Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991
Proposal A Resource Consent application by Fletcher Residential Limited to undertake a two lot subdivision to subdivide land to create one residential lot and a road to vest, with associated land use consent for earthworks and construction works to facilitate a connection between the Waiata Shores development and Conifer Grove at 3 Te Napi Drive and the northern end of Brylee Drive, Conifer Grove.
These GRANTED. The reasons are set out below.
Application number: BUN60316780 Site address: 3 Te Napi Drive and the northern end of Brylee Drive, Conifer Grove Applicant: Fletcher Residential Limited Hearing commenced: Wednesday 11 September 2019, 9.30am Hearing panel: Robert Scott (Chairperson) Pamela Peters Michael Parsonson Appearances: For the Applicant: Sue Simons, Legal Tamsin Gorman, Legal Steven Evans, Fletchers Residential Vaughan Crang, Engineering Matthew Noonan, Air Quality Jon Styles, Acoustic Donald McKenzie, Traffic Angela Crang, Planning
For the Submitters: • Auckland Transport represented by: - Margaret McCullough, Legal - Trevor Mackie, Planning - Michael Jongeneel, Traffic - Kelly Seekup, Planning Woolworths New Zealand Limited Philip Brown, Planning Lisa Blake - 52 Walter Stevens Drive, Conifer Grove Daniel Newman - 4 Glen Eagles Road, Wattle Downs Matthew Caldwell – 63 Brylee Drive, Conifer Grove Paul McSweeny - 38 Perotti Place, Conifer Grove
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 1 BUN60316780 Robert Rose - 7 Chippewa Place, Conifer Grove Josie Faber - 40 Brylee Drive, Conifer Grove Kevin Everitt - 20 Aristoy close, Conifer Grove Papakura Local Board - Brent Catchpole, Chairperson
For Council: Natalie Bedggood, Principal Specialist Planner Neil Mumby, Reporting Planner Andrew Temperley, Traffic Engineer Lindsay Leitch, Noise Consultant Tanisha Hazelwood, Hearings Advisor Hearing adjourned Wednesday 11 September 2019 Commissioners’ site visit Thursday 5 September 2019 Hearing Closed: 30 September 2019
INTRODUCTION
1. This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (“the Council”) by Independent Hearing Commissioners Robert Scott, Pamela Peters and Michael Parsonson, 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 application for resource consent and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA.
3. The applications were publicly notified on 23 August 2018. A total of 514 submissions were received, with 16 in support and 497 in opposition. One submission was received late after the close of the submission period.
4. In reaching our decision we have considered:
• The application, its AEE (prepared by Ms Angela Crang) and all its supporting documents and plans, including amended material provided at the hearing;
• The Council planner’s (Mr Neil Mumby) section 42A hearing report (Hearing Report), with supporting reports attached to his s.42A report;
• The pre-circulated expert Evidence in Chief from the applicant;
• The pre-circulated expert evidence from Woolworths New Zealand Limited;
• The verbal and written submissions and correspondence from the submitters;
• The applicant’s Counsel’s legal submissions from Ms Sue Simons;
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 2 BUN60316780 • The applicant’s evidence provided at the hearing by Steven Evans, Vaughan Crang, Matthew Noonan, Jon Styles, Donald McKenzie and Angela Crang;
• The evidence of Auckland Transport provided by Mr Mackie, Mr Jongeneel and the legal submissions by Ms McCullough;
• The evidence of Mr Philip Brown;
• The written submissions from Lisa Blake, Daniel Newman, Matthew Caldwell, Paul Sweeney, Robert Rose, Josie Faber, and Kevin Everitt;
• The presentation by Mr Brent Catchpole for the Papakura Local Board;
• The responses to our questions from the parties during the hearing process;
• The Applicant’s right of reply;
• Relevant sections of the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part (Unitary Plan); and
• The matters we identified during our site visits prior to and following the hearing of evidence.
Summary of proposal and activity status
5. The proposal, consent history and the required resource consents are set out in detail within Section 3 of Mr Mumby’s hearing report. The proposal comprises three components which are described in the hearing report as:
a. Subdivision creating one vacant lot for future residential purposes (Lot 4);
b. One lot to be vested as road for the purposes of a road connection (Lot 820)
c. Works to facilitate the formation of a road within Lot 820 and also within the Northern end of Brylee Drive.
6. The proposed residential lot would be 475m² in area and would have a finished floor level that is 500m above an identified 1% AEP floodplain. The lot comprising the road to vest would have an area of 628m² and would facilitate a road connection that will join Gosper Drive in the newly establish residential subdivision at Waiata Shores with Brylee Drive in the established suburb of Conifer Grove. The 30m road connection would comprise an 11-metre-wide carriageway from Gosper Drive transitioning down to 10.5m width carriage way at Brylee Drive. We were advised by Mr Mumby that the difference in carriage way width is due to the differences in legal road widths in existence in these two areas.
7. The physical construction works necessary to construct the road entail 1,212m³ of earthworks over an area of 0.2 hectares, with approximately 608m³ being used on the site and the balance being transported off site.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 3 BUN60316780 8. The proposed works located on the northern unformed portion of Brylee Drive are also to be carried out partially within the New Zealand Transport Agency Designation 6706. This designation encompasses the Takanini interchange and a small side link through to Brylee Drive and relates to the motorway between Takanini and Drury. There are no conditions on this designation. The applicant has provided the written approval of the New Zealand Transport Agency for the proposed works to satisfy the requirements of section 176 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
9. We were advised by the applicant and the Council officers that the road connection was being provided in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the applicant and Auckland Transport (AT) to obtain the necessary consents and construct a permanent connecting road. We discuss this MOU and its genesis later in this decision.
10. In essence, the applicant seeks subdivision and land use consents to subdivide land to create one residential lot and a road to vest, with associated construction works to facilitate a connection between Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove in accordance with the MOU between the applicant and Auckland Transport.
11. We were advised by the applicant and the Council that a consequence of installing the proposed connection between the two residential areas and the predicted increase in vehicle numbers along Brylee Drive (which until this time has operated as a cul-de-sac with low vehicle flows, especially at its northern end), traffic calming devices, such as a speed tables to slow vehicles speeds would need to be installed.
12. There was no disagreement between the parties or the planners present at the hearing (Ms Crang, Mr Mumby, Ms Bedggood, Trevor Mackie and Mr Brown) regarding the consents required and as a result these are confirmed for our decision and summarised below from the hearing report:
Land use consents
• Restricted Discretionary Activity consent for 2000m2 of earthworks pursuant to E12.4.1 (A5)
• Restricted Discretionary Activity consent for more than 250m3 of earthworks pursuant to E12.4.1 (A10)
• Restricted Discretionary Activity for noncompliance with the following standards pursuant to C.1.9 (2);
- E12.6.2(11) Earthworks in a 1% AEP floodplain. The proposal involves 2000m2 and 1212m3 of earthworks within the flood plain.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 4 BUN60316780 Subdivision Consent
• Restricted Discretionary Activity consent for subdivision that is in accordance with E38.8.2.3 pursuant to Rule E38.4.1 (A16)
• Restricted Discretionary Activity consent for subdivision in a flood plain pursuant to E38.4.1 (A11).
13. Overall the proposal has been considered as a restricted discretionary activity.
Procedural matters
14. We note that there was a late submission received from Mr David Hopkins (submission 514) received on 10 October 2018. We have reviewed this submission and while the submission was 14 working days late, we consider that it raises matters that are somewhat generic and already covered in other submissions and does not introduce any new matters. Accordingly, it was not apparent that the applicant would be prejudiced if the submission were to be accepted and considered. We also note that the submitter did not indicate whether it wanted to be heard and did not attend the hearing. The applicant also indicated that it had no view on whether this late submission should be accepted or rejected.
Finding
15. Under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, the time limit for the receipt of submissions is waived to accept the late submission of Mr David Hopkins (submission 514).
Relevant statutory provisions considered
16. 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:
(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 5 BUN60316780 (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and
(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
17. 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.
18. We find that the provisions of the Unitary Plan, in relation to this proposal, have addressed the relevant Part 2 matters and identify no issues with the competence of its preparation. We also find that the relevant district and regional plan provisions of the Unitary Plan have "given effect" to those of the Regional Policy Statement in the Unitary Plan. Accordingly, we have relied on the district and regional plan provisions of the Unitary Plan. However, for completeness we have had regard to and included some concluding comments with respect to Part 2 at the end of this decision.
19. We have also had regard to the relevant statutory provisions including section 104C relating to restricted discretionary activities. We have regard to section 106 with regard to subdivision subject to natural hazards (flooding) and we have had regard to section 108 and 108AA as it relates to conditions of consent and we have also had regard to section 106 regarding subdivision within areas subject to natural hazards (i.e. flooding). We have had regard to section 125 with regard to the lapsing of consents and finally we have considered section 128 with regard to the review of conditions.
Relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered
20. In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents.
Regional Policy Statement (Chapter B: Unitary Plan)
• B2 - Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form
• B3 - Ngā pūnaha hanganga, kawekawe me ngā pūngao - Infrastructure, transport and energy
• B10 - Ngā tūpono ki te taiao - Environmental risk
Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part
• Chapter E12 - Land disturbance – District
• Chapter E36 - Natural hazards and flooding
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 6 BUN60316780 • Chapter E38 - Subdivision – Urban
• Chapter H4 - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
• Chapter H5 – Mixed Housing Urban Zone
21. 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.
• The MOU between the Applicant (Fletchers Residential Limited) and Auckland Transport dated 8 September 2016.
22. We note that one of the reasons for consent that was considered for notification purposes was removed from the consent application following the notification process and subject to a legal opinion (accepted by all the parties) that consent was not required under section E26.2.3.2 (A69) for the construction of an unformed road. We note that while the matters of discretion related to that activity (Chapter E26 – Infrastructure) were taken into account during the notification process, these matters cannot form part of our discretion for the decision before us, now that consent is no longer required for this specific activity.
Local Board comments
23. The Papakura Local Board provided written comments opposing the proposal on the basis that no through road between Brylee Drive and Waiata Shores was ever proposed in previous resource consents. The comments also stated that there had been assurances that no road connection would ever be formed. The Board sought that the application be limited notified to allow residents adversely affected by the proposal to make a submission. The Board was also represented at the hearing and their presentation is summarised in the summary of evidence below.
Summary of evidence heard
24. The Council planning officer’s hearing report (written by Mr Neil Mumby) was circulated prior to the hearing and taken as read. Mr Mumby’s assessment was comprehensive and provided a detailed background and history to development at Conifer Grove and the more recent development at Waiata Shores (former Manukau Golf Club) and the various consents, agreements and consent notices that affect land in question and the issue of connectivity between Conifer Grove and the former Golf Club/Waiata Shores land. Mr Mumby recommended that the consent be granted subject to conditions.
25. Expert evidence from the applicant and submitters was pre-circulated and read before the hearing. The following is a summary of the key issues raised and should be read in conjunction with the actual legal submissions, pre-circulated evidence and evidence presented at or after the hearing. To reduce repetition,
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 7 BUN60316780 we concentrate on matters relating to the areas of contention between the parties.
26. The evidence presented by the applicant at the hearing is summarised below.
The Applicant
Ms Sue Simons - Legal Submissions
27. Ms Sue Simons is an experienced barrister and she presented extensive opening legal submissions and outlined the witnesses she proposed to call.
28. She submitted that the application is predicated on an MOU between the applicant and AT dated 8 September 2016, a copy of which she provided on the second day of the hearing. She stated that the MOU was prepared in the context of the subdivision and development of the former Manukau Golf Course to create a new residential neighbourhood known as Waiata Shores. She submitted that at the time consents were being considered for this development the proposed roading layout (which did not include a connection with Conifer Grove) was considered to be sufficient to serve that development, but AT wanted to preserve future connectivity and therefore entered into an MOU with the applicant to form it at a later date. Ms Simons characterised the MOU as “an Auckland Transport led proposal”1.
29. Ms Simons summarised the MOU and submitted that it required the applicant to provide notice to AT, at the time it wanted to develop Stage 2 of Waiata Shores, who could then require that a road connection from Brylee Drive to Gosper Drive be undertaken. She advised that AT had served notice during the development of Stage 2 that the connection was required leading to the application before us.
30. Ms Simons took us through the matters raised in the submissions and agreed with Mr Mumby that issues raised concern traffic effects, pedestrian safety and induced traffic flows or “rat running”2. She stated that submitters opposed to the application had procured reports on the issues of adverse security effects (undertaken by a private investigator) and property valuations (undertaken by a property valuer) and submitted that neither of those reports addressed resource management matters.
31. She took us through the relevant statutory framework for a restricted discretionary activity and the relevant parts of the Unitary Plan. Ms Simons spent some time taking us through the matters of discretion and assessment criteria that she considered to be relevant to our decision and she provided submissions on the existing environment and the context of Conifer Grove within the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone.
1 Fletcher Residential Limited Legal Submissions - paragraph 1.5 2 This term was used extensively by participants, including submitters, and we take this to generally mean the use of a minor or residential road by drivers, especially during peak periods, to avoid congestion on main roads.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 8 BUN60316780 32. Ms Simons summarised the key environmental effects and the evidence to be called on these matters and made a number of comments and suggested amendments to the conditions of consent as set out in the hearing report.
33. With regard to the matter of traffic calming devices, Ms Simons submitted that the applicant’s traffic expert (Mr Don McKenzie) supported the installation of five traffic calming devices but submitted that AT would have the responsibility for the construction, development and financing of raised tables on the public road network. She proposed a condition of consent that required a plan demonstrating the proposed road safety improvement works for the length of Brylee Drive. She also proposed an advice note that acknowledged that AT were responsible for the construction, development and financing of speed calming measures.
34. Following questioning from the Commissioners and review of the expert evidence of AT, Ms Simons advised that the applicant would not support any consent condition that placed the onus of installing the traffic calming devices on the consent holder. She then submitted a revised condition to the effect that the proposed road link will not be opened for motorised vehicular public access until written confirmation from the Council that traffic calming devices have been installed. We discuss this matter in greater detail later in our decision.
Mr Steven Evans – Fletcher Residential Limited
35. Mr Evans is the Chief Executive, Residential and Development for Fletcher Residential and he provided an overview of Fletcher Residential and the types of residential development they are involved in. He also set out background and rationale for the road connection. He outlined in detail the process that lead to the MOU and how it was implemented. He also stated that the proposal was an AT initiated road connection and was not a necessary component for the Waiata Shores development. He acknowledged that Fletcher Residential supported the establishment of the road connection and that such a connection, in his opinion would be good for both communities in Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores.
Mr Vaughan Crang – Civil Engineering
36. Mr Vaughan Crang is an experienced civil engineer and his evidence addressed the earthworks and engineering works required to form the road including road formation, road design, stormwater drainage, wastewater drainage and other utility services. He concluded that the construction of the road connection and residential lot was a “straight forward matter” in terms of civil engineering matters and that the adverse effects on existing infrastructure was considered to be less than minor.
37. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr Crang stated that the proposed earthworks were small in scale and the road connection was designed to meet the Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCoP) and that all stormwater overland flows had been identified and catered for.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 9 BUN60316780 Mr Matthew Noonan – Air Quality
38. Mr Matthew Noonan is an experienced air quality expert and his evidence relates to the likely air quality effects resulting from vehicles emissions from the increase in vehicles travelling along Brylee Drive. Mr Noonan advised that he was engaged to peer review an initial Beca air quality assessment which had been predicated on predicted traffic flows which were lower than those predicted by the applicant’s traffic expert.
39. Mr Noonan acknowledged that the proposed road connection would increase the total number of vehicles travelling along Brylee Drive and any potential adverse effect of increased emissions from these vehicles will be on the residential dwellings fronting Brylee Drive. However, he stated that emissions from Brylee Drive have a relatively small impact on local air quality when compared to background levels and the increase in traffic flows would have an almost negligible effect air quality and that cumulative air contaminant levels are not expected to exceed relevant air quality standards.
40. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr Noonan stated that the emissions from vehicles travelling on State Highway 1 (SH1) generated significantly higher emissions than that expected from the predicted increase in vehicles travelling along Brylee Drive. Mr Noonan advised us that he expected vehicle emissions to get better over time as the vehicle fleet adopts better emissions standards and also adopts more electric powered vehicles. When asked about the emissions from buses and trucks, Mr Noonan stated that they have significantly higher emissions individually but needed to be using the road in significantly higher number to have any meaningful adverse effects on air quality.
Mr John Styles – Noise and Vibration
41. Mr Jon Styles is an experienced noise and vibration expert. His evidence focussed on the noise and vibration effects of increased vehicle flows along Brylee Drive resulting from the proposed road connection. Mr Styles stated that he had modelled the increase in traffic noise, taking into account the existing background noise levels associated with SH1 nearby. He acknowledged an increase in noise from the predicted increase in road use for properties along Brylee Drive (especially at the northern end) and calculated that increase to be in the range of approximately 4-7dBA. He opined that the noise levels would be less than thresholds to classify the works to be an “Altered Road” under Standard E25.6.33 of the Unitary Plan and the proposed road connection was therefore permitted under that standard.
42. With regard to the prospect of adverse vibration effects, Mr Styles stated that any increase in traffic flow was unlikely to result in any new vibration effects. We questioned Mr Styles on this matter and he stated that adverse vibration effects usually only occur as a result of defective pavements. We also questioned Mr Styles on the noise effects associated with traffic calming devices and he opined that lower vehicle speeds generally resulted in lower noise levels. He added that
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 10 BUN60316780 the key noise mitigation benefit of traffic calming devices was to keep speeds lower than 35km/hr but not so slow that result in an adverse acceleration effect.
Don McKenzie - Traffic
43. Mr Don McKenzie is an experienced traffic expert and his evidence focussed on the traffic effects arising from the proposed road connection. He stated that he had been closely involved in the proposal to establish a connection between the two residential areas. He stated that the connection was supportable from a strategic transportation point of view as it would enable a more direct movement of traffic movements that is currently forced to take a longer route via Walter Strevens Drive and through the Takanini Interchange. He was also of the opinion that an additional vehicle road into Conifer Grove would offer additional resilience to the traffic network, especially if an incident caused a closure to the existing primary access via Walter Strevens Drive.
44. He summarised the assessment of predicted traffic flows undertaken and advised that the daily average traffic flow would increase to approximately 5,900 vpd (5-day average) without traffic calming measures but would be approximately 4,100 vpd if traffic calming devices are installed.
45. Mr McKenzie supported the installation of five traffic calming devices but acknowledged that AT’s traffic expert preferred to have more than five such devices. He stated that he supported a condition of consent that requires AT approval of the devices prior to installation. He also advised that he supported the amended traffic calming condition as suggested by Ms Simons.
46. We asked Mr McKenzie a number of questions about the assumptions behind the traffic modelling and he advised that the assessment had not factored in the additional development potential associated with the Residential Mixed Housing Zone (which permits three dwellings on a site as a permitted activity). He also advised that there was no legal mechanism that limits the number of vehicles that can travel on any public road. We questioned Mr McKenzie on the possibility for the road connection to enable public transport (i.e. buses) on the road and he advised that traffic calming devices (including speed tables) can be bus-friendly and that there were other bus routes in Auckland that included speed tables on them and he specifically referred to Parnell Road where raised pedestrian crossings were present on a high-frequency bus route.
47. With regard to the issue of induced traffic flows (i.e. rat-running) he stated that submitters concerns were “largely misplaced”3 on the grounds that modelling suggested that the link would be used mostly by local residents from within Conifer Grove.
3 Evidence of Don McKenzie paragraph 7.9
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 11 BUN60316780 Ms Angela Crang - Planning
48. Ms Crang is an experienced planner and her evidence focussed on the planning aspects of the proposal including the permitted baseline, existing environment, and the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the Unitary Plan. She advised that she generally supported the hearing report prepared by Mr Mumby. She advised that the permitted baseline included the ability to erect three dwellings on each site within Conifer Grove but added that this would require the redevelopment of sites within Conifer Grove as each site already contained a dwelling that occupied most of the site or was located in a way that compromised the simple addition of extra dwellings..
49. Ms Crang took us through a number of suggested changes to conditions including support for the proposed amendment to the traffic calming condition suggested by Ms Simons.
The Submitters
50. We would like to thank all submitters for the structure and clarity of their submissions, including those who were present throughout the whole hearing process and who heard all the evidence presented on behalf of the applicant and the Council’s reporting team, before they spoke in support of their written submissions.
Philip Brown - Woolworths New Zealand Limited
51. Mr Philip Brown is an experienced planning consultant and he gave evidence on behalf of Woolworths New Zealand Limited (Woolworths). Mr Brown stated that Woolworths are currently pursuing a private plan change (Plan Change 24) to enable a new local centre on the land bound by Te Napi Drive, Great South Road and the SH1 Manurewa-Takanini Northern exit and entry ramps. Mr Brown advised us that the proposed plan change was being pursued irrespective of whether the proposed road connection was established and was not reliant on that outcome. He stated, nonetheless, that the proposed connection would assist in the provision of a connected community with enhanced access to a range of services, community facilities and transport options.
Auckland Transport
Ms Margaret McCullough – Legal Submissions
52. Ms McCullough is an experienced lawyer acting for AT. She told us that AT was the Road Controlling Authority for the Auckland Region and appeared in support of the application by Fletcher Residential subject to amendments to the recommended conditions of consent. She advised that AT supported the proposal on the basis of network connectivity, greater resilience in the traffic network and greater opportunity for public transport. She submitted that the connection supports the approach adopted in the AT Roads and Street
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 12 BUN60316780 Framework and Transport Design Manual and Subdivision (Urban) chapter of the Unitary Plan.
53. Ms McCullough disputed the claim by Ms Simons and Mr Evans for Fletcher Residential that the project was AT led. Rather she submitted that a connection was anticipated at the time of the earlier subdivision and development consent for Waiata Shores that the connection would be established. She reiterated that AT’s position was (and still is) that it requires Fletcher Residential to undertake the connection including the provision of traffic calming measures.
54. With regard to conditions she opposed the wording proposed by Ms Simons regarding the formation of traffic calming devices and reiterated that AT’s preference is for this condition to require AT’s approval to the traffic calming devices and for them to be implemented by the consent holder following the formation of a road connection.
Peter Jongeneel – Traffic
55. Mr Jongeneel is an experienced traffic engineer and his evidence focussed on the traffic benefits of the proposed road connection. He stated that the connection was supported from a traffic perspective on the grounds that it improves network connectivity, allows residents of Conifer Grove a convenient access to the north, provides traffic network resilience should the existing access be disrupted and enhances public transport options.
56. Mr Jongeneel agreed with Mr McKenzie that traffic calming devices were required (based on his predicted vehicle trip numbers) but sought additional devices and closer spacing of them. He added that the additional traffic calming measures would further reduce the prospect of induced traffic flows. In response to questions from the Commissioners regarding the number and spacing of traffic calming devices, Mr Jongeneel opined that 160m-200m spacing between devices would not be sufficient to ensure that traffic speeds reduce down to 30- 35km/hr and as such he sought closer spacing and additional devices.
Trevor Mackie - Planning
57. Mr Mackie is an experienced planner and he gave planning evidence in support of the proposal subject to some changes to the recommended conditions of consent. In terms of planning and urban design outcomes, Mr Mackie stated that the road connection would achieve a connected street network between the urban areas of Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores, would provide infrastructure that is safe, efficient and convenient, and that it would be resilient to transport disruptions.
58. Mr Mackie commented on the permitted baseline and stated that he agreed with Ms Crang about those effects permitted by the Unitary Plan and agreed that they should be taken into account. Mr Mackie provided further commentary on the permitted baseline with regard to Chapter E26 – Infrastructure and E36 – Natural Hazards and Flooding and also commented on matters regarding the receiving
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 13 BUN60316780 environment and the matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities. With regard to the conditions of consent he stated that he generally supported the version of the conditions recommended by the applicant’s planner.
Mr Brent Catchpole - Papakura Local Board
59. Mr Brent Catchpole is the Chairperson of the Papakura Local Board and he gave a verbal presentation based on the matters set out in the local board comments received. Mr Catchpole stated that residents in Conifer Grove were content with the existing single vehicle access across SH1 from Walter Strevens Drive and did not want another connection via Brylee Drive (or at Keywella Drive). He stated that it was his understanding that there had been assurances given to the Conifer Grove Residents that there would be no connection other than from Walter Strevens Drive. He added that assurances were given by AT to residents at the time Waiata Shores was developed that the road between Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove would not be connected. We enquired as to whether and how these assurances were recorded and he advised that he did not know.
60. He stated that the Local Board supported the residents in Conifer Grove in their opposition to the proposed road connection.
61. He raised a potential safety issue from increased traffic with regard to students who use Brylee Drive to travel to the Conifer Grove School. He was also concerned with the prospect of induced traffic flows/rat-running using Brylee Drive.
62. On the issue traffic calming, Mr Catchpole stated that if consent was granted the he favoured traffic calming measures along the full length of Brylee Drive.
Ms Lisa Blake
63. Ms Blake lives at 52 Walter Strevens Road and presented written evidence in support of her submission. Her submission was in opposition to the proposed road connection and she emphasised that it was a road connection that no one in Conifer Grove wanted. She stated that the western side of Conifer Grove has a particular character associated with its single entry via the overbridge at Walter Strevens Drive. In her view, this has resulted in a pedestrian friendly low speed traffic environment that operates like a cul-de-sac for the that half of the suburb.
64. She stated that the connection would result in a rat-run for people wanting to avoid congestion associated with the Takanini Interchange and she disputed the accuracy of expected vehicle movements used by the applicant and supported by AT.
65. She stated that she was not opposed to all connectivity between Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove and favoured the establishment of a walkway or cycle way through the Brylee Drive connection.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 14 BUN60316780 66. Ms Blake raised concerned regarding security issues and the possibility of “undesirables” gaining easier access to the neighbourhood. She exhorted us to consider the issue of crime prevention as part of the assessment of this proposal.
67. Ms Blake also raised concern on possible future closures of the rail crossings of Manuroa and Spartan Roads, and the resulting re-routing of traffic onto Great South Road via Taka Street, which aligns directly with the Walter Strevens Drive intersection. She considered that this would increase the volume of rat running into Walter Strevens Drive.
Daniel Newman
68. Mr Newman is an Auckland Councillor representing the Manurewa-Papakura Ward, which includes Conifer Grove. Mr Newman stated that traffic calming devices were needed in Conifer Grove but added that it was his view that there is no current funding envelope for these works in AT works budget. He added that there was also no current plan to provide public transport through to Conifer Grove via the proposed link.
69. Mr Newman stated that the proposed connection would be used as a rat-run and gave us a theoretical example of how his own commute to Wattle Downs could use the proposed link in such a fashion via Brylee Drive, Walter Strevens Drive, Kindergarten Drive and Graham Road.
70. Mr Newman considers that the road is not essential and that the case for its inclusion by the applicant and by AT is insufficient.
Mr Matthew Caldwell
71. Mr Caldwell lives at 63 Brylee Drive which is three dwellings south of the proposed road connection. His evidence focussed on the effects of increased traffic flows passing by his dwelling and how his current amenity values will change from a quiet cul-de-sac street to a busy collector road. He stated that while there may be improvements for access that benefit him, he would rather have the “inconvenience” of a longer trip to Waiata Shores to preserve the “isolation” and quietness of the existing Brylee Drive cul-de-sac.
Paul McSweeney
72. Mr McSweeney lives at 38 Perotti Place, Conifer Grove. He told us that Conifer Grove is one of Auckland’s signature suburbs characterised by peace and serenity which would be destroyed by the proposed road. He shared concerns raised by other submitters regarding security issues, traffic increases, traffic safety for pedestrians and cyclists and a destruction to the unique character of Conifer Grove defined by its single road via Walter Strevens Drive.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 15 BUN60316780 Mr Robert Rose
73. Mr Rose lives in Chippewa Drive in Conifer Grove and has lived there for the last 25 years. He raised concerns regarding the adverse effect resulting from the increase in traffic flows along Brylee Drive. He told us that the proposed traffic calming measures will create an inconvenience to local users that would result in it not being used as intended and thereby defeating its purpose.
74. He raised traffic safety concerns with regard to the intersection of Keywella Drive with Brylee Drive and stated that there was a blind spot when looking to oncoming traffic from the north.
75. Mr Rose also raised concerns regarding security issues and the potential for the road connection to provide a pathway for criminal activity. He told us that Conifer Grove had a very low crime rate and that was directly attributed to the single entry via Walter Strevens Drive and the ability to monitor all incoming traffic via closed circuit TV installed at the roundabout that connects Walter Strevens Drive with Brylee Drive.
Josie Faber
76. Ms Faber lives at 40 Brylee Drive and has lived at Conifer Grove since 2011. She presented written evidence in opposition to the proposed road connection and focussed on security and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) matters, transportation effects, adverse effects on amenity values, adverse effects on property values, historic heritage effects and health and safety concerns. She referred to the character values and attributes that attracted her to Conifer Grove which were that it a was a quiet and tranquil residential enclave for which she paid a premium for. She stated that she particularly liked the “enclosed community vibe and cul-de-sacs”4. Ms Faber told us that the construction of the access road would have a detrimental effect on the cultural and heritage values of Conifer Grove.
77. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Ms Faber stated that if the road does proceed, she would support the provision of speed tables or other traffic calming measures being put in place prior to the road being allowed to open.
Mr Kevin Everitt
78. Mr Everitt lives at 20 Aristory Close in Conifer Grove and has lived there since 2009. He presented extensive written submissions in opposition to the road connection and these focussed on matters including child safety, traffic safety, potential crime effects and direct adverse effects on residents arising from noise, pollution and glare.
4 Evidence of Josie Baber Page 1
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 16 BUN60316780 79. Mr Everitt stated he was concerned that the road would become a “rat-run” particularly with regard to the Takanini motorists wanting to avoid bottle-neck delays at the Takanini Interchange. He opined that traffic calming was supported and that chicanes were preferred to vertical deflection as these measures would cause adverse noise and vibration effects. He was concerned that the increase in vehicle traffic would create a safety issue for pedestrians and children and suggested that a pedestrian crossing at the southern end of Brylee Drive may reduce that risk should the road proceed.
80. Mr Everitt spoke to the potential adverse noise and air discharge effects resulting from increased traffic flows and he suggested that if the road were to be granted, that a quieter asphalt surface be considered.
81. We asked Mr Everitt whether there had been any road closures on Walter Strevens Drive in the past and he advised that this had occurred once in January 2009 following a truck travelling along SH1 colliding with a bridge support. He advised that the bridge was closed only for a short period of time until an engineer declared it safe.
Council Officers
82. After the hearing of evidence the Council officers were given an opportunity to comment on the evidence presented.
Mr Andrew Tamperley - Traffic
83. Mr Tamperley provided the peer review of the applicant’s traffic assessment for the Council. He advised that he still considered traffic effects to be acceptable and that the proposed connection would fulfil its “intended function as a collector road”. By that, he explained that the road would fit within the roading hierarchy as a collector road linking two residential areas that would also provide local residents with another choice for access to the SH1 network and would take pressure off Great South Road. He maintained his view that the road would not become a rat-run rather it would perform a local access function for local residents.
84. Mr Tamperley stated that any condition that required traffic calming measures to be put in place should be focused on a performance measure related to the desired traffic speeds rather than any other design standard. That said, he acknowledged that there were a number of design options to achieve this.
Ms Lindsay Leitch – Noise and Vibration
85. Ms Leitch stated that while she and Mr Styles had differing results regarding noise effects they had both reached a conclusion that the additional noise from increased traffic would meet the Unitary Plan standards. That said, she stated it there will still be a significant increase in noise levels. She stated that she agreed with Mr Styles’ evidence on the noise effects and design goals for traffic calming devices.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 17 BUN60316780 Mr Neil Mumby - Planning
86. Mr Mumby stated that his recommendation to grant consent subject to conditions remained the same following the hearing of evidence. He generally agreed with the conditions of consent as amended by Ms Crang subject to some amendments regarding the conditions relating to the installation of traffic calming measures. He made comments on the placement of a traffic calming condition and opined that it should be a condition that needs to be met prior to the issue of a certificate under s224(c) of the RMA. That is that the conditions need to clearly state that the traffic calming measures need to be in place prior to the Council issuing a certificate under s224(c), being a necessary step prior to issue of a title for the land and allowing it to be vested.
Right of Reply
87. Ms Simons requested a short verbal response at the hearing with a more detailed written reply to follow. We agreed to this and she reiterated the offer of a condition that would prevent the road from opening prior to the traffic calming works being put in place. She commented on the vesting issue raised by AT and stated that the condition proposed did not create an issue as long as it was required to be met prior to a s224(c) certificate.
88. Mr McKenzie was also recalled by Ms Simons to address specific traffic matters. He advised that he was aware of further road closures in the locality but that these works were at least 20 years away and not relevant to the proposed road connection. He confirmed that the carriageway width of Brylee Drive was suitable for the traffic numbers proposed and he confirmed that his analysis had been robust and had included the wider transport environment. He was still in favour of traffic calming along Brylee Drive and added that any additional traffic calming may be appropriate but that was a decision for AT to make and was not directly related to the proposed road connection.
89. Mr McKenzie acknowledged that the northern end of Brylee Drive currently had a local road function but the function operated more like a collector road south of the intersection with Keywella Drive where it also picked up that traffic and a number of other cul-de-sacs leading to Walter Stevens Drive.
90. Mr McKenzie also clarified that his analysis of the interaction between the connection with Great South Road was to test whether the connection would adversely affect traffic flows on Great South Road, finding that it will not. He reaffirmed the proposal as a local roading project.
Principal issues in contention
91. After analysis of the application and evidence (including proposed mitigation measures and conditions), undertaking a site visit, reviewing the Council planning officer’s recommendation report, reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the proposed activity raises a number of issues for consideration. The principal issues in contention are:
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 18 BUN60316780 a) What are the restrictions to our discretion in determining this application?
b) Does Conifer Grove need additional connectivity by road?
c) What are the transportation and related amenity effects of the road connection?
d) What are the noise related effects of the road connection?
e) What are the air quality related effects of the road connection?
f) What are the construction related effects of the road connection?
We also comment on the recommended conditions of consent offered by the parties.
Main findings on the principal issues in contention
92. Our main findings on the principal issues that were in contention are.
What are the restrictions to our discretion in determining this application?
93. As this application is a restricted discretionary activity, the Unitary Plan sets out limits to the matters that can be considered. In that regard, there are matters of discretion that relate to Auckland Wide standards (earthworks) and activities (subdivision – urban) that fall within the restricted discretionary activity status.
94. We are also cognisant that when the application was notified, another reason for consent (construction of an unformed road under E26.2.3.2 (A69)) was also listed as a restricted discretionary activity. We note that the Duty Commissioner relied on those matters of discretion directly associated with road formation in making the decision to publicly notify the proposal and these included:
a) Adverse effects on amenity values;
b) Adverse construction effects including effects of vibration, noise, and dust;
c) Adverse operational effects particularly on residential or other sensitive activities, including effects of vibration, noise, glare, and vehicle emissions;
d) Severance effects and change to drainage patterns; and
e) Safety and efficiency of the road network.
95. The application was notified relying on these matters of discretion and submissions received referred to many of these matters. Since the notification period closed, the Council received a legal opinion5 concluding that consent for
5 Legal Opinion from Lisa Leyland, Senior Solicitor – Regulatory Litigation – Hearing Report, Volume 1, Page 107
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 19 BUN60316780 the construction of an unformed road was not needed and all parties have agreed with that legal advice.
96. We note that there has been no challenge to the notification decision and we accept that it was made based on the information and accepted reasons for consent that applied at that time. However, the hearing report prepared by Mr Mumby has been prepared in accordance with the legal advice and the matters of discretion have been further restricted to the following matters associated with the five reasons for consent:
a) Earthworks in excess of 2000m²;
b) Earthworks in excess of 250m³;
c) Earthworks in a 1% AEP floodplain;
d) Subdivision in an urban area; and
e) Subdivision in a 1% AEP floodplain.
97. Ms Crang in Attachment 1 to her evidence has helpfully set out in detail the matters of discretion (and assessment criteria) relevant to the earthworks and subdivision consents required. Ms Simons has also helpfully summarised the maters of discretion to the following:
a) Effects of noise, vibration, odour, dust, lighting and traffic on the surrounding environment;
b) Effects on overland flow paths and flooding;
c) Effects arising from an increase in traffic volumes on the existing road network.
98. In addition to the above matters associated with the activities and standards in the earthworks and subdivision chapters, we are also aware of further matters of discretion in Chapter C1.9(3) which relate to infringements of standards (i.e. the earthworks consents) and states:
(3) When considering an application for a resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity for an infringement of a standard under Rule C1.9(2), the Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following relevant matters:
(a) any objective or policy which is relevant to the standard;
(b) the purpose (if stated) of the standard and whether that purpose will still be achieved if consent is granted;
(c) any specific matter identified in the relevant rule or any relevant matter of discretion or assessment criterion associated with that rule;
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 20 BUN60316780 (d) any special or unusual characteristic of the site which is relevant to the standard;
(e) the effects of the infringement of the standard; and
(f) where more than one standard will be infringed, the effects of all infringements considered together.
99. When we compare these matters of discretion with the matters that also applied for the notification decision (i.e. the formation of an unformed road) we find that the matters of discretion are broadly similar, albeit broadly applied to subdivision and earthworks as opposed to the specific effects associated with road formation.
Finding
100. We find that the matters of discretion for this application are restricted to the matters of consent required under rules: land use earthworks (E12.4.1(A5), E12.4.1(A10), E12.6.2(11)); and subdivision (E38.4.1(A11) and E38.4.1(A16)) and restricted to the following matters:
a) Effects of noise, vibration, odour, dust, lighting and traffic on the surrounding environment;
b) Effects on overland flow paths and flooding;
c) Effects arising from an increase in traffic volumes on the existing road network; and
d) The other matters of discretion in C1.9(3).
Does Conifer Grove need additional connectivity by road?
Are further road connections envisaged?
101. This matter is considered by us to be one of the central matters in contention. With reference to the submissions lodged, while there were a small number of submissions from people from Conifer Grove in support of the connection, the evidence presented by those submitters in opposition (largely residing within Conifer Grove) was overwhelmingly that the majority of residents of Conifer Grove did not want additional connectivity and considered the single point of access via Walter Strevens Drive across SH1 as a virtue. As articulated in the evidence before us from the residents, the layout of Conifer Grove operates as a series of cul-de-sacs reliant on Walter Strevens Drive as a sole point of access. A consequence of the layout is that residents all need to use the single point of access including those residents on Brylee Drive and other northern areas of Conifer Grove. That would also require a lengthy and convoluted drive via Walter Strevens Drive and Great South Road should they wish to travel by vehicle to the newly established residential areas of Waiata Shores. However, notwithstanding this “inconvenience” the submissions and evidence presented to
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 21 BUN60316780 us from the residents was that this level of inconvenience was preferred in order to preserve the amenity provided by the existing road and urban structure. The benefits of the current road layout put to us by submitters against the proposal was that it:
a) Promoted a low intensity traffic environment based on a series of cul-de- sacs;
b) The low intensity environment was safe for pedestrians, cyclists and school children; and
c) It created a low crime environment based on a sole point of entry into the urban area which was also able to be monitored by closed circuit TV.
102. The applicant, principally in the evidence of Mr Evans for Fletcher Residential, stated that its subdivision and development at Waiata Shores was not dependent on the establishment of a road link for connectivity but they had willingly entered into an MOU with AT to provide this at a later stage of development in order to provide connectivity to Conifer Grove in accordance with AT desired outcomes.
103. We were provided with a copy of the MOU by the applicant which is dated 8 September 2016. The MOU in section 2.2 sets triggers at Stages 2 and 4 of the Waiata Shores development whereby Fletcher Residential will (at its own cost) lodge a resource consent with the Council to form and complete the road connection and vest the finished road with the Council. In that regard we accept that there was a clear intention at that point that a connection was identified by AT (being the road controlling authority) as a desired outcome and that its implementation was tied to the further development at Waiata Shores.
104. We were assisted by Mr Mumby’s Hearing Report with regard to the relevant planning background to Conifer Grove. The hearing report states that Conifer Grove was previously a dairy farm located on a peninsula which was subdivided and developed for residential activity in the 1960s, initially on the land to the east of the newly established SH1 Southern Motorway. The land to the west was isolated by SH1 to the east, the margins of the Manukau Harbour to the south and west and the Manukau Golf Course to the west and north. This western side of Conifer Grove was subsequently developed with a road connection to Great South Road provided over SH1 via the Walter Strevens Drive bridge, which remains the single road access. Based on this single entry and exit point the subdivision and resulting urban form was designed around a series of cul-de- sacs all linking with Water Strevens Drives across SH1 to Great South Road.
105. The Hearing Report noted that the isolated nature of the suburb and reliance on a single entry point via a bridge across SH1 was recognised by the former Papakura District Council which included in the (now Legacy) District Plan a provision for an emergency access connection to SH1 should access via Walter Strevens Drive be blocked by an incident. That access was identified as a grass corridor extending from the Takanini interchange to the northern end of Brylee Drive. While Mr Catchpole refuted that, stating that his understanding was that
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 22 BUN60316780 emergency access was to be available across the Manukau Golf Course, we accept the advice of the Hearing Report in that regard.
106. The Hearing Report also advised that the issue of road connectivity was relevant at the time the Manukau Golf Course was being redeveloped (as Waiata Shores) and specifically referred to the first stage consent (referenced as R/JSL/2013/2042) requiring the protection of a future road connection in a condition of consent (Condition 101). That condition required a consent notice relating to the future development of the balance lot (being Lots 1006 and 1007) and included the words:
Council will consider the proposal based on its merits, with particular regard to the proposed design of the development including how the development is proposed to link to the existing road network.6
107. We were advised by both the applicant and AT that this consent notice was the genesis of the MOU which formalised the desire to provide connectivity once the opportunity arose.
108. This evidence is directly refuted by the submitters in opposition and it is encapsulated in the Papakura Local Board comments that:
The community was assured at the time that there would be no connection between Keywella Drive and Brylee Drive.7
109. Many of the submitters also considered that this was an intentional design feature of the Conifer Grove development to the extent that no future connection would be contemplated, even if it were available.
110. While we consider the evidence of the submitters and Papakura Local Board are genuinely held beliefs, we were presented with no verifiable evidence, such as conditions to consents granted, or planning provisions that apply to the land, that confirm that no future connection would be contemplated.
111. We have also had regard to the existing layout of Conifer Grove through reference to the aerial photos provided by the applicant, the aerial photos on the Council GIS Maps website and numerous subdivision layouts for Waiata Shores that also show the spatial relationship and road layout between these existing and proposed urban residential areas.
112. When looking at the road and lot layout of those sites that were initially designed to adjoin the Manukau Golf Course, it appears clear to us that were was no intention for the cul-de-sac roads of Aristoy Place, Chippewa Place, Gaylord Place and Perotti Place to connect land to the west and this is demonstrated by the placement of residential dwelling lots beyond the cul-de-sac ends of each of these roads. However, with Brylee Drive and Keywella Drive the opposite
6 Council Hearing report Page 25 7 Council Hearing report Page 25
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 23 BUN60316780 appears to be the case. With regard to the Brylee Drive, the cul-de-sac head is close to the former golf course land and there is clearly insufficient width to place a residential lot between it and the former golf course land. With regard to Keywella Drive, the cul-de-sac head directly adjoins the former golf course land. The placement of the cul-de-sac heads for Brylee Drive and Keywella Drive in their current locations, in our view appears to be an intentional subdivision design decision that was made at the time this part of Conifer Grove was being subdivided and developed. It therefore follows, in our evaluation, that the issue of future connectivity to the west and north (i.e. through land occupied at the time by the Manukau Golf Course) was more likely than not contemplated and protected at the design stage.
Is road connectivity justified?
113. The expert traffic evidence presented by the applicant (Mr McKenzie), Mr Jongeneel (AT) and Council (Mr Temperley) all stated that the establishment of the road between Gosper Road and Brylee Drive would improve connectivity and resilience. The evidence of the large number of submitters was that the road connection would create a marginal improvement in terms of convenience for some residents in Conifer Grove, but that the road was otherwise not necessary, and residents were satisfied with the current arrangement, even if it meant a slightly longer and inconvenient route to the new residential area and its connection with Great South Road.
114. As discussed above, Fletcher Residential stated that the road connection was not necessary for the residential subdivision and development of Waiata Shores to operate and Woolworths stated that it was not necessary for their proposal to establish a Local Centre zone at Te Napi Drive to be commercially viable. Both parties however, agreed that such a connection would be beneficial.
115. Having heard all the evidence, it appears that the principal reasons for the road connection relate to the matter of road connectivity, resilience and public transport opportunity. In terms of connectivity, Mr McKenzie states that the connection would improve vehicular and pedestrian accessibility for both residential areas and will enhance the travel choices for local residents and emergency vehicles. Mr McKenzie refers to the proposed Local Centre as a significant attractor for both pedestrians and drivers within Conifer Grove. Mr Temperley generally agrees with this evidence and adds, in his peer review, that the new road will take pressure off Great South Road by reducing the number of vehicles from within Conifer Grove using the existing road network and redirecting them through the new connection. Mr Jongeneel for AT also considers that the additional connectivity proposed is a positive traffic benefit especially for those persons travelling north from within Conifer Grove who could now use the new Te Napi Drive connection with Great South Road. In Mr Jongeleel’s view, the connection would provide improved permeability, connectivity and travel options for both Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores residents. We agree with this evidence and the likely traffic benefits for additional road connectivity.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 24 BUN60316780 116. With regard to resilience, Mr McKenzie refers to improved accessibility for emergency vehicles. Mr Jongeneel addressed this matter in greater detail in his evidence where he stated:
Without the proposed link, both Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores are each dependent on a single road link to connect to the wider road network. This leaves both neighbourhoods vulnerable to events that may disrupt their transport access. Walter Strevens Drive for example is lined with large, mature street trees. One of these large trees fell in an April/May 2018 storm event, landing on an adjacent house. Should the tree have fallen in the opposite direction, it may have blocked Walter Strevens Drive to traffic, isolating the neighbourhood and leaving it inaccessible to all, and in particular to emergency services. The proposed link resolves this risk to the transport network’s resilience.8
117. We were assisted by the evidence of Mr Everitt on the issue of road closures affecting Walter Strevens Drive and he stated that there was an incident where a vehicle travelling on SH1 hit the Walter Strevens Drive Bridge span and the road was closed until an engineer could certify the road safe to re-open. While this and the example cited by Mr Jongeneel appear to be only related road closures of a short duration, we agree with Mr Jongeneel that the risk of closure to the only road into Conifer Grove still exists and that additional connectivity would resolve that risk. We agree that the proposed road connection would provide additional resilience to the road network.
118. Finally, we received evidence from both Mr McKenzie and Mr Jongeneel regarding potential public transport opportunities with the proposed connection. Mr Jongeneel stated that both Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores were currently cul-de-sac neighbourhoods, with only one way in and one way out. In his view, this made it difficult to service either residential area effectively by public transport. He acknowledged that currently Auckland Transport does not provide a public bus services through either neighbourhood, with the nearest services being on Great South Road. However, he opined that the current cul-de-sac nature of both residential areas was largely responsible for the current (non) viability of a bus service. In his view, the proposed road link provides AT with the opportunity to run future public transport services through both neighbourhoods, allowing most residents to live within the preferred 400-600m walk of a bus stop.
119. We questioned all the traffic experts about the viability of a bus route along Brylee Drive with traffic calming measures (including raised speed tables) in place and we were assured that bus routes can operate safely and efficiently using a range of traffic calming devices in place and specifically we were advised that raised speed tables would not preclude a bus route using Brylee Drive. Having considered this evidence, we agree that the proposed connection would
8 Evidence of Michael Jongeneel paragraph 2.3
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 25 BUN60316780 provide opportunity for a connected and potentially more viable bus route to be established to service both residential communities.
Finding
120. We accept that Conifer Grove has developed under unusual, if not unique circumstances in that it was effectively land-locked by the Manukau Harbour to the west and south, the Southern Motorway to the east and the Manukau Golf Course to the west and north and this led to subdivision based exclusively on cul-de-sacs all serviced by a single road over SH1 along Walter Strevens Drive. We understand and accept that this has led the community to embrace and celebrate the virtues of this singular vehicle access and the feelings of tranquillity, safety and isolated residential amenity that developed over time. We understand and accept their genuine desire to retain these aspects as part of their appreciation for the place in which they live.
121. However, while Conifer Grove has enjoyed a degree of ‘splendid isolation’ since its inception, it appears to us that the expansion and intensification of the Auckland Region has caught up. Accordingly, through the evidence presented, we accept that connectivity to the land containing the former Manukau Golf Course was envisaged at the design stage and demonstrated, in the case of Brylee Drive, by the placement of the cul-de-sac head close to that boundary. We also find that connectivity was envisaged at the time of the first subdivision and development of the former Manukau Golf Course to create Waiata Shores. We also find that the MOU reached between Fletchers Residential and AT secured the intention to provide this link.
122. With regard to the need for the new connection we find that this has been sufficiently demonstrated and justified in the evidence of the traffic experts through the need for additional connectivity, resilience and the provision of public transport opportunities.
What are the transportation related amenity effects of the road connection?
123. All the traffic experts and submitters agreed that the proposed road connection will significantly increase traffic flows along Brylee Drive to Walter Strevens Drive. The evidence of Mr McKenzie summarised the traffic generation of the proposed road as being 5,876 vpd or 4,100 vpd with traffic calming measures in place, which greatly exceeds the vehicle numbers presently experienced along Brylee Drive. We were advised that the increase would be experienced to the greatest extent at the northern cul-de-sac end of Brylee Drive where vehicle movements are currently low, which is an obvious conclusion given that it is a cul-de-sac.
Traffic safety
124. As a response to the significant increase in vehicle flows resulting from the proposed road connection, Mr McKenzie recommended a number of traffic calming devices along Brylee Drive and one device on Gosper Road near Periko
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 26 BUN60316780 Way. Mr McKenzie stated that their purpose would be to reduce the operating travel speeds of all vehicles to a safe speed that is consistent with the function of the road and general expectations of traffic operations for the route.9 The fact that both Brylee Drive and Gosper Road had straight alignments (enabling higher vehicle speeds) was also seen as a justification for these devices. Mr McKenzie recommended five devices between Periko Way and Syntax Place. He discussed the merits of various types of traffic calming and recommended raised speed tables in his evidence. One of the merits for this type of device stated in his evidence is that raised speed tables provide the opportunity for formalised pedestrian crossing points at some location.10
125. While Mr Jongeneel for AT supported the need for traffic calming devices in principle, it was his view that the spacing recommended by Mr McKenzie (being spaced at 170m – 260m) would not be sufficient to achieve the desired speed environment. He recommended that these be at 80m – 120m spacing. Mr Jongeneel was of the view that spacing distances greater than 150m would allow vehicles to return to a speed of 50km/hr. Mr McKenzie disputed that spacing needed to be closer and added that “side-friction” elements (including parked vehicles, proximity to other road intersections and general residential activity) would also slow vehicles speeds.11
126. While we consider these matters to be relevant considerations, we are also mindful of the fact that the application does not include the formation of traffic calming devices (although it recognises the need for them) and that AT is the road controlling authority and has the ultimate discretion to determine what form of traffic calming devices are put in place should consent for the new road connection be approved. Accordingly, we consider that this decision and the process to determine it would best left to AT.
127. The method put to us by Ms Simons to ensure that adequate traffic calming measures are in place prior to road opening is to offer a condition of consent to the effect that the road would not open until such time as the Council is satisfied that they have been installed and operating correctly. We agree with this approach as it leaves the final design and implementation of traffic calming devices to AT, who is the road controlling authority while ensuring that any adverse traffic effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated prior to the road connection opening. We discuss how this approach is integrated into the conditions of consent later on in this decision.
Induced traffic flows or “rat-running”
128. Perhaps the most contentious traffic effect in contention was the prospect of the road connection becoming a rat-run for those seeking a short or less congested route to Great South Road south of the Takanini Interchange. All the traffic
9 Evidence of Mr KcKenzie paragraph 6.3 10 Evidence of Mr KcKenzie paragraph 6.5 11
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 27 BUN60316780 engineers, to varying degrees, agreed that this occurrence would not be a significant contribution to the daily vehicle movements along Brylee Drive. Mr McKenzie stated that the modelling analysis undertaken demonstrated that the largest single contributor to future traffic flows would be from vehicle trips from within Conifer Grove west of the motorway. More specifically his evidence stated:
The movements attracted to the new link will follow the new and future equilibrium of vehicle trips where the trips attracted onto the new link are adopting the most appropriate link for the travel being undertaken, thus balancing overall travel time and distance between the origin and destination for the trips - the larger majority of longer-distance travel (for example residents of Waiata Shore destined for Takanini Town Centre, and Conifer Grove residents bound for the Auckland CBD) would continue to use the Great South Road and Southern Motorway links.
129. This conclusion was supported in the peer review of the applicant’s traffic assessment by Mr Temperley where he estimated that traffic flows would mostly involve those living in either Conifer Grove or Waiata Shores, with those living in Conifer Grove likely to be the largest generator of traffic.
130. The evidence of Mr Jongeneel was more nuanced on this matter and it was his opinion that without sufficient mitigation (i.e. traffic calming), the proposed link would attract some element of “rat running” behaviour, with some road users using this link to bypass Great South Road12.
131. The evidence of the submitters disputed these traffic assessments and stated that traffic wishing to avoid the congestion at the Great South Road/Takanini Interchange would be induced to use the newly formed road connection through Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove via Brylee Drive then across the SH1 via Walter Strevens Drive to Great South Road. The evidence of Mr Newman took us through a hypothetical “rat-run” associated with his regular commute whereby it would be favourable to use the proposed connection to travel from Wattle Downs, being a residential area west of Conifer Grove.
132. We have no doubt that induced traffic flows or “rat-running” are a traffic effect and that it occurs in response to congestion on urban roads. We accept the general assertion that commuters will often seek alternative routes to avoid or minimise congestion and this includes driving longer distances via local residential streets to reduce wait times on congested arterial roads or main thoroughfares. We also accept that the Great South Road/Takanini Interchange experiences high degrees of congestion at present and we experienced this first- hand during our site visits for this hearing. We note however, that the traffic experts cautioned us to also consider that some of the existing congestion was also associated with the significant road works associated with the improvements along SH1 and at the Takanini Interchange. On that basis the
12 Evidence of Mr Jongeneel paragraph 4.1
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 28 BUN60316780 expert evidence was that present congestion would likely improve once these works completed.
133. Having considered all of the evidence, both in support and in opposition to the road connection, we accept the evidence of the traffic engineers, supported by extensive and peer reviewed modelling that most of the traffic using the proposed road connection would be from local residents in either Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove. That said, we accept the evidence of Mr Jongeneel that some “rat-running” may still occur, following the completion of the SH1/Takanini Interchange road works, and that an added benefit of traffic calming works (imposed principally to reduce the speed of vehicles to no more than 35km/hr) would be to act as a deterrent to using it as an alternative to Great South Road for commuters not residing in Waiata Shores or Conifer Grove.
Keywella Drive intersection
134. A matter raised by Mr Rose and Mr Everitt in their evidence is the potential adverse effect of increased traffic flows along Brylee Drive on the safe operation of the intersection with Keywella Drive. We note that Keywella Drive extends south west from Brylee Drive to the western extent of Conifer Grove where it adjoins undeveloped land as part of Waiata Shores. Keywella Drive also collects traffic from two smaller cul-de-sac roads namely: Aristoy Close and Chippawa Place.
135. At this intersection both roads appear to have a generally straight alignment however, Brylee Drive rises up slightly immediately to the north. Submitters raised the concern that the change in grade of Brylee Drive in addition to a number of street trees meant that the effective viewing distance to south-bound vehicles travelling along Brylee Drive may be insufficient to avoid traffic conflicts at this intersection.
136. We were advised by Mr McKenzie that viewing distances at this intersection were sufficient to avoid traffic conflicts and added that the proposed traffic calming measures north of that intersection would reduce approach speeds to further ensure sufficient sight lines when existing Keywella Drive. We inspected this intersection ourselves following the hearing of evidence and while we accept that there is some visibility issues at this intersection, the viewing distance did not appear to us to be unduly limited to the extent that we would disagree with the evidence of Mr McKenzie. We do note however, that AT has the ability to trim or even replace the existing street trees between Keywella Drive and the northern section of Brylee Drive to improve visibility, in addition to appropriately locating traffic calming measures.
Finding
137. Having considered all the evidence on traffic safety and related amenity effects we find that there will be significant increases in traffic flows resulting from the proposed road connection and to a certain extent, providing for additional traffic flows between Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores is the intended function of the
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 29 BUN60316780 proposed road. We accept the expert evidence that the main purpose of the new connection will be to provide additional and planned connectivity between Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores.
138. The traffic experts all agree that the increased traffic flows justify the construction of traffic calming devices along Brylee Drive to reduce vehicles speeds to a safe operating speed consistent with the intended function of the road and its context within a quiet residential neighbourhood. We agree with this evidence and find that such measures are necessary and should be installed prior to the road opening.
139. We accept that there may be some induced traffic flows or “rat-running” along the new route but we consider that this will not be as significant as residents contend. On that matter the expert traffic evidence has demonstrated to us that the traffic flows are most likely to be associated with the residents of Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores. That said, we accept the evidence of Mr Jongeneel that the relatively straight alignment of the road connection may induce some rat- running and the installation of traffic calming measures may have the added function of discouraging this behaviour.
What are the noise related effects of the road connection?
140. The increase of road noise from vehicle engines and tyres and its adverse effect on existing residential amenity values was a matter raised by many submissions in opposition. The applicant also recognised this as being a potential adverse effect and provided an expert noise assessment as part of the resource consent application and evidence on noise effects was presented by Mr Styles. Mr Styles stated that the noise environment was influenced by the background noise levels from SH1 and the current installation of noise barriers to those properties along Brylee Drive that directly adjoin SH1.
141. While there was some disagreement between the predicted noise levels and methodology adopted to predict these differences between Mr Styles and the Council peer reviewer Ms Leitch, both agreed that noise levels generated by increased traffic flows along Brylee Drive would meet the permitted activity standards under E25.6.33 of the Unitary Plan. We were also assured that the traffic calming measures recommended by Mr McKenzie, and supported in principle by AT, would have the added benefit of reducing traffic noise along this section of road provided vehicle speeds were kept below 35km/hr.
142. Both experts also agreed that there would be no adverse vibration effects from increased traffic flows provided the pavement was kept in a sound condition.
Finding
143. We received no expert evidence to the contrary on these matters and despite the genuine concerns raised by the submitters in opposition we are satisfied that the Unitary Plan noise and vibration standards will be met and the predicted
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 30 BUN60316780 additional noise from increased vehicle use from the proposed road connection will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
What are the air quality related effects of the road connection?
144. The increased vehicle emissions from vehicle engines and its adverse effect on existing air quality and residential amenity values was a matter raised by many submissions in opposition. The applicant also recognised this as being a potential adverse effect and provided an expert air quality assessment and evidence prepared by Mr Noonan as part of the resource consent application.
145. Mr Noonan modelled the predicted increase in vehicle emissions associated with the predicted increase in vehicle numbers and stated that due to high levels of dispersion and dilution associated with vehicle emissions, the effects are likely to be localised with sensitive receptors limited to those properties either side of the road. Mr Noonan concluded that likely increased emissions from Brylee Drive were relatively low when compared with the emissions from existing sources namely, SH1. In his evidence, he added that the predicted increase would be significantly lower than all relevant air quality criteria concentration levels including cumulative contaminant levels.13
146. The peer review for the Council undertaken by Mr Vaughan Turner agreed with the conclusions of Mr Noonan’s air quality assessment and stated that the increase in emissions from vehicles using the new road connection were likely to be negligible and unlikely to result in adverse effects to human health and the environment of any significance.14
Finding
147. We accept the expert evidence of Mr Noonan and supportive peer review of Mr Turner and find that any adverse air quality effects from increased vehicle emissions resulting from the proposed road connection will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
What are the construction related effects of the road connection?
148. The proposed new road connection requires physical earthworks and road construction works that are also located within a flood plain subject to the 1% AEP flood event. This aspect of the proposal was assessed by Mr Crang for the applicant and he presented evidence at the hearing on these matters. He stated that the earthworks proposed were small in scale, volume and area involving excavation of some 1,020m³ in volume. He advised that accepted best practice civil engineering erosion and sediment control measures would be adopted in accordance with the Council guidance document (GD05).
13 Evidence of Mr Noonan paragraph 2.5 14 Air quality effects assessment of Mr Vaughan Turner – section 7 (Hearing Report page 89)
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 31 BUN60316780 149. With regard to stormwater flooding and overland flowpaths, Mr Crang stated that the road had been designed to allow flood water to flow into an existing overland flow path located between 67 Brylee Drive and Lot 1040 on the adjoining Waiata Shores land. He added that the minimum floor level for the new residential lot had been set at 500mm above the 1% AEP flood levels in accordance with Council standards. This assessment and its conclusions are supported by Council peer reviewer, Varusha Pandian, subject to a number of recommended conditions of consent which have been accepted by the applicant.
150. We note that certification of these matters prior to the signing of the Survey Plan pursuant to Section 223 of the RMA is recommended in the conditions of consent.
Finding
151. We accept the expert evidence of Mr Crang and supportive peer review of Varusha Pandian and find that any adverse sediment or flooding effects from the physical works needed to establish the proposed road connection will be avoided or acceptably mitigated.
Conditions
152. During the course of the hearing we received several iterations of conditions of consent and following the hearing of evidence we asked the planners for the applicant, Council and AT to confer and, if agreement was reached, provide a single revised set of conditions for us to consider. We received three versions of the conditions (one from each party) and comments from the Council’s Principal Specialist Planner where she disagreed with two of the Council’s version of conditions.
153. Each version clearly outlined points of difference and proposed amendments which we found to be of assistance.
154. From our reading of the various versions the principal area of disagreement centred on who would be responsible for traffic calming measures (and by implication who would pay for them), how this would be implemented via the conditions of consent and when would the works occur relative to the vesting or opening of the road.
155. The applicant sought a straight forward condition (Condition 8) that required that the proposed road link not open until the traffic calming devices achieve the optimum outcome in terms of speed management (30-35km/hr average) and noise minimisation (compliance with E25.6.33).
156. AT sought that the traffic calming measures be implemented by the consent holder and raised concerns regarding the vesting of the road. AT refer to common law implications and state:
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 32 BUN60316780 There are common law implications of land being legal road such as the right to pass and repass over it: Paprzik v Tauranga City Council [1992]3 NZLR 176. Once the road is legal road (under s.315 LGA74) the common law right to pass and repass over it without hindrance means that no-one (AT included) may prevent vehicular access to the road including by erecting physical barriers.
Placing bollards to prevent vehicular traffic using a legal road would constitute an unlawful interference with the common law right to pass and repass over the legal road: Paprzik v Tauranga City Council [1992]3 NZLR 176. 15
157. AT concerns were with the potential vesting of the road occurring without traffic calming mechanisms in place and the inability to prevent vehicles on it until then. AT submitted that vesting occurs automatically on deposit of survey plan showing one or more lots as “road to vest”. AT added that given the calming mechanisms are required to mitigate the effects of the proposal, the consent needs to include a condition requiring the consent holder to implement the calming mechanisms. Unless these mechanisms are required as a condition of the consent, the consent holder simply needs to construct the road in accordance with the consent and scheme plan in order for it to vest and become legal road.
158. The reporting planner considered that a condition can require the traffic calming measures to be put in place prior to vesting provided it is a condition which is required to be met prior to the issue of a certificate under section 224(c) of the RMA. Additional conditions have been recommended by the reporting planner to clarify that barriers may be installed to prevent traffic using the road but can be accessed by pedestrians or cyclists.
159. We have undertaken a thorough review of the conditions and the various iterations and recommendations. We have made a number of changes to correct references, typos and syntax and some changes to the structure to follow a more consistent layout for subdivision consents.
160. On specific matters, we prefer the simpler form of condition suggested by the Applicant with regard to the timing and implementation of the traffic calming devices (Condition 8) but agree with AT and Mr Mumby that this condition should be explicitly subject to a condition that states that the works need to be undertaken prior to the issue of a certificate under s224(c) and thereby prior to vesting. We have therefore moved this condition and made it (and others) subject to s224(c). By adopting this approach we acknowledge and confirm that the installation of any traffic calming devices will be the responsibility of AT on the basis that connectivity between the two residential areas of Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove is an outcome sought by AT and its Legacy Council through a
15 Auckland Transport – Table Outlining AC, AT and APP position on Proposed Condition – Page 2
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 33 BUN60316780 consent notice on the original subdivision and development consent and the current MOU. We note that the MOU is unambiguous on this point. The consent sought by Fletcher Residential is to form the road connection within its land, as required by the MOU. Fletcher Residential has offered a condition that prevents the road being vested and opened to traffic until traffic calming measures that achieve the desired traffic speed environment have been installed by AT within the existing roads. This also means that AT has control over the design and spacing of the devices to achieve desired performance standards.
161. In terms of the consent lapse date under section 125 of the RMA, we acknowledge that the applicant sought a two year period to give effect to the consent instead of the standard five years. The applicant, via its right of reply states that the reason for this is to provide certainty for affected parties. In her right of reply, Ms Simons states:
Given the sensitive environment, as demonstrated by the high number of submitters in opposition to the application, Fletcher Residential submits that a two-year lapse period is more appropriate than the five-year statutory lapse. This will provide the local residents with certainty as to when they can expect the consent to be given effect to and will provide AT with the incentive to give effect to the consent or abandon it.16
162. We note that the implications of a shorter period to give effect to the consent means that if the condition is not met within two years and the consent lapses then Fletcher Residential can claim that it has fully complied with the MOU and Ms Simons has said as much in the right of reply.
163. Having considered that, we are of the view that if AT are responsible for the traffic calming measures and these are yet to be designed or finalised or even funded, then a standard five year time period to give effect to the consent would seem more appropriate. In our view, this would also allow AT some opportunity to engage with local residents over the design of the devices including spacing, visual impact, desired vehicle speeds and future-proofing for public transport opportunities. Given the level of public engagement on these matters we strongly encourage AT to engage with the local residents on the traffic calming devices and we are prepared to allow additional time to give effect to the consent to enable that to occur. On this basis, we have imposed a standard five year period to give effect to the consent under section 125 of the RMA.
Decision
164. In exercising our delegation under sections 34 and 34A of the RMA and having regard to the foregoing matters, sections 104, 104C, 106, 108, 108AA, 125 and Part 2 of the RMA, we determine that resource consent by Fletcher Residential Limited to undertake a two lot subdivision to subdivide land to create one residential lot and a road to vest, with associated land use consent for
16 Fletcher Residential - Right of Reply paragraph 5.9
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 34 BUN60316780 earthworks and construction works to facilitate a connection between Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove at 3 Te Napi Drive and the northern end of Brylee Drive, Conifer Grove, is GRANTED for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out below.
Reasons for the decision a) In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, after having regard to any actual and potential effects of allowing the activity, the proposed formation of a road connection and subdivision to create a residential lot will provide an appropriate and necessary connection between the residential areas of Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores to service the needs of local residents and to provide enhanced connectivity to the surrounding roading network. The proposed road connection, subject to conditions of consent, which include the condition preventing the road opening until traffic calming devices have been installed, will ensure that adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. b) In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, after having regard to the Auckland RPS, the most relevant provisions of the Unitary Plan, in particular the Auckland- wide provisions relating to Earthworks (District) and Subdivision (Urban) and the Mixed Housing Urban and Suburban Zones, the proposed formation of a road connection and subdivision to create a residential lot will be consistent with these provisions and their relative objectives and policies. c) In terms of Part 2 of the RMA we have found that the proposal promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as contemplated by section 5.
Conditions
Under Section 108, 108AA and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991, these consents are subject to the following conditions.
General Conditions
1. The subdivision and earthworks activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, except where amended by conditions of consent, including but not limited to:
• Application form and assessment of effects (including appendices) prepared by Angela Crang of Delta Planning referenced as “Land use and Subdivision Consent for Stage 7-2 of Waiata Shores at 1V Great South Road (Amended) August 2018”
• Section 92 responses (pre notification) from the Applicant dated 20 April 2018, 11 June 2018, 28 June 2018
• Section 92 responses from the Applicant (post notification) dated 26 April 2019, 6 June 2019 and 28 June 2019 including;
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 35 BUN60316780 o Acoustic Report from Styles Group dated 28 June 2019
o Traffic Assessment from Stantec dated 17 April 2019 and mitigation plan dated 16 April 2019 and traffic model outputs received 30 May 2019
o Air Quality Assessment from Beca dated 20 February 2019
o Clarification on traffic modelling data received via email on 8 August 2019 from Sue Simons of Berry Simons.
Report title and reference Author Rev Dated Engineering Report Manukau Golf Crang Civil - February 2018 Course Waiata Shores Stage 7-2 Consulting Takanini, Manukau Ref 1224 Engineers Site Validation Report – Soil Soil & Rock B 26 October Contamination – former Manukau Consultants Ltd 2017 Golf Course 1V Great South Road, Conifer Grove
Plan title and Reference Author Rev Dated
Scheme Plan titled “Stage 7-2 Survey Worx B 8 February 2018 Lots 4 and 820 being a subdivision of Lot 1004 of the previously approved Manukau Golf Redevelopment” DWG Ref SP254 Set of Engineering Plans titled Crang Civil - 14 February “MANUKAU GOLF COURSE 2018 WAIATA SHORES STAGE 7 – 2”
Monitoring Charges
2. The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $660.00 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent.
Advice Note:
The initial monitoring charge 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 consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time.
The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 36 BUN60316780 Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent holder.
Access to Property
3. Until all the conditions of this Resource Consent have been completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Team Leader Southern Monitoring, servants or agents of Auckland Council shall be permitted to have access to relevant parts of the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.
Resource Consent to be Made Available
4. For the duration of works herein approved, a copy of this resource consent must be held on site in a safe and secure location and be made available to Auckland Council Staff, Contractors or Agent upon request.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION – SUB60316783
Consent Lapsing
5. Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses five years after the date it is granted unless:
a. A survey plan is submitted to Council for approval under section 223 of the RMA before the consent lapses, and that plan is deposited within three years of the approval date in accordance with section 224 of the RMA; or
b. An application under section 125 of the RMA is made to the council before the consent lapses (five years) to extend the period after which the consent lapses and the Council grants an extension.
Survey Plan Approval
6. Prior to the signing of the Survey Plan pursuant to section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the consent holder shall complete the following to the approval of the Manager Resource Consents South:
Survey Plan Approval
a. The consent holder shall submit a Survey Plan in accordance with the approved resource consent subdivision plan.
Road to Vest
b. Lot 820 shall be shown on the Survey Plan as Road to Vest.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 37 BUN60316780 PRE -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Engineering Plan Approval (EPA)
7. Prior to the signing of the Survey Plan pursuant to Section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and commencement of any works related to or on site, in accordance with this application, the consent holder shall provide design plans and specifications detailing the following works required in respect to this subdivision, to the satisfaction of the Team Leader– Development Engineering (South).
The engineering plans submitted for approval shall detail all works associated with, and in accordance with Council Standards, including but not limited to;
a. Roading works;
b. Stormwater Reticulation;
c. Stormwater Treatment Systems;
d. Overland Flowpaths;
e. Stormwater Outfall Structure Details;
f. Swale system details;
g. Wastewater Reticulation;
h. Water Reticulation;
i. Earthworks and Sediment Control;
j. Vehicle crossing detail; and
k. Street trees and landscaping
Advice Note:
a) In the former Papakura District area, water and wastewater services are provided by Veolia under a Franchise Agreement. The consent holder deals directly with Veolia in relation to all water and wastewater servicing matters throughout the subdivision process. Compliance with Veolia's water and wastewater requirements (as evidenced by the issuing by Veolia of a Compliance Certificate) is necessary prior to the issue by Auckland Council of a Completion Certificate s224c. ([email protected])
b) The requisite traffic calming works along the balance of Brylee Drive (that is those works outside of the cul de sac head and area of immediate works) are excluded from the requirements for engineering plan approval in this condition and instead the consent holder has the ability, if they require it, to
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 38 BUN60316780 provide those engineering plans with the necessary certification at the s224c stage and as per conditions 17 to 20 (inclusive) of this consent.
Street Landscaping Plans
8. Prior to the signing of the Survey Plan pursuant to Section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the consent holder shall submit detailed Landscape Planting Plans for all (existing and new) street planting and landscaping on the proposed road, including specifications and a maintenance programme until the planting is confirmed as established for approval by the Parks Planning Team Leader. In particular, the plans shall:
a. Be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect.
b. Show all planting including details of intended species, location, plant sizes at time of planting and likely heights on maturity, tree pit specifications, the overall material palette, location of street lights and other service access points in relation to the existing (and any proposed) street trees.
c. Ensure that selected species can maintain appropriate separation distances from paths, roads, street lights and vehicle crossings in accordance with the Auckland Transport Code of Practice.
d. Include planting methodology and maintenance programme
e. Comply with the Auckland Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision: Chapter 7: Green Assets and Landscaping.
9. The consent holder shall provide plans and supporting information demonstrating that the proposed works within the road reserve will comply with E17.4.1 of the AUP(OP) (Trees in Roads) to the satisfaction of Parks Planning Team Leader.
Advice note:
If the works trigger resource consent under chapter “E17 – Trees in Road” of the AUP(OP), then additional resource consent must be sought and approved prior to those works being undertaken – including tree removal and works within the dripline of the trees.
10. The consent holder shall provide for the certification of the Parks Planning Team Leader a Maintenance Plan, for all planting and landscaping to be established on the streetscape (lot 820). The Maintenance Plan must include:
a. Vegetation maintenance policies for the proposed planting, in particular details of maintenance methodology and dates / frequencies.
b. Details of watering, weeding, trimming, cultivation, pest and disease control, checking of stakes and ties, pruning and other accepted
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 39 BUN60316780 horticultural operations to ensure normal and healthy plant establishment and growth.
c. Vandalism eradication policies.
d. Design strategy, specification and management plans for the treatment/maintenance issue relating to the streetscape (lot 820).
Works at the Brylee Drive Cul De Sac Head / Shared Path Connection
11. The consent holder is to ensure that any existing overland flow paths within the area of the proposed development are maintained to prevent impacts on the SH1 stormwater design within this section of the motorway designation.
12. Unless expressly varied by written authorisation from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), the consent holder is to ensure that the replacement of the Brylee Drive cul-de-sac head with a formed road link through to Gosper Drive is integrated with the NZTA proposed Shared Use Path link from the western side of the motorway to Brylee Drive, particularly at the termination point of the pathway adjacent to the current cul-de-sac head. Reference is to be made to the NZTA landscape and shared use path layout plans:
a. SCI-0-U-DG-8313-1 Landscape Hard Works Layout Plans Sheet 13 OF 27
b. SCI-R-0-DG-1181-4 Shared Used Path Layout & Long section Sheet 1 OF 14
c. SCI-R-0-DG-2847-1 MCQ0 Cross Sections -20m Intervals Sheet 2 OF 43
d. SCI-R-0-DG-2848-1 MCQ0 Cross Sections -20m Intervals Sheet 3 OF 43
Engineering Plan Certification
13. As part of the application for Engineering Plan Approval, a CPEng qualified Engineer, Registered Professional Surveyor or other suitably qualified person acceptable to Council shall:
a. Certify that all public roads and associated structures/facilities or access ways have been designed in accordance with the Auckland Transport Code of Practice and requisite safety standards.
b. Certify that the proposed stormwater system or devices proposed have been designed in accordance with the Council’s Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision: Chapter 4 – Stormwater
c. Certify that all water supply and wastewater systems have been designed in accordance with the Water and Wastewater Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision prepared by Watercare Services Limited (WSL)
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 40 BUN60316780 d. Provide a statement that the proposed infrastructure has been designed for the long-term operation and maintenance of the asset
e. Confirm that all practical measures are included in the design to facilitate safe working conditions in and around the asset.
Advice Note
The requisite traffic calming works along the balance of Brylee Drive (that is those works outside of the cul de sac head and area of immediate works) are excluded from the requirements for engineering plan certification in this condition and instead the consent holder has the ability to provide those engineering plans with the necessary certification at the s224c stage.
DEVELOPMENT IN PROGRESS CONDITIONS
Engineering Plans - Works
14. The works detailed on the approved engineering plans in condition 7 shall be constructed to the satisfaction of, and at no cost to, the Council and are subject to the following requirements;
a. All materials, workmanship and testing shall be in accordance with Council’s current Engineering Standards or any subsequent replacement documents.
b. All approved construction work, shall be supervised by an engineering representative, appointed by the owner (refer to Council’s current Engineering Standards).
c. All works on the existing public wastewater and watermains shall be carried out by a Veolia Water approved licensed contractor, at the consent holder's expense.
d. All works on the existing public stormwater network shall be carried out by a suitably qualified contractor, at the consent holder's expense.
All approved construction work, shall be supervised by an engineering representative, appointed by the Consent Holder (refer to Council’s current Engineering Standards).
Power and Telecommunication Servicing
15. Power and telecommunication services shall be installed underground within the road berm and common access lots/private ways to provide suitably located service connections to the lot.
a. The services shall be satisfactorily located, within the property, to facilitate the future development of the property by way of subdivision. Ducts may
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 41 BUN60316780 alternatively be installed (to the service provider’s specifications) to allow for future power and telecommunication cable installation.
b. The consent holder shall supply a copy of the subdivision sign off from both the power and telecommunication service providers at the time of applying for their section 224c certificate.
c. The consent holder shall supply Completion / Provisioning certificates, from the utility service providers, and certified as-built plans giving locations of all Plinths, Cables and Ducts.
Street Trees and Planting
16. Prior to the commencement of works the consent holder shall erect temporary fences outside the drip line of all existing street trees which are to be retained and have the potential to be affected by the works, which shall remain in place throughout the duration of the works.
Subdivision Completion Conditions (prior to issue of s224(c))
16A Before the Council issues a certificate pursuant to section 224(c) of the RMA and before the proposed road link is opened for motorised vehicular public access and vested as road, the consent holder shall satisfy the following conditions 17- 28.
17. The application for a certificate under section 224(c) of the RMA shall be accompanied by certification from a professionally qualified surveyor or engineer that all the conditions of subdivision consent have been complied with, and that in respect of those conditions that have not been complied with:
a. a completion certificate has been issued in relation to any conditions to which section 222 applies;
b. a consent notice has been issued in relation to any conditions to which section 221 applies; and
c. a bond has been entered into by the subdividing owner in compliance with any condition of subdivision consent imposed under section 108(2)(b).
18. Written confirmation from a suitably qualified Traffic Engineer and Acoustic Consultant is provided to the Team Leader Monitoring South that traffic calming devices have been installed that have been designed to achieve the optimum outcome in terms of speed management (30-35km/hr average) and noise minimisation (compliance with E25.6.33) along Brylee Drive.
Utility Provider Certification
19. A certificate from Veolia Water confirming that separate wastewater and water connections have been provided for the residential lot (Lot 4) shall be provided.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 42 BUN60316780 Advice Note
a) In the former Papakura District area, water and wastewater services are provided by Veolia under a Franchise Agreement. The consent holder deals directly with Veolia in relation to all water and wastewater servicing matters throughout the subdivision process. Compliance with Veolia's water and wastewater requirements (as evidenced by the issuing by Veolia of a Compliance Certificate) is necessary prior to the issue by Auckland Council of a Completion Certificate under s224c.
b) Construction of any water or wastewater infrastructure shall not commence until such time as a Construction / Connection of New Works Agreement has been issued by Veolia and accepted by the applicant (including construction requirements and charges payable) which the applicant must comply with before Veolia either physically permit the connection if the future water / wastewater infrastructure to the existing water supply / wastewater system or provide water / wastewater services.
c) A Construction / Connection of New Works Agreement shall be issued only following the completion of water and wastewater servicing plans, which meet Watercare Standards and Veolia requirements.
d) The building over sewer application shall be required in accordance with Watercare Standard and Veolia requirements (i.e. bridging details) etc.
Services
20. All public drainage, roading and network services required for servicing the residential lot (Lot 4) have been installed and accepted by Council as public services.
Landscaping – Streets
21. Prior to the issue of the section 224(c) certificate the street landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and to the following specifications to the satisfaction of the Parks Planning Team Leader and landscaped in accordance with the Auckland Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision Chapter 7: Green Assets and Landscaping, and in particular the following:
a. The street shall be cleared of any construction material, rubbish and surplus soil, and shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition;
b. Should site factors preclude compliance with any of these conditions, the Parks Planning Team Leader must be advised in writing as soon as practicable and, in any case, prior to planting, and an alternative soil improvement methodology proposed to the satisfaction of the Parks Planning Team Leader;
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 43 BUN60316780 c. Good quality topsoil, free of stones and clay lumps, shall be retained from the site for use on the street. All grassed and planted areas shall be developed and completed with a minimum topsoil depth of 100mm and 400mm respectively;
d. If the subsoil below the required depth (300mm) is hard and compacted, it shall be ripped; and
e. All areas of the street that have been grassed must have a 90 percent strike rate, in a mowable condition, and be weed and rubbish free.
22. Grassing of the street berms shall only be undertaken when the weather is suitable (i.e. mild, dull and moist, and when the ground is moist and workable). Where delays occur in the agreed programme which prevents areas being planted, the consent holder shall inform the Parks Team Leader immediately.
23. Street trees shall be planted in general accordance with the approved planting plan and maintained by the consent holder for a period of two years from the date of the section 224(c) certificate for the subdivision and to the satisfaction of Council’s Parks Team Leader.
Advice Note
The consent holder shall apply for a practical completion certificate prior to s224(c) application from the Parks Planning Team Leader to demonstrate reserve development has been satisfactorily implemented and to formalise the commencement of the maintenance period.
As-Built Requirements - General
24. At the completion of works, certifications and as-built plans of all new public and private assets shall be provided to the satisfaction of Council's Team Leader - Development Engineering South and shall be in accordance with:
a. The conditions of the Resource Consent/Engineering Plan approval.
b. Auckland Council’s Engineering Quality Assurance Manual.
c. Auckland Council’s current Engineering Standards.
d. NZS4431 1989 Code of Practice for Earth Fill for Residential Development.
The consent holder shall supply Completion / Provisioning certificates for the power and telephone services from the utility service providers, and certified as- built plans giving locations of all Plinths, Cables and Ducts.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 44 BUN60316780 Advice Note
The Auckland Council As built requirement can be found on the following council website-https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/building-and-consents/engineering- approvals/Documents/engineering-as-built-requirements.pdf.
As-Built – Street Landscaping
25. Prior to the issue of the s224(c) certificate, the consent holder will provide to the Development Engineer and Parks Planning Team Leader as built plans for landscape works (hard and soft) within the street in CAD (NZTM 2000) and pdf form in accordance with the Development Engineering As‐built requirements v1.3, including the following details;
a. Asset names.
b. All finished hard and soft landscape asset locations and type, and any planted areas must be shown to scale with the square metres of planting, species and number of plants.
c. All underground services, irrigation and drainage.
d. All paint colours, graffiti coatings, pavers and concrete types with names of products to be included on the assets schedule.
Maintenance of Street Landscaping
26. Prior to the issue of the s224(c) certificate, and in accordance with section 108(2)(b) of the RMA, the consent holder will provide the Council a refundable bond in respect of the maintenance of the landscaping works required by the conditions of this consent. The maintenance bond will be held for a period of two years from the issues of a practical completion certificate, or s224(c), whichever is the latter. The amount of the bond will be 1.5 x the contracted rate for maintenance and shall be agreed in consultation with the Parks Planning Team Leader.
Consent Notice
27. The following consent notice shall be registered on the new RT for Lot 4 pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and complied with on an ongoing basis. Such a consent notice shall be prepared by Council's Solicitor at the consent holder's expense.
The following approved Minimum Floor Level shall apply to the buildings on the subject site:
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 45 BUN60316780 Lot Minimum Floor Level 4 10.54m
All levels are in terms of the Lands & Survey Auckland Datum, 1946 and in accordance with the approved plans referenced in Resource Consent BUN60316780 by Council.
Maintenance of Works
28. The roads, drainage systems, street lighting, landscaping and planting, must be maintained to the standard required by this consent and subsequent approvals to the satisfaction of the Team Leader- Development Engineering (South) for the following periods after the section 224(c) certificate has been issued by the Council:
a. 6 months for all roads, footpaths, drainage systems, and street lighting; and
b. 24 months for all street trees, landscaping and reserves.
Any faults, or defects to any of these works must be remedied at the consent holder's cost.
The consent holder must enter a bond with the Council on its usual terms and conditions to secure compliance with this condition. The bond will not be released until the consent holder provides evidence to the satisfaction of the Council that these requirements have been met.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR EARTHWORKS – LUC60316782
Consent expiry
29. Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses five years after the date it is granted unless:
a. The consent is given effect to; or
b. The council extends the period after which the consent lapses.
Construction Management Plan for Approval
30. Prior to commencement of any construction works within Lot 1004 and the cul- de-sac the consent holder shall submit a construction management plan for the approval of the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South. This plan shall contain;
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 46 BUN60316780 a. Measures to ensure that all vehicles associated with construction shall access the site from Gosper Drive only and no vehicles associated with construction shall access the site from Brylee Drive.
b. A complaints register that is prepared for any local residents to be able to call and register with the consent holder of any construction vehicles found to travel via the Brylee Drive in and out of the site. The consent holder shall make this register available to Council on demand.
c. Measures so that during the course of construction and in subsequent operation of the development no access to the worksite from the motorway off ramp will be permitted.
d. Earthworks methodologies including sediment and dust control in accordance with Auckland Council Guideline Document 2016/05 Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (GD05).
e. An approved Traffic Management Plan and Corridor Access Request from Auckland Transport.
The consent holder shall ensure that the approved construction management plan is implemented and maintained throughout the construction period.
Pre-Start Meeting
31. Prior to the commencement of the construction of drainage and earthworks activities, the consent holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that:
a. is located on the subject site
b. is scheduled not less than 5 days before the anticipated commencement of earthworks
c. includes Council’s Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South and Development Engineer.
d. includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works and any suitably qualified professionals if required by other conditions.
The following matters shall be discussed at the meeting:
• the erosion and sediment control measures.
• the earthworks methodology.
• shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 47 BUN60316780 The following information shall be supplied to Council’s Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South at least 48 hours prior to the pre-start meeting:
• Erosion and sediment control plans
• Approved Corridor Access Request (CAR), complete with Traffic Management Plan (TMP), from Auckland Transport
A pre-start meeting shall be held prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity in each period between October 1 and April 30 that this consent is exercised.
Advice Note:
Please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South to arrange this meeting or email [email protected] To arrange the pre-start meeting, required by condition above, please contact Council’s Development Engineering Team, ([email protected]) & Veolia Water at ([email protected]) & Southern Monitoring ([email protected]) .
Note – Veolia water engineering approval is required for water and wastewater public connection/extensions
Pre works notification
32. The Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South shall be notified via email ([email protected]) at least ten (10) working days prior to construction activity commencing on the subject site.
Noise during Construction
33. All construction and earthworks activities on the subject site (including works in Brylee Drive) shall comply with the standards set out in E25.6 of the AUP.
Hours of Construction
34. The use of noise generating tools, motorised equipment, and vehicles that are associated with construction and/or earthworks activity on the subject site shall therefore be restricted to between the following hours to comply with this standard:
Monday to Saturday: 7:30am - 6:00pm.
Sundays or Public Holidays: no works
Advice Note:
Works may be undertaken outside these hours solely under the written approval of Council’s Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South. This will only be
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 48 BUN60316780 granted under special circumstances, for example in the event of urgent stabilisation works or in the event of inclement weather preventing work Monday to Saturday.
Any work outside these hours will be subject to the approval of any neighbouring residents or other affected parties as may be identified by the Council’s Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South.
Erosion and Sediment Control
35. The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and maintained throughout the duration of earthworks activity, or until the site is permanently stabilised against erosion, in accordance with GD05.
Inspections
36. All erosion and sediment controls at the site of the works shall be inspected on a regular basis and within 24 hours of each rainstorm event that is likely to impair the function or performance of the control measure. A record shall be maintained of the date, time and any maintenance undertaken in association with this condition which the consent holder shall be forward to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South on request.
Dust
37. During earthworks, all necessary action shall be taken to prevent dust generation and sufficient water shall be available to dampen exposed soil, and/or other dust suppressing measures shall be available to avoid dust formation. The consent holder shall ensure that dust management generally complies with the Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, MfE (2016).
Land Stability
38. The proposed earthworks shall be undertaken in a manner which ensures that the land within the site, and on adjoining properties, remain stable at all times. In this regard;
a. The consent holder shall employ a CPEng qualified Engineer, Registered Professional Surveyor or other suitably qualified person acceptable to Council to investigate, direct and supervise all construction works, particularly in close proximity to neighbouring properties to ensure that an appropriate design and construction methodology is carried out to maintain the short and long term stability of the site and surrounds.
b. All temporary stabilising works shall be constructed in a timely manner under engineering supervision.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 49 BUN60316780 c. All works shall be undertaken in a manner that complies with Vibration Standards of Chapter E25 of the AUP(OP).
d. Certification from a suitably qualified engineering professional responsible for supervising the works shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South, within ten (10) working days following completion. Written certification shall be in the form of Producer Statement acceptable to Council.
No Obstructions
39. There shall be no obstruction as far as practical of access to existing public footpaths, berms, private properties, public services/utilities or public reserves resulting from construction activity. All materials and equipment shall be stored within the subject site’s boundaries unless otherwise authorised by the respect land / asset owner.
No Deposition
40. There shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any road or footpath resulting from construction activity on the subject site. In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed. In no instance shall roads or footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters.
Advice Notes:
In order to prevent sediment laden water entering waterways from the road, the following methods may be adopted to prevent or address discharges should they occur:
• provision of a stabilised entry and exit point for vehicles;
• provision of wheel wash facilities;
• ceasing of vehicle movement until materials are removed;
• cleaning of road surfaces using street-sweepers;
• silt and sediment traps; and
• catchpits or environpods
Under no circumstances should the washing of deposited materials into drains be advised or otherwise condoned. It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who may be able to provide further guidance on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South for more details. Alternatively, please refer to GD05.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 50 BUN60316780 Earthworks Abandonment
41. Upon completion or abandonment of earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South.
Advice Note:
Should the earthworks be completed or abandoned, bare areas of earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion. Measures may include:‘
• the use of mulching;
• top-soiling, grassing and mulching of otherwise bare areas of earth; and
• aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a normal pasture sward.
The on-going monitoring of these measures is the responsibility of the consent holder. It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who will guide you on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South for more details. Alternatively, please refer to GD05.
General Advice Notes:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. This consent approval does not authorise the construction of the necessary engineering works shown on the plans. A separate Engineering Plan Approval is required to undertake any engineering works related to the proposal.
4. A Corridor Access Request, (CAR), is required for all works undertaken within the ‘road corridor’. See Auckland Transport’s website https://at.govt.nz/about- us/working-on-the- road/corridor-access-requests/#applycar for more information.
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 51 BUN60316780 5. Due to other services in close proximity, prior to works commencing, the applicant should liaise with adjacent utility operators to ensure any required clearances are maintained and that due care and attention is given to the requirements and reasonable conditions of those utility operators to avoid any interference or damage. Contingency plans are to be agreed with those respective utility operators for any specific infringements to the required separation distances.
a) For water supply the applicant shall be responsible for locating all water supply lines, valves, tees and hydrants prior to work commencing to ensure a minimum of 500mm horizontal and 300mm vertical clearance is maintained.
Where the minimum clearance between water supply mains and between the wastewater and stormwater systems and the applicant’s services cannot be maintained, the applicant shall contact Veolia Water, on 09- 2950515, to enable a site inspection by a Veolia Water representative, 48 hours prior to the commencement of any work. Specific approval for such cases will need to be granted in writing on site, on a case by case basis.
b) For the wastewater and stormwater systems, the applicant shall be responsible for locating all wastewater and stormwater lines prior to any work commencing and ensuring a minimum of 2 (two) metres clearance will be maintained between this reticulation including manholes and the applicants proposed services, at cross over points.
6. This consent does not constitute authority to build or undertake retaining wall and private drainage works and it may be necessary for you to apply for a Project Information Memorandum and Building Consent if you have not already done so.
7. This approval does not permit the construction of the necessary engineering works within other affected properties, as Right of Entry consent may not been obtained. Although the engineering plans are approved, such consent must be obtained prior to commencement of construction of the drainage works.
8. Veolia Water New Zealand approval is required for connection of the Wastewater and Watermain. 61-63 O’Shannessey Street Papakura 2110 New Zealand Tel: +64 92950515 Fax: +64 9 2962632 [email protected] www.veoliawater.co.nz
Robert Scott - Chairperson 24 October 2019
3 Te Napi Drive & and the northern end of Brylee Drive 52 BUN60316780