" to those of the Regional Policy Statement in the AUP-OP. Accordingly, we have relied on the provisions of the district and regional plan provisions of the AUP-OP. However, for completeness we have had regard to and included some concluding comments with respect to Part 2 at the end of this decision.
38. In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant statutory provisions including section 104B relating to discretionary activities and section 108 and 108AA as it relates to conditions of consent. Sections 105 and 107 address certain matters (in addition to the matters in section 104(1)), relating to discharge permits and coastal permits where the proposal would otherwise contravene section 15. We have also had regard to section 123 with regard to the duration of resource consents for coastal permits, section 125 with regard to the lapsing of consents and section 128 with regard to the review of conditions.
Relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered
39. In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions:
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
• Objectives 1 – 6
• Policies 1 - 7, 10, 11, 17 – 26
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 11 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
• Sections 7 and 8
Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (Chapter B - AUP-OP)
• B6 Mana Whenua
• B7 Toitū te whenua, toitū te taiao - Natural Resources
• B8 Toitū te taiwhenua - Coastal Environment
Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part
Chapter F – Coastal
Chapter F2 General Coastal Marine Zone
• F2.2 - Drainage, reclamation and declamation
• F2.4 – Dredging
• F2.5 - Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed
• F2.11 - Discharges
• F2.14 - Use, development and occupation in the coastal marine area
• F2.16 – Structures
• F2.18 - Underwater noise
Marina Zone
• F3.2 Objectives, F3.3 Policies
Chapter I - I213 – Westhaven - Tamaki Herenga Waka Precinct
• Objectives I213.2, Policies I213.3, Assessment criteria I213.8.2
Other relevant legislation
The following legislation is to activities within the CMA and below MWHS:
• Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998;
• Auckland Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014; and
• Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 12 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Other matters
40. We also considered the following other matters to be relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section 104(1)(c) of the RMA.
• Auckland Plan 2050
• The Westhaven Plan 2015
• Waterfront Plan 2012
Local Board comments
41. We were advised from the Council planner that the application had been submitted to the Waitemata Local Board and that no comments had been received.
Maritime New Zealand comments
42. We were advised by the Council reporting planner that pursuant to section 89A(2) of the RMA Council is required to send a copy of coastal permit applications to Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) where they include any of the activities listed under part (1) of that section. The response from MNZ was positive provided that application adhered to all aspects of the coastal permit application.
Summary of evidence heard
Council section 42A report
43. The Council section 42A report (hearing report) was circulated prior to the hearing and taken as read. The hearing report recommended the proposal be granted consent subject to conditions. The Council planner however expressed concern regarding the removal of the pouwhenua component of the proposal on the grounds that its potential adverse cultural effect was unknown and that these effects may not be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The reporting planner also expressed concern that no Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) had been undertaken.
Evidence
44. The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concerns identified in the Council planning officer’s recommendation report, the application itself and the submissions made on the application.
Applicant’s Evidence
45. Mr Derek Nolan presented legal submissions for Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku). He provided an overview of the proposal and stated that there are limited issues raised by submitters relating to cultural concerns and an issue of
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 13 LUC No.: LUC60318164 the extent of public access provided. With regard to cultural matters, he submitted that Panuku acknowledged the preference of Mana Whenua to avoid or minimise new structures and reclamations in the Waitemata Harbour and referred to engagement with Mana Whenua throughout the design and consenting process, totalling over three years.
46. Mr Nolan expressed a willingness by Panuku following the decision to continue engagement with Mana Whenua on their role as kaitiaki. He pointed us to proposed conditions of consent to formalise this process through the establishment of a forum to assist with the preparation of a Pile Mooring Redevelopment Engagement Plan (PMRKEP) that was consistent with relevant customary practices and in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
47. Mr Nolan summarised the applicant’s evidence on environmental effects and listed a number of positive effects which mirrored those set out in the hearing report. Mr Nolan tabled a revised set of conditions of consent that applicant and its witnesses supported.
48. On the matter of cultural effects, Mr Nolan submitted that while a number of environmental and cultural matters were raised in the submissions by the Mana Whenua in Opposition, the focus of their expert planning evidence was on conditions of consent. He advised that Panuku had adopted proposed conditions similar to those imposed by the Environment Court on the AC36 consent and that these had been further amended by Panuku for the application before us to address specific cultural concerns.
49. Mr Nolan addressed the absence of a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) and advised that a draft Generic CVA was received the week prior to the hearing and only finalised the day prior to the hearing. Mr Nolan submitted that the cultural matters have been addressed adequately in the proposal and referred to the submission of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei which had been changed from a submission in opposition to a submission in support.
50. Mr Rod Marler is the Director of Design and Place at Panuku and he presented evidence on the development strategy for Westhaven Marina. He told us that the Westhaven Marina is the largest marina in the southern hemisphere and that it was purchased by Panuku in 2010. He advised that their strategy was to progressively phase out pile moorings and replace them with marina berths to meet demand for this type of berthage. He stated that swing and pile moorings were less efficient than marina berths and that use of a pile mooring required greater skill as a sailor. He added that other marinas and mooring areas in the Waitemata Harbour and wider coastal areas would continue to support pile moorings as a berthage option.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 14 LUC No.: LUC60318164 51. Mr Marler outlined the vision for Westhaven as set out in the Waterfront Plan and the Westhaven Plan which included the current project and further development of marina berths within the existing Westhaven Marina footprint.
52. In response to questions from the commissioners on why a reclamation was preferred over a wharf or bridge type structure, Mr Marler stated that a wharf was comparatively much more expensive to construct than a reclamation.
53. Mr Thomas (Tom) Warren is the General Manager of Marinas for Panuku. He described the project in greater detail and the design process followed including the provision for a public open space component and waka viewing platform. He explained that their preference was for a reclamation over a wharf type structure as it allowed the reuse of dredging material from the AC36 project as mudcrete for the reclamation formation rather than dumping this material elsewhere in the coastal environment.
54. He confirmed that 19 pouwhenua where initially proposed but these had been removed based on adverse feedback (via submission) from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. He stated that he supported the use of a forum, as proposed in the conditions of consent, for Mana Whenua to provide a means to represent iwi values and their role as kaitiaki. He provided an extensive summary of the consultation undertaken with Mana Whenua to date.
55. Mr Tom Warren responded to the planning evidence of Mr Shearer (for Empire Capital Ltd.) regarding security access to the marina piers. He stated that the Marina already provided significant public promenade areas and that there was a need to exclude public access to yachts to avoid damage or unauthorised access onto them. He specifically referred to episodes of theft, damage and anti-social behaviour experienced at the Westhaven Marina. He concluded that the public areas provided within the existing marina and as proposed by this extension offset the security access restrictions proposed.
56. In response to questions from the commissioners, Mr Tom Warren explained the methodology for creating and depositing mudcrete and the need and triggers for maintenance dredging within the marina once the berths were formed.
57. Mr Craig Fitzgerald provided expert evidence on the noise effects of the proposal including construction related noise, effects of noise on marine mammals and operational noise. He advised that the ambient (background) noise levels had
been tested at 58 dB LAeq which he considered to be high due to the noise generated by the nearby State Highway 1 motorway. He set out the relevant construction noise limits in the AUP-OP, which are higher than operational noise limits and stated that piling activity would be the most audible noise effect. His evidence identifies dwellings in St Marys Bay as the closest receivers of any construction noise and he stated that a combination of distance and the high background noise levels would ensure that the AUP-OP construction noise levels would be met at all times.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 15 LUC No.: LUC60318164 58. Mr Fitzgerald advised that the proposed piling activity triggers assessment under the Rule F2.19.8(A114) of the AUP-OP with regard to adverse construction related noise effects on marine mammals and he relied on the evidence of Mr Simon West to identify bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, orca, leopard seals and NZ fur seals that often enter the Waitemata Harbour, with only fur seals and leopard seals ever being observed within the Westhaven Marina. As discussed in our site description, we observed at least one pod of three orca enter the Marina through the western entrance and swim around the existing area of pile moorings. The other pod of orca that we observed remained near the western entrance to the marina.
59. The most likely underwater construction noise effect identified by Mr Fitzgerald that may affect marine mammals was from pile driving. Mr Fitzgerald advised that he had relied on guidance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration relating to the assessment of effects on marine mammal hearing. From this guidance we were advised that Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) zones were identified and these extended up to 175m from the source of pile driving noise. Within these zones, Mr Fitzgerald identified the following procedure to manage the effects of underwater construction noise:
a) Underwater noise monitoring of the first occurrence of impact and vibratory piling methods to allow verification of the TTS zones;
b) Visual monitoring 30 minutes prior to commencing piling operations to ensure there are no marine mammals within the TTS zones;
c) Use of a wooden (preferable) or plastic dolly for impact driven piles, ‘soft starts’ (gradually increasing the piling intensity) and minimising duty cycle; and
d) Visual monitoring during piling and implement low power or shut down procedures if a marine mammal is identified within the TTS zones.
60. Mr Fitzgerald advised that there had been some disagreement with the Council peer review of the noise assessment (Mr Jon Styles) with regard to noise assessment methodology and he advised that they were now essentially resolved and Mr Styles was present to confirm that matters had been essentially resolved and that an agreed condition of consent for the management of underwater noise (Condition 46) would be provided prior to the close of the hearing. This revised condition was received and included in Mr Nolan’s closing legal submissions.
61. Mr Jim Dilley is the Harbourmaster for Environment Canterbury (currently on sabbatical leave) and was formerly the Deputy Harbourmaster for the Auckland Region. He provided expert evidence on navigation safety associated with the construction and operation of the proposed marina and reclamation, including the closing of the existing western entrance to the Marina.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 16 LUC No.: LUC60318164 62. Mr Dilly advised that the western entrance had existing navigation and safety issues associated with the prevailing cross-current experienced when exiting the marina and that this entrance was only suitable for experienced sailors. He stated that he supported its closure and replacement with the rock armoured reclamation. He added that the closure of the western entrance would assist with yacht racing activity by providing larger area for larger vessels to manoeuvre between the Harbour Bridge and the new (more eastward) location of the starter box. Mr Dilly conceded that the closure of the western entrance would increase vessel traffic to the eastern entrance but added that its configuration and wider width would easily accommodate the additional volume of vessel traffic expected.
63. Mr Dilley told us that the proposed rationalisation of the remaining pile moorings to the eastern end of the Marina would focus dinghy traffic across the main marina fairway to a single point rather than multiple mooring locations as experienced at present. He considered this to be a positive outcome that would reduce potential conflict between marina vessels using the fairway (generally east to west) and dinghy’s crossing their path in multiple northerly directions.
64. Overall, Mr Dilley concluded that potential adverse navigation and safety effects of the proposal would be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
65. Mr Stephen Brown provided expert landscape evidence focussing on the proposed reclamation and the activities proposed on it. He stated that the reclamation would occur within a part of the coastal environment that was already highly modified and that the works would be enclosed and visually framed by the existing marina together with the Harbour Bridge, motorway system, the Tank Farm and Port areas beyond that.
66. From a visual effects perspective, Mr Brown stated that he had assessed the proposal from a number of viewing points and concluded that most views would be visually absorbed by current marina development including existing berths, rock breakwaters and reclamation areas. He concluded that the reclamation would have a low degree of visual presence within the surrounding environment. He stated that the proposed public areas, directly facing the Waitemata Harbour, would visually screen the proposed carparking areas to be located on the southern flank of the proposed reclamation and would create a “park-like environment” and a significant area of public open space.
67. Overall, Mr Brown concluded that the reclamation would have a “very limited effect in relation to the landscape and natural character values of the Waitemata Harbour, and its margins.”1.
68. In response to questions from the commissioners regarding whether a bridge structure could deliver the same or similar level of public open space and planting, Mr Brown responded that such structures would not and the proposal may appear
1 Stephen Brown - Summary of Evidence statement paragraph 8
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 17 LUC No.: LUC60318164 less visually attractive as a result. Mr Brown also presented us with a number of previous design iterations for the public areas and Waka Headland concept to demonstrate the various design options and how they were considered and finally adopted in the final proposal. Mr Brown also stated that these drawings were used as part of the design consultation process with Mana Whenua.
69. Mr Simon West provided expert ecological evidence including a supplementary statement to his primary statement of evidence. He stated that the proposed reclamation would have permanent adverse effects on the existing biota on the seabed to be reclaimed but added that this biota did not have high ecological value and were common in the nearby environment and these would re-establish on the surrounding sea floor or the rocky exterior of the proposed rock armour. He stated that the removal of the western entrance would cause changes to the flushing regime and the distribution of biological communities within the marina. He stated that current flushing within the marina was “good” and that following the closure of the western entrance this would reduce to “fair”. While he conceded that this was a lower quality outcome, he opined that it still acceptable for a marina environment. He highlighted the proposed use of bio-filters and raingardens for stormwater runoff from the reclamation as a positive measure to reduce adverse water quality effects. Another positive outcome referred to by Mr West is the removal of a source of sedimentation, as reduced amounts of sediment from the harbour would enter the marina due to the closure of the western entrance.
70. Sediment sampling from the proposed dredging area for the reclamation showed elevated levels of contaminants were present but Mr West stated that dredging would not result in the release of these contaminants to unacceptable levels.
71. Mr West also gave evidence on the construction noise effects of pile driving and stated that the marine mammals to be affected were limited to leopard and New Zealand fur seals as they were the only mammals sighted in the marina. As discussed previously we observed orca in the marina during our site visit and consider that they should also be added to the range of mammals to be protected by underwater construction noise activities.
72. In terms of effects on these mammals, Mr West stated that within the 175m TTS zone they would experience discomfort from piling activity noise but that this would be of limited duration and he was satisfied the management regime proposed for underwater noise would be acceptable.
73. Mr Stephen Priestley provided expert evidence on civil engineering and coastal process aspects of the proposal. With regard to reclamation construction he stated that the use of mudcrete, sourced from other dredged areas in the locality was the preferred construction method and had successfully been used in several reclamation projects in the locality including Fergusson Container Wharf, Viaduct Harbour and Bayswater Marina.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 18 LUC No.: LUC60318164 74. He discussed the effect of the closure of the western entrance to the Marina and stated that it would be positive in terms of reducing sedimentation and the current wave climate in the Marina but would also reduce the flushing within the marina. Like Mr West he considered the reduction in flushing quality to still be “fair” for a marina environment and considered the proposed stormwater treatment facilities as part of the reclamation to be important devices to treat stormwater and to reduce contaminants entering the marina waters.
75. Mr Priestley discussed the options considered to provide access to the proposed marina berths and this included a bridge structure and a reclamation. He stated that a reclamation was cost-effective and resulted in a more tranquil marina environment (following the closure of the western entrance). He added that a bridge would still need vertical panels to close off the western entrance but he did not favour that method because it would result in increased and adverse wave reflection within the marina.
76. Mr Todd Langwell provided expert traffic evidence on the traffic related effects of the proposal including the provision of carparking on the proposed reclamation. He advised that existing marina contained some 1,586 parking spaces for a range of marina related carparking needs. The proposed reclamation would provide 103 additional carparking spaces and Mr Langwell advised that this would be sufficient to meet the demand from the 117 berths proposed. He advised that the number of spaces provided complied with the carparking requirement in the AUP-OP. He added that the existing vehicle access to the proposed reclamation was suitable and the additional traffic would be accommodated within the existing road network servicing it. In terms of construction related effects Mr Langwell stated that these effects would be adequately managed through a construction management plan which was proposed and included in the recommended conditions of consent.
77. In response to questions from the commissioners regarding the effect of Skypath on demand and availability of public parking spaces, Mr Langwell advised that users of Skypath may park at Westhaven but would most likely use the spaces located at the western end of Westhaven Marina and on the east side of the Bridge rather than at the car parking areas proposed.
78. Mr Vijay Lala provided planning evidence (including a supplementary statement) on the proposal. He summarised the evidence which has been provided in support of a reclamation rather than a bridge/wharf structure and these included:
a) A wharf/bridge structure would not have the same water calming effect of a reclamation;
b) The reclamation is a logical extension of the land to the west;
c) The reclamation provides coastal hazard mitigation against wave action from within the Waitemata Harbour;
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 19 LUC No.: LUC60318164 d) Reclamation allows the reuse of dredged material (including containment of contaminants) from AC36 related dredging; and
e) The reclamation allows the proposed landscape planting and stormwater treatment to be established.
79. Mr Lala took us through the relevant statutory provisions in the NZCPS, the RPS and the coastal provisions of the AUP-OP and stated that the proposed reclamation was consistent with the relevant provisions.
80. Mr Lala spent some time taking us through the proposed conditions of consent attached with his evidence which included comments and amendments in response to the hearing report and the evidence of the Mana Whenua in Opposition. He explained where he supported changes recommended by Mr Faithful – planner for Mana Whenua in Opposition and those changes sought by him which he opposed. He confirmed that the conditions were based on the AC36 conditions of consent and considered these to be applicable to the proposal.
81. Mr Lala also addressed the submission by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and acknowledged their assertion as being the “primary” Mana Whenua for the Auckland CBD Waterfront and confirmed that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei now supported the proposal.
82. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr Lala confirmed that the concept of a reclamation (including the closing of the western entrance) was foreshadowed in the Westhaven Plan and Waterfront Plan which had both been publicly notified for public consultation. While he acknowledged that these plans were non-statutory documents, he advised that they were a relevant matter to consider under section 104(1)(c) of the RMA.
Submitter Evidence
Mana Whenua in Opposition
83. Mr Aiden Warren provided legal submissions from a number of Mana Whenua iwi submitters who were opposed to the proposal. He referred to these groups as “Mana Whenua in Opposition” and he advised that they were made up of the following:
a) Ngai Tai ki Tamaki;
b) Ngati Maru
c) Ngati Tamaoho;
d) Ngati Tamatera:
e) Ngati Whanaunga
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 20 LUC No.: LUC60318164 f) Te Akitai; and
g) Te Patukirikiri
84. Mr Aiden Warren submitted that the extension of the breakwater and causeway would have a serious impact on the mauri of the Waitemata (Te Waitemata) caused largely through reclamation, dredging, loss of waahi tapu and the greater severance of the iwi from their taonga. He stated that:
The nub of the issue is that the Proposal has not adequately engaged cultural values and thus they have not been adequately recognised and provided for.2
85. Mr Aiden Warren referred to the layered customary interests that applied to the Waitemata Harbour and its adjoining lands and he advised that these we set out in detail in the Cultural Values Assessment that had been recently submitted by them. He referred to the writing of Dr Ward in the 1992 Supplementary Historical Report on Central Auckland Lands which discussed the complexity of Māori History in the settlement and occupation of Tamaki Makaurau (Auckland) and that it was difficult to discern which group retains independent identity and authority over the land. Mr Aiden Warren also referred to the Waitangi Tribunal Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Orākei Claim and the Tamaki Makaurau Settlement Process Report with regard to the difficulty of conferring exclusive Mana Whenua to any one group. He cited the following quote from the Waitangi Tribunal Tamaki Makaurau Settlement Process Report:
" ... When the Crown deals with one group in settlement negotiations, everything it does affects others who have interests in and connections to the area that is the subject of the negotiation. Often, the affected groups are kin to the settling group; always, they are neighbours. They all share history, interests in land, and whakapapa. In Tamaki Makaurau, which has been intensively occupied by successive groups for generations, the layers of interests are complex and intense."3
86. Mr Aiden Warren took us through a history of land sales and Treaty settlement claims in Auckland over the years and advised us that settlement claims involving the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours are still outstanding.
87. We were advised that the individual Mana Whenua submissions in opposition covered a wide range of matters associated with the proposal. However, Mr Aiden Warren stated that for the current purpose, the submissions at the hearing have focussed on “the failure of the applicant to assess the cultural effects as required and how this failure is fatal to the Application being proposed.”
2 Legal submissions of Aiden Warren Para 3 3 Legal submission of Mr Aiden Warren Para 12
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 21 LUC No.: LUC60318164 88. We were told that central to this submission is the assertion that there has been a failure to assess spiritual and cultural effects. We were advised that the Mana Whenua in Opposition opposed the proposed conditions of consent to provide for a forum through the PMRKEP to address cultural issues similar to those adopted for AC36.
89. Mr Aiden Warren submitted that the proposed conditions, being based on the AC36 decision were not applicable to this proposal for the following reasons:
a) AC36 was for a major international sporting event and the parties were motivated to not jeopardise the time line for delivering the necessary infrastructure; and
b) AC36 was for dredging within the CMA but did not include a reclamation, as is proposed for the current proposal.
90. It was submitted that the proposal was not consistent with the Mana Whenua provisions of the AUP-OP and that the application was deficient as a result.
91. Mr Aiden Warren discussed the Generic CVA that had been recently provided and submitted that the cultural effects of dredging and reclamation were significantly adverse and had not been avoided, remedied or mitigated. He referred to the proposed conditions of consent as set out in the hearing report and amended by the Mr Lala and submitted that did not go far enough to address their concerns. He added that if consent were to be granted, the amended conditions of consent included in the planning evidence of Mr Faithfull should be included, as a minimum.
92. Ms Karen Wilson gave evidence in support of the submission by Te Ākitai Waiohua. She advised that she was the representative for Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated Society on the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum. She outlined the cultural significance of the Waitemata Harbour to Te Ākitai Waioha and their association with it, including several coastal pa sites, over time. Ms Wilson stated that Te Ākitai Waioha took its role of kaitiaki of the Waitemata Harbour seriously and actively participates in development projects to facilitate sustainable development. She advised that Te Ākitai Waiohua are concerned that Panuku had failed to take into account their values and understand fully concepts such as mauri and that the Application will have a serious impact on Te Waitemata and their connection with this taonga. Of particular concern was the reclamation component and she considered that:
The transfer from the realm of Tangaroa (god of the sea) to Papatuanuku through human interference results in an unprecedented effect on the mauri and tapu associated with our moana (Te Waitemata) and our whenua.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 22 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Reclamation land is an intrusion into the natural order of our environments and has a wide spread effect.4
93. She stated that while opposed to dredging and reclamations, it was not an absolute position provided a number of matters were addressed including: meaningful and early engagement; acknowledgement and protection of their significant sites and protection of Treaty and customary interests in Te Waitemata; and possible ownership and governance of reclamations. Ms Wilson stated that she supported the conditions of consent attached to Mr Faithfull’s evidence.
94. Mr Luke Faithfull provided planning evidence in support of the Mana Whenua in Opposition. Mr Faithfull stated that the best approach to manage the impact of the project on Mana Whenua values was through a focussed set of conditions that addressed Mana Whenua issues. He advised that he generally supported the approach taken by the applicant to address Mana Whenua issues through conditions of consent as set out in the PMRKEP conditions but sought further refinement. Attached to Mr Faithfull’s evidence was a copy of his evidence for the AC36 hearing and the conditions that he recommended for that process and which he considered was applicable to this proposal.
Tabled Evidence
95. Mr Aiden Warren also tabled a number of written statements of evidence from other members of the Mana Whenua in Opposition which we have all read.
96. Mr David Williams of Te Patukirikiri iwi Trust provided evidence that supported the Generic CVA the other Mana Whenua in Opposition, the planning evidence of Mr Faithfull and the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren.
97. Mr Dennis Raniera Kirkwood is the chairperson of Ngāti Tamaoho Trust and his evidence provided support for the Generic CVA the other Mana Whenua in Opposition, the planning evidence of Mr Faithfull and the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren. He advised that Ngāti Tamaoho and Panuku have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in 2016 and stated that the processes within it had not been followed by Panuku.
He set out the cultural significance of Te Waitemata to Ngāti Tamaoho and their role as kaitiaki. Mr Kirkwood expressed similar concerns with regard to the cultural impact of dredging and reclamation as Ms Wilson but agreed the conditions set out in Mr Faithfull’s evidence should be imposed if consent were to be granted.
98. Mr John McEnteer tabled evidence on behalf of Ngāti Tamatera and he stated that he is also on the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum. His evidence stated that Ngāti Tamatera supported the Generic CVA, and the other Mana
4 Evidence of Karen Wilson paras 35 and 36
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 23 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Whenua in Opposition, the planning evidence of Mr Faithfull and the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren.
99. Mr Martin Te Moni tabled evidence on behalf of Ngaati Whanaunga. His evidence stated that Ngaati Whanaunga supported the Generic CVA and the other Mana Whenua in Opposition, the planning evidence of Mr Faithfull and the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren.
His evidence set out the Ngaati Whanaunga the cultural association and values as they relate to Te Waitemata, specifically Westhaven Marina and the surrounding area. He stated Ngaati Whnaunga strongly oppose further encroachment into the Waitematā Harbour. He was critical of the consultative relationship with Panuku.
100. Zaelene Rona Maxwell-Butler tabled evidence on behalf of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. Ms Maxwell-Butler’s evidence stated that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki supported the other Mana Whenua in Opposition, the planning evidence of Mr Faithfull and the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren.
The evidence set out the significance of Te Waitemata to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki which was described as a “seafaring people” accustomed to living by the sea. Ms Maxwell-Butler set out Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s association with Tāmaki Makaurau which was stated to be an uninterrupted ahi kaa based from their ancestral marae at Umupuia.
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki are opposed to reclamation and dredging on cultural grounds and set out that consent should only be granted if a number of matters were addressed including: meaningful and early engagement; acknowledgement and protection of their significant sites and of protection of Treaty and customary interests in Te Waitemata; and possible ownership and governance of reclamations. Ms Maxwell-Butler stated that she supported the conditions of consent attached to Mr Faithfull’s evidence.
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei
101. Mr Robert Enright presented legal submissions on behalf of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. Mr Enright submitted that the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei supports the proposal including, in a large part, the conditions set out by Panuku. He submitted that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei considered the proposed reclamation to be small in scale and one that did not encroach further into the Waitemata Harbour. Mr Enright added that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei did not consider it credible that consent be declined on the basis of opposition from Mana Whenua that was, in the most part, relying on a generic CVA.
102. The central matter to the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei submission was the issue of how to recognise and provide for competing claims by Mana Whenua groups, in terms of relationship with ancestral lands, waters and taonga. He stated that the
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 24 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Environment Court generally avoids findings on mandate and competing claims from Mana Whenua but submitted that such findings were made in the case of the MV Rena (Ngai Te Hapu v Bay of Plenty RC [2017] NZEnvC 73).
103. Mr Enright submitted that the position for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei was a “binary” one. That is:
Orakei is the primary mana whenua interest, and the 18 other iwi and hapu identified in proposed condition 10 are not. A consent regime that gives equal recognition to all 19 iwi "in no particular order'' does not reflect Orakei's values, matauranqa and tikanga; it is damaging to its s6(e) RMA relationships with its ancestral lands, waters and taonga. It will breach Treaty principles under s8 RMA. It is arguably inconsistent with RPS policies relating to recognition and participation by mana whenua.
He added that if all 19 iwi authorities have the same level of interest in the Waitemata Harbour, then no interest is special, unique or responds to historical factors. He submitted that such a position is “simplistic and untenable”.
104. Mr Enright turned to the conditions of consent and offered two possible options. The first option was to delete conditions 10-16 relating to the PMRKEP and replace them with a new Condition 10 with wording similar to that adopted by the Environment Court in the Kennedy Point Marina decision that would effectively place Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei into a lead role in setting the terms of Mana Whenua engagement with the consent holder. The second option was to insert a new Condition 10A into the proposed conditions submitted by Panuku that would recognise the primacy of Ngati Whatua Orakei and would confer an obligation for the consent holder to engage with Ngati Whatua Orakei over cultural markers for the project.
105. Dr Malcom Patterson is a director of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Wahi Maia Ltd and provided expert evidence on the ancestral and contemporary relationships within the Auckland CBD, Viaduct Harbour and Waitemata Harbour areas. Annexed to his evidence was a report setting out the history, settlement and occupation by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. Mr Paterson spoke to his report and detailed the historic and cultural association of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei with the Waitemata Harbour.
106. Dr Patterson’s evidence and report included descriptions of the earliest human inhabitants of Tamaki Makaurau, the spiritual and cultural importance of the landscape of Auckland to Ngai Whatua, the Maori Heritage locations along the Auckland Waterfront, the pattern of settlement and movement for resource use by Ngati Whatua in Tamaki in the early 1800s and the importance of the harbours and Tikapa Moana (wider Gulf) as waka routes and the establishment of fishing camps and associated gardens along the coastline.
107. Mr Ngarimu Blair is an elected representative and Deputy Chair of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust and he gave expert evidence on Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 25 LUC No.: LUC60318164 association and ahi kaa over the Auckland CBD and waterfront lands from 1740 to the present day. He explained that “ahi kaa” literally translated to “fires of occupation”. He told us that Ngāti Whātua Orākei is the iwi with “primary” Mana Whenua status for the Auckland CBD Waterfront area including Tāmaki Herenga Waka. He added that Ngāti Whātua Orākei acknowledges and respects also the Mana Whenua status of Ngāti Paoa as the Marutuahu iwi that holds their primary Mana Whenua status for the subject area. He also recognises the various Waiohua iwi, namely, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngati Te Ata, Te Akitai, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki and Waikato-Tainui to whom they are very closely related.
108. Mr Blair’s evidence then went on to describe Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s long-standing ancestral and contemporary relationships with the CBD, Viaduct Harbour, and Waitematā. In terms of s6(e) RMA, these included their ancestral lands, waters and taonga; and the exercise of kaitiakitanga (s7(a) RMA) and (in keeping with the relevant Treaty principles) he asserted that the Crown and Auckland Council (including Panuku) are responsible for active protection of their taonga.
109. He described the various headland Pa sites freshwater springs, fishing villages, waka landings and historic sites and events that are integral to the cultural identity and vitality of Ngāti Whātua Orākei and provided a map showing these locations prior to and following European occupation. Mr Blair also described on-going engagement with Auckland Council and Panuku in particular regarding the redevelopment of CBD Waterfront.
110. Mr Blair advised that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had taken a neutral position on the proposal provided the 19 pouwhenua were deleted from the project and one of the condition options, submitted by Mr Enright, were adopted for any consent granted.
111. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei also tabled the evidence of Prof. David Williams that was given to the AC36 hearing. That evidence supported the assertion that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei is the primary authority for Mana Whenua liaison relevant to that proposal.
Empire Capital Limited
112. Mr David Boerson is the Property and Development Manager for Empire Capital Limited which manages and operates Bayswater, Hobsonville and Pine Harbour marinas. His submission was in support of the Panuku proposal on the grounds that growth of marina berths was good for the marine industry and the recreational boating community. He acknowledged that Empire Capital was a “trade competitor” under the RMA but stated that the submission was in support and did not seek to raise any matters in relation to trade competition.
113. Mr Boerson’s main concern was with the provision of public access to marina berths. He advised that their marinas were operated without gates and had unrestricted public access to pontoons and berths during daylight hours. He
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 26 LUC No.: LUC60318164 stated that the proposed security gates to the Westhaven Marina berths should be removed so that the public can have the same level of public access that exists at the marinas operated by Empire Capital. He stated that he accepted that public access can be restricted for “genuine health and safety or security concerns” but did not believe that Panuku had demonstrated this need.
114. Mr Craig Shearer gave planning evidence on behalf of Empire Capital Limited. He supported the proposal and stated that the demand for marina berths exceeded supply based on research conducted in 2012 and that there was increasing demand for longer marina berths, such as those proposed by Panuku.
115. Mr Shearer stated that the public should not be excluded from the marina piers and he was sceptical that the 2012 occupation consent granted to Panuku, while granting a general right to occupy the CMA in terms of section 12(2) of the RMA, extended to the right to exclude the public from those structures. It was his opinion that the public should be allowed access to the marina piers. He referred us to Policy 19 of the NZCPS – Walking Access which recognises the expectation of public to have access to, along and adjacent to the coastal marine area and the need to main and enhance that access. Mr Shearer acknowledged that public access could be restricted where necessary to protect public health and safety. He also referred to similar provisions in the RPS (B8.4.1 and B84.2) and a specific policy in the Westhaven Marina precinct to support this opinion.
Council Officers
116. Council officers responded to the evidence presented. Mr Kinnoch stated that he agreed with the legal submissions of Mr Nolan and the planning evidence of Mr Lala with regard to the ability to restrict public access to the marina berths agreed with Mr Lala that the s12(2) occupation consent granted in 2012 included the occupation by the proposed structures and the ability to exercise a right of exclusion for public health and safety reasons.
117. Mr Kinnoch confirmed that a CVA has been undertaken by the Mana Whenua in Opposition group and stated that he agreed with the conditions of consent including those relating to the PMRKEP and as amended in Mr Lala’s evidence.
118. Mr Kinnoch defended the Council interpretation of the coastal provisions that would require a separate coastal permit for the a “hard protection structure” in addition to the reclamation. This interpretation was supported by the Council coastal specialists Ms Sharma and Ms Sivaguru. As set out the under reasons for consent we find that no separate resource consent is required as the proposed rock armour is an integral component of the reclamation.
Right of Reply
119. The applicant’s right of reply was given by Mr Nolan and addressed the following matters:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 27 LUC No.: LUC60318164 a) The submissions and evidence of Mana Whenua in opposition;
b) The amended conditions of consent and in particular those relating to the PMRKEP;
c) Cultural effects and consultation undertaken as part of the proposal;
d) The CEV undertaken by the Mana Whenua in Opposition; and
e) The submissions and evidence of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and in particular that relating to primary Mana Whenua status and the PMRKEP conditions.
120. Mr Nolan also specifically addressed the query from the commissioners as to whether the policies for reclamation in the General Coastal Marine zone were applicable to the Coastal Marina zone. Mr Nolan submitted that they were not on the basis that the Marina zone specifically provided for reclamation as a discretionary activity and had supporting objectives and policies relating to that activity.
Principal issues in contention
121. The entire proposal was in contention as the applicant sought consent for reclamation, dredging and associated discharges. While some of those submitters opposing the application sought that the entire proposal be refused consent, other submitters set out that if consent were to be granted then conditions needed to be imposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate, the adverse effects of the proposal.
122. In our view, those submitters seeking that consent be refused, being primarily the Mana Whenua Opposition, the issue of primary concern to them related to the adverse cultural effects of the proposal on the mauri of the Te Waitemata and the extent of cultural engagement to address those effects with all iwi that have Mana Whenua.
123. That said, we are required to make findings on all matters raised in submissions and not just those in direct contention at the hearing. In this decision we have naturally focused more on those matters that were contentious at the hearing as opposed to those matters where there was agreement between the applicant and the Council officers and no evidence to the contrary. We have nevertheless addressed them and made a finding. Our finding on those less contentious matters are as follows.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 28 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Main findings on the principal issues in contention
Matters not Contested at the Hearing
Reclamation vs Bridge Structure
124. The reclamation construction process was addressed principally in the Civil Engineering and Infrastructure Report included in Attachment G to the AEE and through the expert evidence of Mr Priestley. His evidence addressed the effects of construction including the associated dredging, formation of the reclamation using mudcrete and associated discharges to the CMA.
125. Mr Priestley discussed the options considered to provide for the proposed marina berths given that there was a general aversion to reclamation in the first stance. He stated that a bridge type or wharf structure had also been considered as the only other viable method. He advised that closing the western entrance with a reclamation was a positive outcome in terms of wave climate as it would reduce wave wash around the proposed berths. In response to our questions on this matter, Mr Priestley stated that reflection from sloping rock armour would be in the order of 50% less than a perpendicular wall structure. He added that even if a bridge structure was used it would likely require a solid deflection wall facing the Waitemata Harbour to control wave action. The effect of that structure, being at right angles to the wave action, would in Mr Priestley’s view, create and adverse wave deflection effect within the marina, including the main marina fairway.
126. Mr Priestley advised that he favoured a reclamation option on the basis that the proposed sloping rock armour would better absorb wave action within the marina. He added that it allowed the use of marine sediment dredged as part of approved AC36 consent in the Viaduct Basin nearby to be used to create mudcrete (a mix of dewatered marine sediment and concrete) to create the reclamation. He advised that use of this material had the advantage of binding the contaminants in the mudcrete material thereby rendering it inert within the coastal environment. He stated that this was preferred to marine disposal or land based disposal.
127. This aspect of the proposal was reviewed by the Council coastal processes specialist Ms Sharma in the hearing report, where she accepted that the reclamation would be within a coastal environment with an existing modified natural character and that it would be an extension to an existing reclamation with similar scale and form. She also accepted that the closing of the western entrance would reduce the wave climate within the marina.
Finding
128. We find that a reclamation is preferred to a bridge or wharf structure for the reasons set out by Mr Priestley. In particular, the reclamation would result in a calmer wave climate within the marina and would efficiently utilise dredged
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 29 LUC No.: LUC60318164 material from nearby areas associated with AC36 in a manner that minimises any further contamination within the coastal environment.
Tidal Flows and Marina Flushing
129. The closure of the western entrance to the marina was also addressed in the evidence of Mr Priestley. He advised that closing the western entrance would improve the wave climate within the marina and that sedimentation would also reduce within the marina as a result of closing the western entrance as it removed this pathway for sediments to enter the marina. These conclusions were also supported by Ms Sharma.
130. The closing of the western entrance would, however reduce the rate of flushing through the marina as tidal flows would be restricted to the eastern entrance only. Mr Priestley adopted the “e-folding” method for assessing tidal flushing and concluded that flushing wold reduce from a “good” level to a “fair” level. He opined that a fair level of flushing was still acceptable in this Westhaven marina environment.
131. Ms Sharma agrees with Mr Priestley and advised that reduced flushing may result in additional maintenance dredging being required in some areas but she also acknowledges that maintenance dredging is already consented and appropriate within the marina environment.
Finding
132. We find that the effects on the coastal processes associated with the proposed reclamation will be acceptably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The Landscape and Visual Effects of the Reclamation
133. The landscape and visual effects of the proposal were assessed by Mr Brown in the Landcape, Visual and Urban Amenity Assessment in Appendix B to the AEE and in his evidence and summary statement. Mr Brown advised that he had been involved throughout the design process including engagement with Mana Whenua (which we address later in this decision).
134. Mr Brown advised that the landscape setting was one that was modified by urban development including the Auckland Harbour Bridge, St Marys Bay the Northern Motorway and the wider Port areas. He stated that landscape values were not high in the locality and the corresponding effects on landscape values or the natural character of the coastal environment would not be adverse.
135. In terms of visual amenity Mr Brown stated that the public access and viewing platform component would be positive factors in terms of amenity values including landscape and visual effects from identified viewing points, effects on landscape character and effects on visual amenity and that this would offer favourable views to the public of the waterfront, the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the CBD.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 30 LUC No.: LUC60318164 136. Mr Brown has assessed the proposal from three public viewpoints comprising the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Northern Motorway, the edge of St Marys Bay and the present-day terminus of the northern breakwater. The visual effects summary and conclusion was that these effects were all of “very low” or “none” nature.
137. The Council review was undertaken by Ms Bridgit Gilbert an independent landscape architect. She advised that the assessment by Mr Brown had adopted an assessment methodology that was in accordance with best practice and she concurred with his findings.
Finding
138. We find that the landscape and visual effects of the proposal, including effects on the natural character of the coastal environment have been acceptably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The Ecological Effects of the Proposal
139. The ecological effects of the proposal were assessed by Mr West and was included in Attachment F of the AEE and in his primary and supplementary evidence. Mr West addressed the effects of dredging on the existing benthic community and concluded that these biotas were not of high value and that they would quickly recover once the construction works were complete, including colonisation of the rock armour of the reclamation.
140. Mr West’s evidence assessed the ecological effects resulting from reduced tidal flushing and like Mr Priestley he advised that a reduction from “good” flushing to “fair” was acceptable.
141. Mr West assessed the ecological effects of construction activity on marine mammals and in particular the underwater noise effects of pile driving. He stated that the only mammals observed in the marina were NZ fur seals and leopard seals. He adopted the noise conditions proposed by the applicant’s noise consultant and agreed by the Council noise specialist. As stated earlier in this decision, we observed several orca within the marina and the area to be piled during our site visit but we are satisfied that the conditions adopted by Mr West would be acceptable for all marine mammals. While the evidence of Mr West addresses only NZ fur seals and leopard seals as being present in the marina, we are satisfied that the agreed wording of conditions from both noise experts go beyond this and are acceptable for managing the underwater noise effects on all marine mammals.
142. In the Council peer review, there was some discrepancy between Mr West and the Council coastal ecologist Ms Sivaguru regarding the adequacy of sediment testing relating to the seabed under the proposed reclamation and that led to further testing by the applicant of those sediments and Mr West stated in his
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 31 LUC No.: LUC60318164 supplementary statement of evidence that his findings were not changed. This conclusion was also supported by Ms Sivaguru.
Finding
143. We find the adverse effects of the proposal on marine ecology have been assessed by the applicant and confirmed by the Council marine ecology specialist and that these effects have been acceptably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The Traffic Effects of the Proposal
144. The traffic effects of the proposal were assessed by Mr Langwell and included in Attachment C of the AEE and his statement of evidence. Mr Langwell addressed the effects of traffic generation from the users of new berths, access and manoeuvring within the new car parking area and from construction activity. He concluded that the proposal fitted well into the existing traffic environment and would adequately provide parking for the additional berths proposed. In terms of construction traffic, he stated that a standard construction management plan, offered as condition of consent, would address any of these related effects.
145. We note that the adequacy of car parking spaces provided was raised in the submissions and this was addressed by the applicant in the AEE and evidence with support from parking demand surveys undertaken as part of their traffic impact assessment.
146. The traffic assessment was peer reviewed by Ms Chloe Swart - traffic specialist for the Council who adopted Mr Langwell’s conclusions including the adequacy of car parking provided and the need for a construction management plan as a condition of consent.
Finding
147. We find that the traffic related effects of the proposal have been appropriately considered by the applicant and that these effects, subject to agreed conditions regarding construction traffic management, have been acceptably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The Navigation and Safety Effects of the Proposal
148. A Navigation and safety assessment was provided by Mr Jim Dilley and was included in Attachment D to the AEE. He presented evidence that addressed the closure of the eastern entrance to the marina which he supported on the basis that it was a difficult entrance to use due to the 0.4 knot tidal flow experienced there. He stated that the eastern entrance would easily cater for the increased number of vessels associated with both the closure of the eastern entrance and the increase in marina berths.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 32 LUC No.: LUC60318164 149. Mr Dilley advised that the reduction in pile moorings would also include a rationalisation of dinghy lockers which would reduce the direction and volume of cross-fairway traffic potentially conflicting with larger vessels using the marina fairway. Mr Dilley concluded that the proposal would result in access, berthing and manoeuvring areas that were consistent with international standards. The conclusions of Mr Dilley have been adopted by the Council Harbour Master.
Finding
150. We find that the navigation and safety matters have been adequately addressed by the applicant and adopted by the Council in its assessment. These effects, including the closing the western entrance to the marina, the increased vessel traffic from the proposed marina berths and the rationalisation of the remaining pile moorings have all been acceptably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The Noise Effects of the Proposal
151. The noise assessment for the applicant was undertaken by Mr Ben Lawrence from Marshall Day and this assessment was included in Chapter H of the AEE. Evidence was submitted and presented by Mr Craig Fitzgerald, who is also from Marshall Day and he adopted his assessment and conclusions. Mr Fitzgerald assessed both the operational and construction effects of the proposal including land-based and marina noise effects. The land-based noise effects were not contested and supported by the Council noise expert Mr Styles who also attended the hearing. There was some degree of disagreement as to the methodology adopted for assessing underwater noise effects. However, at the hearing we were able to question both experts and they agreed on the wording for a condition to manage the underwater noise effects on marine mammals. While the Marshall Day assessment identified only two species of seal ever being seen in the marina, we are satisfied that with the agreed wording from both noise experts this condition will also be suitable for all marine mammals including orca which we observed during our site visit.
Finding
152. We find that the land-based and marine effects of construction and operational noise associated with the proposal will be avoided, remedied or mitigated subject to agreed conditions of consent, particularly relating to the effect of underwater construction noise on marine mammals.
The loss of affordable moorings
153. A submitter (Andrew Petty) raised an issue regarding the loss of affordable pile moorings and we asked questions of Mr Tom Warren and Mr Marler on this matter. This was also specifically addressed in Mr Tom Warren’s evidence. His uncontested evidence was that existing pile moorings were under-utilised but a
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 33 LUC No.: LUC60318164 limited number (to meet expected demand) would still be provided within the marina at the eastern end of the existing breakwater.
Finding
154. We find that the proposed reduction in pile moorings in Westhaven Marina is an appropriate response to demand for fully serviced marina berths while also providing an adequate supply of more affordable pile moorings to meet expected demand for that type of berthage.
Matters Contested at the Hearing
155. Following the hearing of evidence and a site visit, we have identified the following matters to still be in contention:
• The Status of Mana Whenua;
• Cultural effects; and
• Public Access to the CMA.
The Status of Mana Whenua
156. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei assert that they have primary Mana Whenua status with regard to the CDB waterfront area including Westhaven Marina. In his legal submissions, Mr Enright stated their position as:
For Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, the position is binary: Orakei is the primary mana whenua interest, and the 18 other iwi and hapu identified in proposed condition 10 are not. A consent regime that gives equal recognition to all 19 iwi "in no particular order'' does not reflect Orakei's values, matauranqa and tikanga; it is damaging to its s6(e) RMA relationships with its ancestral lands, waters and taonga. It will breach Treaty principles under s8 RMA. It is arguably inconsistent with RPS policies relating to recognition and participation by mana whenua.5
Mr Blair reinforced that position in his evidence where he set out how Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had maintained ahi kaa (“fires of occupation”) over the CBD waterfront since 1740 to this day.
157. Mr Enright further submitted that with 19 iwi authorities with Mana Whenua in Auckland it was important to recognise “layers of interest” between Mana Whenua and he stated:
If all 19 iwi authorities have the same level of interest in the Waitemata, then no interest is special, unique or responds to historical factors. That position is simplistic and untenable. Moreover, it does not reflect the "layers of interest''
5 Legal submissions of Robert Enright para 4
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 34 LUC No.: LUC60318164 paradigm identified by the 8 iwi submitters opposing the proposal. "Layers of interest'' implies greater and lesser levels of cultural association with the Waitemata. It is not a "numbers game", qualitative factors are key.6
158. Mr Enright identified “markers” to be taken account of in establishing primacy and referred to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s evidence which specifically included conquest, occupation, whakapapa, ancestral traditions and associations, mana and recognitions by the Waitangi Tribunal and Crown settlement. He contrasted this with the Mana Whenua in Opposition which, in his submission, rely on:
largely generic statements of association, a generic CVA, and bare assertions unable to be tested.7
159. Mr Enright advised that it was Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s assertion of primary status that promoted the request to remove the 19 pouwhenua from the proposal. Mr Enright also submitted that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s position was not exclusive and that other iwi that claim a legitimate historical connection to the application area should be included in the process under manaakitanga. He added that the consent conditions that he had presented would address this matter as either option could give appropriate recognition to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s primary position to reflect tikanga and cultural values.
160. In terms of our responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi by virtue of section 8 of the RMA, Mr Enright submitted that Treaty principles are not fixed and that Council as consent authority had a duty to identify the “correct” Treaty partner being the one that hold primary Mana Whenua relationship and ahi kaa over the subject area.
161. The Mana Whenua in Opposition, through the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren, the generic CVA and the tabled evidence by representatives from each iwi group, do not concede any Mana Whenua status and assert equal status between all iwi with Mana Whenua. Mr Aiden Warren in his submissions, while stating that the 19 pouwhenua were not a “panacea” for their concerns on adverse cultural effects, expressed concern that the 19 pouwhenua were nevertheless removed without consultation with them as iwi groups with Mana Whenua.
162. We acknowledge that this is a significant issue for all iwi with Mana Whenua attending this hearing. We are also cognisant of our duties under the Treaty of Waitangi as set out in the RMA, to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and how this is iterated throughout the relevant planning provisions of the NZCPS, RPS and RCP provisions. In terms of the RMA provisions, we are aware of the role of Māori in decision making under Part 2 being Sections 6(e), 6(f) and 6(g) of the RMA, which require recognition of “the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu,
6 Legal submissions of Robert Enright para 5 7 Legal submissions of Robert Enright para 6
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 35 LUC No.: LUC60318164 and other taonga”, “the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development” and “the protection of protected customary rights”. These all need to be recognised and provided for. The RMA definition of “Historic heritage” includes sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi tapu. We also acknowledge that section 7(a) of the RMA requires that particular regard be given to kaitiakitanga and that section 8 of the RMA requires that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are taken into account.
163. The AUP-OP recognises Mana Whenua and it is defined as:
The people of the land who have mana or customary authority; their historical, cultural and genealogical heritage are attached to the land and sea.
164. Chapter B6 of the RPS relates to Mana Whenua and it recognises Mana Whenua participation in resource management decision-making and the integration of mātauranga Māori and tikanga into resource management are of paramount importance to ensure a sustainable future for Mana Whenua and for Auckland as a whole8. This chapter includes objectives and policies to recognise Treaty of Waitangi partnerships and participation, the recognition of Mana Whenua values, Maori economic and social development and the protection of Mana Whenua cultural heritage. The explanation section (Section B6.6) recognises the role of Mana Whenua in the resource management process and states:
In the policies relating to Mana Whenua values, the Unitary Plan seeks to ensure that resource management processes in Auckland are informed by Mana Whenua perspectives, including their values, mātauranga and tikanga. Mana Whenua perspectives need to be considered early within resource management processes, accorded status in decision-making and have an opportunity to influence outcomes.9
165. The objectives and policies that relate specifically to this role are set out in section B6.3. We consider these objectives to be particularly salient and they are:
(1) Mana Whenua values, mātauranga and tikanga are properly reflected and accorded sufficient weight in resource management decision-making.
(2) The mauri of, and the relationship of Mana Whenua with, natural and physical resources including freshwater, geothermal resources, land, air and coastal resources are enhanced overall.
(3) The relationship of Mana Whenua and their customs and traditions with natural and physical resources that have been scheduled in the Unitary
8 Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part: Regional Policy Statement - Chapter B6 – B6.1 Issues 9 Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part: Regional Policy Statement - Chapter B6 – B6.6 Explanation and principal reasons for adoption.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 36 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Plan in relation to natural heritage, natural resources or historic heritage values is recognised and provided for.
166. We are aware that the Council recognises 19 iwi authorities in the Auckland Region who have Mana Whenua Status. We understand that most, if not all of these iwi assert Mana Whenua in relation to the area occupied by the Westhaven Marina, being the CBD waterfront area. However, the AUP-OP while recognising the Mana Whenua of these groups does not offer any guidance as to which group, if any, has primacy over any area within the Auckland Region. It is our conclusion therefore that while the AUP-OP places importance on obtaining the perspectives of Mana Whenua, there is nothing in the RMA, or in the AUP-OP, requiring that a particular group be afforded priority status. Furthermore, it is our view that neither the RMA nor the AUP-OP requires a consent authority to determine whether a particular group has priority or primacy over another. Further, we consider that is not appropriate for this hearing panel to endeavour to make this determination. Moreover, we consider this determination is best made by iwi themselves. In taking this position, we recognise that the situation in Auckland is complex by virtue of overlapping and multifaceted relationships between iwi groups over centuries of occupation. This complex interrelationship was demonstrated in the various histories presented to us in the CVA, and the expert evidence from each iwi group.
167. That said, we acknowledge the position of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and their specific assertion of ahi kaa in the CBD Waterfront area. We have no doubt that they have demonstrated ahi kaa in this regard through an enduring association with this land and coastal values and resources. However, as stated above we do not see it as our role to establish primacy of any one Mana Whenua group. We do however, consider this to be a matter for any forum established as part of the PMRKEP to consider and agree upon. Therefore, we consider that the final conditions of consent for a PMRKEP forum include reference to the issue to determining primacy of any Mana Whenua Group as part of its function.
168. We have considered the two resource consent options offered by Mr Enright for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei but consider that these go too far given the neutral status adopted by the Council in the AUP-OP and its recognition of multiple, overlapping and interrelated Mana Whenua groups with regard establishing primary Mana Whenua status.
Finding
169. We find that the Council recognises 19 iwi groups with Mana Whenua status within the Auckland region with most, if not all of these groups asserting Mana Whenua in relation to the CBD waterfront area. We are satisfied that all iwi groups represented at the hearing have Mana Whenua status and their views are all valid and must be considered when considering cultural effects. We find that any determination regarding whether any one Mana Whenua group has primacy to be best determined by the Mana Whenua groups themselves and as such we have
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 37 LUC No.: LUC60318164 amended the PMRKEP condition (Condition 12) to add this as a matter to be considered by that forum. We make the following change to proposed Condition 12 to address Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s concerns regarding primacy:
12. The purpose of the PMRKEP is to assist mana whenua to express tikanga, fulfil their role as kaitiaki, and establish the engagement process before, during and after the completion of construction activities for implementation throughout the project. It shall be formulated through:
a. Providing the framework for a collaborative approach between the consent holder and mana whenua including the recognition of primary mana whenua status of any iwi group with the site and surrounding CBD and Waterfront locality, to address the matters which impact cultural values / interest, before, during and after the completion of the construction activities; and
b. Identifying how the consent holder and the Forum will ensure that effective relationships are provided for throughout the pile mooring redevelopment works.
Cultural effects
170. The submissions by the Mana Whenua in Opposition were all concerned with a lack of cultural engagement and recognition of cultural effects associated with the proposal. As set out in the summary of evidence, the Mana Whenua represent seven iwi with Mana Whenua in Auckland. We received tabled evidence from representatives of each iwi, all of which raise the concern over the cultural effects of dredging and reclamation at the site. Mr Aiden Warren also submitted a revised set of conditions prepared by Mr Faithfull and Mr Faithfull also tabled the evidence submitted by him, for the same parties, at the hearing for the AC36 application.
Adequacy of consultation
171. We received conflicting evidence on the matter of consultation with Mana Whenua. From the legal submissions of Mr Aiden Warren and the evidence tabled by the witnesses it was submitted that consultation was not adequate and not undertaken at an appropriate time. On that basis they contend that a proper assessment of effects on Mana Whenua values has not been undertaken.
172. The Mana Whenua in Opposition submitted a Generic CVA which was circulated immediately prior to the hearing and that assessment set out five recommendations in relation to the proposal to address adverse cultural effects. These recommendations are as follows:
1. Affirm that reclamation is not a starting point and that amenity value does not take priority over cultural values or the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 38 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Decline to grant resource consents for the Pile Mooring Proposal.
2. Provide for Mana Whenua to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga by ensuring Mana Whenua are afforded the opportunity to participate in the Pile Mooring Proposal during all phases.
Participation is inclusive of opportunities to be included in decision-making, monitoring and management of Te Waitematā;
3. To reaffirm Mana Whenua culture by providing opportunities to recognise and provide for tangible reflection of cultural values as a key element of development and management, including:
a) Using traditional Mana Whenua names where appropriate;
b) Using indigenous plant species as appropriate;
c) Using designs that reflect the cultural perspectives, ideas and materials of Mana Whenua;
d) Ensuring appropriate protocols are followed throughout the lifetime of the project;
e) Implementation of accidental discovery protocols;
f) Using Mana Whenua designed and inspired artwork
4. To pursue capacity and capability building for Mana Whenua by ensuring that Mana Whenua are able to maintain and enhance the mauri of Te Waitematā.
5. Ensure culturally appropriate management and monitoring mechanisms are in place to minimise the adverse effects on the mauri of Te Waitematā and the areas of tapū and cultural practices within Te Waitematā.
173. In his legal submission and reply submissions Mr Nolan recognised the concerns of Mana Whenua in Opposition but refuted that consultation had been inadequate. He submitted that consultation had been occurring over a three year period including with the Mana Whenua in Opposition iwi groups. He submitted that because agreement had not been reached it did not mean that consultation had not been adequate10.
174. Mr Lala’s planning evidence included a background summary in which he stated that consultation with iwi commenced in October 2015. Mr Lala goes on to state that from February 2017 discussions focussed on reaching agreement with several iwi on the proposed development. He advised in his evidence that the
10 Applicant closing Legal submissions Para 7
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 39 LUC No.: LUC60318164 discussions are continuing and that Panuku had proffered the same conditions of consent (with amendments) as those agreed to by iwi in the America’s Cup application Conditions of consent for the Forum.11 Mr Nolan and Lala also referred us to section 7.5 of the AEE which listed the consultation meetings and their outcomes involving seven consultation events between October 2015 and February 2017. These consultation events were also referred to in Mr Tom Warren’s evidence.
175. Mr Nolan also pointed to the role of Mr Brown in the process, which he submitted included iterative engagement with Mana Whenua on the design and layout of the proposed public spaces and to this extent Mr Brown presented with his summary statement a set of preliminary plans and drawings to show the evolution of this design process. Mr Nolan also pointed to Mr Tom Warren’s involvement in the consultation process including a boat trip arranged with mana Whenua to see how the mudcrete process works in practice.
176. We put the question of consultation to Mr Aiden Warren following his legal submissions and he advised that consultation had occurred at a “design” level but not at a “governance” level and therefore was still considered to be inadequate. Mr Aiden Warren submitted that the conditions of consent needed to address governance and partnership related issues as these were central to the duties of the applicant under the Treaty of Waitangi.
177. Having considered the evidence regarding consultation, we are aware that Auckland Council and Panuku, specifically have duties under the Treaty of Waitangi and that this forms part of the overall partnership and engagement agreements between the Council and Panuku as a Council Controlled Organisation. We generally agree with Mr Aiden Warren that those responsibilities need to occur at a higher governance level as well as a detailed design level when dealing with a specific development project. However, having considered the evidence we are satisfied that Panuku has engaged with all Mana Whenua on the resource management aspects of the proposal including detailed meetings concerning the design, engineering, water quality effects and other physical and construction related matters associated with the project. In terms of enabling Mana Whenua the ability to assess the actual and potential effects of the proposal on the receiving environment and the ability to participate in the design and layout of a significant public open space component of the project, we are satisfied that consultation has been adequate. That said, we acknowledge that Mana Whenua in Opposition still have ongoing concerns and that agreement has not been reached with them, including at the governance level. We also consider that the PMRKEP process still allows these matters to be pursued by Mana Whenua.
11 Planning Summary and Supplementary Statement of Mr Lala – para 2.2
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 40 LUC No.: LUC60318164 178. The question of whether consultation has been adequate at a governance level is, in our view, relevant to the overall partnership with Mana Whenua but not one that we consider to be particularly pertinent at the resource consent level. In that vein, we are satisfied that adequate consultation has occurred to identify the actual and potential effects of the proposal and that Panuku has actively sought the participation of Mana Whenua in that process, including significant design and construction related aspects.
179. We also acknowledge that notwithstanding their opposition to reclamation and dredging on cultural grounds, Mana Whenua in Opposition have indicated that they were willing to accept the grant of consent subject to the conditions that they support. We turn to that matter now.
Conditions of Consent
180. The conditions of consent at issue relate to Conditions numbered 10-16 in the recommended conditions set out in the hearing report. Mr Lala referred to the changes sought by Mr Faithfull in his summary/supplementary evidence and he supported the suggested changes to Conditions 10, 10(a), 10(c), the proposed working days component of Condition 11, Condition13(b), 13(d), and 13(f). It appears to us that main areas of disagreement from Panuku via Mr Lala’s evidence relate to the extent of Mana Whenua involvement in the PMRKEP with Panuku concerned that there is too much uncertainty enabled in the amendments sought and Mana Whenua in Opposition seeking more engagement in a reclamation process that they otherwise opposed to on cultural grounds.
181. We have grappled with these issues and we are mindful that the conditions of consent need to be appropriate under sections 108 and 108AA of the RMA and are for a resource management purpose and need to be sufficiently certain to reasonably enable the consent holder to give effect to its consent. We have concerns that a number of changes sought by Mana Whenua in opposition create uncertainties or a degree of involvement that may frustrate the implementation of the consent. In particular, we consider the changes sought in Condition 14(b)(i) while well-intentioned, creates too much uncertainty as to what effect needs to be managed. We are also concerned with the suggested changes to 14(b)(v) which would impose a duty to minimise the area of reclamation already given consent to. On a similar vein we have issues with the suggested changes to new Condition 14(h) involving disputes process and agree with Mr Lala that the extent of the role sought by Mana Whenua in Opposition appears to us to go beyond the role of engagement in a management plan. Finally, we also agree with Mr Lala that the Forum’s engagement plan obligation be limited to the completion of works. That said we also acknowledge that through Condition 12 the purpose of the PMRKEP is “to assist mana whenua to express tikanga, fulfil their role as kaitiaki, and establish the engagement process before, during and after the completion of construction activities for implementation throughout the project”. In that regard
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 41 LUC No.: LUC60318164 any ongoing commitment following the works to engage with Mana Whenua is captured through that condition.
Finding
182. We find that, for the purposes of this resource consent application and the level and scope of consultation and engagement that is needed to address cultural effects at the resource consent level, the applicant has adequately addressed these. The conditions of consent offered (including those further amendments made during the course of the hearing) provide a sufficiently clear and robust process of engagement to ensure that Mana Whenua can express tikanga and fulfil their role as kaitiaki.
Public Access to the CMA
183. The submission and evidence of Empire Capital Limited relate to the issue of public access to the CMA and whether it is appropriate for Panuku to restrict public access to the marina pontoons and berths for security reasons. In that light Mr Boersen advised that the marinas he manages for Empire Capital Limited (being Bayswater, Hobsonville, and Pine Harbour marinas) to do not restrict access in the manner currently practiced and proposed at Westhaven Marina.
184. In his evidence, Mr Shearer acknowledged that Panuku has a coastal permit to occupy the CMA pursuant to section 12(2) of the RMA that encompasses the proposed marina berth location, but queries whether it provides exclusive occupation. In paragraph 16 of his evidence Mr Shearer states:
It is not clear if the 2012 consent provided for “exclusive” occupation across all of the Marina. In other words, although I accept section 12(2) occupation approval is not needed to build the new structures, does this approval extend to excluding members of the public from the pontoons? Even if it did, can such exclusivity now be applied to the new piers set out in the proposal, considering they did not exist at the time of granting the occupation consent?
185. In response to this evidence Mr Nolan stated that Panuku proposes to secure public access through the registration of a conservation covenant under section 77 of the reserves Act 1977 rather than vesting the new reclamation as an esplanade reserve. He advised that this is the method used to provide public access on other reclaimed areas in Westhaven and in the Viaduct Basin. The evidence of Mr Tom Warren refers to recommended Condition 52 which assumes that an esplanade reserve be vested and requests that a conservation covenant consistent with the other marina areas be imposed. We understand that Mr Kinnoch for the Council was not opposed to this.
186. Mr Lala specifically addressed Mr Shearer’s evidence and he referred to the conditions of consent regarding exclusive occupation and in particular Condition 5(i) of that consent which states:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 42 LUC No.: LUC60318164 The public shall have reasonable right to access to all water space area in the occupation area, However:
(i) The consent holder may restrict public access to marina structures within the CMA where it is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of this consent and for safety and security reasons.12
187. At the close of the hearing Mr Nolan provided us with a copy of the existing conservation covenant dated 24 July 1997 including plans of where public access is provided. This approach would be replicated for the proposed reclamation.
Finding
188. We agree with Mr Lala and Mr Tom Warren that the public access provided at Westhaven is extensive and that this has been significantly enhanced in recent years by Panuku since the 2012 occupation consent was granted. We also agree that the public access component of this application is significant and sufficiently meet its obligations under section 6(d) of the RMA and Policy 19 of the NZCPS. We also agree with the evidence of Mr Tom Warren that access to the marina berths warrants security restrictions for safety and security reasons at Westhaven and that this limited restriction is in accordance with the 2012 occupation consent and the provisions of the existing conservation covenant. Accordingly, we find that the level of public access proposed is adequate and acceptable.
Decision
189. In exercising our delegation under sections 34 and 34A of the RMA and having regard to the foregoing matters, sections 104, 104B, 105, 107, 108, 108AA and Part 2 of the RMA, we determine that resource consent for an integrated resource consent application by Panuku Development Auckland to extend the north- western breakwater and causeway (via land reclamation) at Westhaven Marina to connect to the north-eastern breakwater to create public open space, a car park area for public and private use, and access to new marina berths, including some which will replace existing pile mooring at 31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central is GRANTED for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out below.
Reasons for the decision
1. Under s104(1)(a) of the RMA, any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities proposed in these applications are found to be suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated, subject to the imposition of appropriate consent conditions;
2. Under s104(1)(b) of the RMA, the proposal is generally consistent with the provisions contained in the following statutory documents:
12 Summary and Supplementary statement of evidence of Vijay Lala – paragraph 3.3
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 43 LUC No.: LUC60318164 a) National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS);
b) New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS);
c) Sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA), which are treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement; and
d) Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part, including the regional policy statement component, regional coastal plan, district and regional plan and any relevant provisions of Proposed Plan changes 14-17 to the Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part;
3. Under s104(1)(c) of the RMA, the proposal is consistent with the strategic direction contained within the following relevant non-statutory documents: Waterfront Plan, The Westhaven Plan, and the Auckland Plan 2050;
4. Under s105(1) of the RMA, the adverse effects from the discharges proposed in association with stormwater management, land disturbance, dredging, and reclamation are suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated, having regard to the scale of potential effects, and the sensitivity of the receiving environment;
5. Under s105(2) of the RMA, no esplanade reserve or esplanade strip in relation to the new reclamation is necessary as acceptable provision of public access to and along is provided by way of a conservation covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977;
6. Under s107 of the RMA, the proposed discharges will either not generate any of the effects listed under s107(1), or will meet at least one of the circumstances under s107(2) and not be inconsistent with the purpose of the Act; and
7. In terms of Part 2 of the RMA, there is no uncertainty or inconsistency between the statutory documents referred to above that are relevant to making a decision on these applications. Each lower order document invariably gives effect to the higher order document before it. Granting consent to these applications will give effect to the purpose of the RMA.
CONDITIONS
Under sections 108 and 108AA, these resource consents are subject to the following conditions:
Development in accordance with application reports and plans
1. The resource consents shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed below, and all referenced by the council as consent numbers LUC60318164, CST60318167, DIS60318164 and DIS60320011.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 44 LUC No.: LUC60318164 • Application Form, and Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Vijay Lala, dated April 2018. AEE is taken to include Attachment K (New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Assessment).
Report title and reference Author Rev Dated
Westhaven: North-Eastern Brown NZ 06/09/17 Causeway Extension: Assessment of Visual, Landscape & Urban Amenity Effects
Proposed Pile Berth Development - TPC F 09/05/18 Traffic Impact Assessment
Westhaven Marina Proposed Pile Capt. Jim Dilley Undated Berth Redevelopment Navigation Safety Report
Addendum to Westhaven Marina Capt. Jim Dilley Undated Proposed Pile Berth Redevelopment Navigation Safety Report
Westhaven Pile Berth Bioresearches 2 04/04/18 Redevelopment - Marine Ecological Assessment
Marina Berth Supply & Demand Panuku 04/04/18 Trends
Westhaven: Pile Berth Beca 4 30/04/18 Redevelopment - Civil Engineering & Infrastructure Report
Contaminated Soils Management Beca 1 07/05/18 Plan - Westhaven Marina Project
Westhaven Marina Extension - Marshall Day 22/12/17 Acoustic Assessment, Rp 001 20170963
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 45 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Plan title and reference Author Rev Dated
Northern Breakwater and Access Beca A 26/06/18 Channel: Capital Dredging - Drawing No 3232840-CA-201
Northern Mudcrete Breakwater Beca A 21/08/17 Proposed Layout - Resource Consent Plan 001
Proposed Plan And Long Section - Beca A 21/08/17 Resource Consent Plan 002
Proposed Cross Sections - Beca A 21/08/17 Resource Consent Plan 006
Proposed Promenade Options - Beca A 21/08/17 Resource Consent Plan 007
Proposed Landscaping Plan - Beca A 21/08/17 Resource Consent Plan 008
Proposed Pile Berth Layout - Beca A 21/08/17 Resource Consent Plan 009
Other additional information Author Rev Dated
Westhaven Marina Stage 1 Brown NZ July 2018 Concepts 1 through 3
Westhaven Marina Stage 1 Cross- Brown NZ March Section 2016
Westhaven Marina Stage 1 Brown NZ July 2018 Elevation
Proposed Westhaven Extension: Brown NZ & Undated Attachment 1 - 3D Images of Buildmedia Extension, Visual (Viewpoint) Simulations
Proposed Auckland Waterfront Buildmedia 24/07/16 Walkway Visual Simulation Methodology
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 46 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Other additional information Author Rev Dated
Sediment Sampling Locations - Panuku Undated Westhaven Marina - Pile Berth Redevelopment Project
Email evidence of MACA Vijay Lala 11/04/18 consultation
Email regarding emergency Vijay Lala 13/06/18 management during coastal inundation event
Pedestrian Circulation Plan for Brown NZ Undated Conservation Covenant
Lapse/Duration
2. Under section 125 of the RMA, these consents lapse ten years after the date they are granted unless:
a) The consents are given effect to; or
b) The council extends the period after which the consents lapse.
3. The permit to discharge contaminants from soil disturbance on the existing reclamation under DIS60320011 shall expire on (20 December 2028) unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
4. The permit to divert and discharge stormwater under DIS60318164 shall expire on (20 December 2053) unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
5. The permits to undertake incidental discharges into the coastal marine area from dredging and reclamation activities under CST60318167 shall expire on (20 December 2028) unless they have lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
6. The permit to undertake capital dredging activities within the coastal marine area under CST60318167 shall expire on (20 December 2028) unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
7. The permits to construct, occupy and use the observation area within the coastal marine area under CST60318167 shall expire on (20 December 2053) unless they have lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.
Advice Note:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 47 LUC No.: LUC60318164 For the avoidance of doubt, the duration of consent for the approved reclamation is unlimited unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.
Monitoring
8. The consent holder shall pay the council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $10,000 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to these consents.
Advice note:
The initial monitoring deposit is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc., all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consents. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, monitoring of conditions, in excess of those covered by the deposit, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will the council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent holder.
Access to project area
9. The servants or agents of the Council shall have access to all relevant parts of the project area at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.
Mana Whenua Engagement
10. No later than 10 working days following Commencement of Consent, the consent holder shall invite the Mana Whenua listed below in ‘c.’ below to establish a Forum to:
a. Assist the consent holder in the preparation of a Pile Mooring Redevelopment Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (PMRKEP) (Conditions 11-16) consistent with relevant customary practices and in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), especially the principles of consultation, active protection, participation and partnership; and
b. Fulfil the obligations set out in the PMRKEP on behalf of Mana Whenua.
c. In no particular order:
• Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 48 LUC No.: LUC60318164 • Ngāti Maru
• Ngāti Tamaoho
• Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua
• Ngaati Whanaunga
• Ngāti Tamaterā
• Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei
• Te Ākitai Waiohua
• Te Patukirikiri
• Te Kawerau ā Maki
• Ngāti Pāoa
• Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara
• Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua
• Ngāti Wai
• Ngāti Manuhiri
• Ngāti Rehua Ngāti Wai ki Aotea
• Te Uri o Hau
• Te Ahiwaru Waiohua
• Waikato-Tainui
The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the resourcing of the Forum to meet all its fair and reasonable costs associated with any work streams required for the Forum to fulfil its role in respect of this condition.
Advice Note:
It is acknowledged that Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi underpins the relationship between Mana Whenua and the Crown. Inherent in this are (amongst other things) the principles of partnership, reciprocity, active protection and equity. Importantly, the principle of partnership is endorsed by the concept of good faith. Those principles are acknowledged in the Local Government Act 2002.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 49 LUC No.: LUC60318164 The consent holder acknowledges that the Waitematā is of extremely high spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical importance to Mana Whenua
The consent holder records its commitment to implementing this condition in good faith, and to using the services of an independent mediator, as necessary. Conditions 10 through 16 have been offered by the consent holder to ensure that mana whenua are able to meaningfully engage with this project and its outcomes.
11. The consent holder shall prepare a Pile Mooring Redevelopment Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (PMRKEP) for the project with the assistance of the Forum. Within 20 working days of the Commencement of Consent or prior, the consent holder shall provide a copy of the PMRKEP to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).
12. The purpose of the PMRKEP is to assist Mana Whenua to express tikanga, fulfil their role as kaitiaki, and establish the engagement process before, during and after the completion of construction activities for implementation throughout the project. It shall be formulated through:
a. Providing the framework for a collaborative approach between the consent holder and Mana Whenua, including the primary Mana Whenua status of any iwi group with the site and the surrounding CBD and Waterfront locality, to address the matters which impact cultural values / interest, before, during and after the completion of the construction activities; and
b. Identifying how the consent holder and the Forum will ensure that effective relationships are provided for throughout the pile mooring redevelopment works.
13. The objectives of the PMRKEP are to:
a. Acknowledge the cultural and spiritual importance of the Waitemata and its surrounds to Mana Whenua;
b. Acknowledge Mana Whenua as kaitiaki, and to assist Mana Whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki;
c. Recognise the importance of engagement and identification of key Mana Whenua values, areas of interest and matters concern in relation to the project;
d. Provide Mana Whenua with an opportunity to be actively involved with the formulation and implementation of the PMRKEP;
e. Enable Mana Whenua to identify cultural values and interests for the project; and
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 50 LUC No.: LUC60318164 f. Facilitate engagement between the consent holder and Mana Whenua in relation to the activities authorised by this consent.
14. As a minimum, the PMRKEP shall include details of the following matters:
a. How Mana Whenua who have historic associations with the project area and its surrounding waters have been involved in the formulation of the PMRKEP and are to be involved in its implementation;
b. The process for involvement of Mana Whenua in the preparation and implementation of the engineering design, construction management, and operational plans as they relate to:
i. Managing water quality during the construction of the reclamation and future operation of the reclamation;
ii. Managing underwater noise effects during construction so as to protect marine animals;
iii. Protecting the waters of the area from biosecurity risks;
iv. Sealing of contaminated material within the proposed mudcrete reclamation;
v. Providing cultural markers within the reclamation area to recognise the historic associations of Mana Whenua with the area, reflect Te Aranga Design Principles and the significance of the land and seascapes of Waitematā to Mana Whenua; and
vi. Enabling use of the landscaped open space area on the reclamation for cultural activities.
c. In giving effect to this condition, involvement by Mana Whenua in preparation and implementation of any management plans required for these consents.
d. Accidental discovery protocols;
e. Procedures for the cultural induction of construction workers and any other staff;
f. Timing, frequency, location and methods of cultural monitoring procedures and protocols during construction activities to demonstrate achievement of the objective(s) for the PMRKEP;
g. Ongoing Mana Whenua engagement procedures following the completion of construction; and
h. The process by which amendments can be made to the PMRKEP.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 51 LUC No.: LUC60318164 15. The consent holder shall operate in accordance with the PMRKEP.
16. The role of the Forum in terms of these consents shall continue until construction works are completed.
Review condition
17. Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, the conditions of these consents may be reviewed by the Council (at the consent holder's cost):
a. At any time during the construction period in relation to activities and structures that are subject to the provisions in sections 13 and 15 of the RMA and where the best practicable option may be necessary to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the environment;
b. Within 6 months from the date the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) is notified of completion of the final stage of construction work, and thereafter annually for 5 years, and thereafter at 5 yearly intervals, to deal with any adverse effect(s) on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent, or which may be identified following:
i. The granting of a customary marine title or protected customary right or the vesting of ownership over any part of the common marine and coastal area encompassing the project area; and/or
ii. The outcome of any Treaty negotiations involving the Waitematā Harbour.
Management Plan Certification Process
18. Conditions 19 to 25 shall apply to all management plans required by conditions of these consents.
19. Management plans shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification in writing. Management plans shall be submitted at least 20 working days prior to any commencement of construction works unless otherwise specified in the condition(s). The consent holder shall ensure that any changes to draft management plans are clearly identified.
20. Any preliminary works, which do not need resource consent / are permitted activities can be undertaken prior to any management plan(s) being certified.
21. Management plans may be submitted in parts or in stages to address particular activities or to reflect a staged implementation of the consents, and when provided in part or for a stage shall be submitted at least 20 working days prior to any commencement of construction works of that part of stage unless otherwise specified in the condition(s). Management plans submitted shall clearly show the linkage with plans for adjacent stages and interrelated activities.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 52 LUC No.: LUC60318164 22. Should the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) refuse to certify a management plan, or a part or stage of a management plan, in accordance with Condition 19 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised management plan for certification as soon as practicable. The certification process shall follow the same procedures as outlined in Condition 19 above.
23. Any certified management plan may be amended if necessary to reflect any minor changes in design, construction methods or management of effects. Any amendments are to be discussed with and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for confirmation in writing prior to implementation of the change, unless the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) determines at their discretion that those amendments once implemented would result in a materially different outcome to that described in the original plan.
24. Any changes to a certified management plan involving a materially different outcome under Condition 23 shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) to certify that they comply with the applicable requirements of these conditions. Any material change must be consistent with the purpose of the relevant management plan and the requirements of the relevant conditions of these consents. Where a management plan was prepared in consultation with third parties, any material changes shall be prepared in consultation with those same parties.
25. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified management plans. No works shall commence until written certification of a management plan has been received, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).
Design and Landscaping
26. Prior to construction commencing, the consent holder shall submit detailed design drawings (accompanied by an engineering design report) of the reclamation and pile berth layout (including public space landscaping including maintenance, carpark finishing, infrastructure, reclamation design, public amenity features, conservation covenant location and extent (as identified on the pedestrian circulation plan for conservation covenant included in condition 1) and information signage) to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification. The drawings and report provide the specifications of the proposed works and shall be in general accordance with the documents specified in Condition 1. The consent holder shall implement the landscape design in the first planting season following the completion of construction and thereafter retain and maintain this landscape (planting, pavement and street furniture) in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).
27. The final landscape plans for the reclamation (required by Condition 26) shall include landscape design drawings, specifications and maintenance requirements including the following:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 53 LUC No.: LUC60318164 a. An annotated earthworks plan(s) which identify the proposed location and scale of all areas of mounding including that proposed for sea level rise and storm surges;
b. An annotated planting plan(s) which communicate the proposed location and extent of all areas of planting;
c. Annotated cross-sections and/or design details with key dimensions to illustrate that adequate widths and subsoil/topsoil depths are provided for tree pits / garden beds/mounded areas;
d. A plant schedule based on the submitted planting plan(s) which details specific plant species, plant sourcing, the number of plants, height and/or grade (litre) / Pb size at time of planting, and estimated height / canopy spread at maturity;
e. Details of draft specification documentation for any specific drainage, soil preparation, mounding, tree pits, staking, irrigation and mulching requirements;
f. An annotated pavement plan and related specifications, detailing proposed site levels and the materiality and colour of all proposed hard surfacing (including decking);
g. An annotated street furniture plan and related specifications which confirm the location and type of all seats, bins, lights, cycle parks, balustrading, walls, signage and other structural/sculptural landscape design elements; and
h. A landscape maintenance plan (report) and related drawings and specifications for all aspects of the finalised landscape design, including in relation to the following requirements:
i. Irrigation
ii. Weed and pest control
iii. Plant replacement
iv. Inspection timeframes
v. Contractor responsibilities
Advice note:
It is recommended that the consent holder consider a five-year management / maintenance programme for plant establishment and provide, in particular, details of maintenance methodology and frequency, allowance for fertilising, weed removal / spraying, replacement of plants, including specimen trees in
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 54 LUC No.: LUC60318164 case plants are severely damaged / die over the first five years of the planting being established and watering to maintain soil moisture.
Chart Datum for Reclamation
28. The proposed reclamation shall achieve a chart datum level of CD 4.7 over the carpark and manoeuvring areas and a CD of 5.1 over the northern landscaped area. Any stormwater filtration devices and public amenity features shall be designed to take into account future potential inundation, lateral loading and scour from coastal processes.
Relocated starters box
29. The relocated starters box, if reconstructed in any way, shall have a maximum height of no more than 8m, shall have a maximum floor area of no greater than 50m2 (with a maximum total cumulative floor area of 300m2 within the Westhaven – Tamaki Herenga Waka Precinct). The starters box shall be physically located entirely outside of the coastal marine area, as is depicted on the drawing titled ‘Proposed Landscaping Plan’, prepared by Beca, dated 21 August 2017.
Advice Note:
This condition is imposed due to the applicant not yet having prepared any detailed plans for the relocation of the existing starters box to the north-west corner of the new reclamation. The current starters box is located on land outside of the coastal marine area. The parameters in this condition align with AUP standard I213.6.1.7.
Contaminated Soil Management Plan
30. The consent holder shall implement the management measures set out in the Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP) listed in Condition 1 when undertaking any soil disturbance on existing reclaimed land as part of the proposed works.
All soils and excavated materials should be treated as potentially contaminated. With the exception of engineered base course material, all soils and subsurface materials to be excavated are to be disposed of off-site, with the exception of cement stabilised material (devoid of gross contamination as defined in CSMP) and which can be placed back to where it was excavated (within 20m) and be located below a pavement hardstand or 0.5m of clean imported materials.
Stormwater Systems and Treatment Devices
31. The following stormwater management works shall be constructed for the following catchment areas and design requirements, and shall be completed prior to discharges commencing:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 55 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Catchment Works Design requirement(s)
5,250m2 including all Biofiltration devices – Auckland Council’s areas trafficable by either raingarden(s) Bioretention: Technical vehicles and/or treepits Design Guide (2015)
32. At least 20 working days prior to construction of the proposed stormwater systems and treatment devices, the consent holder shall submit a design report to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification, including detailed engineering drawings, specifications, and calculations for the stormwater treatment devices. The details subject to certification are limited to:
a. Confirmation that the design achieves the requirements of Condition 31;
b. Contributing catchment size and boundaries and impervious percentage;
c. Specific design and location of stormwater treatment devices; and
d. Supporting calculations for stormwater treatment devices.
33. A pre-construction meeting shall be held by the consent holder, prior to commencement of the construction of any stormwater devices, that:
a. Is arranged five working days prior to initiation of the construction of any stormwater devices;
b. Is located at the subject works area;
c. Includes representation from the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring); and
d. Includes representation from the site stormwater engineer and contractors who will undertake the works and any other relevant parties.
The following information shall be made available prior to, or at the pre-construction meeting:
a. Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;
b. Contact details of the site contractor and site stormwater engineer; and
c. Design plans certified (signed/stamped) in accordance with Condition 31.
34. A post-construction meeting shall be held by the consent holder, within 20 working days of completion of the stormwater management works, that:
a. Is located on the subject area;
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 56 LUC No.: LUC60318164 b. Includes representation from the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring); and
c. Includes representation from the site stormwater engineer and contractors who have undertaken the works and any other relevant parties.
Advice Note:
To arrange the pre-construction or post-construction meeting required by this consent, please contact the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring Central on phone 09 3010101.
35. An Operation and Maintenance Management Plan (OMMP) shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification 5 days prior to the post-construction meeting required by Condition 34. The OMMP shall set out how the stormwater management system is to be operated and maintained to ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimised. The plan shall include:
a. Details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure which will support this process;
b. A monitoring programme to determine maintenance frequency;
c. A programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;
d. A programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;
e. A programme for post storm inspection and maintenance;
f. A programme for inspection and maintenance of the outfalls;
g. General inspection checklists for all aspects of the stormwater management system, including visual checks
The OMMP shall be updated and submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification, upon request.
36. The consent holder shall supply as-built drawings for the stormwater systems and treatment devices to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) no later than 30 working days after the practical completion of the project, or of any project stage which is subject to separate practical completion.
The as-built drawings shall be signed off by a registered engineer engaged by the consent holder, and shall include:
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 57 LUC No.: LUC60318164 a. The as-built locations of stormwater reticulation, treatment devices and outfalls expressed in terms of the New Zealand Transverse Mercator Projection and Chart Datum to the nearest 0.1 m for location and 0.01m for level;
b. Stormwater treatment device details including dimensions, design capacity, treatment efficiencies, inlet/outlet levels and discharge rates;
c. Photographs at all stormwater outfall locations; and
d. Documentation of any discrepancies between the approved design plans under Condition 31 and the as-built drawings.
37. Details of all inspections and maintenance for the stormwater management system, for the preceding three years, shall be retained by the consent holder.
38. A maintenance report shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) on request. This maintenance report shall include the following information:
a. Details of who is responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure supporting this process;
b. Details of any maintenance undertaken; and
c. Details of any inspections completed.
General Coastal Conditions
39. The Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) shall be notified at least 10 working days prior to any activities commencing within the coastal marine area.
40. The coastal marine structures authorised by these consents shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition for the duration of the consent.
Construction Management Plan
41. Prior to the commencement of any works within the coastal marine area, the consent holder shall prepare a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and submit this to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.
The purpose of the CMP is to ensure that all works are undertaken in a manner which avoids, remedies or mitigates potential adverse effects during construction works. The construction management plan shall specify, but not necessarily be limited to the following matters:
a. Construction timetable
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 58 LUC No.: LUC60318164 b. Construction methodology, including:
i. details of any temporary structures in the CMA
ii. methods to remedy any disturbance resulting from works.
iii. nature of reclamation fill material if material is not from the dredging consented by this permit.
c. Site management, including details of:
i. site access, including methods to clearly identify and delineate all entry and exit points to and from the CMA.
ii. bunding or containment of fuels and lubricants to prevent the discharge of contaminants.
iii. method to manage the effects of vehicle movement within the CMA.
iv. maintenance of machinery and plant to minimise the potential for leakage of fuel or lubricants.
v. a spill contingency plan in the event that there is any discharge of contaminants to the common marine and coastal area.
vi. methods to ensure compliance with noise standards, including underwater noise and vibration management.
vii. restrictions and methods necessary to maintain public health and safety, including means for restricting and notifying the public of any restrictions on public access to and along the coastal marine area.
viii. management of public access to and along the coastal marine area while the activities are being carried out.
ix. methods to minimise disturbance of the foreshore and/or seabed, including minimising siltation and discoloration.
d. Site reinstatement upon completion of activities.
Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA
42. Prior to the commencement of any dredging activities, the consent holder shall prepare a Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA (MPDPM) and submit this to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.
The MPDPM shall give effect to the objectives in Condition 43 and shall comply with the requirements in Condition 44.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 59 LUC No.: LUC60318164 43. The objectives of the MPDPM are to:
a. Ensure that appropriate environmental practices are utilised;
b. Identify roles and responsibilities for preparation and implementation of the MPDPM;
c. Ensure that adequate vessel draft depths are achieved; and
d. Ensure access to and from Westhaven Marina is maintained for vessels at all times as far as practicable.
44. The MPDPM shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following matters:
a. Details of the equipment and methods to be used for dredging and mixing and placement of mudcrete in the CMA;
b. Details for the construction of the proposed reclamation;
c. Details of the locations, depths, quantities and timing of dredging to achieve water depths for vessels using the water space and placement of mudcrete in the CMA;
d. Details of the physical (textural and geological) and chemical (bulk chemistry and leaching potential) characteristics of the dredged material if these are different from the application material;
e. Monitoring and reporting;
f. Contingency measures to be implemented; and
g. Roles and responsibilities of the personnel involved.
Water quality monitoring
45. Prior to the commencement of any dredging or reclamation activities, the consent holder shall prepare an Environmental Monitoring Programme (EMP). This EMP shall be submitted to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification.
The purpose of the EMP is to manage the monitoring of water quality during dredging and placement of mudcrete in the CMA. The EMP shall specify, but not necessarily be limited to the following matters:
a. Trigger levels for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and pH;
b. Sampling locations and timing of sampling in relation to tidal currents;
c. Sampling methodology;
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 60 LUC No.: LUC60318164 d. Duration of monitoring programme and timing; and
e. Analysis and reporting.
Underwater noise
46. The consent holder shall adopt the best practicable option to manage underwater noise effects on marine mammals and divers. This shall include:
a. Preparing a recalculation of Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) zones once piling commences, in accordance with the Marshall Day Acoustics first supplementary letter (Lt 002 20170963, dated 19 July 2018). This is so these zones can be accurately determined for the type of piles and rig being used. This recalculation shall be provided to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for certification;
b. Undertaking visual monitoring 30 mins prior to commencing piling operations to ensure there are no marine mammals and divers in the TTS zones;
c. Using a wooden or plastic dolly for driving in the steel piles;
d. Using ‘soft starts’ (gradually increasing the intensity of impact piling) and minimise duty cycle;
e. Undertaking visual monitoring during piling operations to identify whether marine mammals and divers are in the TTS zones; and
f. Implementing low power or shut down procedures when a marine mammal/diver is identified within the TTS zones.
Post-development
47. The consent holder shall, within one week following the completion of the works, remove all machinery and materials from the coastal marine area, to the satisfaction of the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring).
48. The Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) shall be notified, in writing, of the expected date of the completion of any activities authorised under these consents, 10 working days prior to the expected completion date. If activities will be completed in stages, notification shall be provided accordingly.
49. Within 20 working days of the completion of any stage of construction works (excluding dredging), the consent holder shall supply the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) with a complete set of ‘as built’ plans. The ‘as built’ plans shall include a location plan, a plan which shows the area of occupation, structures and reclamation dimensions, and a typical cross-section.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 61 LUC No.: LUC60318164 50. Within 20 working days of the completion of any stage of construction works (excluding dredging), the consent holder shall supply a copy of the ‘as built’ plans to the New Zealand Hydrographic Authority (Land Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington 6011 or [email protected]).
51. The consent holder shall provide to the LINZ Hydrographic Office a hydrographic survey of the dredged areas within three months of dredging being completed.
52. As soon as reasonably practicable following the completion of the reclamation, the consent holder shall submit a plan(s) of survey in respect of the area(s) that has been reclaimed to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) for approval. The survey plan(s) shall be prepared in accordance with regulations made under the Cadastral Survey Act 2002 relating to survey plans within the meaning of that enactment, and shall show and define:
a. the area(s) reclaimed, including its location and the position of all new boundaries; and
b. the location and size of the portion of the area(s) which are required to be set aside for public access as conservation covenant areas under section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977 as identified on the pedestrian circulation plan for conservation covenant included in condition 1.
53. Within twenty (20) working days of the receipt of the approved Deposited Plan, the consent holder shall provide a copy of it to the New Zealand Hydrographic Authority (Land Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington 6011 or [email protected]).
54. The structural integrity of the reclamation shall be maintained for as long as it remains in existence. In the event that the structural integrity of the reclamation is compromised, it shall be immediately rectified.
55. Information signage shall be installed on the reclamation to warn visitors to the area as to the potential tsunami hazards in this location. These signs shall be clear and easily identifiable by visitors and occupants and shall identify locations where people in the vicinity should evacuate to in order to be safe.
Advice Note:
Nothing in this condition waives the responsibility of the consent holder to comply with the requirements of the Auckland Council Signage Bylaw, should they apply to this signage.
Exclusivity of occupation
56. The consent holder may restrict public access to marina structures within the common marine and coastal area where it is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of this consent and for safety and security reasons.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 62 LUC No.: LUC60318164 Advice notes
1. Any reference to number of days within this decision refers to working days as defined in s2 of the RMA.
2. For the purpose of compliance with the conditions of consent, “the council” refers to the council’s monitoring inspector unless otherwise specified. Please contact Team Leader Central Monitoring at [email protected] to identify your allocated officer.
3. For more information on the resource consent process with Auckland Council see the council’s website www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. General information on resource consents, including making an application to vary or cancel consent conditions can be found on the Ministry for the Environment’s website: www.mfe.govt.nz.
4. If you disagree with the additional charges relating to the processing of the application, you have a right of objection pursuant to sections 357B of the RMA. Any objection must be made in writing to the council within 15 working days of notification of the additional charges.
5. The consent holder is responsible for obtaining all other necessary consents, permits, and licences, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004.
6. The consent holder must as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the approved reclamation submit to council for its approval a plan of survey in respect of the land that has been reclaimed, in accordance with s245(1) of the RMA. The consent holder shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the plan of survey is deposited under the Land Transfer Act 1952 or with the Registrar-General of Land as soon as reasonably practicable after the date the plan of survey is approved by council in accordance with s246 of the RMA.
7. The consent holder must ensure that they comply with the requirements of AUP standards F2.21.1, F2.21.1.2 and F2.21.1.3. These standards require adherence to the following:
a. Structures and works must not cause a hazard to safe navigation;
b. Any excess building material, spoil, construction equipment or litter must be removed from the coastal marine area within 24 hours of completion of any works;
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 63 LUC No.: LUC60318164 c. Written advice must be given to the Council (Team Leader Central Monitoring) at least 10 working days prior to any work starting unless otherwise specified in any consent condition;
d. Any lighting proposed on piers and gangways associated with the new marina berths must not exceed the levels specified in AUP Chapter E24 Lighting. In addition, any lighting must:
i. not produce an illuminance exceeding 150 lux measured horizontally or vertically at the exterior of any building adjacent to the coastal marine area;
ii. be sited, directed and screened to minimise, as far as practicable, annoyance or nuisance to adjacent properties;
iii. be sited, directed and screened to avoid, as far as practicable, creating a navigation safety hazard; and
e. Any activity involving the storage or handling of hazardous substances must comply with E31 Hazardous substances.
8. The consent holder shall ensure that they comply with the requirements of AUP standard F2.21.1.4. Accidental Discovery Rule as proposed to be inserted by Proposed Plan Change 15 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).
9. The consent holder shall ensure that any drilling or piling associated with the installation of the new observation area and marina berths within the CMA is undertaken in compliance with AUP standard F2.21.5.3. Any non- compliance with this standard is a non-complying activity and will require a separate resource consent.
10. The consent holder shall ensure that any temporary coastal marine area structures or buildings associated with the proposed reclamation and construction works are in place for no longer than 40 working days, only occupy the minimum area necessary for their purpose, and that they maintain safe navigation access. This is a requirement of AUP standard F2.21.10.4, associated with permitted temporary coastal marine area structures or buildings under rule F3.4.3.
11. If any new navigational aids are proposed, or the alteration or extension of any existing, the consent holder must ensure that they provide written advice to the work being undertaken to the Harbourmaster, and the National Topo/Hydro Authority at Land Information New Zealand at least five working days prior to the work starting. This is a requirement of AUP standard F2.21.10.5.
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 64 LUC No.: LUC60318164 12. It is recommended that the consent holder consider installing speed bumps at intervals through the new car parking area, as a speed calming mechanism.
13. The consent holder is reminded that lighting must be installed within the new car park and along associated pedestrian routes in order to comply with AUP standard E27.6.3.7.
Robert Scott - Chairperson
On behalf of Commissioners Basil Morrison, Heike Lutz, Dr Wayne Donovan and Shona Myers
19 December 2018
31 Westhaven Drive, Auckland Central 65 LUC No.: LUC60318164