DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of 017 RUB South STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF JOY MARTHA LA NAUZE ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (PARAREKAU AND KOPUAHINGAHINGA ISLANDS - HINGAIA) 18 December 2015 1. SUMMARY 1.1 Having read the expert evidence from the witnesses on behalf of Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited (KHEL), and the rebuttal statements of evidence on behalf of Auckland Council's (Council) witnesses Shona Myers (ecology), Peter Kensington (landscape and visual effects) and Sarah Sinclair (coastal engineering), I am still of the opinion that Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands should remain beyond the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB). 1.2 In my view, excluding Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands from the RUB is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Having regard to the evidence of the Council's other expert witnesses, the reasons for this include: (a) The Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands have a unique coastal and non-urban character and this should be retained. Inclusion with the RUB and subsequent urban development would result in adverse effects on natural character, landscape and visual amenity values for this sensitive landscape. (b) The expansion of the RUB and urban development is likely to impact significantly on the ecological values Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands, including the marine receiving environment. (c) The islands are an important sensitive environment culturally. (d) Relying on a single road access (two causeways) generates risk in the event that this access is not available in future. (e) The appropriate level of development on Pararekau Island was relatively recently considered by the Environment Court in a 2012 decision on the draft consent order for Private Plan Change 8 to Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura (PPC8). The provisions of PPC8 approved by the Environment Court demonstrate that Pararekau Island is not suitable for intensive urban development. 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 My name is Joy LaNauze. I am a planner engaged by the Council to respond to submissions received on the notified Papuan to provide planning evidence in relation to submissions made on the southern RUB for Topic 017 RUB South (Topic 017). Those submissions relate specifically to the Hingaia area (incorporating Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands). I have the qualifications and experience set out in my evidence-in-chief (EIC), which formed part of a Joint statement of evidence “Urban Edge-Flatbush, Howick- East Tamaki, Point View Drive, Mangere, Favona, Otahuhu and Hingaia” (co–written with Vrinda Moghe and Danni Briggs) dated 15 October 2015. 2.2 I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. 2.3 In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of submitters on Topic 017 relating specifically to the Hingaia area. This rebuttal statement addresses various issues in that evidence. 3. SCOPE 3.1 This rebuttal statement addresses the evidence filed on behalf of Karaka Harbourside Estate Ltd (KHEL) (Submission 3644-1) in relation to the inclusion of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands in the RUB. 3.2 I note that the submitter has also made submissions and lodged evidence seeking the rezoning of the islands, and seeking amended precinct provisions. These submissions will be considered in Hearing Topics 080 Rezoning and Precincts (General) and 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas). 3.3 The submitter has lodged evidence from: P Brown (planning) D Scott (landscape) M Smith (Civil Engineering) S Lander (Geotechnical) J Dahm (Coastal Processes) 2 C Clarke (Stormwater) K Sky (Ecology) J Parlane (Transport) 3.4 The sub-groups or "themes" that will be addressed in this rebuttal statement in response to the submitter evidence include the following: (a) Strategic growth and RUB capacity/RPS (b) Rural and coastal landscape and amenity values (c) Ecological values (d) Heritage and cultural values (e) Coastal Hazards (f) Transport (g) Zoning of Kopuahingahinga Island under PPC8. 4. STRATEGIC GROWTH AND RUB CAPACITY/RPS Evidence 4.1 Mr Brown in his planning evidence on behalf of KHEL states in paragraph 1.1 of his evidence that inclusion of the islands within the RUB represents a sound approach to strategic growth planning and is an efficient use of a scarce physical resource. Mr Brown in paragraph 7.2 considers that the RUB change would enable the efficient provision of development capacity and land supply for residential growth. Analysis 4.2 As outlined in the EIC of Chloe Trenouth for Topic 016 RUB North/West (Topic 016) and Topic 017, she proposes to include a new policy in Chapter B2.1 of the PAUP to set out the criteria that needs to be applied when establishing the RUB. Part of the policy is to provide a clear defensible limit to urban expansion by aligning the location of the RUB with strong landscape features or physical boundaries such as the coastal edge, natural catchments or watersheds, and prominent ridgelines. 4.3 In line with this policy, I consider that the islands should be excluded from the RUB because they are physically distinct from the mainland. They are also an important sensitive environment visually, environmentally, and culturally. 3 4.4 Dr Douglas Fairgray on behalf of the Council states in his evidence-in-chief for Topics 016 and 017, that the RUB as notified contains sufficient land for the anticipated urban growth. 4.5 I consider therefore that the inclusion of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands within the RUB is not required for RUB capacity purposes. 5. RURAL AND COASTAL LANDSCAPE AND AMENITY VALUES Evidence 5.1 Mr Brown considers in his evidence on behalf of KHEL in paragraph 1.1 that the rural and coastal character of the islands, and the landscape and amenity values which arise from that character are not of such significance to warrant restrictions on urban development. The landscape character of Pararekau Island is also addressed in the evidence of Dennis Scott on behalf of KHEL who expresses the view that KHEL's proposal to urbanize the island will not have any significant adverse visual effects. Analysis 5.2 In reliance on the EIC and rebuttal statement of evidence of Peter Kensington on behalf of the Council, I disagree with Mr Brown and Mr Scott, and consider that these matters are of such significance that they do warrant restrictions on urban development. 5.3 Mr Kensington specifically states in his rebuttal evidence that he has not changed the opinions expressed in his EIC, and he remains of the opinion that, from a landscape and visual effects perspective, no change should be made to the proposed RUB location in the PAUP in relation to Kopuahingahinga and Pararekau Islands, Hingaia. This is as a result of his view that: (a) from a landscape and visual effects perspective, it would be inappropriate to include the Islands within the RUB (and rezone them as Residential Mixed Housing Urban or Residential Single House) because the consequential urban development would result in adverse effects on natural character, landscape and visual amenity values for this sensitive coastal landscape. 4 (b) Pararekau Island is not physically part of the mainland – it is an island connected to the mainland via a causeway with Kopuahingahinga Island located in between – and it has a uniqueness that should be respected The island’s uniqueness will be reinforced by having a less intensive zoning than the mainland. (c) Pararekau Island has a unique and sensitive coastal open space character which is differentiated from the mainland because it is an island. (d) it is appropriate to retain Pararekau Island as a landscape feature and provide for a new land use (countryside living) that is less developed than the mainland and which retains more of an open space character (albeit remaining in private ownership for the most part) alongside rehabilitation through planting and the provision of public access to the coastal edge. 6. ECOLOGICAL VALUES Evidence 6.1 Ms Sky in her ecological evidence on behalf of KHEL suggests that all of the potential adverse effects of urban development on Pararekau Island that she identifies could be appropriately addressed through a consenting process for a Mixed Housing development. 6.2 For example, Ms Sky considers in paragraph 74 of her evidence that potential adverse effects associated with discharges to the marine environment can be addressed through the development of best practice erosion and sediment control plans for earthworks and the design of best practice stormwater management for any future development. 6.3 I note that while Ms Sky addresses ecological issues on behalf of KHEL, Mr Brown does not refer to ecological values or Ms Sky's evidence in his planning evidence. Analysis 6.4 I consider that the ecological values of the islands, especially Kopuahingahinga, are a key reason to exclude the islands from the RUB. In my view, the lack of consideration of these values is a significant omission from Mr Brown's planning evidence about why the Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands should be included within the RUB. 5 6.5 These ecological values of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands are addressed in detail in Shona Myers' rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council. She notes that, of the two islands, Kopuahingahinga has the most significant ecological values, with native lizards and threatened plants recorded. Ms Myers also states in her rebuttal evidence that there are significant marine habitats on the edges of the islands, with intertidal feeding habitat for wading birds and estuarine saltmarsh habitat.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historic Heritage Topic Report
    Historic Heritage Topic Report Drury Structure Plan August 2017 Image: Detail from Cadastral Survey of Drury 1931 (LINZ) 1 This report has been prepared by John Brown (MA) and Adina Brown (MA, MSc), Plan.Heritage Ltd. Content was also supplied by Cara Francesco, Auckland Council and Lisa Truttman, Historian. This report has been prepared for input into the Drury Structure Plan process and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This report relies upon information from multiple sources but cannot guarantee the accuracy of that information. 1 Table of contents Contents 1. Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4 2. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 2.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Study area .................................................................................................................. 6 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Approach .................................................................................................................... 8 3.2. Scope .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.3. Community and iwi consultation.................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Drury Structure Plan, Geotechnical and Coastal Erosion Assessment RILEY Ref: 170275-C (Issue 2.0) Page 4
    DRURY – OPAHEKE STRUCTURE PLAN BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL EROSION ASSESSMENT Engineers and Geologists RILEY CONSULTANTS LTD AUCKLAND CHRISTCHURCH New Zealand 4 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 22 Moorhouse Avenue, Addington, Christchurch 8011 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] PO Box 100253, North Shore, Auckland 0745 PO Box 4355, Christchurch 8140 Web: www.riley.co.nz Tel: +64 9 489 7872 Fax: +64 9 489 7873 Tel: +64 3 379 4402 Fax: +64 3 379 4403 DRURY – OPAHEKE STRUCTURE PLAN BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL EROSION ASSESSMENT Report prepared for: Auckland Council Report prepared by: James Beaumont, Senior Geotechnical Engineer ...................................... Report reviewed and Scott Vaughan, Managing Director, CPEng approved for issue by: ...................................... Report reference: 170275-C Date: 28 July 2017 Copies to: Auckland Council 1 electronic copy Riley Consultants Ltd 1 copy Issue: Details: Date: Geotechnical and Coastal Erosion 1.0 12 July 2017 Assessment Geotechnical and Coastal Erosion 2.0 28 July 2017 Assessment GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CIVIL WATER RESOURCES RILEY CONSULTANTS LTD AUCKLAND CHRISTCHURCH New Zealand 4 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 22 Moorhouse Avenue, Addington, Christchurch 8011 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] PO Box 100253, North Shore, Auckland 0745 PO Box 4355, Christchurch 8140 Web: www.riley.co.nz Tel: +64 9 489 7872 Fax: +64 9 489 7873 Tel: +64 3 379 4402 Fax: +64 3 379 4403 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Riley Consultants Ltd (RILEY) has been engaged by Auckland Council (Council) to prepare a geotechnical and coastal erosion assessment for the Drury – Opaheke Structure Plan (DSP) study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Inundation by Storm-Tides and Waves in the Auckland Region
    Coastal inundation by storm-tides and waves in the Auckland region Prepared for Auckland Council September 2013 Authors/Contributors : Scott Stephens Sanjay Wadhwa Richard Gorman Nigel Goodhue Mark Pritchard Ron Ovenden Glen Reeve For any information regarding this report please contact: Scott Stephens Coastal Scientist Coastal and Estuarine Processes Group +64-7-856 7026 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd Gate 10, Silverdale Road Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 PO Box 11115, Hillcrest Hamilton 3251 New Zealand Phone +64-7-856 7026 Fax +64-7-856 0151 NIWA Client Report No: HAM2013-059 Report date: September 2013 NIWA Project: ARC13216 © All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system. Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client. Contents Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 8 1 Introduction and project scope .................................................................................. 9 2 How inundation areas were calculated and mapped .............................................. 12 2.1 Processes contributing to sea-level variability (and extreme sea levels) ............. 12 2.2 Sea-level datum and mean sea level (MSL) ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southeastern Manukau / Pahurehure Inlet Contaminant Study: Hydrodynamic, Wave and Sediment-Transport Model Implementation and Calibration December TR 2008/056
    Southeastern Manukau / Pahurehure Inlet Contaminant Study: Hydrodynamic, Wave and Sediment-Transport Model Implementation and Calibration December TR 2008/056 Auckland Regional Council Technical Report No.056 December 2008 ISSN 1179-0504 (Print) ISSN 1179-0512 (Online) ISBN 978-1-877528-04-0 Technical Report. First Edition. Reviewed by: Approved for ARC Publication by: Name: Judy-Ann Ansen Name: Matthew Davis Position: Acting Team Leader Position: Group Manager Stormwater Action Team Partnerships & Community Programmes Organisation: Auckland Regional Council Organisation: Auckland Regional Council Date: 28 October 2010 Date: 28 October 2010 Recommended Citation: Pritchard, M; Gorman, R; Lewis, M. (2008). Southeastern Manukau Harbour / Pahurehure Inlet Contaminant Study. Hydrodynamic Wave and Sediment Transport Model Implementation and Calibration. Prepared by NIWA for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2008/056. © 2008 Auckland Regional Council This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Regional Council's (ARC) copyright and other intellectual property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication, in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This
    [Show full text]
  • South & East Auckland
    G A p R D D Paremoremo O N R Sunnynook Course EM Y P R 18 U ParemoremoA O H N R D E M Schnapper Rock W S Y W R D O L R SUNSET RD E R L ABERDEEN T I A Castor Bay H H TARGE SUNNYNOOK S Unsworth T T T S Forrest C Heights E O South & East Auckland R G Hill R L Totara Vale R D E A D R 1 R N AIRA O S Matapihi Point F W F U I T Motutapu E U R RD Stony Batter D L Milford Waitemata THE R B O D Island Thompsons Point Historic HI D EN AR KITCHENER RD Waihihi Harbour RE H Hakaimango Point Reserve G Greenhithe R R TRISTRAM Bayview D Kauri Point TAUHINU E Wairau P Korakorahi Point P DIANA DR Valley U IPATIKI CHIVALRY RD HILLSIDERD 1 A R CHARTWELL NZAF Herald K D Lake Takapuna SUNNYBRAE RD SHAKESPEARE RD ase RNZAF T Pupuke t Island 18 Glenfield AVE Takapuna A Auckland nle H Takapuna OCEAN VIEW RD kland a I Golf Course A hi R Beach Golf Course ro O ia PT T a E O Holiday Palm Beach L R HURSTMERE RD W IL D Park D V BEACH HAVEN RD NORTHCOTE R BAY RD R N Beach ARCHERS RD Rangitoto B S P I O B E K A S D A O D Island Haven I R R B R A I R K O L N U R CORONATION RD O E Blackpool H E Hillcrest R D A A K R T N Church Bay Y O B A SM K N D E N R S Birkdale I R G Surfdale MAN O’WA Hobsonville G A D R North Shore A D L K A D E Rangitawhiri Point D E Holiday Park LAK T R R N OCEANRALEIGH VIEW RD I R H E A R E PUPUKE Northcote Hauraki A 18 Y D EXMOUTH RD 2 E Scott Pt D RD L R JUTLAND RD E D A E ORAPIU RD RD S Birkenhead V I W K D E A Belmont W A R R K ONEWA L HaurakiMotorway .
    [Show full text]
  • Before a Board of Inquiry East West Link Proposal
    BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROPOSAL Under the Resource Management Act 1991 In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider notices of requirement and applications for resource consent made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the East West Link roading proposal in Auckland Statement of Evidence in Chief of Anthony David Cross on behalf of Auckland Transport dated 10 May 2017 BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS A J L BEATSON SOLICITOR FOR THE SUBMITTER AUCKLAND LEVEL 22, VERO CENTRE, 48 SHORTLAND STREET PO BOX 4199, AUCKLAND 1140, DX CP20509, NEW ZEALAND TEL 64 9 916 8800 FAX 64 9 916 8801 EMAIL [email protected] Introduction 1. My full name is Anthony David Cross. I currently hold the position of Network Development Manager in the AT Metro (public transport) division of Auckland Transport (AT). 2. I hold a Bachelor of Regional Planning degree from Massey University. 3. I have 31 years’ experience in public transport planning. I worked at Wellington Regional Council between 1986 and 2006, and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority between 2006 and 2010. I have held my current role since AT was established in 2010. 4. In this role, I am responsible for specifying the routes and service levels (timetables) for all of Auckland’s bus services. Since 2012, I have led the AT project known as the New Network, which by the end of 2018 will result in a completely restructured network of simple, connected and more frequent bus routes across all of Auckland.
    [Show full text]
  • RFI Response: Ecology
    Memo To: Rachel Morgan Job No: 1003297.6000 From: Justine Quinn Date: 24 March 2020 cc: Nick Carter, Gary Bramley Subject: Drury East Plan Changes - Ecology Response This memo has been prepared to address selected ecological responses as required by the Request for Further Information (RFI) from Auckland Council for Drury East Plan Change requests by Fulton Hogan, Oyster Capital and Kiwi Property. It has been prepared by three ecologists, being Gary Bramley (for Fulton Hogan), Justine Quinn (for Kiwi Property) and Nick Carter (for Oyster Capital) and summarises the results of an ecology workshop, literature review and collaborative drafting of this response. This memo should be read in conjunction with the stormwater memo and only applies to those specific matters outlined below. 1 Erosion and sedimentation effects The following response has been prepared in relation to RFI E10 (Kiwi), E11 + E12 (Fulton Hogan), E10 + E11 (Oyster) which collectively request that more information is provided to assess the effects of sediment and erosion on the life supporting capacity of the marine significant ecological area. Existing environment – plan change area The collective area that the three plan changes apply to (the plan change area) is currently in predominantly agricultural and horticultural land use, including cropping, dairy farming and grazing. Many of the streams within the plan change area are intermittently flowing headwater systems that have unrestricted stock access to enable grazing when the streams are dry in summer. The Hingaia Stream which flows along the western boundary of the wider plan change area is the largest stream affected by the plan change.
    [Show full text]
  • Papakura Rosehill Drury: Blueprint for Growth New Zealand Education Growth Plan to 2030
    Papakura Rosehill Drury: Blueprint for Growth New Zealand Education Growth Plan to 2030 Land owners here have a proven development profile and financial backing. New Auckland Education Growth Plan engagement Planning for medium-term growth (3-10 years) amenities will be added including sports fields and a new hospital, which itself is Over the last several years, we have begun discussions about growth scenarios expected to employ up to 3,000 people1. Additional train stations will link this area to We expect an additional 3,023 school-aged students will need to be 2 with schools in south Auckland, including Rosehill College and Papakura High Manukau and the Auckland CBD making it a highly desirable place to live. accommodated in this catchment by 2030 . We already have plans School, as well as primary schools in Takanini and Papakura. underway to manage growth, including: Some intensification in Papakura may also be expected given its location on the rail In developing these plans, we have engaged extensively with the education corridor, and proximity to SH1 and major employment areas. Housing NZ owns • The design and construction of new schools at Drury, including two sector across Auckland throughout 2018. We will continue to engage with the significant housing stock in Papakura that could be redeveloped in the future. Takanini, primary schools and at least one secondary school. sector as these plans develop. Through these discussions on infrastructure, wellbeing and student pathways, the following themes were evident: to the north of Papakura, has large areas of future urban land that have been ear- • Redevelopment needed to prepare schools for growth as regeneration marked for residential development, although this has been delayed due to lack of programmes get underway.
    [Show full text]
  • (I) Ngati Te Ata Cultural Values Assessment
    NGATI TE ATA WAIOHUA CULTURAL VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared By: Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Prepared For: Lomai Properties Ltd Date: July 2020 Table of Contents 1. WHAKATAUKI ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. FOREWARD ............................................................................................................................................. 4 3. INTRODUCTION TO CULTURAL VALUES FOR MANA WHENUA ................................................................ 6 3.1. WHAKAPAPA ............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1.1. Ng āti Te Ata ................................................................................................................................ 6 4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF THIS CULTURAL VALUES ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 8 4.1. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 8 5. STATUTORY .......................................................................................................................................... 10 5.1. PRINCIPLES OF TE TIRITI OR WAITANGI (T REATY OF WAITANGI ) ........................................................................ 10 5.2. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Papakura Local Economic Overview 2019
    20 MARCH 20 AUCKLAND ECONOMIC OVERVIEWS PAPAKURA ── LOCAL BOARD ECONOMIC OVERVIEW aucklandnz.com/business a 2 | Papakura Local Economic Overview 2019 2 | Document Title – even page header Contents 1 Introduction 2 People and Households 3 Skills 4 Local Economy 5 Employment Zones 6 Development trends 7 Economic Development Opportunities 8 Glossary aucklandnz.com/business 3 3 | Document Title – even page header Introduction What is local economic development ATEED’s goal is to support the creation of quality jobs for all Aucklanders and while Auckland’s economy has grown in recent years, the benefits of that growth are not distributed evenly. Local economic development brings together a range of players to build up the economic capacity of a local area and improve its economic future and quality of life for individuals, families and communities. Auckland’s economic development Auckland has a diverse economy. While central Auckland is dominated by financial, insurance and other professional services, parts of south and west Auckland have strengths in a range of manufacturing industries. In other areas, tourism is a key driver and provides a lot of local employment while there are also areas that are primarily residential where residents commute to the city centre or one of the industrial precincts for employment. The Auckland region also has a significant primary sector in the large rural areas to the north and south of the region. The Auckland Growth Monitor1 and Auckland Index2 tell the story behind Auckland’s recent economic growth. While annual GDP growth of 4.3 per cent per year over the last five years is encouraging, we want our economy to be more heavily weighted towards industries that create better quality jobs and generate export earnings.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 June Exchange with Hillcrest High School, Which Was Held Here on Tuesday
    Dates to Remember From the Principal Tena koutou katoa Thank you to the Sports Department for their organisation of our annual sports Friday 25 June exchange with Hillcrest High School, which was held here on Tuesday. The weather Senior Art Exhibition was perfect and both teams exhibited excellent sportsmanship and enjoyed the Awards evening, D6, 6pm friendly rivalry. Rosehill won the shield, breaking Hillcrest’s 5-year hold. On Wednesday, our Year 12 students participated in a one day workshop, Loves Tuesday 29 June me Not. This program is run alongside the NZ police and is designed to give young people the tools Group Photos they need to recognise the qualities needed in a healthy relationship and when to recognise when a relationship isn't healthy. Year 12 Production, PAC, 6pm The Senior Art Exhibition is on display, with the award presentations being made at 6pm this evening. The standard of work is exceptionally high, an excellent tribute to the talents of our artists. Wednesday 30 June Yesterday we celebrated Support Staff Day and acknowledged the vital part they play in the education Year 12 Production, PAC, 6pm of our students and the support of our teachers. A huge thank you to all our Support Staff. Sue Blakely, Principal Rosehill College Year 12 Drama Class 2021 Presents The Blame Game “Whoever we blame…the outcome remains the same” TUESDAY 29th JUNE & WEDNESDAY 30th JUNE THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE (PAC) 6pm $5 Door Sales Mature themes Poster image by Jesse Lister RHC RAISERS On Wednesday morning RHC Raisers caught up with Rachel Haggi from Days For Girls.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Cultural Protection and Preservation Sites 145
    Environmental condition and values of Manukau Harbour December TR 2009/112 Auckland Regional Council Technical Report No.112 September 2009 ISSN 1179-0504 (Print) ISSN 1179-0512 (Online) ISBN 978-1-877540-27-1 Technical Report, first edition Reviewed by: Approved for ARC publication by: Name: Hayden Easton Name: Judy-Ann Ansen Position: Stormwater Advisor Position: Acting Team Leader Stormwater Action Team Stormwater Action Team Organisation: Auckland Regional Council Organisation: Auckland Regional Council Date: 15 Dec 2009 Date: 15 Dec 2009 Recommended Citation: KELLY, S.; 2008. Environmental condition and values of Manukau Harbour. Prepared by Coast and Catchment Ltd. for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2009/112 © 2009 Auckland Regional Council This publication is provided strictly subject to Auckland Regional Council's (ARC) copyright and other intellectual property rights (if any) in the publication. Users of the publication may only access, reproduce and use the publication, in a secure digital medium or hard copy, for responsible genuine non-commercial purposes relating to personal, public service or educational purposes, provided that the publication is only ever accurately reproduced and proper attribution of its source, publication date and authorship is attached to any use or reproduction. This publication must not be used in any way for any commercial purpose without the prior written consent of ARC. ARC does not give any warranty whatsoever, including without limitation, as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information or data (including third party data) made available via the publication and expressly disclaim (to the maximum extent permitted in law) all liability for any damage or loss resulting from your use of, or reliance on the publication or the information and data provided via the publication.
    [Show full text]