application for resource consent under section 88 of the...

Application No: 37549 and LR-213194

Application for Resource Consent under Section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Auckland Council (formerly North Shore City Council) to construct a 40m long pedestrian bridge and associated activities over the Wairau Creek, Milford, to occupy part of the common marine and coastal area with the bridge, and use it for public access purposes.

TO: Resource Consent Hearing Commissioners

FROM: Sam Morgan – Senior Consents and Compliance Advisor- Coastal DATE: 26 March 2012 NOTE: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner. This report has yet to be considered by the Panel of Commissioners delegated by the Council to determine this application. The recommendation is not the decision on this application. A decision will only be made after the Commissioners have considered the application and heard the applicant and any submitters.

1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

1.1 Application and Property Details

Application Number (s): 37549 and LR - 2131943

Reporting Officer: Sam Morgan – Senior Consents and Compliance Advisor- Coastal

Site Address: The CMA spanning the Wairau Creek and the esplanade/road reserve between Inga/ Beach Road and Milford Reserve

Applicant's Name: Auckland Council (formerly North Shore City Council)

Lodgement Date: 11 May 2010

Notification Date: 17 September 2010


Submissions Close Date: 15 October 2010

Number of Submissions Received:

59 in support

98 in opposition

47 submitters wish to be heard

1.2 Locality Plan

Figure one – approximate location of footbridge and temporary mooring (lay-over) area.

1.3 Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)

Approximate location of footbridge and temporary

mooring area


The plans and reference documents associated with the application are:

Report: Dated 5 May 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge Assessment of Environmental Effects’. Prepared by: Beca Carter Hollings & Fraser (Beca).

Dated 2 June 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Weir – Assessment of Environmental Effects’. Prepared by: Beca.

Dated 28 July 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge – Further Information’. Prepared by: Beca.

Correspondence: Dated: 6 September 2010, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge – section 92 Response’.

Dated: 19 October 2010, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge – section 92 Response (2)’.

Dated: 17 August 2011, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge – Supplementary Information’.

Dated: 22 December 2011, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge – Second Supplementary Information Letter.

Plans: Dated: January 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Footbridge, Proposed footbridge and general arrangement sheet 1.’ Dwg. No. 4242890-R-001, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

Dated: January 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Footbridge, Proposed footbridge and general arrangement sheet 2.’ Dwg. No. 4242890-R-002, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

Dated: 14 April 2010, ‘Wairau Bridge, Indicative plan for temporary mooring area.’ Dwg. No. 4242890-C-100, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

Dated: 14 April 2010, ‘Wairau Bridge, Temporary mooring area.’ Dwg. No. 4242890-C-101, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

1.4 Adequacy of Information


It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant is sufficiently

comprehensive to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis:

a) The nature and scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the regional plan and

district plan.

b) The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment.

c) Persons who may be adversely affected.

d) The requirements of the relevant legislation.

e) A request for further information under section 92 of the RMA was made on 11

May 2010 prior to notification.

f) A subsequent section 92 request was made 13 August 2010 in response to issues

raised through the notification process. The final submission of information

addressing these issues was received on 25 August 2011.

1.5 Report and Assessment Methodology

The application has been prepared to a good standard incorporating a number of expert

assessments. In recognition of the standard of this application, this report will not

unnecessarily repeat descriptions or assessments made in the application. A separate and

independent assessment of the application has been undertaken on behalf of the Auckland

Council, as the consent authority, to review technical aspects as required. Where

descriptions or assessments provided on various aspects of the proposal are agreed, the

report simply confirms agreement with those aspects. If there are differences in opinion or

matters that need more assessment, consideration or discussion in the report or indeed

there are matters that are considered inaccurate, incorrect or that have been missed or

there is disagreement with opinion or approaches, the report will detail these assessments

and opinions (of Council experts) where relevant. Where appropriate, extracts from the

application material or from the Council expert reports will be included to enable this report

and assessment to be clearly understood.

This assessment relies upon reviews and advice from the following experts on behalf of the

Auckland Council and specialist officers. These assessments are attached in Appendix 2 of

this report:

Mt. Hobson Group- Landuse Planner- Nick Mathieson


Auckland Transport- Traffic Engineer- Warren Budd

Auckland Council’s Marine Scientist - Dr Jarrod Walker;

LA4 – Landscape Architects – Rob Pryor; and Tonkin and Taylor Limited – Richard Reinen-Hamill.

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Auckland Council (the applicant) seeks resource consents under the Auckland Council

Regional Plan (Coastal) (coastal plan) and Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore

Section) (district plan)to construct a 40m long pedestrian bridge over the Wairau Creek

connecting Inga / Beach Road with Milford Reserve. The applicant seeks to occupy part of

the common marine and coastal area with the bridge and to use the bridge for the purpose

of public access.

Associated with the construction of the bridge will be the construction of a temporary

mooring (lay-over) area in the Wairau Creek seaward of the proposed bridge and install

navigation markers. In order to construct the temporary mooring area it will be necessary to

dredge approximately 500m3 of sediment from 102m2 of the Wairau Creek. The applicant

seeks occupation of the part of the common marine and coastal area with the temporary

mooring area and to use it for laying-over vessels.

The applicant seeks resource consent to lay electrical cables across the bed of the Wairau

Creek, to occupy part of the common marine and coastal area with the cables and the use

of the cables to connect the bridge to an appropriate power supply.

The applicant seeks resource consent to undertake ancillary work within the esplanade/road

reserve at Inga/Beach Road and Milford Reserve to accommodate the construction of the

bridge and associated electrical and mechanical equipment and the erection of signs and a

lighting column.

The individual physical effect of the activities for which consent is being sought under the

regional and district plans have been assessed as being no more than minor.

The resource consent applications sought are considered to be consistent with the objective

and policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, the Hauraki Gulf Marine


Park Act 2000, the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement, the Auckland Council

Regional Plan (Coastal) and the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section). It is

recommended that consent be granted subject to conditions, subject to any new or contrary

evidence being presented at the hearing.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

3.1 Proposal

The applicant has applied to construct a pedestrian bridge approximately 4 metres seaward

of an existing weir, across the Wairau Creek. The proposed bridge is to be 3 metres wide

and will span approximately 40 metres over the Wairau Creek, connecting Inga/Beach Road

and Milford Reserve. Approximately 36 metres of the bridge length will be situated within the

CMA. The remainder of the bridge will be located in the esplanade/road reserve at

Inga/Beach Road and Milford Reserve. The proposed bridge will incorporate a 9 metre long

vertical lifting span which will be situated above the existing access channel in the centre of

the Wairau Creek.

The original application sought that the bridge operate based on tidal movements with the

bridge remaining in the upright position for approximately 3 hours either side of high tide

and down the remainder of the time. Through the application process this operational

procedure has been changed to an ‘on-demand’ system. This means the lifting span will rise

at the request of boat users either entering or exiting the marina. When boats are not using

the channel, the bridge will be in the down position so pedestrians will be able to cross the

CMA between Inga/Beach Rd. and Milford Reserve.

In order assist navigation through the lifting span it is proposed to install 3 navigational

markers leading up to and through the gap in the bridge. The 300mm diameter timber

markers will protrude approximately 3 metres above the seabed and 1.5 above MHWS.

Approximately 8 fender piles will be installed on the eastern and western sides of the bridge

to protect the bridge piles from potential damage by vessels.

The bridge will incorporate lighting on the handrails that will be fitted facing down to

illuminate the bridge deck at night. Lighting will also be installed in the bottom of the lifting


span in order to assist navigation past the weir and bridge at night.

Electrical ducting will be placed under the creek bed to connect the eastern bridge lighting,

warning systems and gate mechanics to a power supply located on the Inga/Beach Road

side of the creek. The applicant has advised that the electrical ducting is to be grouted in a

trench in the creek bed. These works will be carried out during low tide. The structure will

consist of a 200mm square wide trench excavated across the main navigational channel.

A 30 metre long temporary mooring (lay-over) area will be provided along the eastern bank

of the Wairau Creek, seaward of the proposed bridge. That area will provide a lay-over area

for boats intending, but unable to pass the bridge when the bridge is down or if two boats

meet each other whilst trying to navigate the channel. It will include two 10m x 2m concrete

platforms for vessels to rest on. In order to facilitate the mooring area, the applicant

proposes to install 11 timber mooring poles and dredge approximately 500m3 of the Wairau

Creek to a depth of 0.5 below chart datum, the same depth as the existing adjacent access

channel.

Earthworks of approximately 135m2 will be undertaken in the Milford Reserve to

accommodate the construction of the bridge and associated electrical and mechanical

equipment. Ancillary works will involve the erection of signs in the esplanade/road reserve

at Inga/Beach Road and Milford Reserve advising the public of the operation of the bridge

together with a lighting column in the Milford Reserve.

An existing concrete footpath traverses along and across part of the Wairau Creek

connecting the roadside footpath on Inga Road across the creek, and up to a footpath within

Milford Reserve. The path is only exposed during periods of low tide. The applicant has

advised that despite maintenance attempts, the path is often slippery and is deemed to be a

health and safety hazard, and use of it is now discouraged. The applicant advises that the

retention or removal of the path is dependent on whether resource consent is granted to

construct the footbridge. The applicant in a letter to the ARC dated 28 July 2010 has

advised that that part of the footpath that is below MLWS will be removed if resource

consent is granted to construct the footbridge. If the pedestrian bridge is not constructed

the applicant proposes, to retain the footpath, subject to resource consents being issued.


3.2 Site, locality, catchment and environs description

The application site and surrounding environment is described in detail in section 4.0 of the

AEE and in the landscape and visual assessment accompanying the AEE prepared by

Stephen Brown Environments Ltd.

Of particular relevance is the following comment from the AEE.

“Wairau Stream is, for the most part, a highly modified urban watercourse within a heavily

engineered and constrained alignment. Development of the Milford Reserve, the Milford

Marina and Brian Byrnes Reserve, have eroded the streams natural character to a point

where only the coastal escarpments to the north of the creek mouth retain any real natural

character”.

The Milford Marina occupies approximately 3 hectares of the creek to the south of the

proposed bridge. Wairau Creek between the location of the proposed footbridge and the

Inga Road Bridge, has been dredged and structurally retained and provides approximately

225 marina berths for mainly small (approximately 8 – 10m) boats. Other man-made

structures in the vicinity of the marina include slipways, jetties, pontoons and pile moorings.

Tidal influence on Wairau Creek has been controlled by the existing weir at the entrance of

the marina.

Land development in the vicinity of the proposed footbridge is mainly concentrated to the

east and west along Craig Road and Inga/Beach Road. Two reserves are located in the

vicinity of the site, namely Brian Byrnes Reserve and Milford Reserve. The immediate area

also includes a number of local services as well as established residential neighbourhoods

comprising Milford and Crown Hill.

That part of Wairau Creek hat comprises the marina is classified in the coastal plan as a

Marina Management Area and the creek that connects the marina to the sea is identified as

a General Management Area.

Overall the proposed footbridge and associated activities are to be considered in the

context of an environment which has been modified by urban development.


3.3 Background

The applicant has advised that a pedestrian link across the Wairau Creek will “reduce

open space deficiency affecting residents to the north and west of Milford Reserve”. The

reporting planner’s understanding of this is that the footbridge is aimed at improving

access to existing areas of open space. The applicant has allocated funds in the Long

Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) towards consenting of a pedestrian bridge

across the Wairau Creek.

On 14 September 2006, following community consultation, the Community and Parks

Committee of the former North Shore City Council (NSCC) approved changes to the

Milford Reserve Management Plan which states:

“A bridge structure may be provided across the Wairau Stream in keeping with, and

sensitive to, the needs of both the marina and reserve users. Any access ways to such a

structure shall have a minimum impact on the environment and open space of the

reserve”.

The applicant has advised that the design of the bridge has been undertaken in

conjunction with the public consultation that has been on-going since 2004. This is when

the NSCC commissioned the development of a number of functional concepts for the

crossing of the Wairau Creek. As a result, seven concepts were put to the public for

comments. Following stakeholder consultation an opening bridge near the weir was

selected.

In February 2007, NSCC commissioned Beca to further develop the winning concept

design and submit a cost estimate for the construction of the bridge. On-going

refinement of the proposal has resulted in the submission of the present proposal.

3.4 Other Consents No other consents are required.


4.0 REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION

Resource consents are required under the provisions of the following Regional Plan and

District Plan. 4.1 Regional Plan 4.1.1 Operative Regional Plan – Auckland Council Regional Plan (Coastal)

Consent is required under the following provisions of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal.

Erection of the footbridge

Rule 12.5.18: The erection of the footbridge (which is not provided for in any other rule contained in chapter 12 and is not located in a Coastal Protection Area 1) is a discretionary activity;

Rule 10.5.9: occupy part of the common marine and coastal area with the footbridge is a discretionary activity;

Rule 11.5.5: The use of the footbridge for public access purposes in the CMA is a discretionary activity;

Laying of power cables

Rule 12.5.18: The laying of electrical ducting in a chase across the creek bed, is a discretionary activity;

Rule 10.5.9: occupy part of the common marine and coastal area with the electrical cables is a discretionary activity;

Rule 11.5.5: The use of the cabling in association with the operation of the footbridge is a discretionary activity;

Dredging of Wairau Stream

Rule 15.5.10: dredging of up to 500m3 of sediment from the seabed (capital works) for the purpose of providing the temporary mooring (lay-over) area is a discretionary activity.

Construction of a temporary mooring (lay-by) area

Rule 24.5.5: Moorings including the vessel proposed to be moored and their occupation (outside the Mooring Management Area, but not within any


Coastal Protection Area 1 or Special Activity Area) is a discretionary activity.

Rule 11.5.5: The use of the temporary mooring (lay-over) area is a discretionary activity;

Rule 12.5.18: The erection of the concrete pads associated with lay-over area (which is not provided for in any other rule contained in chapter 12 and is not located in a Coastal Protection Area 1) is a discretionary activity;

Note that installation of the proposed navigation markers is considered a permitted activity under rule 12.5.4.

4.2 District Plan

4.2.1 Operative District Plan – Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section)

The erection of the bridge and associated mechanical and electrical equipment in the

Coastal Conservation Area is a controlled activity under Rule 8.4.1.1.

The erection of the bridge and associated mechanical and electrical equipment in the

Recreation 2 Zone and the Road Zone is a non-complying activity under Rule 3.10.2.2.

The undertaking of 135m2 of earthworks, and associated site works within the foreshore

yard associated with the erection of the bridge and lighting pole, which is a non-

complying activity is a non-complying activity under Rule 9.4.1.5.

The erection of signs in the Road Zone are a discretionary activity under Rule 13.4.2.

The erection of signs in the Recreation 2 Zone are a permitted activity under Rule

13.4.1.9.

The erection of a light and associated pole, within the Recreation 2 Zone and Coastal

Conservation Area is a non-complying activity under Rule 19.5.1.

4.3 Status of the Application

Where more than one activity is involved, as in this case, and those activities are inextricably linked, (again as in this case) the general rule is that the activities should be bundled.

It is considered that the applications sought under the regional and district plans are


sufficiently interrelated that they should be considered together in the interest of integrated resource management.

Overall the application is a Non-Complying Activity.

5.0 NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

5.1 Notification

The application was publicly notified on 17 September 2010 at the request of the applicant in accordance with section 95A(2)(b) of the RMA.

5.2 Submissions

At the close of the submission period, total of 154 submissions were received with a

further three submissions received after the close of submissions. The late submissions

were G Shaw (one day late), J Revill and Takapuna Residents Association ( three days

late).

The decision on whether to extend the closing date for submissions rests with the

Hearing Commissioners pursuant to section 37 of the Act and the factors that must be

considered in making this decision are:

a) the interests of any person who, in Council’s opinion, may be directly affected by

the waiver;

b) the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects

of the proposal, and

c) Council’s duty under s21 of the Act to avoid unreasonable delay.

A later section of this report will address the above matters and make a recommendation

to the Hearing Commissioners.

A total of 59 submissions supported the application and 98 opposed the application. A

total of 47 submitters have stated that they wish to be heard.

A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought by the

submitters is set out below:


Please note that the information set out below is only a summary of the key issues

raised in submissions. Please refer to the full set of submissions as required. These are

attached in Appendix 3 to this report.

The following tables identify the following:

• the issues raised in submissions in terms of the key issues; and

• details any relief sought.

Summary of Submissions in Opposition

Issues Raised

(1) The bridge is an unnecessary expense – 29 submissions;

(2) Adverse visual and landscape effects of the bridge in the upright position – 26

submitters;

(3) More cost efficient to upgrade the existing access on the established footpaths

along Beach Road and Inga Road to Milford Reserve – 26 submissions;

(4) Lack of information regarding the operation of the bridge, maintenance and back-up

systems to deal with malfunctions – 25 submissions;

(5) On-going costs of maintenance will be borne by rate payers – 20 submissions;

(6) The bridge will impede the on-going management and access to the marina – 15

submissions;

(7) The bridge will be a hazard to navigational safety – 15 submissions;

(8) Increased car parking effects in the vicinity of the marina and Milford Reserve – 14

submissions;

(9) Adverse noise and lighting effects associated with the bridge warning systems – 12

submitters;

(10) Lack of details in regard to a management plan for the lay-over area and the

allocation of responsibility in the event of a bridge failure – 11 submissions;

(11) The bridge will create problems for pedestrian safety – 10 submissions;

(12) The bridge will only benefit a small minority of resident – nine submitters;

(13) The bridge will prevent access to the marina by the dredging barge – seven

submissions;

(14) The bridge will be liable to vandalism – seven submissions;

(15) The bridge will only be available to pedestrians for a limited time due to the extent


of time it will be in the upright position – six submitters;

(16) Conflict between boaties navigating the Wairau creek and pedestrians accessing

the reserve over the bridge – five submissions;

(17) The lay over area is inadequate in length to accommodate boats stranded in the

event of the bridge malfunctioning – five submissions;

(18) Lack of information regarding who is responsible for maintenance dredging of the

lay over area – one submission;

Summary of Submissions in Support

Issues Raised

(1) The bridge will enhance the accessibility of the beach – 19 submitters;

(2) The bridge fulfils a promise made to residents when the previous bridge was

demolished - 19 submitters;

(3) The bridge will enhance the Te Araroa - coastal walkway – 12 submitters;

(4) General support for the bridge however, no specific reasons mentioned – 11

submitters.

(5) The bridge will improve the amenity of the built environment – 10 submitters;

(6) The bridge will encourage walking and cycling – nine submitters;

(7) The bridge will relieve congestion on local roads and parking pressure around the

beach and reserves – six submitters;

(8) The bridge will provide a safer pedestrian access to Milford Reserve when

compared to the current situation (along Inga and Beach Road) – five submitters;

(9) The bridge will replace an existing footpath running across the bed of the Wairau

Creek which is unsafe and dangerous – three submitters;

(10) The provision of a temporary lay over area will improve safety for boaties accessing

the marina – two submitters; and

(11) The bridge will reduce the time taken to access the beach – one submitter;

Relief Sought

Submitters opposing the applications sought the following relief:

• The applications be either refused, withdrawn or not proceed further and

alternative options be considered;


• The applications be declined but dredging and improving the cill be allowed;

• The applications be withdrawn unless access for the marina for boaties could be

maintained for a period of 3 hours either side of high tide;

• Ensure that if the bridge fails it should default to the upright position so as not to

restrict access to the marina; and

• Provide an alternative route around the marina to the Milford Reserve and the

beach for pedestrians.

A number of submitters supporting the applications sought the following relief

• A revised design for the bridge be sought in regard to its width and lifting

mechanism;

• A silent LED screen be used to warn pedestrians and other users when the

bridge is about to be moved;

• A condition be imposed allowing the bridge to be left in the down position longer

than currently proposed when major events are being held in the adjoining

reserve;

• A revised bridge operation methodology be considered reducing the amount of

time the bridge is in the upright position to 1 hour either side of high tide; and

• A condition be imposed allowing the bridge operation methodology to be

reviewed within 3 years.

Three late submissions have been received from Takapuna Residents Association, G W Shaw

and J N Revill. Takapuna Residents Association and G W Shaw oppose the applications. While

J N Revill gave conditional support, suggesting that the bridge be reduced in width to 2.5m.


6.0 CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION

6.1 Statutory Considerations

When considering an application for a non complying activity the consent authority must

have regard to Part 2 of the RMA (“Purposes and Principles” – sections 5 to 8), and

sections 104, 104B and 104D of the RMA.

Subject to Part 2 of the RMA, when considering an application for resource consent and

any submissions received a council must, in accordance with section 104(1) of the RMA

have regard to:

• any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;

• any relevant provisions of a NES, other regulations, national policy

statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement; a regional policy

statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan;

and

• any other matter a council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to

determine the application.

Section 104(2) allows any effects that may arise from permitted activities set out in a

NES or a plan to be excluded from the assessment of effects related to the resource

consent. This is known as the permitted baseline test. The ‘baseline’ constitutes the

existing environment (excluding existing use rights) against which a proposed activity’s

degree of adverse effect is assessed. Generally it is only the adverse effects over and

above those forming the baseline that are relevant when considering whether the effects

are minor. It is at the Council’s discretion whether to apply the assessment of the

permitted baseline to any proposal. Essentially, the consent authority may disregard an

adverse effect of any activity on the environment if a NES or an operative plan (or an

operative rule in a proposed plan) permits an activity with that effect.

When considering an application for resource consent, the consent authority must not


have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition [section 104(3)(a)(i)]

or any effect on a person who has given their written approval to the application [section

104(3)(a)(ii)].

Under section 104B a consent authority may grant or refuse consent for a non

complying activity and, if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section

108 of the RMA.

Section 104D sets out the ‘threshold test’ for non-complying activities. A consent

authority may only grant consent to a non complying activity if it is satisfied that the

adverse effects on the environment are minor, or the activity will not be contrary to the

objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan. If either of the limbs of the

test has been passed then the application is able to be considered for approval subject

to consideration under section 104 of the RMA.

Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and sets out the

kind of conditions that may be imposed.

All considerations are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out the purpose and

principles that guide this legislation. This means the matters in Part 2 prevail over other

provisions of the RMA or provisions in planning instruments (e.g. regional plans) in the

event of a conflict. Section 5 states the purpose of the RMA and sections 6, 7 and 8 are

principles intended to provide additional guidance as to the way in which the purpose is

to be achieved.

The application of section 5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal

will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The RMA’s

use of the terms “use, development and protection” are a general indication that all

resources are to be managed in a sustainable way, or at a rate which enables people

and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for

their health and safety, while sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources

to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, safeguarding the life-

supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying and

mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. The enabling and

management functions found in section 5(2) should be considered of equal importance


and taken as a whole.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA provide further context and guidance to the constraints

found in section 5(2)(a),(b) and (c). The commencing words to these sections differ,

thereby laying down the relative weight to be given to each section.

Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance which need to be

recognised and provided for and includes among other things and in no order of priority,

the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of

significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the

protection of historic heritage. In the case of this particular proposal the following

matters are considered relevant: the preservation of the natural character of the coastal

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the

coastal marine area. Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this

report.

Section 7 of the RMA requires the consent authority to give particular regard to those

matters listed in the section. Section 7 matters are not expressly ranked in order of

priority. Therefore, all aspects of this section are to be considered equally. In the case

of this particular proposal the following matters are considered relevant: the efficient use

and development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance and

enhancement of amenity values, maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the

environment. Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report.

Section 8 of the RMA requires the consent authority to take into account the principles of

the Treaty of Waitangi. This section of the RMA recognises the relationship of Tangata

Whenua with natural and physical resources and encourages active participation and

consultation with Tangata Whenua. Any relevant matters are considered in the

evaluation section of this report.


6.2 Section 104(1)(a) Actual and potential effects on the environment 6.2.1 Effects that must be disregarded

A) Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application

In this case, no written approvals were provided by the applicant which could be

considered in terms of section 104(3).

6.2.2 Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted Baseline Assessment

Case law has established that the permitted baseline refers to the existing

environment and potential environment, which is comprised of what could be

undertaken by way of unimplemented resource consents and what could be

undertaken as of right (i.e. permitted by the relevant planning documents) but

which are not fanciful. The Council may disregard affects which the coastal plan

and district plan permit. Section 104(2) enables the consent authority to disregard

an adverse effect of an activity on the environment if a plan permits an activity with

that effect.

A description of the site and its surroundings is set out above and there are no

relevant unimplemented consents in respect of the site.

In this case, the types of effects associated with the construction of the proposed

bridge and lay-over area and the undertaking of earthworks are such that the

permitted baseline does not provide a useful comparison for the purpose of

discounting effects

6.2.3 Assessment of Effects

The following assessment of the adverse effects of the proposed coastal works on

the environment addresses the actual and potential adverse effects of the activity,

and distinguishes between the adverse effects of the proposed works and those that

may arise as a result of a permitted activity.

The policy framework and matters for discretion in the coastal plan is used as the

context for assessing the potential adverse environmental effects that may arise


from the proposed activities within the CMA. Similarly, the policy framework and

relevant assessment criteria of the district plan are applied to all matters associated

with the erection of the bridge, signage and associated earthworks.

It is considered that those areas where effects may arise in the CMA are generally

related to landscape and natural character, ecology and water quality, navigation

and safety, public access, cultural heritage, historic heritage, construction effects,

noise effects and cumulative effects. The following comments are therefore made in

respect of these matters.

In summary, it is considered that the adverse effects of the proposal on the

environment are likely to be no more than minor.

Effects on Landscape and Natural Character

Twenty six submitters raised issues around the landscape and visual impact of the

project. Rob Pryor of LA4 Landscape Architects was commissioned in late 2010 to

assess and review the proposal’s impact upon the local landscape and natural

character values. This assessment has been updated in accordance with the

changes to the proposed operational methodology, and a letter detailing the change

in effect is included in Appendix 2. It is considered, that with the bridge being in the

lowered position for longer amounts of time, the effects upon landscape and natural

character values will be no more than minor.

Natural Features (including coastal processes) and Ecological Values Effects

Tidal movements and fluctuating stream flows are the dominant natural processes

operating within the lower portion of Wairau Creek. These processes have been

altered by the placement of the weir at the entrance to Milford Marina. The weir acts

to focus and regulate the tidal and stream flows around the mouth of the Wairau

Creek. Further, the natural processes and features have been affected by the wall

lining the southern bank of the creek and the groynes at the very seaward end of

the creek. These serve to train the stream flow and control any natural fluctuations

that would be expected to occur in a setting such as this. The proposed bridge’s

piles would likely have little impact upon the functioning of natural processes that

currently exist. The proposed dredging of the lay-over berths and associated


mooring piles will likely not impact upon tidal current flows in Wairau Creek, due to

relatively the shallow depth and position within the channel of the proposed lay-over

berths. Further, significant sedimentation is not expected to occur in this portion of

Wairau Creek, where tidal flows are near peak.

The applicant has provided an assessment of the proposal against the local coastal

processes. A review of this assessment was undertaken by Richard Reinen-Hamill

(Tonkin and Taylor) and questions raised as part of a section 92 request for further

information. These issues were adequately addressed through this process and it is

considered that overall the proposal would have a no more than minor impact upon

local coastal processes.

Similarly most of the natural ecosystems around the proposed site have been

altered by the modifications noted above. An assessment of the proposal’s impact

upon the local ecology was provided by Coast and Catchment Ltd. on behalf of the

applicant. A review of the application has been undertaken by Dr. Jarrod Walker

(Auckland Council) who raised matters around the local ecology for a section 92

further information request. The matters were addressed adequately and overall it

is considered the proposal would have a no more than minor impact upon the

surrounding ecological values.

Public Access Effects

Submissions were put forward in favour and in opposition for the proposal with

respect to public access issues. However the majority of submitters commenting on

public access were in support of the proposal because it is perceived to enhance

access to the beach and reserve, and will provide a safer route for pedestrians than

what is currently available.

The primary intent of the project is to enhance and facilitate safe public access

across Wairau Creek. Use of the bridge will be restricted by vessel movements in

and out of the Milford Marina. The restriction on whilst being demand-based use will

be limited to periods around high tide and will likely fluctuate according to weather,

seasonally, time of day and through the week.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will be an improvement to public access


opportunities within the area.

Navigation and Safety Effects – aids to navigation, signage etc

22 submissions raised concerns about the proposed bridge affecting navigational

access to and from the marina. The Auckland Council Harbourmasters office has

reviewed the application and the revised operational methodology in order to

assess the impact upon navigation and safety. Within the Navigation and Safety

report (Appendix 2) it is noted that navigation of the channel to and from Milford

Marina is limited by the width of the channel and the weir hold water within the

marina at low tides. It is recognised that the bridge open span is aligned with the sill

and therefore does not impact upon the existing navigation setting. The addition of

a lay-over area is seen to aid in the navigation of the narrow channel. Overall, it is

considered that proposal will have a no more than minor impact upon Navigation

and Safety issues.

Cultural Heritage and Tangata Whenua Values Effects

Three cultural heritage sites are located within the vicinity of the proposed bridge.

These are associated with a historic swimming pool, a pill box and the site of the

previous footbridge. The proposal is set away from these features and will likely not

have any impact upon them.

The North Shore City Council Iwi committee were consulted with regards to the

proposal at a Hui held at the North Shore City Council offices on 17th February

2010. Support for the project was provided at this time.

It is considered that effects upon Cultural Heritage and Tangata Whenua values will

be no more than minor.

Construction Effects

Some disturbance of the foreshore and seabed is to be expected during

construction, but the proposed methods are designed to minimise these impacts.

Construction is expected to take approximately 6 months, with the main bridge

piers and deck elements being constructed offsite to reduce the onsite construction

time. The majority of work is planned to be undertaken from the Milford Reserve to


minimise the impact on the CMA and road users on the opposing bank. The main

area of disturbance from works to the CMA will be during pile boring, dredging

operations and digging the trench for the electrical cabling. The applicant is

proposing to produce a construction management plan to provide details of

mitigation measures. This is to be submitted to the resource consent manager for

approval. This will be required to address navigation within the channel and noise

generated over the construction period. It is considered that the impact on the CMA

from construction effects to be no more than minor.

The site works required to establish the eastern and western abutments are fairly

limited, and would result in the disturbance of approximately 135m2 of earth. Whilst

specific methodologies have not been devised, the applicant states that measures

in accordance with the Council’s Technical Publication 90 (TP90) would be

implemented to ensure that any silt runoff is appropriately controlled and

contained. Such measures would be submitted for Council approval prior to

construction works commencing. This approach has been reviewed by the

Council’s Development Engineer, Ms Ann Rammo, who is supportive of it.

With respect to stability, a comprehensive geotechnical investigation has been

undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the underlying soil conditions. The

nature of the soils encountered is such that the report recommends that bored

piles to a depth of 7m are utilised in order to allow for stable abutments on the

eastern and western sides of the bridge to be constructed. Ms Rammo has

reviewed the bridge design and is satisfied that it has been designed to

accommodate the geotechnical recommendations.

It is considered that any potential adverse effects can be avoided and/or mitigated

through the implementation of, and compliance with, appropriate silt management

and geotechnical methodologies. As a result, the level of adverse effects in

respect of site works above MHWS is considered to be less than minor in nature.

Traffic

The proposal has been reviewed by Auckland Transport Traffic Engineer, Mr

Warren Budd, who is agreeable in principle to the proposal. Mr. Budd has met on-

site with the applicant’s Traffic Engineer. Mr Budd is satisfied that there is sufficient


space to allow for a design that will integrate appropriately with Beach Road and

Milford Reserve. This includes the provision of an appropriate median refuge and

kerb realignments. A condition is recommended requiring all detailed design issues

to be submitted and approved prior to construction commencing. The measures

proposed would ensure that any adverse vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist traffic

safety issues are suitably addressed, which have been raised as concerns within

some of the submissions received.

With respect to construction traffic, a compound yard is proposed at the western

end of Craig Road, with temporary haul roads proposed between it and the bridge

site. This yard would provide an area for vehicle parking and the storage of

associated materials. Its location is considered appropriate, as it would minimise

disruption for vehicles accessing Milford Beach and Reserve, whilst ensuring it is

reasonably accessible to the development site.

Turning to vehicle movements, those associated with workers would occur during

the morning and evening peaks and would be of little significance given that

numbers would be low. Truck movements would occur throughout the day, but

again, are unlikely to be of significant volume. The removal of soil from the site,

which includes dredging works, would require approximately 100 truck

movements. Spread out over the 1-2 weeks required for soil extraction works,

these movements would also be of little consequence. It is noted that some of the

works would need to be undertaken from the western side of Wairau Creek. This

has the potential to disrupt traffic flows along Beach Road and Inga Road.

Accordingly, and in order ensure all relevant construction traffic issues are suitably

addressed, a condition requiring the submission of a construction traffic

management plan is recommended. Mr Budd is comfortable with this approach

and endorses the construction traffic comments outlined above.

Mr Budd raised no concerns with respect to increased parking along Inga Road, as

raised in submissions. From a planning perspective it is unclear how such issues

would arise. Furthermore, it is also unclear as to how such a scenario would result

in adverse environmental effects if on-street parking is already readily available. It

is therefore considered that adverse parking effects will not result from this

proposal.


Accordingly, subject to conditions in respect of the detailed design of the bridge

(and its interface with the road and reserve environments) and construction traffic

management, it is considered that adverse traffic related effects would be less

than minor.

Visual Amenity

The proposed bridge is for both pedestrian and cyclist shared use. The 3m width is

the minimum recommended by the relevant design standards and is acceptable.

The larger visual amenity issues are dealt with in the assessment against

landscape value under taken by Rob Pryor discussed above.

The signage proposed would be small in size (0.5m2 in area) and would contain

information with respect to the operation of the bridge. Given the unconventional

nature of the bridge and the potential safety concerns, such signage is considered

necessary and would accord with the amenities reasonably expected by users.

Subject to the final design of the signage being approved by Council, any related

adverse visual effects would be insignificant.

The lighting proposed along the bridge would be incorporated into the underside of

the hand rails, which ensures that it would be complementary in design and that

any potential light spill is minimised. The light on the northwestern corner of Milford

Reserve would improve visibility for boats navigating Wairau Creek at night, and

would again be positioned to ensure undue light spill does not result. The light

warning system associated with the operation of the bridge would, according to the

applicant, be designed to comply with the relevant lighting standards of the District

Plan. Comments received from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, Ms

Fiona Eames, concur that the light levels are likely to comply with District Plan

standards, but she recommend that the lighting be reviewed once it has been in

operation for three months. It is recommended to include this as a condition of

consent. This is considered to suitably addresses the submissions received that

raise lighting concerns.

In summary, any adverse visual amenity or costal character effects that may result

as a consequence of the establishment and operation of the bridge and its


associated signage and lighting would be minor in nature.

Recreation Values

The provision of a bridge over the Wairau Creek is provided for within the Milford

Reserve Management Plan (MRMP). As outlined in the submitted AEE, the MRMP

was updated in September 2006 to allow for the possible development of a bridge,

provided it is in keeping with, and sensitive to, the needs of users of the marina

and reserve and has minimal impact on the environment and open space

character of the reserve.

It is noted that the bridge would provide a barrier to users of the marina, any

impediment would be minimal given its proposed raising function. Any resultant

delays pedestrian access would be minimal and more than off-set by the

enhanced access to the reserve from those properties to the west of Beach Road

and Inga Road, with people from these areas currently having to take a much

longer route along Omana Road and Craig Road. I note that a number of the

submissions received also highlight the access improvements that would result.

As noted above, the nature of the bridge would be appropriate in terms of bulk,

scale and design. Any intrusion into the reserve is minimal, relating only to the

eastern abutment and interface. Overall, the bridge would have minimal impact on

the environment and open space nature of the reserve.

Accordingly, it is considered the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the

MRMP and that the overall effect on recreational values would be positive. A

condition is, however, recommended to ensure that any adverse effects related to

construction works, and especially traffic movements within the reserve, are fully

remediated upon completion of the development.

Noise

The levels of acceptable noise set within the coastal plan are above those within

the district plan. Therefore it is considered appropiraite to consider noise effects

under the district plan only. The AEE states that noise from the warning system

would not exceed those set out in Section 10 of the district plan, which allows for


levels of between 40dBA L10 and 50dBA L10 at a residential boundary depending

on the time of day. The operation of the alarm would be varied depending on the

time of day, with its duration and sound level reduced as required.

This noise assessment has also been reviewed by Ms Eames. Ms Eames notes

that the nearest residential receiver is approximately 50m away, but that noise

may travel further than otherwise expected given the open nature of the area and

the elevation of the closest houses. That being said, Ms Eames has recommended

that this be reviewed and confirmed after three months of operation. It is

suggested that this be included as a condition of consent to negate any possible

adverse noise effects would fall within the permitted limits of the District Plan, or

could be adjusted to do so. Again, this also addresses the submissions received

that raise noise related concerns.

Effects Conclusion

In summary, it is considered, on balance, that any adverse actual and potential

effects on the environment with respect to site works, traffic, visual amenity and

recreation values and noise would be minor and could be remedied or mitigated to

an appropriate level through the imposition of recommended conditions. In addition,

positive effects would result, being improved public access to Milford Reserve and

Beach.


6.3 Section 104(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Relevant provisions of National Environmental Standards and other regulations

There are no NES or other regulations in effect that apply to this application.

6.4 Section 104(1)(b)(iii) Relevant provisions of National Policy Statements

There are no National Policy Statements relevant to this application.

6.5 Section 104(1)(b)(iv) Relevant provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement (NZCPS)

The purpose of the NZCPS is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the

RMA, in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with those relevant NZCPS objectives listed

below:

Objective 2- To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect

natural features and landscape values through:

• recognising the characteristics and qualities that contribute to natural character,

• natural features and landscape values and their location and distribution;

• identifying those areas where various forms of subdivision, use, and

development would be inappropriate and protecting them from such activities;

and

• encouraging restoration of the coastal environment.

Objective 4- To maintain and enhance the public open space qualities and recreation

opportunities of the coastal environment by:

• recognising that the coastal marine area is an extensive area of public space

for thepublic to use and enjoy;

• maintaining and enhancing public walking access to and along the coastal

marine area without charge, and where there are exceptional reasons that

mean this is not practicable providing alternative linking access close to the

coastal marine area; and


• recognising the potential for coastal processes, including those likely to be

affected by climate change, to restrict access to the coastal environment and

the need to ensure that public access is maintained even when the coastal

marine area advances inland.

Objective 6- To enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and

cultural wellbeing and their health and safety, through subdivision, use, and development,

recognising that:

• the protection of the values of the coastal environment does not preclude use

and development in appropriate places and forms, and within appropriate

limits;

• some uses and developments which depend upon the use of natural and

physical resources in the coastal environment are important to the social,

economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities;

• functionally some uses and developments can only be located on the coast or

in the coastal marine area;

• the coastal environment contains renewable energy resources of significant

value;

• the protection of habitats of living marine resources contributes to the social,

economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities;

• the potential to protect, use, and develop natural and physical resources in the

coastal marine area should not be compromised by activities on land;

• the proportion of the coastal marine area under any formal protection is small

and therefore management under the Act is an important means by which the

natural resources of the coastal marine area can be protected; and

• historic heritage in the coastal environment is extensive but not fully known,

and vulnerable to loss or damage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and

development.

The relevant policies of the NZCPS for this proposal are the preservation of the natural

character of the coastal environment and the protection of natural features (Policy 1); the

recognition that the provision of infrastructure is an activity important to the social,

economic and cultural well-being of people and communities; maintain and enhance

public open space and to promote the efficient use of occupied space (Policy 6(2)(a, b,


and e)); to avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse

effects of activities on natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment

(Policy 15(a, b)); to maintain and enhance walking access linkages between public open

space areas in the coastal environment (Policy 18(c)); and maintain and enhance public

walking access to, along and adjacent to the coastal marina area (Policy 19(1)(2c)).

It is considered that in the context of the existing coastal environment and the above

assessment of the effects of the proposed activities on the environment, the proposal is

not contrary to the provisions of the NZCPS. The construction of the pedestrian bridge

and the occupation of the CMA with the proposed bridge will not have significant

adverse effects on the above matters, and will have beneficial effects in terms of public

access and recreational use in the coastal environment. The bridge will create a

walking linkages between existing areas of open space and the coastal environment

thereby enhancing recreational opportunities of the coastal environment. The operation

of the bridge will not adversely affect the continued occupation of the CMA by the Milford

Marina and its on-going use by boaties and the proposed operation methodology will

have no more than minor adverse effects on navigation and will be an efficient use of

the CMA. The dredging of the Wairau Creek and the provision of a temporary mooring

(lay over) area will not have significant adverse effects on the coastal environment,

amenity values, or on the enjoyment of the coast by the public. The proposal is

considered to be an appropriate use and development of the Wairau Creek. Any

adverse effects on the coastal environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Some restriction on public access during construction works is required to ensure public

safety, however, overall the proposal enhances public access to the CMA.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ( HGMPA)

When considering an application for resource consent within the Hauraki Gulf, its

islands, and catchments, a consent authority must have regard to sections 7 and 8 of the

HGMPA. These sections must be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement.

Section 7 recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and

catchments, while section 8 outlines the objectives of the management of the Hauraki

Gulf, its islands and catchments. The objectives are intended to protect, maintain and

where appropriate enhance the life supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf

and its islands.

The objectives are broad-based and are intended to protect, maintain and where


appropriate enhance the life supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf

and its islands.

The matters to be considered in terms of the HGMPA are not dissimilar to those arising

under the NZCPS, and accordingly the conclusions reached in the preceding section of

this report are considered to be equally relevant to the HGMPA. In particular, it is

considered that the proposed works associated with the construction of the bridge and

lay over area will not adversely affect the life supporting capacity of the gulf and the

proposed development and activities will provide a social, economic and recreational

benefit for people and communities. Some parts of the coastal environment will be made

more accessible via the pedestrian bridge. It is therefore considered that the proposal

would not be contrary with sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.

There is potential for tension to occur between the natural character values of the wider

area and the provision of the bridge and lay over area. However the proposals are within

a modified environment and of a scale (based on their minor effect on marine ecological

values) whereby it is considered, on balance, to maintain the overall amenity and values

of the Hauraki Gulf. Furthermore, it is considered that it minimises the potential adverse

effects on the life supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf in so far as utilising a site that

is already modified and does not contain any unique or special ecological or landscape

features.

Overall, it is considered that in context of the nature of the proposed activity, the site and

locality characteristics, and the above assessment of effects of the proposed activity on

the environment, the proposed development and activities, would not be contrary to the

provisions of the HGMPA.


6.6 Section 104(1)(b)(v) Relevant provisions of the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement

The Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (policy statement) is a strategic

document which sets out the direction for managing the use, development and

protection of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. This

document became operative in 1999.

The strategic objectives and policies of the policy statement provide a framework to

achieve the integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the Region’s

resources.

Under the policy statement matters related to environmental protection such as the

coastal environment, have specific objectives, policies and methods to achieve

sustainable and integrated management of major natural and physical resources in

the region. The focus of this section is on the appropriateness of the proposed

facilities and activities in terms of their function in assisting economic growth and

achieving strategic objectives of the policy statement, particularly those related to

Part 2 of the RMA.

As noted in the AEE, Chapters 2 (Strategic Objectives), 7 (Coastal Environment) of

the policy statement are relevant in assessing the applications.

Chapter 2 of the policy statement provides a regional perspective in setting the

strategic direction. Issue 2.3.6 discusses the significance of Auckland’s coastal

environment and in particular the need to maintain or enhance public access to the

coast. Strategic objective 2.5.1(4) discusses the balancing of retaining coastal

natural character with use and activity within the coastal environment. The proposal

is considered consistent with Chapter 2 as the intent of the proposal is to promote

further public access (pedestrian) whilst maintaining the existing public access (water

access). The proposal is situated in an existing area of high modification and

designed to minimise the impact upon natural character.

Chapter 7 of the policy statement provides direction on matters within the coastal

environment. The proposal is consistent with issues 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.4 and 7.2.6 and

objectives 7.3(1), 7.3(3), 7.3(6) and 7.3(7). Policy 7.4.4 (1) discusses the importance


of preserving natural character and lists a range of issues to be considered. The

design, operational methodology, and site help to negate the impact of the proposal

upon the area’s natural character values.

Policy 7.4.10 discusses the appropriateness of developments in the coastal

environment, citing a range of issues and values to consider which include natural

character, public access, amenity, and efficient use. The proposal is considered to be

consistent with 7.4.10 (1, 2i, 2ii, 2iii, 2iv, 2vii and 7) because it seeks to maintain and

enhance existing public access and amenity values, while considering natural

character and efficient use of the coastal environment. Importantly, the proposal

does so whilst maintain navigational access to and from the marina.

Having considered the relevant provisions of the policy statement, it is concluded that

the proposal is to a large extent consistent with the relevant provisions. The

proposed coastal works and structure are of a scale that can be accommodated

without significant changes to the existing natural character and use of the

surrounding coastal environment.

6.7 Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Relevant provisions of the relevant regional/district plan(s) objectives, policies and rules

The Plans applying to this proposal are set out in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 above.

6.7.1 Relevant objectives and policies

The following objectives and policies of the coastal plan and district plan are considered

relevant:

6.7.2.1 Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section)

The relevant objectives and policies are as follows:

8.3.1 Coastal Conservation

Objective

To protect the natural character, public access, cultural heritage values, ecology and


landforms of the coastal environment.

Policies

1. By defining the Coastal Conservation Area.

2. By applying a building set back or foreshore yard as a buffer between the

coastline and development to the extent necessary to:

- protect the natural character of the coastal environment, including its soft

green edge, the physical landform, natural features, vegetation and ecological

systems

- protect the water quality of the coastal environment and the habitats that it

sustains

- provide for the operation of naturally occurring processes

- keep open the existing and foreseeable opportunities for future esplanade

reserves and strips

- maintain and enhance landscape and amenity values

- protect the value the coastline has to tangata whenua

- reduce potential hazards resulting from natural processes and subsequent

changes in landform

- manage the cumulative effects of the activities of property owners in the

coastal environment.

3. By restricting development and structures on the beach areas and other coastal

areas of high public use of the city so as to protect the natural character and

high recreational values of these areas, except where these structures are

needed for public safety.

6. By ensuring that the effects of any buildings or any structures, including erosion

control works and stormwater outlets, within the coastal environment do not


adversely affect natural values or natural character.

8. By ensuring that development and activities in the Coastal Conservation Area

do not adversely affect the proper functioning of ecosystems, or adversely

affect the natural coastal environment.

10. By using activity and development controls within the Coastal Conservation

Area so as to avoid or mitigate pollution or sedimentation of coastal waters, and

avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the amenity value of the

coastal environment.

13. By providing for shoreline walkways and reserves, to and around the foreshore

where these do not significantly conflict with environmental or cultural heritage

values or public safety and security or lead to the erosion of sensitive

landforms.

14. By controlling the location of any development and associated activities on land

adjacent to the foreshore to ensure that the opportunity for the provision of

waterborne transport, and the ready public access to such transport, is not

compromised.

Comment

The level of works within the Coastal Conservation Area is relatively small, and act to

support the main portion of the bridge structure which is within the CMA. That being

said, the bridge is consistent with the form of development anticipated within the

coastal environment and has been designed in an appropriate manner, through the

use of suitable materials and simple design features. As such, it would not have an

undue adverse effect on the natural character of the coastal environment.

Appropriate measures would be implemented to ensure that sediment generated

during the construction process is appropriately controlled and contained. This would

ensure that undue sedimentation of coastal waters would not result and that the

proper functioning of ecosystems would not likely be adversely affected. Any

resultant adverse effects would, in any case, be temporary in nature.

The bridge would provide improved access to coastal amenities, whilst ensuring that


the passage of waterborne transport is not unduly compromised. While the bridge

would be visually prominent when in its upright position, this would only be for limited

periods of time, which ensures that any adverse visual effects would be temporary in

nature.

No known cultural heritage or landscape features would be adversely affected.

9.3.1 Protection of the Environment

Objective

To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of subdivision and development on

the environment, including the physical environment, biota, amenity values and

landscape.

Policies

1. By retaining significant landscape features, vegetation and wildlife habitats as

they provide amenity value, diversity in the landscape and habitat

2. By ensuring that soil/sediment runoff resulting from vegetation clearance and

earthworks is controlled in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on

amenity and habitat.

3. By ensuring that new subdivision and development recognises existing natural

features and landscapes and that the form of development reflects the

character and environmental qualities of the location.

4. By ensuring that new subdivision and development recognises, and is

compatible with, the character and amenity values of existing development.

5. By ensuring that subdivision and development is designed and located such

that it does not cause or contribute to, and/or be significantly affected by,

natural hazards such as flooding, subsidence and erosion.

6. By ensuring the integrated management of resources by requiring that land use

and development avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on natural and


physical resources which manifest themselves within or beyond the immediate

location and across jurisdictional boundaries.

Comment

The proposed site works are minimal in scale, involving excavations to establish the

bridge abutments. Accordingly, they would not adversely affect the visual integrity of

the landscape. The implementation of appropriate site management devices would

ensure that any silt run-off is suitably controlled and transfer into the surrounding

environment, including the CMA, is minimised.

As all works would be undertaken in accordance with geotechnical

recommendations, with foundations being deep enough to ensure they are secured

into solid ground. This would ensure the bridge is structurally sound and not

susceptible to subsidence.

There is no evidence to suggest that the bridge would contribute to or be affected by

natural hazards, or that the land use elements would result in adverse effects within

the CMA.

13.3 Signs

Objective

1. To ensure that signage does not create a traffic hazard.

2. To ensure that signs do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the

surrounding environment.

Policies

1. To require signs to be designed and located so that they do not detrimentally

affect traffic safety.

2. To control the adverse affects of signs, having regard to the amenity standards

and context of the particular environment in which they are located, on the

basis of the various zones defined in the Plan.


3. To ensure that promotional signage does not hinder the functioning of

informational signage.

Comment

The signs are considered necessary given the need to inform users as to the

operation of the bridge, particularly with respect to its lifting function.

The limited size of the signs and their association with a larger bridge structure would

ensure that the visual amenity values of the site and surrounding area are not

adversely affected.

The proposed signage has been reviewed by the Auckland Transport Traffic

Engineer, who has not raised any concerns with respect to the creation of a traffic

hazard. It is further noted that the proposed signs would not interfere with the

function of informational signage.

19.3.3 Management of the Effects of Activities and Development

Objective

To ensure that open space is used and developed in a manner which is compatible

with its function and character, and with the amenities of adjoining residential areas.

Policies

1. By limiting the use of open space to recreation and community activities, having

regard to their intensity of use and other generated effects, the function and

character of the open space and the provisions of the relevant approved

Reserve Management Plan.

3. By placing controls on the size, design and siting of buildings so as to avoid,

remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the function and character of the

open space, and on the amenity of surrounding areas.

4. By the Council as landowner ensuring that buildings are designed and sited to

complement the function and character of the open space.


9. By imposing controls on floodlighting.

10. By the preparation of management plans for each open space gazetted as

public reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, to determine the specific purposes

of the reserve and, where appropriate, the priorities for its development.

19.4.2 Recreation 2 (Neighbourhood Activities) Zone

Objective

To provide for open spaces throughout the residential areas of the city which serve

local resident needs for recreation and community activities, and visual amenity.

Policies

1. By recognising the land in this zone as a recreational resource for low key,

everyday recreation and community activities.

2. By restricting the range of activities and associated development to a type and

which allows recreational and community use of the open space, while retaining

its visual amenity and compatibility with adjacent residential development.

Comment

The proposed bridge would provide enhanced access to the Milford Reserve and

beach areas and is considered compatible with the character of these recreational

spaces. Furthermore, as noted in section 5.1, it accords with the provisions of the

Milford Reserve Management Plan which envisages an appropriately designed

bridge structure across the Wairau Creek. The subject bridge is considered to fulfil

this provision.

As noted above, the bridge would be of an appropriate form, scale and design and

would complement the function of the adjoining reserve area by providing improved

public access.

The level of lighting proposed would be subtle and would allow the bridge and

associated areas of Wairau Creek to be safety used during night-time hours. In


addition, it would comply with the permitted lighting levels stipulated by the District

Plan.

The control of light spill and noise from the bridge warning mechanisms in

conjunction with its appropriate design and scale would ensure that the amenity

values of the neighbouring residential area are suitably provided for.

Conclusion

Based on the evaluation above, the proposed development is considered to be

consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District

Plan (North Shore Section).

6.7.2.2 Auckland Council Regional Plan (Coastal)

Natural Character (Chapter 3)

Objective 3.3.1 and Policy 3.4.1 state that natural character of the coastal environment

shall be preserved and protected from inappropriate use and development, by avoiding,

remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of such on the elements and features which

contribute to the natural character of the coastal environment. Policy 3.4.3 states that in

assessing the actual or potential adverse effects of subdivision, use and development

including cumulative effects, regard shall be had to the relevant policies in Chapters 4, 5,

6 and 8.

As has been described in the natural character effects assessment of this report, the

proposed bridge and associated lay-over area is to be located in an area with highly

modified natural character. The proposed bridge and associated lay-over area are within

an area already modified by the marina and surrounding development. Further changes

to the operational methodology are proposed to lessen any impact upon natural

character. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions

of Chapter 3.

Landscape (Chapter 4)

Objective 4.3.2 is to maintain and enhance the diversity, integrity and landscape quality

of the coastal environment. Policy 4.4.3 states in areas with less than regional landscape


value the use and development shall be of a scale, design and location to avoid adverse

effects on key landscape elements, feature and patterns. Policy 4.4.4 recognises the

contribution of the built environment to the environment when considering proposals in

the CMA near coastal settlements. 4.4.5 states that in assessing the cumulative effects

in the CMA on landscapes values, particular regard shall be had to ensuring where

practicable, that development is of an appropriate scale, location and design which

encourages its integration with the type and intensity of development in the adjacent

area.

The wider coastal environment surrounding Wairau Creek has no landscape significance

assigned to it. The proposed location of the bridge and associated lay-over area is set

within a background of urban development including housing, reclamations, recreational

parkland and a marina. It is specifically located at the edge of a landscape change, and

therefore considered that its location is in keeping with the values highlighted above.

Further the proposed operational methodology has been put forward to mitigate possible

effects upon the area’s landscape. Therefore, it is considered the proposal is consistent

with Chapter 4.

Natural Features and Ecosystems (Chapter 5)

Objective 5.3.1 is to protect the dynamic functioning of physical coastal processes, and

5.3.2 is to protect the integrity, functioning and resilience of ecosystems within the

coastal environment. Policy 5.4.4 states that any development in areas not identified as

Coastal Protection Areas 1 and 2 should avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on

indigenous vegetation, habitats, natural features, and ecological and physical processes.

Policy 5.4.5 states that regard shall be had to protecting the physical integrity

functioning, educational, scientific, and amenity values of any natural features.

The applicant and subsequent reviews have demonstrated that the proposal will have no

more than minor effect on the existing marine ecology and coastal processes.

Furthermore, the proposal will not affect any indigenous vegetation, habitats or natural

features. Accordingly the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objective and

policies of Chapter 5.


Nga Take Takutai Turu Mo Tangata Whenua- Coastal Matters of Significance to

Tangata Whenua (Chapter 6)

Objective 6.3.1 is to recognise that the CMA has characteristics of special spiritual,

historical, and cultural significance to Tangata Whenua. Objective 6.3.2 is to sustain the

mauri of natural and physical resources of the coastal environment, and to enable

provision for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of Maori. The policies of chapter

6 endeavour to achieve these objectives through recognising and protecting ancentral

taonga in the plan and involving iwi in the resource management process.

In accordance the intent of the policies and objectives of this chapter the applicant

worked with the NSCC Iwi Committee through the development of the proposal. The

committee was supportive of the proposal. For this reason, it is considered, that the

proposal is consistent with Chapter 6.

Public Access (Chapter 7)

Objective 7.3.1 is to maintain and enhance public access to, along, and within the CMA.

Policy 7.4.1 recognises that public access to, along, and within the CMA should be

maintained or enhanced except where it is necessary to restrict access.

In this case, the applicant proposes to improve public access to an area of beach

reserve while maintaining the existing access through the CMA. Accordingly it is

considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 7.

Cultural Heritage (Chapter 8)

Objective 8.3.1 is to preserve and protect significant maritime cultural heritage sites in

the coastal environment. Policy 8.4.6 states that use and development in the CMA

should consider any effect on resources recognised as having historical or cultural value,

and where practical should avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on these

resources.

Three items of cultural significance have been identified within the vicinity of the

proposal, including the footprint of the former bridge. The proposed site of the bridge and

lay-over area is located as such that no effect upon these items is expected. Therefore it


is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 8.

Subdivision, Use and Development (Chapter 9)

Objective 9.3.1 is to enable appropriate subdivision, use and development in the coastal

marine area, recognising that the CMA is a finite resource. Policy 9.4.1 recognises

subdivision, use and development shall be considered appropriate dependent upon the

natural and physical resources of the CMA.

The proposal is situated in an area of high coastal development and modification, whilst

taking into account the natural and physical resources of the area. The proposed bridge

is constrained in size to that necessary to meet its purpose. Therefore the proposal is

considered to be efficient use of the CMA and consistent with the provisions of Chapter

9.

General (Chapter 10)

Objective 10.3.1 is to provide for appropriate use and development in the CMA.

Objective 10.3.2 is to ensure that efficient use is made of the CMA. Objective 10.3.3 is

to maintain where appropriate the open space nature of the coastal environment.

Policy 10.4.1 states that use and development which maintains or enhances public use

and enjoyment of the CMA shall be encouraged. Policy 10.4.2 directs that any proposal

for use and development shall have regard to maintaining or enhancing recreational use

of the CMA. Policy 10.4.3 states that use and development of the CMA shall be

considered more appropriate where the environment has already been highly modified

by human activities or located in areas where development already exists. Policy 10.4.5

states that any proposal for use and development shall be located, designed and

constructed to complement, as far as practicable, the character of the environment in

which it is located, and where practicable be consistent with relevant resource

management strategies of adjoining territorial authorities. Policy 10.4.10 considers that

occupation of part of the common marine and coastal area shall be considered

inappropriate unless occupation is necessary for the proper functioning of the activity.

It is considered that this proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of

Chapter 10 as the project is to improve public access between Milford Reserve and


surrounding suburbs, improve local coastal walkway linkages whilst maintaining

navigation access to and from Milford Marina, and hence enhance public access and

recreation values in terms of policies 10.4.1 and 10.4.2. Policy 10.4.3 is met as the

proposal will be located within the context of a highly modified coastal environment and

maintains the primary focus on recreational related activities.

Policy 10.4.10 relates to occupation of part of the common marine and coastal area.

The area to be occupied is the minimum necessary for the safe operation of the bridge

and associated structures.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 10.

Activities (Chapter 11)

The proposed bridge across Wairau Creek and associated lay-over area will introduce

permanent structures and a range of temporary construction activities into the CMA.

Accordingly, the general provisions relating to the activities in the CMA, as contained in

Chapter 11 are relevant. These are set out as follows:

Objective 11.3.1:

To provide for a wide range of appropriate activities in the coastal

marine area.

Objective 11.3.2:

To ensure that efficient use is made of the coastal marine area.

Policy 11.4.1:

Activities in the coastal marine area which are not permitted activities

by this chapter shall generally be considered appropriate where:

a i there is a functional need to undertake the activity in the

coastal marine area; or

ii they are ancillary to an activity which has a functional need


to locate in the coastal marine area; or

iii no reasonable or practicable alternative location exists

including any location outside of the coastal marine area; or

iv the activities are for the cultural and traditional needs of

Tangata Whenua; and

b any landward development associated with the activities in the

coastal marine area can be accommodated; and

c any adverse effects on the environment can be avoided,

remedied or mitigated.

Comment

In this case, it is considered the proposed bridge and associated lay-over area is an

efficient use of the CMA as it improves the public access across and to the CMA, as

well valued coastal recreation space. The scale of the proposed upgrade is considered

appropriate, given the long standing coastal modification within the area.

It is considered that the proposed bridge and associated lay-over area has a functional

need to be located in the coastal environment as it would facilitate and enhanced the

use of Milford Reserve and the CMA, and that the landward components of the

proposed development can be accommodated, and moreover have been considered.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of

Chapter 11.

Structure (Chapter 12)

The proposed bridge and associated lay-over area will provide for better pedestrian

access across Wairau Creek and will introduce new structures within the CMA.

Accordingly, a series of general objectives and policies related to structures contained

in Chapter 12 are relevant to consider. The following are considered relevant:

Objective 12.3.1:


To provide for appropriate structures in the coastal marine area, while avoiding,

remedying, or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

Policy 12.4.1:

Subject to the limitations stated in Policies 12.4.2 to 12.4.14, structures in the

coastal marine area shall generally be considered appropriate where:

a (i) no reasonable or practicable alternative location exists having regard

to the efficient use and development of natural and physical

resources; or

(ii) the structure is proposed for the cultural and traditional needs of

Tangata Whenua;

b the purpose for which the structure is required cannot reasonably or

practicably be accommodated by existing structures in the coastal marine

area; and

c efficient use will be made of the coastal environment by using the

minimum area of the coastal marine area necessary for the structure; and

d the structure will not have a significant adverse effect on the adjoining

land.

Policy 12.4.3:

Structures in the coastal marine area should as far as practicable, be of an

appropriate scale, design, colour and location so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate

adverse effects on the coastal environment.

Policy 12.4.4:

Structures for public or multiple use shall be considered more appropriate than

the erection of new structures for individual use.


Policy 12.4.5:

Structures shall be avoided where they will modify, other than for the purpose of

maintaining intrinsic heritage values, damage, or destroy a site, building, place

or area scheduled for preservation in Cultural Heritage Schedule 1.

Policy 12.4.12:

Structures shall be designed and located taking into account relevant dynamic

coastal processes, including the possibility of sea level rise.

Comment

It is considered that the proposed design of the bridge is appropriate for the following

reasons:

(i) The bridge and associated lay-over area are located to minimise its impact on

natural character;

(ii) The proposal does not impact on the operation of vessels operating within

Wairau Creek;

(iii) As confirmed by the respective landscape and visual effects experts, the design

and location of the proposed bridge will have minor effects on existing landscape

and visual amenity values;

(iv) Iwi have been consulted through development of the proposal;

(v) The physical integrity of nearby Cultural Heritage sites will not be impacted upon,

and nor will the wider heritage landscape values;

(vi) The design of the bridge and associated lay-over area has taken account existing

coastal processes; and

(vii) Overall, it is considered that the proposed structures would be an efficient use of

the CMA.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of

Chapter 12.

Dredging (Chapter 15)

The proposed dredging of the Wairau Creek seabed to create a lay-over area requires


consideration of the objectives and policies of Chapter 15. The following are considered

relevant:

Objective 15.3.1:

To provide for appropriate dredging in the coastal marine area, while remedying

or mitigating adverse environmental effects.

Policy 15.4.3:

The redevelopment of existing navigation channels, wharves, piers and berths,

and the development of new facilities should be designed and located so that the

need for both capital works and maintenance dredging is either avoided or

minimised as far as practicable, where this does not result in additional adverse

environmental effects.

Policy 15.4.5:

Proposals for dredging shall generally demonstrate that:

a) there are no practicable alternative methods, locations or designs for the

activity which would avoid or reduce the need for dredging; and

b) the dredging will be undertaken at times of the day, or year that will avoid, as

far as practicable, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment,

particularly on:

(i) the growth and reproduction of marine and coastal vegetation and the

feeding, spawning and migratory patterns of marine and coastal fauna,

including bird roosting,nesting and feeding; and

(ii) recreational use of the coastal marine area;and

(iii) other established activities and structures located in the coastal marine

area which are likely to be affected by the dredging; and

c) the dredging will not give rise to more than short duration and localised

turbidity, or disturbance to surrounding sediments, and does not result in


permanent long term adverse effects on the surrounding environment; and

d) the dredging will avoid significant adverse effects on biota caused by the

release of contaminants;and

e) the dredging will not be likely to cause or exacerbate coastal erosion either

within the coastal marine area or on adjacent coastal land; and

f) the dredging will not result in the permanent loss of any habitat of a rare or

endangered species.

Policy 15.4.6:

Where appropriate, as part of any consent granted for dredging, the grantee

shall be required to:

a) mitigate, as far as practicable, adverse effects of the dredging activity, in

particular sediment disturbance and the release of contaminants into the

surrounding environment;

b) monitor the dredging activity to a level commensurate with the expected scale

of adverse environmental effects, to determine that unacceptable adverse

environmental effects are not occurring; and

c) have in place contingency plans to remedy or mitigate any unacceptable

adverse effects that may arise from the dredging activity.

Policy 15.4.7:

The ARC will have regard to information obtained from resource consents

granted for similar forms of dredging in the coastal marine area in:

a) assessing the effects of maintenance dredging under Policy 15.4.5; and

b) determining the relevance of all matters listed in Policy 15.4.5; and

c) determining the criteria for any monitoring programme.


Comment

The proposed dredging is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

1. The area to be dredged is considered to be the minimum to achieve its stated

purpose of aiding navigation to Milford Marina.

2. No maintenance dredging is expected to be required.

3. No significant natural features or coastal ecology has been identified to be

affected.

4. Any adverse effects can be mitigated by appropriate construction methods, to be

confirmed by the submission of a construction management plan as a condition

of consent.

5. Local coastal processes are not expected to be impacted upon.

Therefore it is considered that the proposed dredging of a lay-over area is consistent

with the objective and policies of Chapter 15.

Moorings (Chapter 24)

The proposed creation of a lay-over area in the Wairau Creek requires consideration of

the objectives and policies of Chapter 24. The following are considered relevant:

Objectives 24.3

24.3.1 To concentrate moorings into defined locations while avoiding as far as

practicable, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

24.3.2 To avoid, as far as practicable, conflicts between moorings and other

activities in the coastal marine area.

24.3.3 To ensure that efficient use is made of the coastal marine area.

Policy 24.4.2:

Moorings shall be avoided where they will:

a) result in more than minor modification of, or damage to, or the destruction of the


values of any Coastal Protection Area 1 or Tangata Whenua Management Area; or

b) modify, damage or destroy a site, building, place or area scheduled for

preservation in Cultural Heritage Schedule 1.

Policy 24.4.4

New moorings outside the Mooring Management Areas shall be generally

considered inappropriate unless:

a) there is no Mooring Management Area in close proximity to the proposed

mooring site that has available space; and

b) there are compelling reasons why a mooring outside a Mooring Management

Area is necessary; and

c) it can be demonstrated that short term anchorage as opposed to a permanent

mooring is not a practicable option; and

d) the mooring and any moored vessel will not adversely affect the navigation and

safety of other vessels; and

e) the mooring and any moored vessel will not adversely affect other recreational

use of the coastal marine area, including the short term anchorage of other

recreational vessels; and

f) the mooring and any moored vessel will not adversely affect the operation of any

existing activity or any activity that has been granted resource consent; and

g) there are no practicable land-based storage options; and

h) the mooring and any moored vessel will not restrict public access to and along

the coastal marine area.

Policy 24.4.5:

In addition to Policies 24.4.3 and 24.4.4, any proposal for a mooring shall

demonstrate how visual and amenity values of the area have been maintained or


enhanced to the greatest extent practicable.

Policy 24.4.6:

Moorings within Special Activity Areas shall be avoided.

Policy 24.4.7:

A mooring or a mooring area should be established only where it can be

demonstrated that the site is suitable in terms of wave, tide, and wind conditions,

particularly during storm events.

Policy 24.4.8:

Sufficient provisions should be made for land-based facilities associated with new

Mooring Management Areas, or extensions to Mooring Management Areas.

Policy 24.4.9:

In assessing any proposals for moorings consideration shall be given to boat

storage systems which avoid using space in the coastal marine area.

Policy 24.4.10:

Mooring areas which are adjacent to land of high amenity and recreational value

should be managed so as to maintain easy access to that land.

Policy 24.4.11:

Notwithstanding Rule 35.5.1, noise associated with the mooring of vessels in the

coastal marine area should as far as practicable be avoided or minimised. This

includes noise from halyard slap and general maintenance and operational

activities.

Comment

The proposed mooring area is considered appropriate for the following reasons:


1. The intent of creating the mooring/ lay-over area is to aid in the navigation of the

tide restricted Wairau Creek.

2. Short term anchorage in this space is not practicable given the tidal velocities

and width of the channel.

3. The intent of the lay-over area is to provide temporary berthing during times

when navigation into the Milford Marina is not possible.

4. It is in close proximity to a marina area, and therefore visually it will appear a

minor extension of an already established activity.

5. No other mooring space will be impacted upon.

6. No land based or other boat storage options are practicable.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed creation of a mooring space/ lay-over area

is consistent with the objective and policies of Chapter 24.

Conclusion

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the coastal plan. In

particular it allows for the enhancement and maintains public access to and along the

CMA, whilst the design is intended to minimise its impact upon natural character,

landscape values, cultural heritage, natural features and ecosystems and therefore it is

considered to be efficient use of the CMA.


6.8 Section 104(1)(c) Any other matters considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers relevant

and reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this case the

Milford Reserve Management Plan (MRMP) is considered relevant.

The provision of a bridge over the Wairau Creek is provided for within the MRMP. As

outlined in the applicant’s AEE, the MRMP was updated in September 2006 to allow for

the possible development of a bridge, provided it is in keeping with, and sensitive to,

the needs of users of the marina and reserve and has minimal impact on the

environment and open space character of the reserve. After considering the actual and

potential adverse effects likely to be generated by the proposal, it is considered that the

proposal is considered to be consistent with the MRMP.

6.8.1 Submissions

All of the submissions received by Council in the processing of this application have

been reviewed and considered in the overall assessment of effects in this report.

Council’s specialists have also reviewed the relevant submissions as required and

incorporated comments into their assessments accordingly. Many of these submissions

raised similar issues and have been dealt with generically in the body of this report.

Those that have raised specific resource management matters and points of clarification

have been specifically addressed in the assessment of actual and potential effects

contained in section 6 of this report.

6.12 Section 104D Particular restrictions for Non-complying Activities

Pursuant to section 104D of the RMA if a proposal is a for non-complying activity then it

must pass at least one of the tests of either section 104D(1)(a) or section 104D(1)(b)

before an application can be assessed to make a decision under section 104B of the

RMA. If the application fails both tests of section 104D then the application must be

declined.


It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions of consent, the proposal satisfies

the threshold test of section 104D(1)(a) and 104D(1)(b) because, as demonstrated in

section 6.2.3 of this report the adverse effects on the environment will be no more than

minor and the proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of coastal plan

and district plan as concluded in section 6.6 of this report. From the above section 104D

assessment it can be concluded that the application meets both of the tests of section

104D of the RMA. Therefore the application can be assessed against the provisions of

section 104B of the RMA and a substantive decision made.

6.13 Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA

Section 5 of Part 2 of the RMA identifies the purpose of the RMA as being the

sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the

use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to

provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those

resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems,

and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment

Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to

be recognised and provided for, and includes among other things and in no order of

priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of

areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna,

and the protection of historic heritage.

Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council

in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient

use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of

amenity values. Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the

Treaty of Waitangi. Overall the proposal is considered to meet the relevant provisions of

Part 2 of the RMA as the proposal achieves the purpose of the RMA being sustainable

management of natural and physical resources.


6.14 Lapsing of Consent

Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within

five years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it

automatically lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension. In this case,

it is considered five years is an appropriate period for the consent holder to implement

the consent due to the nature and scale of the proposal.

6.16 Duration of Consent

It is considered appropriate to set a term of 35 years for the occupation of the CMA

under coastal consent 37549 because it is the maximum term afforded under the RMA,

and the structure present little risk of future environmental impact, beyond those already

discussed. Further, a term of 5 years is considered appropriate for the construction of

the bridge under coastal consent 37549.

6.17 Conclusion

Overall, it is considered that the proposal meets the overriding sustainable management

purpose of the Act. The project will be undertaken within a modified environment and is

consistent with the adjacent and surrounding uses.

The proposal will:

• enhance public access across and to the coastal environment whilst having no

more than minor adverse effects on access to and from the Milford Marina..

• The environmental effects of the proposal are considered to be no more than

minor, and importantly there will be no significant adverse effects from the

proposal such that the consent should be declined.

• The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the

NZCPS, HGMPA, the Regional Policy Statement, coastal plan and district plan.


7.0 RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS

7.1 Recommendation 1

Late Submissions

Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended

that pursuant to Section 37 and 37A of the RMA, the time limit for the receipt of

submissions be waived to accept the late submission(s) of Takapuna Residents

Association, G W Shaw and J N Revill for the following reason:

• No person will be prejudiced by the acceptance of the late submission.

• The submissions assist in achieving an adequate assessment of the proposal,

and

• The submissions were received within three days of the submission closure date

and did not delay the processing of the application.

It is considered that granting a waiver will be consistent with the participatory intention of

the Act.

7.2 Recommendation 2

Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended

that pursuant to sections 104, 104B, 104D, and 108 of the RMA, consent is granted to

the non-complying activity application by Auckland Council to authorise the construction

of a pedestrian bascule bridge and associated boat lay-over area at Wairau Creek

(Consent Application 37549 and LR-213194).

The reasons for this decision are as follows:

(a) In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the effects upon coastal processes,

natural character, landscape values, coastal ecology, and cultural heritage are

no more than minor.

(b) In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, the proposal is consistent with

objectives and policies of both the coastal plan and district plan.

(c) In terms of section 104(1)(c) of the RMA, other relevant matters, the proposal is


consistent with the Milford Reserve Management Plan.

7.3 Conditions

General Conditions

1. Pursuant to section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent (or

any part thereof) shall not be exercised until such time as all charges in relation

to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent are paid in full.

2. The activities permitted by this consent shall be carried out in accordance with the

documentation submitted in support of the applications as identified below:

Report: Dated 5 May 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge

Assessment of Environmental Effects’. Prepared by: Beca

Carter Hollings & Fraser (Beca).

Dated 2 June 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Weir – Assessment of

Environmental Effects’. Prepared by: Beca.

Dated 28 July 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge – Further

Information’. Prepared by: Beca.

Correspondence: Dated: 6 September 2010, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian

Bridge – section 92 Response’.

Dated: 19 October 2010, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian

Bridge – section 92 Response (2)’.

Dated: 17 August 2011, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian Bridge

– Supplementary Information’.

Dated: 22 December 2011, titled ‘Wairau Stream Pedestrian

Bridge – Second Supplementary Information Letter.

Plans: Dated: January 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Footbridge, Proposed

footbridge and general arrangement sheet 1.’ Dwg. No.


4242890-R-001, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

Dated: January 2010, ‘Wairau Stream Footbridge, Proposed

footbridge and general arrangement sheet 2.’ Dwg. No.

4242890-R-002, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

Dated: 14 April 2010, ‘Wairau Bridge, Indicative plan for

temporary mooring area.’ Dwg. No. 4242890-C-100, Rev. A.

Drawn by BECA.

Dated: 14 April 2010, ‘Wairau Bridge, Temporary mooring area.’

Dwg. No. 4242890-C-101, Rev. A. Drawn by BECA.

3. Consent to undertake the construction of the bridge and lay-over area shall expire

on 19 April 2017 unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an

earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. Consent to occupy the CMA with a bridge and lay-over moorings shall expire on

19 April 2047 unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an

earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.

5. No vessels shall berth in the lay-over area for a period greater than twelve hours.

6. At least 40 working days prior to the commencement of construction works the

consent holder shall submit a final detailed operation plan, for the approval of the

manager. This shall include but not be limited to the following:

a. Schedule and process of the bridge operation sequence;

b. Details of detection mechanisms and alert signals for both bridge users and

vessels;

c. Details and locations of the CCTV system to enable the remotely located

bridge operator to have full view of both vessel traffic and the bridge

d. The VHF Channel and mobile number available for vessels to demand a

bridge operation;

e. The method of Bridge Operation management during special events in Milford

Reserve and official regattas or races organised by the Milford Mariners

incorporated or Milford Cruising Club, including outside the hours of daylight;

f. The period and method for review of the Operations Management Plan

g. Liaison plan with Milford Marina representatives.


Construction Conditions

7. At least 15 working days prior to the commencement of construction works on the

site, a detailed construction management plan for works in the CMA, shall be

submitted for the approval of the Manager.

The purpose of the construction management plan is to ensure that all works are

undertaken in a manner which avoids remedies or mitigates potential adverse

effects during construction works. The construction management plan shall

specify, but not necessarily be limited to the following matters:

a. Final mechanical and structural design of bridge and associated structures.

b. Final design for bridge and road interface zone.

c. Construction timetable;

d. Site management, including details of:

• Site access

• Storage of fuels and lubricants (these should be bunded or contained in

such a manner so as to prevent the discharge of contaminants from

spillages)

• Heritage site management

• Maintenance of machinery and plant to minimise the potential for leakage of

fuels and lubricants

• Dust nuisance

• Confirmation that no equipment or machinery is cleaned, or refuelled in any

part of the CMA; and

e. Traffic management plan.

f. Methods to ensure compliance with noise standards.

g. Construction remediation plan.

h. Dredging method and management plan.

6. The Manager shall be notified in writing of the proposed date of commencement of

the proposed works covered by this consent, at least 10 working days prior to the

proposed start date.

7. The general public shall be forewarned of any restrictions on the use Wairau Creek

by public notice in the local press and signage to the entrance to the ramp of Inga


Road, and/or by other appropriate methods.

8. The method and location of disposal of potentially contaminated surface sediments

removed from the Wairau Creek prior to dredging, piling and as a result of the

removal of the existing path shall be subject to approval by the Auckland Council

prior to these works commencing.

9. For the duration of the works, the site shall be maintained in good order. The

consent holder shall, as far as practicable, remedy all damage and disturbance

caused by vehicle traffic, plant and equipment to the seabed, to the satisfaction of

the Manager.

10. All machinery and equipment shall be removed from the CMA at the completion of

each days works and/or when the incoming tide dictates that work must cease

(except that appropriately stored on a work vessel or platform above MHWS). No

refuelling of machinery or equipment shall be undertaken within the CMA.

11. Within 1 week following the completion of the works, all damage and disturbance to

the seabed and reserve land shall be remedied and all equipment, surplus soil and

construction materials removed, to the satisfaction of the Manager, such that any

remaining disturbance of the foreshore and seabed is able to be rectified by the

operation of natural processes within 7 days.

12. All practicable steps shall be taken to minimise sediment loading and increased

turbidity in the coastal marine area due to the construction works. All erosion and

sediment control measures used on site shall be in accordance with ARC Technical

Publication 90 (Erosion and sediment control guidelines for land disturbing activities

in the Auckland Region).

13. All works in the coastal marine area shall be restricted to the hours between 7.30am

to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday, and between 1 April and 30 November (to avoid

peak recreational use periods). No work shall occur on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Post Construction Conditions

14. The Manager shall be notified in writing of the date of completion of the works,

within 2 weeks of the completion date.

15. Within one month of the completion of the proposed works, the Consent Holder

shall supply to the Auckland Council a complete set of “as built” plans. All

correspondence shall be marked to the attention of the Coastal Consents and

Compliance Co-ordinator, Auckland Council.


16. The Consent Holder shall also provide a copy of the “as built” plans to the

Hydrographic Office (Chief Hydrographer, National Topo/Hydro Authority, Land

Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington) within one month of the

completion of the works.

17. Following 90 days of continuous operation the consent holder shall provide a review

of the operational procedures. The review shall cover, but not be limited to, the

following matters:

i. A statement from a suitably qualified and experienced person evaluating the

level of noise emitted from the audible bridge warning system, and

commenting upon compliance with the District Plan permitted

levels/standards.

ii. A statement from a suitably qualified and experienced person evaluating the

level of light emitted from all lighting, including the visual bridge warning

system and commenting upon compliance with the District Plan permitted

levels/standards.

iii. Feedback from representatives of Milford Mariners Incorporated, Castor Bay

Residents and Ratepayers Association, the Harbourmaster, the Bridge

Operators, and any other relevant groups on methods to improve the

operational efficiency of the bridge for all users.

iv. A record of daily bridge operations.

Maintenance Requirements

18. The structure permitted to occupy the CMA by this consent shall be maintained in a

good and sound condition, and any repairs that are necessary shall be made,

subject to obtaining any necessary resource consents.

Extent of Occupation

19. The right to occupy part of the coastal marine area shall not be an exclusive right,

and the Consent Holder shall at all times permit all persons to use the structures

identified in the plans for the purpose of providing public access along the coastal

marine area.


Review Condition

20. The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Manager, pursuant to

Section 128 of the RMA, by giving notice pursuant to Section 129 of the RMA, in

May 2011 and every two years thereafter in order:

i. To deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise

from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with

at a later stage; or

ii. To deal with any other adverse effect on the environment on which the

exercise of the consent may have an influence.

Advice Notes

1. The provisions of Section 116 of the RMA determine when a resource consent may

commence, unless a later date is stated as a condition of consent. The details of S116

are summarised in the attached letter issued with this consent.

2. Section 124 of the RMA sets out the provisions that allow a Consent Holder to

continue to exercise a resource consent while applying for a new consent for the same

activity.

3. Section 125 of the RMA relates to the lapsing of consents. This resource consent

lapses on the date specified in the consent or, if no date is specified, 5 years after the

date of commencement of the consent, unless the consent is given effect to or other

criteria contained within S125 are met.

4. This consent may be transferred to another party, pursuant to Sections 136 and 137 of

the RMA, if the consent holder notifies the ARC in writing of their intention to do so.

5. It is the responsibility of the consent holder to comply with all relevant provisions of the

Building Act 1994.

6. Payment of any administrative charge fixed in accordance with Section 36(1) of the

Resource Management Act 1991, or any additional charge shall be required pursuant

to Section 36(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of this consent.

7. During the construction period, the Consent Holder shall comply with the noise

restrictions in Rule 35.5.5 of the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal and the relevant


District Plan.

8. The consent holder shall not carry out, modify, extend, alter or reconstruct any works

in the part of the coastal marine area subject to this consent without first obtaining any

other resource consents for such works which are required.

8.0 OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Adequacy of Information

It is considered that the information submitted with the application is sufficiently

comprehensive to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis:

a) The level of information provides a reasonable understanding of the nature and

scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the district and coastal plan.

b) The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment are able to be

assessed.

c) Persons who may be adversely affected are able to be identified.

Report Prepared by: Sam Morgan

Title of Reporting Officer:

Senior Consents and Compliance Advisor -

Coastal

Signed:

Date: 27 March 2012

Report Release by: Alan Moore

Title Team Leader- Coastal

Signed:

Date: 27 March 2012


APPENDIX ONE- APPLICATION DOCUMENTS


APPENDIX TWO- REVIEW DOCUMENTS


APPENDIX THREE- SUBMISSIONS