before the environment court at auckland env-2013-akl-000174 · wml proposing to build a boardwalk...
TRANSCRIPT
Before the Environment Court at Auckland ENV-2013-AKL-000174
In the Matter of the Resource Management Act 1991
And
In the Matter of a Notice of Motion under Section 87G requesting the granting of resource consents to Waiheke Marinas Limited to establish a Marina at Matiatia Bay, Waiheke Island, in the Hauraki Gulf
Evidence of Maxwell Joseph Dunn on behalf of Waiheke
Marinas Ltd Dated 30 April 2014
Richard Brabant/Jeremy Brabant Barristers
Broker House, Level 2, 14 Vulcan Lane PO Box 1502, Shortland St
Auckland City Ph: 09 309 6665 Fax: 09 309 6667
1
Introduction
1. My full name is Maxwell Joseph Dunn. I am a Planning
Consultant with Andrew Stewart Ltd (ASL) and manage the
Auckland office planning team. I hold a Bachelor of
Science, a Bachelor of Arts and a Diploma of Town Planning.
I am a full member of the NZ Planning Institute. I have over
thirty years planning experience initially in local government
(Hobson County Council and Northland Regional Council)
and then in private practice (Reyburn & Bryant in
Whangarei, Boffa Miskell Ltd, Aurecon and ASL in Auckland).
2. Over the last twenty years I have coordinated environmental
investigations into, and the seeking of resource consents for,
a number of private development projects, mainly in the
Auckland, Northland and Waikato regions. I have assisted
city, district and regional councils with the preparation and
of processing of plan changes and resource consent
applications. I have also assisted a number of clients with
submissions and appeals on district and regional plans and
attended related hearings and mediations.
3. Most of my work has been in coastal and urban fringe areas.
This work has included a number of jetty/wharf and marina
projects, as well as small to medium scale developments
and subdivisions in coastal areas. The marina projects
comprise Doves Bay (Kerikeri), Kinloch (Taupo), Opua, Orakei
(Auckland), Tutukaka, Whangaroa and Sandspit. I have
carried out feasibility and/or scoping investigations into
marinas in the Coromandel, Panmure (Tamaki River), and
Whakatane areas. I have also visited a number of marinas in
New Zealand and Australia to view their construction and
operation.
2
4. I have read and agree to abide by the Environment Court’s
Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as specified in the
Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note 2011. This
evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state
that I rely upon the evidence of other expert witnesses as
presented to this hearing. I have not omitted to consider
any material facts known to me that might alter or detract
from the opinions expressed.
5. My involvement with the Matiatia marina project dates back
to late 2009 when the initial site survey and engineering
investigations were commissioned by Waiheke Marinas Ltd
(“WML”). In conjunction with WML I briefed the
environmental experts and was involved in consulting
adjacent landowners and mooring holders along with
business, community and iwi based organisations with
interests in the project. I prepared most of the Assessment of
Environmental Effects (“AEE”) submitted to the Council with
the resource consent applications for both the current rock
breakwater based marina project and the earlier floating
attenuator based project. I also responded to most of the
Council requests for further information before and after
notification of the current project.
6. I have visited the site and surrounding area on several
occasions over the last five years. The most recent site visit
was in March of this year when I was one of the WML expert
witnesses who visited other possible locations for a marina
suggested by submitters to the applications.
Scope of Evidence
7. My evidence covers the following matters:
a) The resource consent applications and supporting
plans and reports;
3
b) The changes to the applications since notification,
primarily in response to matters raised in Council
Section 92 requests and public submissions;
c) The site and surrounding area, primarily in relation
the adjacent historic reserve, road and an
unrecorded reclamation;
d) The proposed public access arrangements for the
marina and the proposed reclamation;
e) The planning basis of the marina with reference to
the zoning and other key provisions of the Operative
Auckland Regional Coastal Plan (“Coastal Plan”)
and Operative Auckland District Plan (Gulf Islands
section) (“District Plan”);
f) The zoning and other key provisions of the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan (“Unitary Plan”) that have
legal effect and are now relevant to the
applications;
g) The submission made by WML to the Unitary Plan;
h) The alternative marina locations that have been
assessed, also with reference to the Coastal Plan,
District Plan and Unitary Plan;
i) The rules in the Coastal Plan, District Plan, Unitary
Plan and Operative Regional Plan - Air Land & Water
(“Air Land and Water Plan”) that apply to the marina
project
j) The activity status of the applications and whether
they should be assessed as a ‘bundle’;
k) The submissions on the applications, focussing
primarily on those made by parties who have
registered interests with the Court under Section 274
of the Resource Management Act (“RMA”);
4
l) The RMA framework surrounding the applications;
m) The environmental effects of the marina project,
primarily with reference to other expert evidence;
n) The objectives, policies and related provisions in the
district, regional and unitary plans that apply to the
marina project;
o) The Section 104D ‘tests’ for non-complying activities
that apply to the proposed reclamation;
p) The Section 105 and 107 considerations relating to
the proposed stormwater discharges;
q) The Section 105 matters relating to an esplanade
areas on the proposed reclamation;
r) The NZ Coastal Policy Statement (“NZCPS”);
s) The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (“ARPS”);
t) Part 2 of the RMA;
u) The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (“HGMPA”);
v) The Marine & Coastal Area Act (“MCAA”);
w) Non RMA based plans and other relevant matters;
x) Consent terms;
y) Consent conditions;
z) My overall assessment of the marina project.
The Applications
8. The nature of the three resource consent applications
(coastal permit, land use and diversion/discharge of
stormwater) required for the marina project were explained
in the March 2013 AEE submitted to the Council. They are
also explained in Sections 1 and 3 of the Councils Section
87F report (“s87F report”).
5
9. The AEE submitted to the Council was accompanied by two
volumes of appendices, most of which were expert reports.
Appendix 1 to the AEE also contained the completed
Council application forms. An A3 folio containing eighty two
(82) figures illustrating the marina project, also dated March
2013, was submitted with the AEE.
10. Some of the March 2013 AEE figures have been altered in
response to Council Section 92 requests for further
information. Some of these alterations were made before
notification of the applications and some were made after
notification. The alterations to the AEE figures are detailed in
Annexure A. This annexure also identifies a couple of
additional plans that were provided to the Council during
the s92 process.
11. I note from Section 1 of the s87F report that the coastal
permit application has been split into three; one being for
the marina structures and the areas of exclusive occupation,
one for the capital dredging, and one for the reclamation. I
understand this approach is being proposed based on the
consent terms being sought by WML and the related
provisions in Section 123 of the RMA. Section 13 of the s87F
report explains these matters and I agree with it.
12. Section 4.14 of the AEE requested the maximum 35 year term
for the whole coastal permit. It was made on my
understanding that all of the marina structures will have a life
of at least 35 years and the terms of the coastal permits
issued for other marina projects, notably at Orakei and
Sandspit, that I have worked on.
13. In making the request in the AEE for a 35 year term coastal
permit I overlooked the fact that under Section 123 of the
RMA the reclamation component effectively has an
unlimited term. As such I support the reclamation being
6
considered as a separate coastal permit as proposed in the
s87F report.
14. I also support the s87F report proposal that the capital
dredging permit be separated out, because on reflection it
also does not need to have a 35 year term. Only a small
amount of capital dredging is required to accommodate
berthed craft in the inner part of the marina. As outlined in
Mr Wardale’s evidence the dredging is expected to be
completed within 9 months of construction commencing. As
such this permit can have a term which relates to the
anticipated construction period and a reasonable
allowance for delays in starting and finishing. I will return to
this matter later in my evidence when I consider consent
terms and conditions.
The Marina Site & Surrounding Area
15. The site of the proposed marina and the surrounding area
described in some detail in Section 2.1 of the AEE. These
matters are also covered in Section 3 of the s87F report.
16. The s87F report description of the site and surrounding area is
‘current’ and there are no recent developments that in my
view need to brought to the attention of the Court. The only
matters that I want to briefly cover are the extent and nature
of the Matietie Historic Reserve and the ‘unrecorded ’
reclamation at the end of Ocean View Rd that are adjacent
to the marina.
17. The possible effects of the marina project on the historic
reserve are mentioned in some of the submissions, and I
consider some background explanation of it is required. I
also consider that some explanation of the unrecorded
reclamation would assist the Court as upon more recent
investigation of the site I consider that the s87 report has, like
7
the AEE, largely overlooked its existence. This matter is
relevant when considering the status of activities on this area
of land and the ‘appropriateness’ of the proposed
reclamation in terms of the NZCPS and other RMA
instruments.
Historic Reserve
18. The Matietie historic reserve (Lot 1 DP 130545) comprises an
area of approximately 9.63ha. I understand it is administered
by the Department of Conservation (DoC), in conjunction
with the Council. The reserve contains a formed walkway
that, as outlined later in my evidence, is affected by slips.
The current state of the walkway was the driving factor in
WML proposing to build a boardwalk as part of the marina
project following discussions with staff from DoC and the
former Auckland City Council.
19. The seaward boundary of the reserve was set at the time of
subdivision in 1987 as being mean high water mark. As
outlined in the Axis Consultants Ltd (Axis) survey report in
Appendix C to the AEE the current mean high water mark is
approximately 2.65m above Chart Datum (CD). The current
mean high water springs mark (MHWS) is slightly further
inland at 2.8 metres above CD.
Unrecorded Reclamation
20. At the northern end of Ocean View Rd and adjacent to the
Council boat ramp is an area of reclaimed land that is not
recorded on the existing survey plans of the area. I
understand that the Council, through Auckland Transport,
administer this area, which contains some mooring holder
parking, along with the adjacent road reserve containing
Ocean View Rd.
21. The seaward edge (being mean high water mark) of the
8
road reserve containing Ocean View Rd is defined by a
‘wavy’ line as shown in Figure A, being Figure 7 (Axis Plan
1015 March 2010) from the March 2013 folio of figures. The
unrecorded reclamation extends to the north of the boat
ramp, alongside the historic reserve, as well as to the south of
it, towards the ferry terminal. The outer edge to the north of
the boat ramp is generally marked by a rock wall as shown
in Figure A. The proposed reclamation associated with the
marina will abut this existing reclamation.
22. A review of survey records for the area indicates that Ocean
View Rd was surveyed in the late 1920’s. Annexure B
contains a copy of the relevant DP 22412 of November 1928.
23. The outer rock wall edge of the adjacent unrecorded
reclamation is important because it effectively marks current
MHWS, which is the boundary between the District Plan and
Regional Plans. The Figure A aerial photograph shows the
historic reserve and road reserve boundaries as solid dark
blue lines and MHWS is shown in the form of a dashed light
blue line. The ASL photographs in Figure B, being Figure 9
from the AEE folio of figures, show more clearly the rock wall
and wider ‘on the ground’ situation.
24. The proximity of the proposed reclamation to the historic
reserve is shown in Figure C, being Figure 20 (IMC Plan 4208-
104 Rev D) from the AEE folio of figures. From this plan I
estimate that the proposed reclamation (from its lowest toe
point) will have approximately 13m of frontage onto the
existing reclamation. The aerial photograph in Figure D,
being Figure 21 (IMC Plan 4208- 104 Rev B) from the AEE folio
of figures shows more clearly the ‘on the ground‘ situation.
25. The proximity of the proposed marina structures to the
historic reserve is shown in Figure E (IMC Plan 4208-101 Rev
H). The secondary breakwater will be approximately 30m,
9
the Pier A finger approximately 60m and Pier D end
approximately 70m away. The innermost line of pile
moorings will be at least 40m away. The inner most edge of
the dredging will be approximately 35m away.
Proposed Reclamation & Esplanade Reserve
26. The extent of the proposed reclamation is shown in Figure F,
being Figure 32 from the AEE. A variable width (3.15-5.90m)
esplanade reserve of approximately 820m2 was proposed
around the outer edge as shown. As noted on the plan the
esplanade reserve ‘starts’ from mean high water springs
(MHWS) and not the toe of the reclamation.
27. The basis of the variable width esplanade reserve, to
account for the outer pedestrian walkway and landscaping,
was explained in Section 3.7.5 of the AEE. From my
experience of similar reclamations used for parking in reality
the general public will at times walk through the parking
area as the esplanade reserve will not be clearly defined on
the ground.
28. I note that in paragraph 937 of the Council’s s87F report the
Council Planner (Ms Bremner) agrees with the variable width
esplanade reserve and the rationale for it. In paragraph 936
Ms Bremner refers to a more recent WML proposal to create
an esplanade strip (of the same dimensions), rather than
esplanade reserve around the edge of the reclamation. This
proposal was ‘flagged’ in draft consent conditions provided
to the Council late last year by the applicant. As noted in
paragraph 936 no explanation was provided at the time. I
will return to this matter later when discussing the Section 105
requirements in the RMA, the Marine & Coastal Area Act
and related ownership and surveying considerations.
10
Alternative Parking Deck Proposal
29. The basis of the alternative parking deck proposal was
explained in a memorandum to the Court from Mr Richard
Brabant of 9 April 2014. Mr Leman has explained its
engineering basis. I will explain a couple of planning
matters.
30. The deck as shown in Figure G (IMC plan 4208-115 Rev B)
would have a slightly smaller ‘footprint’ than the
reclamation. It would not have any form of esplanade
reserve or strip. However public access to the pedestrian
walkway and other facilities on, or attached to the deck, are
expected to be guaranteed through conditions attached to
the coastal permit and land use consent.
Proposed Public Access to the Marina
31. The public access arrangements for the marina itself were
explained in Section 2.21 of the AEE with reference to Figure
31 in the folio of figures. Figure H contains a copy of this
plan.
32. The AEE and plan propose that the public be able to use the
southern access pier and primary breakwater during
daylight hours. The gangway serving the southern access
pier will be the sole point of entry for berth holders, their
visitors and the general public. It is expected to have a
security gate with public access being available to this pier,
and the adjoining primary breakwater and viewing platform
facilities during daylight hours.
33. Unrestricted public access to the marina is not possible
because as shown in Figure H six berths are immediately
adjacent to the southern access pier and damage to boats
and/or theft of belongings is possible at night time. Security
gates are also proposed at the start of Piers A-D. No public
11
access to these piers is being proposed.
Proposed Exclusive Occupation Areas
34. The proposed exclusive occupation areas for the marina are
shown in Figure I, being Figure 33 from the AEE folio of
figures. As outlined in Section 2.24 of the AEE WML are
seeking exclusive occupation rights for all of the floating
structures and associated berthing areas, plus the pile
moorings. This is so control can be exercised at all times over
craft in these areas. No exclusive occupation rights are
being sought over the marina entrance/fairway, nor the
internal fairways between the piers.
Proposed Boardwalk
35. The proposed pedestrian boardwalk from the reclamation to
the adjacent northern beach area is not an essential part of
the marina development. As outlined earlier it was
proposed by WML following discussions with DoC and
Council staff about the state of the first part of the Matiatia
Bay to Owhanake Bay walkway that is within the reserve.
The first 100m or so of the walkway traverses fairly steep land
that is affected by several slips. It is difficult to access on foot
and the proposed boardwalk was seen as a worthwhile
public access initiative.
36. The photographs in Figure B show some of the slips affecting
the walkway and remedial boulder works undertaken by
DoC/Council staff. The proposed boardwalk of
approximately 40m in length will, in my opinion, provide
much better all tide pedestrian access to the northern part
of Matiatia Bay and thereby enhance the public walkway
experience around the coast.
37. The landward ‘end’ of the proposed pedestrian boardwalk
will be located on the historic reserve as shown in Figures C &
12
D. The more detailed walkway connection and cross section
plans in Figure J, being Figure 22 (IMC Plan 4208-105 - Rev B)
from the AEE folio of figures show the extent of the piled
timber boardwalk and ramp that are on the reserve. The
solid black line on this plan is the reserve boundary.
38. As outlined in Section 1.4 of the AEE a Reserves Act
concession will also be required for the small part of
boardwalk that is located on the historic reserve. The
concession application has been discussed with DoC staff,
who have indicated that it is likely to be notified.
39. If the Court or DoC did not approve of the boardwalk then
the current low-mid tide access around the rocks and beach
would remain largely unaffected. The proposed
reclamation will effectively cover some of the low –mid tide
areas that some people may walk on. However it will not in
my opinion ‘block’ walking access to the public. The mainly
rocky intertidal area is reasonably wide as can seen in some
of the Figure B photographs.
40. The possibility of WML assisting DoC to reinstate the high tide
walkway was discussed during the marina investigation
phase, as were different boardwalk options, including using
a floating structure. The alternatives were not investigated in
detail at the time of the AEE preparation because DoC staff
indicated they were comfortable with the proposed
boardwalk.
41. Should there be any delay in obtaining the additional
Reserves Act concession for the boardwalk it will not, in my
view affect the marina project. I understand that the
boardwalk will be one of the last facilities built. As described
in Mr Wardale’s evidence marina construction is expected to
be in two phases, the first phase taking approximately 7
months, and after settlement of the breakwaters, another
13
phase of approximately 5 months, which includes the
boardwalk. I also understand from Mr Wardale’s evidence
that access to the foreshore and the historic reserve will be
maintained throughout the marina construction.
The Planning Basis of the Marina
42. The planning basis of the marina was set out in Section 2.3
and 2.4 of the AEE. It highlighted the extent of boat mooring
in the bay, the local interests in marina berths, marina site
investigation parameters and the provisions relating to
moorings and marinas in the Coastal Plan. As the proposed
marina primarily affects the coastal marine area (“CMA”) my
initial evidence focuses on its planning basis under this plan
and then the District Plan. My evidence then focusses on the
Unitary Plan which was notified after the applications were
lodged with the Council. The Unitary Plan provisions for the
CMA area have legal effect as outlined in the s87 report. I
will cover this particular matter in more detail later in my
evidence.
43. The Coastal Plan divides the CMA into 11 ‘management
areas’ or zones. Although the Coastal Plan has a Marina
Management Area it only applies to existing marinas and
there is no such ‘marina’ zoned area around Waiheke Island.
Most of the marinas in the region have been built within or
partly within an existing Mooring Management Area
(“MMA”). The proposed marina will be located primarily
within the northern-most of the two MMA’s in Matiatia Bay.
44. Marinas have traditionally been built within MMA’s or their
equivalent zones in other regions. This is because they are
often replacing a significant number of swing moorings (and
sometimes pile moorings too) with a more space efficient
and sheltered facility that also has environmental and
transportation planning benefits. Not surprisingly MMA’s are
14
likely to have favourable natural water depths, at least a
degree of natural protection from prevailing weather, and
usually there will be some existing infrastructure such as boat
ramps, wharves, parking, and fuelling facilities, like at
Matiatia.
45. Examples of marinas in the Auckland region largely built in
mooring areas include Bayswater, Bucklands Beach, Orakei
and Westhaven (completed over many years in a staged
development). The most recently consented marina in the
region at Sandspit is also largely within a mooring area.
Other marinas I know of that have been developed in
established mooring areas are Kerikeri, Opua and
Whangaroa (in Northland), Tauranga Bridge and Evans Bay
and Seaview (both in Wellington).
46. Chapter 23 –Marinas of the Coastal Plan recognises the
benefits of marinas, and provides for them as permitted
activities in the Marina Management Area and discretionary
activities in all other areas, except Coastal Protection 1 and
2. Section 23. 1- Introduction, states
“Marinas generally enhance amenities for boat users
through the provision of a wide range of facilities and
services, while providing economic opportunities and social
facilities for parts of the community. Marinas also
concentrate vessels ……and provide for a more efficient use
of harbour space, than other methods of securing vessels”
(emphasis added).
47. The introduction then goes on to identify the potential
adverse effects of marinas that it considers ‘can be
significant’. Section 23.2- Issues, identifies four issues, the first
of which is the “likely increase in demand for marina berths
over the life of the plan”. It then goes on to discuss the
modifications to the coastal environment that usually result
15
from marinas, their complex water/land interface nature and
their different development and operational needs.
48. Section 23.3 and 23.4 identify four objectives and twelve
policies for marinas. Later in my evidence I assess the marina
project against these objectives and policies. At this point I
want to highlight two of them as they were important in the
planning of the project. Objective 23.1.1 aims “to
concentrate marina activities in Marina Management
Areas”, whilst Objective 23.1.2 aims “to provide for the
development of appropriate new marinas or where
appropriate extensions beyond the boundaries of Marina
Management Areas while ensuring adverse effects are
avoided remedied or mitigated.” As outlined earlier,
Waiheke Island has no Marina Management Areas so
Objective 23.1. 2 is the ‘driver’ and it simply requires that a
Waiheke Island based marina proposal be focussed on
minimising adverse effects. As I have outlined earlier a
marina that is located in the area of the greatest number of
moorings and adjacent to a ferry terminal and large
parking/public transport facility is by its very nature an
obvious location that minimises effects.
49. At the Coastal Plan policy level the key ‘drivers’ for the
project were Policy 23.4.3 and Policy 23.4.6. Policy 23.4.4
requires marinas be avoided in any Coastal Protection Area
1 and any site or place on the Cultural Heritage 1. This policy
is met. Church Bay and parts of Rocky Bay that have been
suggested as alternative sites by some submitters have a
Coastal Protection 1 zoning and were never considered on
this basis.
50. Policy 23.4.6 requires that “where it has been established
that reclamation is an appropriate method for creating
sufficient space for necessary marina facilities, the size of the
reclamation shall be minimised as far as practicable”. This
16
policy has also been achieved because although the
reclamation is primarily for parking it will also contain a
number of other necessary marina facilities and services
(refuse/recycling and wastewater), along with facilities of a
public nature, including a pedestrian walkway, and
coastguard parking. At the same time its size has been
minimised as far as practicable and integrated with the
nearby public parking areas, including the mooring holder
parking at the end of Ocean View Rd.
Waiheke Island Coastal Plan Provisions
51. The key MMA and GMA provisions applying to the marina
site were outlined earlier in my evidence. The only other
relevant planning map provision is the “Regionally Significant
Landscape” notation around the outer shoreline parts of the
bay shown in Figure K.
52. Mr Pryor has outlined in his evidence the basis of this notation
being the dated 1994 Waiheke Coastal Landscape
Assessment and the significant changes in the bay
landscape since this time. He also refers to the more recent
Plan Change No.8 to the Regional Policy Statement that
focuses on Outstanding Natural Landscapes.
53. The Regionally Significant Landscape notations in the
Coastal Pan are not to my knowledge tied to any rules.
However they are tied to some of the plan policies, that I
cover later in my evidence.
54. The coastal waters around Waiheke Island contain 15
MMA’s. The location and extent of them is shown in Figure K
(being Figure 10 from the AEE folio of figures). Section 2.2 of
the AEE contained a tabular summary of the Council
mooring records for the island (Ref. Table 1 on page 8). At
this time the MMA’s contained 509 moorings and there were
17
another 127 moorings in other areas.
55. The 509 moorings in the MMA”s was at the time 48 more than
the maximum permitted under the Coastal Plan (Ref.
Schedule 5). The Council records showed that nearly all of
the MMA’s were full and I understand this is still the situation.
As outlined in Section 2.2 of the AEE two of the smaller
MMA’s in Anzac Bay and Kanakarau Bay appear to have
available mooring space, but I expect that road and/or
water access will be limiting factors.
56. The extent of the two MMA’s (collectively known as No.62) in
Matiatia Bay and the relationship of the proposed marina to
them is shown in Figure L attached (being Figure 76 in the
AEE). Most of the marina, including the primary breakwater,
is within the northern MMA. The secondary breakwater, the
reclamation or deck, the boardwalk, the floating office and
the pile moorings are within the General Management Area
(GMA) that covers the rest of the bay.
57. The AEE table noted that the northern MMA contained
approximately 54 moorings, whilst the southern MMA had
approximately 39 moorings, i.e. a total of 93 moorings.
Although this total number is 5 less than the maximum 98
permitted under the Coastal Plan (Ref. Schedule 5) Council
staff advised at the time that the two Matiatia MMA’s were
effectively full. As reported in the AEE (page 9) Council staff
advised that there were around 70 people waiting for a
mooring in Matiatia.
58. The two Matiatia Bay MMA’s contain the largest number of
moorings of any of the MMA’s around Waiheke Island. The
approximately 93 moorings in place at the time of the AEE
preparation equated to around 15% of the island total. From
a coastal planning perspective and taking into account
recreational boating and water space demands I consider
18
Matiatia Bay to be a primary location for a marina.
59. As outlined in Mr Dilley’s evidence more recent investigations
indicate there are 52 moorings in the northern Matiatia Bay.
The number of moorings in the northern part is of some
significance from a planning perspective as it forms part of
the ‘existing environment’. I will cover this RMA matter later
in my evidence.
60. The siting of the proposed marina in the northern part of
Matiatia Bay where the largest number of moorings is has
considerable merit from a wider coastal planning
perspective. The southern half of the bay has a more
accessible beach and is used by the general public and
some commercial operators for a variety of water
recreational activities.
District Plan Overview
61. The siting of the proposed marina in the northern part of the
bay is also logical from a transportation and land use
planning perspective. As outlined in the evidence of Messrs
Apeldoorn and Mitchell this part of the bay has good road
access, along with a boat ramp, dinghy racks, a fuel pump
and other shore based facilities.
62. Matiatia is well served by public and private transport
services, notably the regular ferry services, along with buses
and taxis. Although marinas need nearby parking facilities,
in my opinion use should be made of available ‘public’
transport services in order to minimise the amount of
waterfront land and/or water space devoted to parking.
This factor was taken into account in the early planning of
the marina project.
63. Some of the parties WML consulted, including former
Auckland City Council transport division staff, highlighted the
19
nature of the available transport services and also the
capacity of the ferry terminal parking areas to
accommodate marina users during weekends, when they
are not used by the largely commuter dominated local
population. The WML commissioned parking surveys by T2
subsequently confirmed this position. The availability of ferry
and other ‘public’ transport services to the bay, along with
the available parking areas in the weekend, will make it
easier for berth holders to take friends or other visitors with
them on boating or sailing trips and/or at times work on their
boats.
64. The developed transport ‘hub’ nature of the inner Matiatia
Bay brings within it a ‘built’ landscape and amenity
character (including lighting, noise and a high level of public
and private vehicle movements), that in my view reinforces
its suitability from a land use planning perspective. As
outlined later in my evidence the NZCPS and other RMA
instruments encourage development in areas where the
natural character has already been compromised. This is
the situation with the inner parts of Matiatia Bay, including
the land adjacent to the marina site, as outlined in the
evidence of Mr Pryor.
65. The District Plan provisions are based around Land Units,
which are very similar to zones. The last 180m approximately
of Ocean View Rd adjacent to the ferry terminal, along with
the related parking and recreational open space areas are
zoned “Matiatia (Gateway)”. The Matietie Historic Reserve is
zoned “Open Space 1 (Ecology & Landscape)”, whilst the
private properties overlooking the marina are zoned “Rural 2
(Western Landscape)”. Figure M contains the relevant District
Plan map.
66. The Matiatia Gateway zone appears to cover the
unrecorded reclamation at the end of Ocean View Rd. I
20
have compared the 1:7500 scale district plan map with
Council GIS and Quickmap plans of the area and the
boundaries appear to coincide.
67. The Matiatia Gateway zone is in turn divided into three
‘areas’ shown in Figure N. The last 100m (approximately) of
Ocean View Rd, along the unrecorded reclamation and
part of the esplanade reserve to the south of the ferry
terminal have a “Transport Area” notation, whilst the parking
and recreational open space areas to the south have
“Mixed Use Area” and a “Wetland Area” notations.
68. The aerial photograph Council GIS map in Figure O shows
how the ‘area’ notations relate to the ‘current’ ‘on the
ground’ situation. As shown the “Transport Area” extends
over land to the south of the ferry terminal, including the
esplanade reserve. I understand that this reserve, like the
historic reserve to the north extends to mean high water
mark.
69. The “Transport Area” and “Mixed Use” notations for Ocean
View Rd were considered in the initial planning for the
marina. Although, as outlined later in my evidence, the
objectives and policies for the Matiatia Land Unit place
some emphasis on public passenger transport operations
over private vehicle activities in these areas, they also
recognise that the unit is likely to be subject to
redevelopment proposals, possibly involving relocation of
Ocean View Rd. Also the land unit has a number of other
equally important objectives and policies on infrastructure,
landscape character, pedestrian/traffic safety and
efficiency that have to be considered.
70. A marina in the northern bay accessed through the
“Transport Area” was seen in the initial planning as more
consistent with the Matiatia land unit objectives and policies
21
than one in the southern part of the bay. Also as outlined
earlier the southern part of Matiatia Bay has no public road
access, whereas the last part of Ocean View Rd has a history
of private vehicle use by people utilising the boat ramp,
dinghy racks and other facilities.
71. The “Open Space (Ecology & Landscape) 1” zoning of the
historic reserve was also taken into account during the initial
marina planning and design. The rules and related
objectives and policies on earthworks and structures were
amongst the reasons for not extending the reclamation onto
the reserve. DoC staff also advised at the time of possible
difficulties with a Reserves Act concession involving
reclamation of any historic reserve and the original vesting of
this particular historic reserve in the Crown when the
surrounding land was subdivided.
Unitary Plan Overview
72. The Unitary Plan has 6 CMA based zones compared to the
11 zones in the Coastal Plan. There are “Marina”, “Mooring”
(“MZ”) and “General Coastal Marine” (GCMZ) zones. They
are similar to the Marina, MMA and GMA zones in the
Coastal Plan. There is also a “Ferry Terminal” zone, which is
relevant here.
73. The Marina zone covers existing marinas, along with the
recently consented marina at Sandspit. It does not cover
the Westhaven marina that has a “City Centre” zoning.
74. Figure P shows the extent of the three CMA based zones that
apply to the Matiatia Bay area. Figure Q shows how the
different zones relate to the proposed marina layout. Figure
Q also shows a Historic Heritage (Site or Place of Value to
Mana Whenua) overlay affecting the area, that I will address
later in this part of my evidence.
22
75. Most of the marina structures, including the primary and
secondary breakwaters and pile moorings are within the MZ.
The reclamation or deck, the boardwalk, and the floating
office are within the GCMZ.
76. As shown in Figure Q the proposed MZ in the northern part of
Matiatia Bay is larger than the current MMA. Mr Dilley’s
evidence also highlights that the proposed MZ in this part of
the bay (like elsewhere) has no ‘maximum mooring number’
like the current MMA. As such the ‘permitted baseline’ for
moorings under the Unitary Plan is expected to be higher
than the current 52 in the area. I cover this matter later in my
evidence.
77. Figure P shows the extent of the Ferry Terminal zone, which is
also significant when considering the future form of
development in this area. This zone provides for a range of
structures and activities in the CMA and part of the road
reserve.
78. The Ferry Terminal zone provides for capital works dredging,
maintenance dredging, marine and port facilities, wave
attenuation devices and ‘other’ structures as restricted
discretionary activities. Reclamation is provided for as a
discretionary activity. The development controls provide for
buildings up to 5m high on the existing wharves.
Unitary Plan Site or Place of Value to Mana Whenua Overlay
79. The Historic Heritage (Site or Place of Value to Mana
Whenua) overlay affecting part of the marina site is shown
Figure Q. The site is one of four in the northern Matiatia Bay
area as shown in the Unitary Plan map in Figure R.
80. Appendix 4.2 contains a list of all Sites and Places of Value to
Mana Whenua (3600 in total) shown on the planning maps.
The subject site or place, being ID 1730, is recorded as
23
Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI) site 10185 and Archaeology
of Maori origin. The Appendix 4.2 record also identifies the
site as being recorded in the NZ Archaeological Association
(NZAA) data base as R11/1654.
81. Mr Prince has explained in his evidence the actual extent of
the site of value. I note that this archaeological site is a
partially exposed shell midden and oven area approximately
100m long within an escarpment on the inland edge of the
historic reserve and on adjacent private land.
82. Mr Prince’s evidence is that the 200m diameter circle ‘buffer’
area around the actual site has no benefit. The actual site is
fully protected under the NZ Historic Places Act. Also the
part of the site that is within the historic reserve will be
‘protected’ under the Reserves Act. I have lodged, on
behalf of WML, a submission on the Unitary Plan, which
amongst other requests, the removal of the overlay circle
and the deletion of the rule as it currently applies to this
location.
Consideration of Alternative Marina Sites
83. The possibility of a marina in the southern part of Matiatia
Bay, along with other potential marina sites, were
investigated by the project engineer, myself and other
consultants as part of the original marina proposal. The
findings were documented in Section 2.4 of the AEE. The
three main areas investigated at this time were the Coastal
Plan MMA’s in Huruhi Bay, Putiki Bay and Rocky Bay, all of
which are to the southwest of Matiatia Bay.
84. The Coastal Plan map in Figure K shows the MMA’s in the
three bays mentioned. The 2012 investigation of alternative
sites focussed on MMA’s for the reasons outlined earlier, i.e.
they have a history of mooring/boating use and generally
24
road access and some services, like electricity and water.
This focus on ‘brownfield’, rather than ‘greenfield’ sites is in
my view reasonable, in light of the history of marinas in New
Zealand and the RMA provisions on coastal natural
character.
85. The consideration of alternative sites to the proposed
Matiatia marina has been raised by several submitters,
including some who are s274 parties. Most of the sites
mentioned by submitters are within MMA’s in either Huruhi
Bay, Putiki Bay or Rocky Bay, which were considered in 2012.
However a couple of submitters have referred to possible
‘greenfield’ marina sites in Owhanake Bay and Church Bay,
which are also shown in Figure K. The feasibility of
establishing a marina in either of these bays, plus those
considered in 2012, have been evaluated by the WML
project team.
86. Messrs Leman and Pryor have covered in their evidence the
coastal engineering and landscape/natural character
limitations of a marina in either Church Bay or Owhanake
Bay. Also as outlined in Mr Pryor’s evidence part of Church
Bay has an Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) notation
in the ARPS. Part of the bay also has a Coastal Protection 1
Area zoning in the Coastal Plan where marinas are a
prohibited activity. Nearly all of the land fronting Owhanake
is an esplanade reserve, making access very difficult. The
surrounding land has a Rural 2 zoning with no land zoned or
identified for development.
87. Mr Leman has identified exposure and seabed foundation
limitations with a marina in Rocky Bay, whilst Mr Pryor has
highlighted landscape and coastal natural character
limitations, including ONL notations in the eastern part of the
bay. There is also a Coastal Protection Area 1 zoning over
the CMA in this area. Road access and parking would be
25
issues here, although using Pohutukawa Ave, at the western
end, which contains some boat sheds, at least for access
would be a possibility. Most of the land at the western end is
zoned Island Residential 2 (Bush Residential), and there is a
small pocket of Commercial 3 (Local Shops) zoned land not
far from the water. The western part of the bay also contains
a significant number of moorings but I do not consider it as
suitable as Matiatia Bay for a marina.
88. Mr Leman’s evidence highlights the exposure, seabed
foundation and/or dredging limitations with a marina in
either Putiki Bay or Huruhi Bay. Mr Pryor has not identified
any landscape or coastal natural character concerns, which
I agree with in terms of related Coastal Plan and District Plan
provisions. Road access is an issue in parts of these two bays
as I outlined in the AEE. Like Rocky Bay much of the
accessible surrounding land has a Residential zoning.
However there is no land zoned for commercial (or Mixed
Use) or transport activities, like at Matiatia, other than at
Kennedy Point. The ferry landing and parking area at
Kennedy Point has a Commercial 7 (Wharf) zone and in this
regard it is a possible alternative to Matiatia, as outlined in
the AEE. However it has limited parking and is not as well
served by public transport. As Mr Leman has outlined it is
more exposed than Matiatia and he has provided an
assessment of the extensive breakwaters which would be
required.
Coastal Plan Rules
89. The relevant Coastal Plan rules applying to the CMA parts of
the proposed marina were identified in Section 4.4 of the
AEE. They are also identified in paragraphs 88-96 of the s87F
report. The rules concerned are in Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13,
15, 23 and 24.
26
Rules on Marinas & Moorings
90. Chapter 23 of the plan contains rules on marinas. “Marina
proposals” are provided for as discretionary activities in both
the MMA and GMA under Rule 23.5.8, except in Coastal
Protection Areas 1 and 2. Most of the proposed facilities,
including the rock breakwaters and floating marina office,
fall within the definition “marina” in the plan. It reads:
“A comprehensively designed facility primarily for the
accommodation of boats, comprising berths, pontoons and
piers, and any associated reclamations and breakwaters”.
A marina may also include land based areas for car parking
and associated facilities and services. Established
marinas….…..”
91. The marina office is located on a pontoon and as such
probably covered under the above mentioned marina rule.
If not, then it is a discretionary activity under Rule 12.5.8, like
the boardwalk, dinghy racks and reclamation viewing deck.
Rule 12.5.8 in Chapter 12 – Structures, is a ‘catch all’ that
provides for “the erection or placement of any structure that
is not provided for in any other rule contained in this chapter
and is not located in Coastal Protection Areas 1.”
92. Chapter 24 has a specific set of rules on moorings. Rule
24.5.4 provides for pile moorings within MMA’s as a restricted
discretionary activity, whilst Rule 24.5.5 provides for them in
all other areas, except Coastal Protection Area 1 and
Special Activity Areas, as discretionary activities. The
proposed pile moorings are outside the MMA and as such
require consideration as a discretionary activity under Rule
24.5.5.
Rules on Dredging & Reclamation
93. The rules on dredging in Chapter 15 make provision for
27
“capital works dredging, except in Coastal Protection 1 and
2 Areas”, as discretionary activities (Ref. Rule 15.5.10). The
definition of capital dredging refers to “the disturbance of
the seabed by excavation and removal of material beyond
existing approved levels”. It, and the abovementioned rule,
cover the proposed dredging, along with the proposed
‘undercut’ beneath the bund wall of the reclamation.
94. Chapter 13 has rules on reclamations. The proposed
reclamation is a non-complying activity under Rule 13.5.3.
Rule 13.5.2 provides for reclamations in the Port, Marina and
Devonport Defence Management Areas as discretionary
activities. Reclamations in all other management areas
(except some parts of the Coastal Area 1 Protection or
where a reclamation could affect a site on the Cultural
Heritage Schedule 1, which are prohibited activities), are
deemed to be non-complying activities under Rule 13.5.3.
Parking Deck Rules
95. Messrs Black, Leman, James and Wardale have explained in
their evidence the engineering basis of the alternative
parking deck and the associated viewing platform, along
with related servicing and construction matters. I will outline
its planning basis.
96. The parking deck will also abut the unrecorded reclamation
As shown in Figure G it will have a narrower frontage than
the reclamation and be further away from the historic
reserve than the reclamation.
97. The alternative parking and viewing platform falls for
consideration as a discretionary activity under the ‘catch all’
Rule 12.5.18 I mentioned earlier. It provides for “the erection
or placement of any structure, which is not provided for in
any other rule …..and is not located in a Coastal Protection
28
Area” as a discretionary activity in all ‘zones’.
98. The parking deck does not in my view fall within the
definition of “marina” and Rule 23.5.8 that provides for
“marina proposals” as discretionary activities. Whilst the
definition states that a marina includes “any associated
reclamations” and “may also include land based areas for
car parking and associated facilities and services” it does
not envisage marinas having deck parking facilities. This is a
little unusual as deck type structures are used for parking,
with the Orakei marina being an example.
Other Rules
99. Chapter 10 – General, and Chapter 11 – Activities, have rules
on the occupation and use of structures and other facilities
in the CMA. Rule 10.5.9 deems the occupation of any
structure that is a discretionary activity in another rule of the
plan, such as the marina, pile moorings, and boardwalk, to
likewise be discretionary activities. Rule 11.5.1b requires that
“public access to, along and within the CMA is not
permanently restricted”. The proposal to restrict day time
access to Piers A-D and night time access to the southern
access pier and primary breakwater requires consideration
as a discretionary activity under Rule 11.5.5.
District Plan Rules
100. The District Plan ‘land unit/areas’ and some of the related
rules that apply to the proposed land based marina facilities
were covered in Section 4.8 of the AEE, although at the time
the plan was still in the proposed form. The rules in the now
operative plan are very similar and covered in paragraphs
47-87 of the s87F report. I agree with most of the s87F report
findings, except some of those relating to activities upon the
proposed reclamation as found in paragraphs 76-87. The
29
s87F report considers these activities are non-complying,
whereas I consider they are either permitted or (innominate)
discretionary.
Rules on Activities on the Reclamation
101. The s87F report finds that the earthworks, parking and
network utility activities are non-complying activities, and the
lighting is a permitted activity. I agree that the lighting is a
permitted activity. However I consider the other activities
mentioned, plus loading (that is not mentioned), are either
permitted, restricted discretionary or discretionary activities.
102. The s87F report finding on the non-complying activity status
of the activities on the reclamation is based on an
interpretation of Rule 4.2 and in particular the reference to
“parts of the plan applying to the location of the activity”.
The report considers that because the reclamation is not
zoned, and it has no ‘location’ (or zone) based rules, then
the activities on it become non –complying.
103. Looking first at parking and loading. The rules on parking
(and loading) in the District Plan are not ‘location’ (zone)
based, so these activities on the developed reclamation are
no different to those elsewhere. The Council report
recognises this in paragraphs 66-69 where it finds that the
proposed parking and loading arrangements (including
disabled parking and screening) are restricted discretionary
activities under Rule 13.7.1.
104. All of the marina parking and loading will be on the
developed reclamation. No marina based loading or
parking will occur on existing land (i.e. within the road
reserve or the unrecorded reclamation). The existing
mooring holder parking area that straddles these two areas
is to be redeveloped as part of the marina project, but that
30
is a permitted activity under Rule 10a.18.5.1. This rule
contains a list of permitted and discretionary activities in the
Matiatia Land Unit Transport Area. Amongst the list of
permitted activities is “car parking (including drop off and
pick up areas)”.
105. Turning to the ‘earthworks’ on the reclamation, the AEE did
not cover this matter on the understanding this is not a
separate activity to reclamation. Reclamation involves
‘earthworks’ in a general sense in the CMA, which fall for
consideration as a non-complying activity under the Coastal
Plan. Such ‘earthworks’ in the CMA do not, in my view, also
require further consideration and consenting under the
District Plan.
106. The reclamation ‘earthworks’ will be completed before the
land is surveyed and added to the ‘district’. The only true
land based earthworks within the ‘district’ are those on the
unrecorded reclamation and road reserve (for the access to
the proposed reclamation) and historic reserve (for the
boardwalk). The s87F report recognises that they are
permitted and discretionary activities respectively (Ref.
paragraphs 56 and 50).
107. Finally, looking at the network utility rules, they, like the
parking and loading rules, apply ‘across the district’. In my
view the network utilities installed in the road reserve are
permitted activities, as recognised in paragraphs 71-75 of
the s87F report. The network utilities will be installed in the
reclamation before it becomes part of the district, so like
earthworks are dealt with simply under the Coastal Plan and
not also under the District Plan.
108. The s87F report in paragraph 82 refers to a letter from Mr
Richard Brabant of 24 May 2013 that highlights the provisions
in Section 245 of the RMA regarding when the reclamation
31
becomes part of the district. The letter also highlights the
Section 87B provisions relating to innominate (discretionary)
activities, where there are no applicable District Plan rules.
109. I agree with Mr Brabant’s views regarding the use of the
completed reclamation for parking, after it has become part
of the district, being an innominate (discretionary) activity.
A similar matter arose with the land use consent application
for the Sandspit marina that I presented evidence on to the
Environment Court. The Court held that the parking use of
an area of already reclaimed land that had not become
part of the district, as provided for under s245, was an
innominate activity (Ref. Decision No 2012 NZ EnvC. 052
paragraph 53).
Rules Applying to the Parking Deck
110. The alternative parking deck will be ‘attached’ to the
reclamation at the northern end of Ocean View Rd, which
has a Matiatia (Gateway) – Transport Area zoning. It will butt
up to a small footing set into the ground around MHWS as
shown in Figure S. Only a very small part of the handrail on
the deck itself will extend above MHWS.
111. Rule 10a.18.5.1 contains a list of permitted and discretionary
activities in the Transport Area. The permitted activities
include “the construction and relocation of buildings,
including buildings used for any of the other activities listed in
this table” and “car parking (including drop off and pick up
areas).” In my opinion the deck footing and handrail above
MHWS are a permitted activity, subject to compliance with
development controls for the Matiatia Gateway zone and
other plan rules, which I discuss below.
112. Table 10c.3 sets out the development controls for the
Matiatia Gateway zone, which are different for the three
32
‘areas’. The Transport Area has development controls on
building height and building coverage (both in relation to
Area A and Area B), indigenous vegetation removal, noise
and earthworks. No indigenous vegetation removal is
involved so this control is not applicable to the parking deck.
113. I can find no District Plan text or map that explains or
illustrates Area A and Area B. I understand such areas were
identified in the original notified version of the plan, but they
were removed (at least from the maps) in response to
submissions. However setting this matter aside the very
innermost part of the deck handrail that extends onto
Ocean View Rd will be only about 1m high and well below
the most stringent 6m limit set for Area A in Table 10c.3. The
deck footing will be largely buried and be considerably less
than the most stringent 200m2 building coverage limit set for
Area A in the same table. As such the parking deck
complies with these two development controls.
114. I understand that construction of the land based part of the
parking deck will affect a similar area of land as the land
based part reclamation (i.e. approximately 310m2). This land
has a slope of less than 1:6, as outlined in the AEE, so under
Table 10c.3 up to 400m2 of earthworks are a permitted
activity. The deck related earthworks are, like the
reclamation related earthworks, less than this, and a
permitted activity.
115. Mr Styles has confirmed in his evidence that the rules
controlling noise from the completed parking deck that
extends onto the road reserve, will like noise from the
landward part of the reclamation, comply with the Leq noise
levels in Table 10c.3.
116. Rule 10c.4 – Controls on the Bulk, Location and Colour of
Buildings, is also applicable to the road based part of the
33
parking deck. The relevant controls, are in my view, met. I
note that under Rule 10c.4.9 there is no limit on impervious
surfaces for the Matiatia Land Unit.
Rules on the Transportation of Clean Fill
117. The transportation of clean fill for the reclamation and
earthworks is ‘caught’ by Rule 10c 5.6. They provide for up
to 200m3 of ‘clean fill’ to be transported by road as a
permitted activity, between 200m3 and 5000m3 as a
restricted discretionary activity and more than 5000m3 as a
discretionary activity. The term ‘clean fill’ also does not
appear to be defined in the plan. However it is expected to
include rock, bulk fill, base course and topsoil material used
in reclamations and other development projects.
118. As outlined in the AEE and Mr Wardale’s evidence the bulk
of the materials to be used in constructing the reclamation
will be barged to the site. The only ‘clean fill’ to be
transported by road to the site will be the approximately
600m3 of base course material underlying the top sealed
pavement and approximately 60m3 of topsoil used for the
landscaped areas. The total volume of around 660m3 being
transported by road requires consideration as a restricted
discretionary activity under Rule 10c 5.6.3. I note that the
s87F report at paragraph 65 makes the same finding.
Boardwalk Related Rules
119. The boardwalk is subject to the Open Space 1 zone rules.
Rule 10a.22.6 provides for a number of activities, including
“Observation areas, viewing platforms and related
structures” as a permitted activity and “Marine recreation
facilities” as a discretionary activity.
120. As outlined in Section 4.8.5 of the AEE the landward end of
the proposed boardwalk could be considered an
34
‘observation area related structure’ and as such be a
permitted activity. Alternatively it could fall for consideration
as a ‘marine recreation facility’ and be a discretionary
activity. I note that in paragraph 48 of the s87F Ms Bremner
considers it to be a permitted activity. However as outlined
in the s87F report and below the activity status is of limited
relevance because of the coastal protection yard rule.
121. Rule 10c5.6 and Table 10c.4 limit permitted activity
earthworks in the historic reserve to no more than 400m2,
where the slope is less than 1:6 and no more than 50m2
where the slope is more than 1:6. The slope of the land in the
part of the reserve affected by the earthworks is generally
less than 1:6. The reserve area affected by earthworks is
approximately 30m2. On this basis the earthworks are
generally a permitted activity. However they will also be
located within a ‘Coastal Protection Yard’ and are ‘caught’
by the associated rules.
122. Under Rule 10c.5.6 no building and no earthworks are
permitted to take place within the ‘coastal protection yard’
that is deemed to be 30m inland of MHWS. The proposed
boardwalk and earthworks will be within 30m of MHWS and
as such they are discretionary activities under Rule 10c.5.7.
Operative Regional Air Land & Water Plan Rules
123. The Regional Air Land and Water Plan rules that apply to the
diversion and discharge of stormwater from the impervious
road and parking facilities were addressed in Section 4.6 of
the AEE. The plan was at this time still of a proposed nature.
124. The plan is now of an operative nature and as outlined in
paragraph 97 of the s87F report the stormwater diversion
and discharge fall for consideration as a controlled activity
under Rule 5.5.2. The impervious area of approximately
35
2340m2 falls between the area ‘thresholds’ of 1000m2 and
5000m2 set in the rule.
Unitary Plan Rules
125. The zoning situation applying to the marina site was
explained earlier in my evidence. The relevant rules in the
Unitary Plan that apply to the proposed marina are set out in
paragraphs 99-114 of the s87F report. I generally agree with
the report findings, although consider some of the rules,
along with the zones and overlays, warrant further
explanation, primarily in terms of my subsequent ‘policy’
assessment of the marina project. WML have lodged a
submission opposing and supporting different Unitary Plan
provisions, that are relevant.
Rules on Marinas & Moorings
126. The MZ and GCMZ rules on moorings and marinas are quite
different to those for the MMA and GMA in the Coastal Plan.
127. ‘New pile moorings, including occupation’ are a restricted
discretionary activity in the MZ and a discretionary activity in
the GCMZ under Rule I.8.1 and Rule I.6.1.1.10 respectively.
Both rules apply as the proposed pile moorings straddle the
boundary between the zones. As outlined earlier ‘swing
moorings (new and existing)’ are a permitted activity as are
‘existing pile moorings’.
128. ‘New marinas’ in the GCMZ are listed as non-complying
activities in Rule I.6.1.10 and deemed to be of the same
status in the MZ under Rule I.8.1. The non-complying status of
‘new marinas’ in the two zones is not particularly explained in
the plan.
129. The non-complying status of ‘new marinas’ in the two zones
is difficult to understand in the light of the provision made for
36
very similar activities. Rule 1.6.1.10 provides for ‘marine and
port accessory structures and services’ in the GCMZ. They
are defined as being “small facilities and structures that are
associated with marine and port activities including …..piles,
pontoons and gangways” The identified structures, along
with ‘wave attenuation devices’ that are also listed,
effectively constitute a marina. The definition of ‘wave
attenuation device’ includes floating and fixed (rock rubble)
breakwaters and groynes. Also falling within the definition of
‘marine and port accessory structures’ and services are
“dinghy racks, lockers and storage facilities, hardstands,
washdown facilities, vessel fuelling and pump out facilities”
that are often associated with marinas.
130. Under Rule 1.6.1.10 marine and port accessory structures and
services (i.e. piles, pontoons and gangways) are restricted
discretionary activities on existing wharves or other CMA
structures (like attached to Matiatia wharf) and discretionary
activities where there are no such existing wharves/structures
(like in northern Matiatia Bay). ‘Wave attenuation devices’
irrespective of whether they are associated with an existing
wharf or structure are discretionary activities in the GCMZ.
131. Rule I. 8.1 states that the “activities controls and assessment
criteria in the GCMZ apply in the CMA in the Mooring zone,
unless otherwise specified” in the table within that rule. As
such I understand that the above mentioned activities that
effectively constitute a marina are also non complying
activities in the MZ. The abovementioned provisions in the
plan are, in my view, poorly written, show a bias against, or
at least a misunderstanding of ‘marinas’, and are not
consistent with the RMA. The WML submission is directed at
having a more appropriate effects based set of rules for
marinas in the Unitary Plan.
37
Rules on Dredging & Reclamation
132. “Capital works dredging” is a discretionary activity in both
zones under Rule I.6.1.1.3 and Rule 1.8.1 respectively.
133. “Reclamation” is a non-complying activity in both zones
under Rule I.6.1.1.1 and Rule 1.8.1 respectively.
Rules on Structures & Their Occupation
134. Rule I.6.1.1.10 provides for “observation areas, viewing
platforms, boardwalks, boat launching facilities” and other
similar facilities as discretionary activities in the GCMZ. This
rule covers the proposed boardwalk, and viewing platform
attached to reclamation/parking deck.
135. The parking deck falls within the definition of ‘marine and
port facilities’ that are provided for as discretionary activities
in the GCMZ. ‘Marine and port facilities’ are defined as
“facilities and structures that are associated with marine and
port activities that serve more than accessory function” and
include “…..landings, wharves, jetties and piers.” Although
the word deck is not mentioned the proposed facility is like a
landing, wharf and jetty. It is clearly a structure associated
with a marine facility and in turn ‘marine and port activities’,
that are defined in a very broad sense to include the
“berthing of vessels”.
136. The occupation of CMA structures, other than in prohibited
anchorage areas, are restricted discretionary activities in the
two zones under Rule I.6.1.1.10 and Rule I.8.1 respectively.
Rules on Sites & Places of Value to Mana Whenua
137. The basis of the overlay and the associated plan rules are
difficult to understand, and in turn apply, to the marina
project. I note that the matter is briefly addressed in
paragraph 113 of the Councils s87 report where Ms Bremner
38
states that under Rule J.5.2.1 “earthworks on or within 50m of
a site or place of value to Mana whenua” are a restricted
discretionary activity, and that “the earthworks associated
with the pile moorings, piers and dredging will be within 50m
of the outer extent of this overlay and this aspect is a
restricted discretionary activity”. What is not clear to me is
whether the rule applies to the dredging in the CMA
associated with the marina, as distinct from earthworks on
the land. As outlined earlier in my evidence when I was
discussing the reclamation, from my experience ‘earthworks’
is normally a term applied to land based activities and not
dredging, nor reclamation in the CMA.
138. The term ‘earthworks’ is simply defined in the plan as
“disturbance of soil, earth or substrate land surfaces.” It goes
on to list 14 different activities, which I generally associate
with land based earthworks. Capital dredging, (nor
maintenance dredging, nor reclamation) are not listed.
However the definition of ‘capital dredging’ refers “to
excavating material from the bed of the CMA” and the term
‘excavation’ is listed in the definition of ‘earthworks’. So are
the terms “boring”, “drilling” and “thrusting” that are
involved with installation of the marina piles. As such I
consider that the dredging and pile driving are probably
caught by the Unitary Plan rule.
Rules on Cultural Impact Assessments
139. Rule G 2.7.4 1– Cultural Impact Assessment, prescribes five
circumstances when CIA”s are required with applications.
Clause (a) refers to Sites and Places of Value to Mana
Whenua overlay, and is applicable to the proposed marina.
140. Rule G2.7.4.5 states that CIA’s should be prepared by an iwi
authority or person or entity nominated by the iwi authority. I
understand that the CIA prepared by Mr Rikys fulfils this
39
requirement. I am also of the view that the same CIA meets
the information and other requirements in Rules G2.7.4.4 and
G2.7.4.7.
WML Submission on the Unitary Plan
141. Annexure C contains a copy of the WML submission on the
Unitary Plan. It supports the Marina zone provisions because
they recognise the importance of marinas to the economic
and social wellbeing of the region. The zone rules also
recognise the need to provide for the progressive
refurbishment and alteration of marinas as structures age
and recreational boating demands change.
142. The WML submission requests that the proposed Matiatia
marina be included in the Marina zone. This request was
made on the basis that the Court is expected to make
decisions on the marina applications and submissions before
decisions are made by the Council on submissions to the
Unitary Plan. A plan was attached to the WML submission
showing the extent of the Marina zone being sought. This
plan is the attached Figure T.
143. The WML submission, also as a matter of principle, requests
that the Mooring and General Coastal Marine zone rules be
amended to provide for marinas, in a similar manner to the
Coastal Plan. For the Mooring zone it requests that marinas,
along with ancillary capital dredging and maintenance
dredging, be listed as restricted discretionary activities, with
ancillary reclamation for land based marina facilities being
provided for as a discretionary activity. For the General
Coastal Marine zone it requests the same or similar provisions
on the basis that parts (often the inner or shallower parts) of
marinas are expected be located in this zone in the future,
like they have in GMA areas under the Coastal Plan in the
past.
40
144. The WML submission covers the definition of marina in Part 4
as it is tied to the rules of the Marina zone and other rules.
The submission supports the definition of marina in the plan,
but raises two concerns with it.
145. The first concern raised in the submission is the exclusion of
‘buildings’ from the definition of marinas. The exclusion does
not appear to be explained. It affects the activity status of
the marina office proposed at Matiatia.
146. The second concern raised in the submission is the inclusion
only of ‘land based’ areas for parking and vessel storage
within the definition. This limitation is also not explained. It
could affect the activity status of floating dinghy racks
planned within the Matiatia marina. Although the dinghy
racks are probably covered by the terms of ‘pontoons’ and
‘associated facilities and services‘ (that are included in the
definition) the distinction between ‘land based’ and ‘water
based’ vessel storage facilities is artificial and inappropriate.
The same rationale applies to the apparent differentiation
between ‘land based’ and ‘water based’ areas for parking.
Some marinas use decks for parking that are primarily ‘water
based’, as is now being proposed at Matiatia as an
alternative to the reclamation.
147. The WML submission supports the parking standard of 0.35
spaces per berth in the Unitary Plan. This is because it is
reasonable and will provide more certainty for WML and
other marina developers. The fact that neither the District
Plan, nor the Coastal Plan contain parking standards for
marinas (or moorings) has made this part of the planning
process at Matiatia more difficult than it needed to be.
148. The Unitary Plan parking standard is reasonably consistent
with the Australian Standard – Guideline for Design of
Marinas AS3962- 2001 that has a minimum of 0.3 parking
41
spaces per berth. Also as noted in the WML submission the
Unitary Plan standard recognises the limited demand for
parking at marinas, especially during weekdays, and the
need to encourage alternative means of transport,
especially where established services are in place, like at
Matiatia.
149. The WML submission requests that the Historic Heritage
overlay –Site ID 1730 (Midden Site) be confined to the land,
i.e. it be deleted from the CMA. The submission also requests
the Council investigate further the location of the Historic
Heritage overlay. The centre of the circle, which is expected
to represent the approximate centre of the recorded
archaeological site, appears from the planning maps to be
on the shoreline, if not in the water (CMA) itself, rather than
further inland as indicated from the NZAA records. As a
result the overlay circle extends even further into the CMA
than could be expected.
150. The WML submission also requested clarification of the Part 4
definition of earthworks, particularly in terms of whether the
associated rules on earthworks, ‘catch’ the dredging and
other activities proposed for the marina that I discussed
earlier.
151. The submission requested clarification of this matter to the
extent that dredging (both capital and maintenance) is
specifically listed as an activity excluded from the definition
of earthworks. It also sought clarification that initial
placement of piles and floating marina structures and their
future maintenance within the historic heritage overlay are
not affected by the associated overlay rules. A request was
made for the Chapter J Rule 5.2 to be amended to include
a specific activity listing for the Matiatia marina structures, if
the principal relief sought of removing the overlay from the
CMA is not accepted.
42
Activity Status of the Applications
152. The activity status of the different components of the coastal
permit application were summarised in Table 9 (page 102) of
the AEE. I have checked this table against the findings of
the s87F report and they are consistent, except in relation to
the activities on the reclamation, which I covered earlier in
my evidence.
153. Eleven of the twelve components are discretionary activities,
and one, being the reclamation is a non-complying activity.
As outlined earlier the alternative parking deck is a
discretionary activity.
154. The land use consent application involves several different
activities that are either controlled, restricted discretionary or
discretionary under the District Plan. My view on this is very
similar to that in Table 10 (page 103) of the AEE, even though
the District Plan at that time was still in a proposed form (2009
Decisions version). The 1996 Operative District Plan was also
assessed but it is no longer relevant.
155. The stormwater diversion and discharge permit application
involves activities that fall for consideration as a controlled
activity.
156. The s87F report at paragraph 115 notes that “it is appropriate
to bundle the applications together” as there is a clear
overlap between the different consent requirements.” On
this basis, the report states that the overall activity status of
the applications is non-complying.
157. I am familiar with some of the case law on bundling and
generally agree with the approach in the s87F report. The
reclamation is a significant, rather than minor, component of
the coastal permit application and parking use of the
reclamation also requires land use consent. There is a
43
significant degree of overlap and, as such, I support
bundling of these two applications, along with the
stormwater diversion/discharge permit that deals with a
related matter. I note the findings of the High Court in
respect of the original Tairua marina applications where a
similar issue arose in respect of dredging and other marina
activities (HC Auckland CIV 2005 485-1490 29 June 2006).
158. The alternative parking deck based marina is overall a
discretionary activity as outlined earlier in my evidence.
Submissions
159. Part 5 of the s87F report (paragraphs 116-124) outlines the
number of submissions received, the key issues and related
procedural matters. I generally agree with this part of the
report.
160. The last paragraph 135 also briefly outlines the consultation
undertaken before lodgement of the applications. It also
records that after notification WML received a letter of
support from Fullers Group Ltd, who operate the ferry
services to and from Matiatia Bay. I also agree with this part
of the report.
161. The WML expert witnesses have dealt with most of the
submissions in their expert evidence. I will address matters
relating to public access and recreation, economic and
social effects and cumulative effects in my evidence. My
responses to submissions on plan provisions and the RMA are
also covered in the following part of my evidence.
RMA Framework Surrounding the Applications
162. The RMA framework surrounding the applications was
outlined in Section 4.1 of the AEE. The key provisions are Part
2, Sections 104, 104D, 105, 107 and 108, which the Court will
44
be familiar with. I will address each of them in my evidence.
Part 6 (paragraphs 126- 142) of the s87F report also covers
this matter.
163. Paragraphs 146-152 of the s87F report cover the ‘permitted
baseline’ test in Section 104(2). It was not dealt with in the
AEE, primarily because notification of the applications was
expected. The s87F report identifies the relevant rules in the
Coastal Plan and District Plan and I generally agree with it.
As outlined earlier in my evidence the parking deck proposal
has a significant District Plan ‘permitted baseline’
component.
164. The AEE and the s87F report identify a number of non RMA
plans that are considered ‘relevant matters’ under
s104(1)(c). I will cover them in my evidence. My evidence
also covers the potential ‘precedent’ effect of granting
consent to a non-complying activity and its effect on the
integrity of the Coastal Plan, District Plan and Unitary Plan.
This is also a ‘relevant matter’ under s104(1)(c).
Environmental Effects
165. Section 3 of AEE that I largely prepared, contained an
effects assessment of the project, based primarily on the
specialist reports from the WML consultants that were
appended to it. Section 3.7 – Public Access & Recreation,
was the only part of the AEE not supported by one or more
specialist reports. Section 7.1 (paragraphs 143-601) of the
s87F report also contains an assessment of the environmental
effects of the project and refers to the AEE and appended
report, along with specialist Council reports.
166. The AEE/appended reports and the s87F report/specialist
reports contain a number of very similar findings. However
there are a few significant differences of opinion that my
45
evidence focuses on.
167. My evidence deals with the effects following the topic
based order set out in the AEE. It covered 10 topics, starting
with the ‘core’ coastal processes and geotechnical and
natural hazards engineering components that underpin the
project.
168. The s87F report uses similar topic headings, along with
‘amenity effects’, ‘infrastructure servicing effects’,
‘economic/tourism effects’ and ‘cumulative effects’. I will
cover these effects, noting they are also raised in some
submissions. Before doing so I will briefly recap the
‘permitted ‘baseline’ and ‘existing environment’ matters
highlighted earlier. I will also cover the ‘effects’ tests in the
RMA for applications that fall into the non-complying and
discretionary activity categories for the alternative parking
reclamation and parking deck marina proposals.
169. My effects assessment is based on the RMA provisions
mentioned earlier and related case law. It identifies effects
that are of a negative (adverse) nature and fall into the
categories of ‘de minimus’, ‘less than minor’, ‘minor’ and
‘more than minor’, as well effects of a positive nature. The
term ‘de minimus’ refers to adverse effects that are of an
inconsequential or trifling nature.
Permitted Baseline
170. The s87F report in paragraph 148 identifies 8 particular parts
of the coastal permit application that have ‘permitted
baseline’ components. The most significant of these in my
view that up to 98 moorings are permitted in the whole bay,
around 52 of which are present in the northern part, where
the marina is proposed. Also significant is the Coastal Plan
rule (20.5.1) that permits “any contaminants resulting from
46
the cleaning, antifouling and painting” of these moored
boats subject to two specified conditions. From my reading
of some of the opposing submissions this rule is not well
known and generally understood.
171. The s87F report identifies in paragraphs 151 and 152, parts of
the land use consent application that have ‘permitted
baseline’ components, mainly concerning earthworks, car
parking, and lighting. As I have outlined earlier, the land
based part of the alternative car parking deck also has a
significant ‘permitted baseline’ component.
172. The stormwater diversion and discharge application has a
significant ‘permitted baseline’ component, as outlined in
paragraph 150 of the s87F report. The diversion and
discharge from over 40% of the impermeable surface area is
a permitted activity.
Existing Environment
173. The existing environment was described in parts of the AEE
and it is also covered in some detail in paragraphs 154-157 of
the s87F report. I agree with the s87F report findings, about
the modified nature of the area around the Matiatia wharf
(although the unrecorded reclamation is not mentioned) as
well as the moorings in the northern and southern sides of the
bay.
174. The s87F report does not mention the boat grid in the
northern bay. As outlined in Section 3.3.11 of the AEE it is
operated by the Waiheke Island Mooring Holders Society in
terms of coastal permit 29964.
Section 104D & Section 104 (1) Considerations
175. The s104D ‘test’ on non-complying activities that applies to
the reclamation based marina was set out in Section 4.10 of
47
the AEE. It is also set out in paragraph 143 of the s87F report.
My evidence on the applications is focussed on whether this
‘test’ is met, i.e. whether the adverse effects of this marina
proposal will be ‘no more than minor’, or whether the
proposal is ‘not contrary to’ the relevant plan objectives and
policies.
176. The s104D ‘test’ on ‘adverse effects’ and ‘plan policies’, is an
alternate one, with only one of the two limbs having to be
met. The plan test on ‘objectives and policies’ is confined to
the four plans mentioned earlier, i.e. the Coastal Plan, the
District Plan and the Air, Land & Water Plan and the Unitary
Plan.
177. The s104 (1) provisions that also apply to the marina proposal
were set out in Section 4.1.2 of the AEE. They are also set out
in the s87F report. A broader range of matters are to be
assessed or ‘had regard to’. These include the above
mentioned plans, along with NZCPS, ARPS, and several non
RMA plans that are considered ‘relevant’ to the proposal.
178. The s104 (1) (a) ‘effects’ assessment here is quite different to
that in s104D and is particularly important in respect of the
alternative parking deck proposal that is a discretionary
activity. My ‘effects’ assessment of this proposal involves
‘having regard’ to effects of both a negative and positive
nature. A more balanced approach is required and my
assessment of the alternative parking deck is based on
whether the effects as a whole (negative and positive) are
‘acceptable’ or not.
Effects on Coastal Processes
179. The evidence of Messrs Treloar, Thiebaut and Leman covers
the coastal processes and engineering basis of the
reclamation based marina. I have read this evidence, along
48
with the related expert reports appended to the AEE and
consider that the effects of this proposal on coastal
processes will be of a ‘minor’ nature, subject to certain
conditions being imposed, mainly regarding construction of
the marina. I note the finding in paragraph 121 of Mr
Leman’s evidence that the proposed breakwaters will not
have any significant effect on siltation in the area.
180. Mr Leman has also addressed in his evidence the coastal
engineering basis of the alternative parking deck proposal.
Based on his evidence I consider it also have only ‘minor’
effects on coastal processes, subject to a very similar set of
consent conditions being imposed.
181. The s87F report in paragraphs 363-370, and the specialist
reports from Messrs Reinen Hamill and McNeil and Dr
Sivaguru appended to it, also assess the effects of the
reclamation based marina project on coastal processes.
Relevant submissions are also assessed.
182. I note the key findings of the s87F report that the effects will
be ‘no more than minor’ and that “potential construction
and dredging effects are able to be managed with good
construction practices and a Construction Management
Plan”.
Land Stability & Natural Hazards Related Effects
183. Mr Black’s evidence covers the geotechnical engineering
aspects of the marina (both the reclamation and parking
deck based options) and related land stability and natural
hazard matters. From reading this evidence, along with the
related Riley Consultants Ltd report appended to the AEE, I
consider that the land stability and natural hazards related
effects of both options to be ‘minor’, subject to certain
conditions being imposed, primarily related to construction
49
of the breakwaters, reclamation and other facilities.
184. Paragraphs 371-380 of the s87F report assesses the
reclamation based marina project with reference to a
specialist report from Mr McNeil. Relevant submissions are
also assessed. The s87F report finds that the effects of a
geotechnical and stability nature will be ‘no more than
minor’. I note that the s87F report does not qualify this
finding in terms of reference to consent conditions.
Ecological & Water Quality Effects
185. Mr Poynter’s evidence covers the effects of the marina
project on the ecological and water quality values of the
area. I note from the evidence that the effects of the
reclamation parking based proposal are assessed as being
‘minor’, subject to a number of conditions being attached to
the consents. I note that the effects of the alternative
parking deck proposal are also assessed as being of a
‘minor’ nature.
186. The s87F report in paragraphs 399-442, and the specialist
report from Dr Sivaguru appended to it, assess the effects of
the marina project on ecology and water quality values.
Stormwater effects (that are primarily of a water quality
nature) are assessed earlier in paragraphs 381-398 and the
appended report from Mr Cameron. Relevant submissions
are also assessed.
187. The key findings of the s87F report are in paragraph 417
where with reference to Dr Sivaguru’s report it states that
“direct effects on marine invertebrates and other biota from
reclamation … will be no more than minor” and “subject to
the imposition of recommended conditions the adverse
effects on water and sediment quality arising from
construction …will be no more than minor.” Earlier in
50
paragraph 397 the report finds that “the stormwater effects
of the proposal will be mitigated through the measures
proposed ...to have no more than minor effects.”
188. The overall ‘concluding’ paragraph 588 on this matter also
finds that “subject to implementing appropriate monitoring
and methodologies, the ecological and water quality
effects of the proposal will be minor on the wider bay and
beyond.”
189. I note in the s87F report concerns on a few technical
matters, that Mr Poynter has addressed in his evidence. Mr
Poynter has in turn raised some concerns with some of the
Council’s draft conditions, which I endorse.
Landscape, Natural Character & Visual Amenity Related Effects
190. Mr Pryor’s evidence assesses the effects of the marina
project (both reclamation and parking deck options) on the
landscape, coastal natural character and visual amenity
values of the area. I note that Mr Pryor finds the effects of
the project on the landscape and natural character values
of the bay as a whole to be ‘less than minor’. However Mr
Pryor finds that the localised visual effects of the marina from
two public viewing points and one private viewing point to
be ‘more than minor’ and the visual effects on the wider bay
to be ‘minor’.
191. The effects of the marina project on the landscape, coastal
natural character and visual amenity values of the area are
also assessed in paragraphs 399-442 of the s87F report and
the specialist report from Mr Brown. The key finding of the
report in paragraph 344 is that the “proposal will have minor
adverse effects overall on the natural character, and the
landscape, visual and amenity values of the bay”. It then
goes on to state “However there will be more than minor
51
localised amenity effects for surrounding residences and
adjoining beach, foreshore, reserve areas associated with
the completed marina as well as the construction phase”.
On this basis I understand that Mr Pryor and Mr Brown are in
agreement.
Cultural & Heritage Effects
192. Mr Prince’s evidence addresses the effects of the marina
project (both reclamation and parking deck options) on
archaeological sites and built/historic heritage. From my
reading of his evidence, along with the earlier substantive
reports appended to the AEE, I consider that the effects of
the two alternative proposals to be ‘less than minor’, subject
to certain conditions being attached to the consents.
193. The s87F report also assesses the effects of the marina project
on archaeological sites and built/historic heritage values
with reference to the specialist report from Ms Plowman. The
report also refers to submissions on this matter. In paragraph
182 the s87F report finds the effects on archaeological sites
to be ‘less than minor’, subject to the imposition of certain
conditions. This finding is consistent with Mr Prince’s finding.
194. Mr Rikys evidence addresses the effects of the marina
project on cultural values. I note his finding that any adverse
effects will ‘minor at the most’.
195. The s87F report assessment of the effects of the marina
project on cultural values is in paragraphs 183-200. It also
makes reference to the report from Ms Plowman, along with
submissions. The s87F report refers to submissions on the
presence of koiwi in the area and a risk that “marina
construction works and occupation areas” may affect them
in a ‘more than minor’ manner (paragraph 197). The report
proposes that more information be sought from mana
52
whenua on this matter. Mr Rikys evidence responds to this
matter.
Effects on Boat Navigation & Safety
196. The evidence of Mr Dilley covers the effects of the marina
project (both reclamation and parking deck options) on
boat navigation and safety. Based on this evidence, along
with the related Varney report appended to the AEE, I
consider that the effects of the two alternative proposals will
be ‘minor’, subject to appropriate consent conditions being
imposed.
197. The effects of the marina project on boat navigation and
safety are assessed in paragraphs 345-362 of the s87F report.
It makes reference to a report from the Council
Harbourmaster (Mr Moss), the AEE, the appended specialist
report from Captain Varney, the supporting letter from Fullers
Group Ltd mentioned earlier and submissions on this matter.
198. The s87F report finds that the effects of the marina on boat
navigation and safety will be ‘minor’ (paragraph 382). In
earlier paragraphs reference is made to the effects being
mitigated through conditions. I agree that a number of
conditions are required to ensure that the effects are of a
‘minor’ nature.
Public Access & Recreation Effects
199. Section 3.7- Public Access & Recreation of the AEE, that I
prepared, assessed the effects of the marina project on
public access and recreational use of the bay. It covered
five matters, each of which I will address, with reference to
other expert evidence.
200. The effects of the project on existing mooring holders is
generally covered in Mr Wardale’s evidence on construction
53
of the marina. Based on this evidence, and the Mooring
Management Plan (MMP) proposed in the AEE I consider the
effects to be of a ‘minor’ nature.
201. The effects of the project on dinghy rack holders was
explained in the AEE. The use of temporary relocated racks,
signage and other mitigation measures, to be implemented
through consent conditions, will ensure that the effects are
minor. The AEE outlined the proposal to provide dinghy
racks within the marina for all the existing swing mooring
holders who will remain on piles in the northern bay, along
with an offer to some land based dinghy rack facilities for
existing mooring holders who want to transfer to the southern
bay. Based on this proposal and appropriate consent
conditions I consider the effects to be of a ‘minor’ nature.
202. Mr Dilley has in evidence addressed the effects of the
project on boat ramp users. As outlined in his evidence and
the AEE during construction there will be some disruption
when works are being carried out in this area, but through
the CMP and other measures it can be kept to a minimum.
Once the reclamation or parking deck is in place the
situation will be similar to present, except there will be more
people using the adjacent road. Signage and other
measures will ensure that the effects are kept ‘minor’.
203. The public access arrangements for the marina were
explained earlier in my evidence. The loss of public access
to the area of exclusive occupation has to be balanced
against the provision of an esplanade reserve/strip around
the outer edge of the reclamation, public access to the
southern piers and primary breakwater during daylight hours,
and the boardwalk. I consider the overall effects of the
project on public access to be positive in nature.
204. The s87F report assesses the effects of the marina project on
54
public access and recreational values in paragraphs 501-
528. Reference is made to the AEE, the appended Varney
and Poynter reports and a s92 response on mooring
management from Mr Wardale. The report also refers to
submissions on this matter.
205. The final report finding in paragraph 528 states:
“The proposal will be located in an area that is already
allocated for a form of exclusive occupation the proposal
may result in minor adverse effects in terms of public access
to coastal waters compared to the existing situation. I
consider this to be a finely balanced situation”. (emphasis
added)
206. This finding is a little different to that in paragraph 579 which
forms part of the Assessment of Effects –Conclusion, where it
is stated:
“The applicant’s proposal to maintain public access will
assist the adverse effects ……The effects are considered to
be finely balanced and minor overall. (emphasis added).
The difference in wording is in my view of limited
consequence as I understand Ms Bremner has found that
the public access and recreation related effects of the
reclamation based marina project satisfy the ‘no more than
minor’ test in s104 (1) (D). Having said this there a couple of
related matters in the s87F report that I do not agree with.
207. The main one is in the ‘concluding’ paragraph 579. This
paragraph includes a finding that loss of the small (mainly
rocky) beach area to reclamation is ‘balanced’ against the
improved boardwalk access to the large (mainly sandy)
beach to the north. I agree with this finding. However, the
next sentence then states:
55
“Access to the DoC historic reserve will be cut off, however
the land is not easily accessible currently”.
208. The reclamation will not cut off any access to the historic
reserve, because as outlined in the AEE and earlier in my
evidence, it does not physically touch the reserve. As shown
in Figure C the existing concrete pathway (shown in the
Figure B photographs) will remain in place and be freely
available from the redeveloped mooring holder and
disabled persons parking area, like it is at present.
209. The other related finding that I do not entirely agree with is in
paragraph 519, where it is stated again, in a slightly different
context, that:
“The proposal will cut off the foreshore area that lies
between the boardwalk and reclamation and the banks of
the reserve. The application does not address in detail the
fact that the area will become physically and visually
disconnected for the coastal waters as well as the north part
of the beach”.
210. The reclamation will not in my view ‘cut off’ access to the
foreshore as people will be able to freely access it from all
parts of the historic reserve. There will simply be a direct loss
of foreshore through reclamation. The area between the
reclamation (or parking deck) and the historic reserve will
also not be visually disconnected as people will be able to
view it from the all tide boardwalk. The deck creates a
larger gap between the historic reserve and being an open
piled structure minimises any such ‘disconnect’.
Traffic, Parking & Loading Effects
211. The evidence of Messrs Apeldoorn and Mitchell covers the
traffic, parking and loading effects of the marina project
(both reclamation and parking deck options). I note that
56
they find that the effects of the two alternative proposals will
be ‘less than minor’, subject to appropriate conditions being
attached to the consents.
212. The traffic, parking and loading effects of the marina project
are assessed in paragraphs 201-285 of the s87F report and
the specialist report from Mr Shumane. Reference is made
to the AEE and the appended T2 expert report, along with
s92 responses from Mr Mitchell of T2. The submissions, notably
one from Auckland Transport, are also assessed.
213. The construction traffic effects are found in paragraph 284 to
be ‘minor’. This conclusion is repeated in paragraph 580
where, like earlier parts of the report, reference is made to
consent conditions effectively mitigating a few adverse
effects. I agree that conditions are required to ensure that
the effects are of this nature.
214. The operational traffic effects are found in paragraph 240 to
be ‘minor’, but only if time restrictions on traffic movements
related to ferry sailings are adopted as proposed in the
Auckland Transport submission and recommended in a
different form in Mr Shumane’s report. This conclusion is
repeated in paragraph 581 where reference is made to a
“practical management regime” being developed.
215. Messrs Apeldoorn and Mitchell have addressed the
abovementioned matters in their evidence and some
revised consent conditions are being proposed.
216. The parking effects are found in paragraph 265 to be
‘minor’. This finding is repeated in the paragraph 582
conclusion. In the report, reference is also made to consent
conditions effectively mitigating adverse effects.
217. I can find no reference to loading effects in the s87F report.
However I understand from Mr Shumane’s report they are
57
assessed as being ‘minor’.
Noise & Vibration Effects
218. Mr Styles evidence assesses the noise and vibration effects of
the marina project (both reclamation and parking deck
options). Based on this evidence, along with the related
Styles Group Ltd report appended to the AEE and Section 92
responses on related matters, I consider that the noise
effects from both construction and operation of the marina
will be ‘minor’, subject to appropriate consent conditions
being imposed. I understand from Mr Styles evidence and
the reports that the vibration effects from construction are
predicted to be ‘less than minor’, also subject to appropriate
consent conditions.
219. The s87F report assesses the noise and vibration effects of the
marina in paragraphs 443-481. Reference is made to the
AEE, the appended Styles Group Ltd noise report, s92
responses from Mr Styles and a peer review report from Mr
Cawley of Golder Associates. The report also refers to
submissions on this matter.
220. In terms of noise in paragraph 480 it is stated that “some
issues are not fully resolved and it is possible that the
proposal in its current form could result in more than minor
effects on proximate residential receivers, mainly during
night-time periods.” Mr Styles has in his evidence covered
what I understand are the ‘unresolved issues’ in terms of
demonstrating compliance with the relevant plan rules and
the Section 16 provisions regarding ‘reasonable’ noise.
221. The s87F report has no clear finding on vibration effects. In
paragraph 455 and 456 it appears to endorse the findings of
the Styles report.
222. Mr Styles has outlined in his evidence what he considers to
58
be the appropriate noise and vibration effects based
consent conditions with reference to the draft set provided
by WML to the Council. I note that some of these conditions
are different to those in the Councils draft set of conditions
and Mr Styles has also proposed some refinement of the
earlier WML set.
Lighting Effects
223. Mr Phipps-Black evidence assesses the lighting effects of the
marina project (both reclamation and parking deck options)
in terms of car park and marina berth lighting. He records
that the proposed lighting will comply with the District Plan
rules and other relevant New Zealand and Australian
standards. As such I consider I consider that the effects of
the two alternative proposals will be ‘less than minor’,
subject to appropriate consent conditions being imposed.
224. The lighting effects are assessed in paragraphs 482-500 of the
s87F report with reference to the AEE, the accompanying
LGL report, the peer review from Lighting Design Practice
(LDG) and submissions. The s87F reports finds the lighting
effects will be ‘no more than minor’ firstly on paragraph 500
and then in the ‘concluding’ paragraph 590.
225. I understand from Mr Phipps-Black evidence that he has
reviewed the Councils draft consent conditions and is
satisfied with them.
Amenity Effects
226. The effects of the marina on the amenity values of the area
were assessed in the AEE, primarily in terms of the appended
expert landscape, lighting, noise and traffic reports. Messrs
Pryor, Phipps-Black, Styles, Apeldoorn and Mitchell have
covered them in more detail in expert evidence. I accept
their findings and conclusions.
59
227. The effects of the marina on the wider ‘amenity’ values of
the area (i.e. beyond more definitive landscape, lighting,
noise, public access and traffic effects) are also assessed in
paragraphs 529-534 of the s87F report. They are considered
in paragraph 534 to be of a ‘more than minor’ nature on the
‘immediately adjacent environment’ and ‘minor’ on the
area ‘beyond this’, for reasons that are not clear to me. In
this regard I note in paragraph 531 the report finds the
proposal “is generally compatible with the existing activities
in the bay, the marina, maritime transport and parking
functions would be largely aligned with the characteristics
and intensity of activities in the bay”.
228. The marina will, in my view, significantly enhance the
amenities of the bay because it will compatible with the
transport hub and boating recreational nature of the bay.
Adequate parking is being proposed, integrated with the
existing Council facilities. A sewage pump out facility for all
boat users and visitors to the bay is being provided, along
with a boardwalk for the general public. The general public
will also be able to access the main part of the marina and
enjoy the built and natural components of the bay from the
viewing platforms.
Infrastructure Servicing Effects
229. The ‘infrastructure servicing effects’, (water supply,
wastewater and fire fighting) were assessed in the AEE and
appended Riley civil engineering report. Mr James has
identified the key findings and provided further expert
evidence. I note the findings of his evidence that the effects
of the marina project (both parking options) will be ‘less than
minor’.
230. The Council’s s87F report, in paragraphs 535-569 covers these
same matters, with reference to a peer review report by
60
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd and submissions. I note the effects on
infrastructure servicing are considered by Ms Bremner to be
of a ‘minor’ nature. This finding is repeated in the
‘concluding’ paragraphs 591 and 592.
Economic & Social Effects
231. The economic and social effects of the marina were not
assessed in the AEE on the basis that they were considered
to be of a positive (and not negative) nature. From my
knowledge of other marina projects and the wider marina
industry the marina will have some positive economic and
social effects, mainly by adding some impetus to the well
established visitor industry on the island. Such effects are
difficult to quantify, particularly as some of the berth holders
will be existing mooring holders, along with visitors who
already use the boat servicing, transport and other facilities
on the island and elsewhere in the region. However, the
marina will result in some moorings becoming free to new
entrants and this will have also some ‘flow on’ economic
and social benefits.
232. The above mentioned effects are assessed in the
paragraphs 570 and 571 of the s87F report. As outlined some
submitters have mentioned negative and positive effects,
but to date there has been no detailed evaluation to
support the claims.
Cumulative Effects
233. The cumulative effects of the marina proposal were not
assessed in any detail in the AEE. I note they are assessed in
the paragraphs 572-575 of the s87F report. The key report
finding in paragraphs 573 and 574 state:
“The preceding assessment identified a range of adverse
effects ranging from more than minor localised effects such
61
as noise, ecological and water quality, through to minor and
less than minor effects on the wider environment. In addition
I have been unable to conclude on the potential adverse
effects on cultural and spiritual matters.
The immediately adjacent persons and Council reserve will
experience the combination of these highly localised effects
such that the cumulative effects combined with the other
minor effects, may be more than minor.” (emphasis added).
234. As set out earlier in my evidence the s87F report Ms Bremner
has assessed the noise and landscape and visual amenity
effects to be ‘more than minor’ but the ecology and water
quality effects as being ‘no more than minor’. In the latter
regard it is not clear to me what ‘more than minor’
cumulative ecological and water quality effects are being
referred to.
235. Mr Rikys’ evidence addresses the effects of the project on
cultural and spiritual matters and in my view no cumulative
effects issues arise in respect of the ‘immediately adjacent
persons and reserve users’, or more importantly tangata
whenua.
236. Mr Styles’ has addressed potential cumulative noise effects
and Mr Poynter has addressed potential cumulative
ecological effects. I accept their findings.
Overall Effects Assessment
237. Annexure D summarises the effects assessments in my
evidence and the other WML expert evidence. It also
identifies what I understand to be the Council s87F report
and associated peer review report findings.
238. My overall assessment of the reclamation based marina
project is that when considered ‘in the round’, or as a whole,
62
it will have ‘no more than minor’ adverse effects and the
non-complying activity ‘test’ in s104D is met. As outlined in
Annexure D and Mr Pryor’s evidence the only particular
effects that are assessed as being of a ‘more than minor’
nature are from two of seven public viewpoint locations and
form one of six private viewpoint locations. The wider area
landscape and natural character and visual amenity values
are assessed as being affected in a ‘minor’ manner, as are
some of the other effects, notably ecology and water
quality. Some of the other effects, notably parking, loading
and traffic are assessed as being of a ‘less than minor’
nature.
239. My ‘in the round’ S104D assessment of adverse effects also
takes into account that the ‘more than minor’ visual effects
are related to a Section 7- Other Matter. Consent authorities
are to have ‘particular regard to’ these matters, as distinct
from those in Section 6 – Matters of National Importance (like
coastal natural character), that are required to be
‘recognised and provided for’.
240. My assessment of the alternative parking deck based marina
project is the same in terms of it having ‘no more than minor’
effects. However as outlined earlier this discretionary
proposal is not subject this same test and in my view the
effects of this proposal are ‘acceptable’ and the provisions
in S104(1) are met.
Coastal Plan Objectives & Policies
241. Section 4.4.9 of the AEE contained an assessment of the
marina project in terms of the Coastal Plan objectives and
policies. It identified 12 chapters of the plan that were
relevant.
242. The Council’s s87F report identifies 16 relevant chapters, the
63
additional chapters, being 10 - General, 11 – Activities, 12 –
Structures and 24 – Moorings. I agree that they are relevant
to the project. Chapter 12 is primary one to consider in
respect of the alternative parking deck proposal.
243. The s87F report finds that the objectives and policies in seven
of the chapters will be met; these being: Chapter 3 – Natural
Character, Chapter 4 – Landscape, Chapter 7 - Public
Access, Chapter 8 - Cultural Heritage, Chapter 11 –
Activities, Chapter 12 - Structures, and Chapter 24 -
Moorings. I agree with these findings, also with reference to
the evidence from Messrs Leman, Pryor, Prince, Rikys and
Wardale.
244. The s87F report states in paragraph 726 that the proposal
“appears to be consistent” with Chapter 5 – Natural Features
& Ecosystems. I understand this to mean that the proposal is
not ‘contrary to’ this chapter and as such meets the S104D
(1) policy ‘test’.
245. My view on this is based on the ‘summary’ finding in
paragraph 738 that the proposal is “generally consistent”
with the Coastal Plan, except in relation to three “matters of
inconsistency or require further consideration” (identified as
being cultural impacts, alternatives to reclamation and
dredging, and reasonable noise levels for surrounding
residents). This same paragraph does not identify any policy
‘inconsistency’ in respect of any Chapter 5 matters.
Chapter 5 - Natural Features & Ecosystems
246. The marina proposal (both reclamation and parking deck
options) is in my view ‘not contrary’ to the Chapter 5
objectives and policies. My view on this is based primarily on
the evidence of Mr Poynter.
247. Chapter 5 contains three objectives and seven policies.
64
Policies 1-4 deal with the highly valued Coastal Protection 1
and 2 Areas identified in the plan. The marina is not within
one of these areas.
248. Policy 5 is ‘effects’ (including cumulative) based and has
several different components, all of which are met. Policy 6
is directed at mitigating and remedying actual or potential
adverse effects, if need be through ‘restoration and
rehabilitation’. No ‘restoration or rehabilitation’ is proposed
as the actual and potential, including cumulative, effects
are ‘minor’. The penguin box trial proposal for the
secondary breakwater, as he has outlined in paragraph 143,
is simply aimed at a potential improvement in nesting
habitat, rather than mitigating any adverse effect. Policy 7 is
directed at maintaining CMA/land ecological linkages,
which are not impacted here, as outlined in Mr Poynter’s
evidence.
Chapter 6 – Coastal Matters of Significance to Maori
249. The s87F report states in paragraph 727 that “the impact of
the proposal in iwi values has not been established from the
information available to date” and in paragraph 728 that
“further assessment is required before a view can be
reached on the proposals accordance with Chapter 6
outcomes”. Mr Riky’s has provided this further assessment in
his evidence and, I consider the proposal is ‘not contrary’ to
Chapter 6.
250. Chapter 6 contains two objectives and four policies. Policies
6.4.2, 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 are the most directive in terms of
assessment of resource consent applications by consent
authorities. In terms of Policy 6.4.2 (c) appropriate tangata
whenua were consulted prior to lodgement of the
applications.
65
Chapter 9 – Subdivision Use & Development
251. The s87F report in paragraph 737 finds that some (not
identified) objectives and policies in Chapter 9 – Subdivision
Use and Development, are not met because of the
abovementioned Chapter 6 cultural effects matter and
“noise effects may not be reasonable”.
252. Chapter 6 contains two objectives and two policies. None of
the objectives or policies refer to cultural or noise effects or
related matters. They are in my view general statements
that provide very little, if any, guidance here on these
matters. Also the evidence of Messrs Rikys and Styles shows
that the effects are of a ‘no more than minor’ and
‘reasonable’ nature respectively.
Chapter 10 –General
253. The s87F report assessment of the Chapter 10 – General,
objectives and policies identifies two areas of possible policy
‘inconsistency’. The first concerns the ‘lack of information on
the impacts on Maori cultural and spiritual values’ on which
to assess Policy 10.4.10 (paragraph 640). Policy 10.4.10 deals
with the occupation of the CMA (in terms of s12 (2) of the
RMA) and from reading of Mr Rikys evidence I consider that
the policy is met.
254. The second area of identified policy ‘inconsistency’ relates
to Policy 10.4.13 and based on the view that the BPO in
respect of noise emissions has not been adopted and shown
to be reasonable in accordance with it. (paragraph 643).
Policy 10.4.13 requires that “nuisance effects from noise…….
be avoided remedied or mitigated, by the adoption of BPO,
where practicable.” Mr Styles has addressed this matter in
evidence in terms of the wider RMA Section 16 requirements
regarding ‘reasonable’ noise. I consider this policy is met.
66
255. Chapter 10 has total of three objectives and sixteen polices.
Those that are not mentioned above are also in my view
met.
Chapter 15 - Dredging
256. The s87F report assessment of the objectives and policies in
Chapter 15 – Dredging, finds that there is insufficient
information on the effects on cultural values and alternatives
to find they are met (paragraph 681).
257. Chapter 15 has two objectives and eight policies. The
objectives are very general and in my view met. Objective
15.3.1 requires any adverse effects be remedied or
mitigated. Mr Rikys evidence deals with cultural effects of
concern to Council staff and in my view this objective is met.
Objective 15.3.2 requires dredging be ‘minimised’. Mr
Leman has covered this matter in his evidence and I am
satisfied that this objective is met.
258. Policy 15.4.2 refers to the Chapter 3-9 provisions so therefore
applicable, but of no particular moment. Policy 15.4.5
requires dredging proposals “generally demonstrate that
there are no practicable alternative methods”. Mr Leman’s
evidence demonstrates this and the policy is met.
Chapter 20 – Discharges of Contaminants
259. The s87F report assessment of the objectives and policies in
Chapter 20 – Discharges of Contaminants, finds they are
met, “although cultural impacts have not been considered”
(paragraph 699). Mr Rikys’ evidence deals with this matter
and in my view the relevant objectives and policies are met.
260. Chapter 20 has two objectives and eleven policies. I
consider they are all met.
67
Chapter 23 – Marinas
261. The s87F report assessment of the objectives and policies in
Chapter 23 – Marinas, indicates they may be met, “although
a final view cannot be reached …..until further consideration
is given to cultural values”. (paragraph 703) As above Mr
Rikys evidence deals with this matter and in my view the
relevant objectives and policies are met.
262. Chapter 23 has four objectives and twelve policies. Policies
23.4.1 and 2 on existing marinas are not relevant nor is Policy
23.4.3 on Coastal Protection Areas. All the rest are relevant
and met.
Chapter 35 - Noise
263. The s87F report assessment of the objectives and policies in
Chapter 35 – Noise, indicates they are generally met, except
“night time noise is not shown to be reasonable for
surrounding residents” and that Objective 35.3.1 is met
(paragraph 710).
264. Mr Styles has confirmed in evidence that the night time noise
from operation of the marina will be ‘reasonable’ and
Objective 35.3.1 and the underlying Policies 1, 2 and 3 will be
met.
265. Policy 35.4.1 requires activities in the CMA comply with the
noise standards in the Coastal Plan or where not specified
the BPO to ensure that noise emissions are reasonable. The
evidence of Mr Styles demonstrates this.
266. Policy 35.4.2 lists four noise assessment criteria for coastal
permits that Mr Styles has also provided information and
opinion on. I find on the basis of this evidence that this
policy is met.
267. Policy 35.4.3 relates to the acoustic design of structures and
68
activities on them which Mr Styles has addressed. I consider
this policy also to be met, with consent conditions being
imposed to achieve the outcomes being sought.
District Plan Objectives & Policies
268. Section 4.8.9 of the AEE contained an assessment of the
marina project in terms of the District Plan objectives and
policies for the Matiatia Gateway land unit and the Open
Space 1 land unit in Part 10 of the plan. These provisions
were in the proposed form and are different in some
respects in the now operative plan.
269. The Council’s s87F report assessment focusses primarily on
the Part 10 objectives and policies, but also covers Parts 2, 3,
5, 6, 8 and 13. The report finds that the objectives and
policies in Part 5 - Network Utility Services and Part 8 – Natural
Hazards, are met. I agree with these findings with reference
to the evidence from Messrs Black, Leman and James.
Part 2 – Resource Management Overview
270. The s87F report covers the objectives in this part of the plan
in paragraphs 751-766. It indicates that all of the relevant
ones are met, except two.
271. In paragraph 755 the reports states that “a view cannot be
reached” in respect of Sustainable Management Objective
3 “because cultural effects remain uncertain” (paragraph
755). As outlined in the report Objective 3 is a very general
one that is “to manage land use activities to ensure adverse
effects are avoided remedied or avoided”. The particular
land use activities of concern to Ms Bremner are not
identified. However I understand they are the small scale
earthworks on the unrecorded reclamation and road reserve
where the current mooring holding parking and other
activities take place. Mr Rikys evidence demonstrates that
69
there will be no adverse effects on cultural values from these
earthworks. As such I consider this objective is met.
272. This whole part of the plan has a large number of general
objectives and policies, that in my view are met.
Part 3.3 – Waiheke Strategic Management Area
273. The objectives and policies in Part 3 of the plan relating to
the Waiheke Strategic Management Area (Part 3.3) are
assessed in paragraphs 767- 773 of the s87F report. It finds
that the objective and policies are met, except for Policy 7
(paragraph 771) “for the reasons stated above”. No
particular reasons are stated although the ‘transport aspect’
of the policy is cited in the next paragraph.
274. Policy 7 reads as follows:
“By providing for the establishment of … transport linkages
on the island”.
The linkage in question is not identified but assumed to be
the Ocean View Rd linkage to the ferry terminal. Messrs
Apeldoorn and Mitchell have established in evidence that
the marina project will have ‘less than minor’ effects on this
linkage and it will remain an ‘established’ one.
Part 13 –Transport
275. The s87F report finds that all of the objectives and policies in
Part 13 – Transport are met, except Objective 13.3.1
(paragraph 822) and the related Policy 2 (paragraph 824),
along with Objective 13.3.3 and the related Policies 1,2 and
6 (paragraph 827).
276. Annexure E contains copies of the objective and policies
mentioned. The objectives and policies are set out on a
topic basis with only those in Section 13.2 – Airstrips and
70
Helipads, not being relevant.
277. The objectives and policies in Section 13.3.1 – Wharves, are
met as the marina will not adversely affect operations on, or
access to, the wharves as outlined in Messrs Dilley’s and
Apeldoorn’s evidence. The evidence of Messrs Apeldoorn
and Mitchell show that the objectives and policies in
Sections 13.3.3 – Roading, 13.3.4 –Parking & Access, Cycling
Walking & Horse Riding, and 13.3.6 - Passenger Transport, will
be met. I note their evidence findings regarding the marina
traffic constituting only a small proportion of the current
traffic along the last section of Ocean View Rd. Also their
views that there will be very little effect on public parking,
pedestrian and passenger transport movements in the wider
area.
278. In terms of the parking polices, as outlined in Mr Mitchell’s
evidence “sufficient on-site parking to meet the demand”
(Policy 1) is being provided, and there will “not be
oversupply of on-site parking that can encourage traffic
generation” (Policy 2). I note that Policy 3 encourages
travel demand management plans and this option remains
open should any issues arise in the future.
279. Mr Apeldoorn has covered the effects of the project on
passenger transport operations in some detail. I find based
on his evidence that the four polices on this matter are met,
including Policy 3 that reads “by giving priority to public
transport where appropriate”. The current priority that
passenger transport operators have along the last section of
Ocean View Rd will remain.
Part 10a.18 –Matiatia Gateway Land Unit
280. The s87F report finds that the objectives and policies for the
Matiatia Gateway land unit are met, except in relation to
71
Objective 10a.18.3.1 and the associated Policies 1, 2, 3 and
4, and 6 (paragraph 797). Relying on the evidence of Messrs
Apeldoorn and Mitchell I consider that that these provisions
are met. Their evidence counteracts the few ‘effects’ based
concerns in Mr Shumane’s report and upon which the s87F
findings are based.
281. Annexure F contains copies of the abovementioned
objective and policies, along with the others in Part 10a.18.3.
Messrs Apledoorn and Mitchell have both provided in their
evidence a comprehensive policy by policy assessment of
the first set of six policies tied to Objective 10a.18.3.1, that is
directed at “a safe and efficient transport network while
maintaining the landscape character of Matiatia”. I
endorse their findings. Mr Pryor has found in his evidence
that the (modified) landscape character of Matiatia will be
maintained.
282. Objective 10a.18.3.2 is directed at creating “a safe and
attractive mixed use development… while maintaining the
landscape character and Maori heritage values…” The
proposed marina will not adversely affect future plans for
mixed use development of the area, which is confined to a
very small part of the Transport Area. Most of the policies
here are of limited relevance as they are directed at the use
of the Mixed Use Area. Policy 5 regarding the layout of
buildings and walkways is relevant and met.
283. Objective 10a.18.3.3 aims “to ensure development at
Matiatia does not have adverse effects on natural features
and resources…” The underlying Policy 1 relating to the
Wetland Area is not relevant. Mr James’ evidence shows
that Policy 2 is met in terms of water supply and wastewater
disposal. Policy 3 on ‘green’ buildings is of limited relevance,
but in my view met.
72
Part 10a.22 - Open Space 1 Land Unit
284. The s87F report (paragraph 807) finds that the objectives and
policies for the Open Space 1 Land Unit are met. I agree
with this finding, with reference to the evidence of Messrs
Poynter and Pryor.
285. The Open Space 1 Land Unit has two objectives and nine
policies. The objectives are directed at ‘facilitating the use
and enjoyment of parks and reserves’ and ‘providing for
marine recreation activities’, which the proposed boardwalk
does. The policies underpinning Objectives 1 are the most
relevant as they focus on the scale and intensity of activities
and form/colour of buildings, that have been achieved with
the boardwalk proposal.
Regional Air Land & Water Plan Objectives & Policies
286. The relevant Air Land & Water Plan objectives and policies
that apply to the diversion and discharge of stormwater
were assessed in Section 4.6.2 of the AEE. As noted earlier
this plan was still in the proposed form, but the operative
provisions as they relate to this matter are very similar.
287. General Objectives 5.3.1 – 5.3.4 and Objectives 5.3.5 – 5.3.8
aim to protect, maintain or enhance the quality of land and
water by minimising adverse effects. The evidence from Mr
Poynter shows that the effects arising from the stormwater
discharge are minor and that these objectives are met.
288. Policy 5.4.4 A- D- Stormwater Diversions and Discharges and
are relevant to the project. They require applicants to adopt
the Best Practicable Option (BPO) for the diversion and
discharge, as well as meeting standards for treatment and
discharge (such as 75% removal of total suspended solids)
and avoidance of erosion. The policies also refer to
compliance with the (former) ARC Technical Publication 10:
73
Stormwater Management Devices: Design Guidelines
Manual. Mr James has covered these matters in his
evidence and the associated plan policies are considered
to be met.
289. The s87F report policy assessment of this plan is in paragraphs
871-873. I note the finding that the marina project ‘accords’
with the relevant plan objectives and policies.
Unitary Plan Objectives & Policies
290. The Unitary Plan is made up of seven parts. Most of Chapter
B –Regional Policy Statement Part 1 is relevant, along with
sections in Chapter C -Auckland-Wide Objectives and
Policies, Chapter D – Zone Objectives & Policies, and
Chapter E –Overlay Objectives & Policies.
Chapter B – Regional Policy Statement Provisions
291. Chapter B – Regional Policy Statement contains thirteen
sections and runs to a hundred or so pages (not numbered).
It is similar in some respects to the ARPS that I will assess later
in my evidence. My evidence focuses on just two of the
sections, being Section 7 - Sustainably Managing our Coastal
Environment and Section 5 - Addressing Issues of Significance
to Mana Whenua. The marina is in the ‘coastal environment’
and matters of this nature (mainly in terms of ecological,
landscape and noise effects), along with more specific
cultural ones, are foremost raised in the Council s87F report
and submissions. I note that Section 4 – Protecting Our
Historic Heritage, Special Character & Natural Heritage
relates primarily to areas or sites of this nature as recorded on
the planning maps. No such areas of this nature, i.e.
Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL’s), Significant
Ecological Areas (SEA’s), and the like, are noted on the
planning maps for Matiatia Bay.
74
292. Section 7 - Sustainably Managing our Coastal Environment, is
made up of four subsections, each of which have
objectives, policies, methods, and explanation and reasons.
Three of these subsections dealing with ‘subdivision use and
development’, ‘public access and open space’, and
‘managing the Hauraki Gulf’ are applicable to the marina
project. The subsection on ‘areas of degraded water
quality’ is not relevant, with reference to a figure in the
section that shows none of the coastal waters around
Waiheke Island fall into this category.
293. The Section 7 objectives and policies are similar to those in
the Coastal Plan that I have already assessed and the ARPS
that I will address later on. I do not consider they are seeking
outcomes that are different to those sought in these other
more long standing instruments. None, to my knowledge,
mention Matiatia Bay or marinas. Several of the ‘managing
the Hauraki Gulf’ provisions refer to ‘the gulf’, ‘the islands’ or
Waiheke Island. Policies 14-17 are the most pertinent, and in
particular Policy 15 that seeks to “Encourage the provision of
infrastructure and facilities to enhance public access and
recreational use and enjoyment of the Gulf”. The marina
and boardwalk do just this.
294. The Section 5 objectives and policies are similar to those in
the Coastal Plan, that I have already assessed, and the ARPS
that I will deal with later on. As above I do not consider they
are seeking outcomes that are different to those in the other
instruments mentioned above. Section 5 has four
subsections, focussing on ‘the Treaty’, ‘recognising mana
whenua’, ‘Maori economic, social and cultural
development’ and ‘protection of mana whenua culture and
heritage’. The latter in Section 5.4 are most pertinent to the
applications as they are tied to the Sites and Places of Value
to Mana Whenua Overlay applying to part of the marina.
75
295. Section 5.4 has five objectives and sixteen policies. Policies
1-3 and 5 are directed at the researching and recording of
sites or places of significance or value to mana whenua in
the Unitary Plan. Policies 14-16 are directed at the sensitive
nature of the information surrounding such sites and related
protocols. Policy 4 is directed at how identified sites and
places are protected and managed, and the most relevant
to the applications. The other policies are also of some
relevance. Annexure G contains a copy of the objectives
and policies.
296. The Section 5.4 are ‘new’, in the sense that there are not
equivalent provisions to ‘overlay’ sites and places of value to
mana whenua in the Coastal Plan and District Plan.
However both plans have objectives and policies that seek
to achieve very similar outcomes regarding the protection of
‘cultural heritage’ in the widest sense of the term. I refer to
Chapter 6 – Coastal Matters of Significance to Maori in the
Coastal Plan and Part 2 of the District Plan that I covered. I
have reviewed all these provisions in the light of the
evidence from Messrs Prince and Rikys and I am satisfied that
with the accidental discovery and other proposed
conditions in place the Section 5.4 objectives and policies
will be met.
Chapter C- Regional & District Objectives & Policies
297. This chapter has seven sections and over thirty subsections.
My evidence focusses on four subsections; these being
Section 1.2 -Transport (part of Infrastructure), Section 2-
Historic Heritage and 7.3 - Noise & Vibration (part of
General). I note that Section 2 - Mana Whenua covers Maori
land and Treaty Settlement land, that I understand are not
relevant considerations here. I also note that Section 5 –
Natural Resources, has a section on Lakes, Rivers, Streams
and Wetland Management, but somewhat surprisingly, no
76
section on ‘coastal management’. The Regional Policy
Statement provisions I mentioned earlier appear to be the
only overarching ones on this matter.
298. Section 1.2 –Transport, contains six objectives and twenty five
policies, with the latter covering traffic generation, parking,
loading design of parking and loading, access and access
to crossings. In my view they seek very similar outcomes to
the District Plan provisions I addressed earlier. None of the
objectives and policies refer to the Matiatia ferry terminal,
nor the traffic, parking and loading activities associated with
marinas. I note Policy 6 (b) deals with parking associated
with the “Rapid and Frequent Service Network”, which by
definition excludes the Matiatia ferry service. The definition
only covers services, including ferries, which have a
“minimum frequency of 15 minutes.”
299. Section 3 - Historic Heritage, is directed at heritage places
and sites that are not ‘protected’ through the Unitary Plan,
including recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites.
They are relevant to the matters raised in Mr Prince’s
evidence, but in my view they do not seek different
outcomes to the operative plan provisions that I addressed
earlier.
300. Section 7.3 – Noise & Vibration, has seven objectives and
twelve policies. Objective 7 and Policy 8 cover noise from
activities in the CMA. Marinas are not specifically mentioned
in them or any other provisions. In my view they do not seek
different outcomes from those in the District Plan and
Coastal Plan.
Chapter D – Zone Objectives & Policies
301. The majority of the proposed marina is within the Mooring
Zone. The zone description states that “Auckland has a
77
large number of recreational vessels, and the number is likely
to increase as Auckland populations grows”. It also states
that “many recreational vessels are permanently stored in
the CMA, either in marinas or on moorings”.
302. The MZ description then sets out that its purpose is “to
consolidate moorings in appropriate areas …around
Auckland coast.” It then states that the MZ “will ensure the
efficient use of the coast” by concentrating moorings in
suitable areas and avoiding a proliferation elsewhere,
reducing conflict with other uses and pressure on areas of
high natural values and enabling the strategic planning of
land based facilities. Given these ‘drivers’, and having
recognised at the outset that marinas are simply an
alternative ‘storage’ facility to moorings, the MZ description,
and more importantly the zone policies and rules, should be
much more enabling of them.
303. The MZ has three objectives and ten policies. All are
applicable to the marina proposal. They are contained in
Annexure H. Policies 1 and 2 are at first glance of limited
relevance as they outline where the MZ and moorings are to
be ‘avoided’. However with the MZ in place at Matiatia it
can be assumed that the Council considers that the criteria
in these policies are met. I agree that they are. The criteria
in Policy 2 regarding restricting safe anchorage and popular
cruising destinations are significant here, especially the
former as they effectively counteract some of the
submissions made opposing the marina. Policy 9 is also
pertinent, as it seeks to “concentrate moorings” and “to
consolidate moorings by replacing swing moorings with bow
and stern moorings where practicable”. The pile mooring
part of the proposal achieves both of these outcomes.
304. The GCMZ has a zone description, and as outlined earlier its
purpose is very similar to the GMA in the Coastal Plan. It also
78
has a number of objectives and policies that are activity
based and also apply to all other zones (Ref. Section 5.1
page not numbered).
305. The activity based objectives and policies for the GMZ, and
ipso facto other zones, reinforces the point earlier about the
inappropriate way marinas have been dealt with in the
Unitary Plan. They should have been deliberately ‘planned
for’ as an activity, alongside moorings, not considered as
some sort of ‘afterthought’ and treated as non-complying
activities, except where they already exist or are consented.
306. The GCMZ based objectives and policies cover seventeen
activities. The following are not considered relevant: Section
5.1.5–Mineral Extraction, 5.1.6–Vegetation-Mangrove
Management, 5.1.7–Vegetation –Removal of Exotic Species
& Pacific Oyster Shell, 5.1.8–Vegetation–Planting in the CMA,
5.1.9–Taking Damming and Diverting of Coastal Waters,
5.1.14-Aquaculture, and 5.1.16–Local Water Transport
Facilities.
307. The objectives and policies in Section 5.1.1–Drainage,
Reclamation & Declamation, 5.1.3-Dredging, 5.1.4-
Disturbance of the Foreshore & Seabed, 5.1.13–Use
Development and Occupation in the CMA, and 5.15–
Structures, are similar to those in the Coastal Plan. However
there are some significant differences, especially in relation
to the main policy on reclamation.
308. Section 5.1.1–Drainage, Reclamation & Declamation has
three objectives and nine policies that are reproduced in
Annexure I. Policies 2, 7, 8 and 9 are not applicable to the
reclamation in the proposed marina.
309. Policy 1 is the most directive and main one to consider. It
seeks to avoid reclamation, except where six matters are
79
met, the second of which is:
(b) “The reclamation… is necessary to enable the
construction and or efficient operation of infrastructure,
including but not limited to ports, marinas…ferry terminals,
and electricity generation, where they comply with other
relevant policies”.
Marinas are, in the above sense, seen as important
infrastructure, alongside ports, roads, ferry terminals and the
like. Reclamations associated with marinas are in this sense
seen in a more positive light than in the Coastal Plan.
310. The proposed reclamation (or a deck which has very similar
‘minor’ effects) is ‘necessary’ for the ‘efficient’ parking
operation of the marina. The proposed reclamation also in
my view generally meets the other five matters outlined in
the policy.
311. In terms of clause (a) it will provide a walkway and viewing
deck that are of public benefit, along with a parking space
for the coastguard and a sewage pump out facility
wastewater holding tank. Although the above mentioned
facilities may not be considered ‘significant’ I do not see this
part of the policy being an effective ‘bottom line’. The
policy as a whole is simply prefaced by the word ‘avoid’,
which is not same as to ‘not approve’ or ‘prohibit’
reclamation, if all six matters are not met.
312. In terms of clause (c) there are no reasonably practical
alternatives (other than the deck) and in terms of clause (d)
it is of the minimum necessary area to accommodate
weekday marina uses. The midden (or site or place of value
to mana whenua) referred to earlier, is not adversely
affected, nor are any other features or values, so clauses (e)
and (f) are met.
80
313. Policies 3 -6 are directed at similar outcomes to those similar
provisions in the Coastal Plan I have already addressed, and
so not considered further.
314. The objectives and policies in Section 5.1.10 –Discharges are
also similar to those in the Coastal Plan, whilst those in 5.1.11-
Sewage Discharges from Vessels, and 5.1.12 – Discharges
from Bio-fouling & Vessel Maintenance are more detailed
and to some extent seek different outcomes. Mr Poynter has
assessed these in his evidence and I agree with his view that
they are met.
315. The objectives and policies for the adjacent Ferry Terminal
zone are a relevant consideration as they apply to an area
of CMA close to the proposed marina and there are no
equivalent zone provisions in the Coastal Plan. This zone has
six objectives and nine policies. All of them are pertinent to
the proposed marina. Objective 1 aims to ensure that the
ferry terminal remains safe and efficient, whilst Objective 2
aims to ensure it is not compromised by other use and
development. The evidence of Messrs Leman, Dilley
Apeldoorn and Mitchell demonstrates this. It, and the other
WML expert evidence, also shows that the other objectives
and underlying policies are met.
Chapter E – Overlay Objectives & Policies
316. The Section 5.2 – Sites and Places of Values to Mana Whena
also require consideration as there are no equivalent
provisions in the District Plan and Coastal Plan. There is one
objective and three policies that are reproduced in
Annexure J.
317. The objective is considered to be met in respect of the
midden site in question based on the evidence of Messrs
Prince and Rikys. Policy 1 that requires a cultural impact
81
assessment is met through the report prepared by Mr Rikys
that was appended to the AEE. Policies 2 and 3 will also in
my view be met through the proposed consent conditions
on archaeological site protection and accidental discovery
protocols.
Section 104D ‘Test’ for the Reclamation Based Marina
318. The reclamation based marina proposal in my view meets
both the policy and effects ‘tests’ in Section 104D. The
reasons for this were set out earlier in my evidence.
319. My ‘in the round’ effects assessment conclusions were in
paragraphs 237-239. My Coastal Plan ‘policy’ assessment
was in paragraphs 241 -267, followed by my District Plan
assessment in paragraphs 268- 285, my Regional Air Land &
Water Plan assessment in paragraphs 286–289, and my
Unitary Plan assessment in paragraphs 290- 317.
320. I note that the s87F report finding in paragraphs 832 and 833
is different, although stated to be of a preliminary nature.
Precedent Effects of the Reclamation Based Marina
321. The ‘precedent’ effects of the non-complying reclamation
based marina and the integrity of the Coastal, District and
Unitary Plans are a relevant consideration under S104(1)(c).
The proposed marina will, like the other approved marina
developments I have referred to earlier, be located in an
established mooring area, and in this sense not set any sort
of ‘precedent’ in the region. Also as outlined earlier any
marina serving Waiheke Island is very likely to be established
in a mooring area as they generally contain the most
suitable sites. Matiatia Bay has the largest number of
moorings and the site being located adjacent to the islands
primary transport hub has different qualities to all other
potential sites, with the possible exception of the Kennedy
82
Point area. The Regional Coastal Plan zoning provisions at
Kennedy Point are the same (i.e. there is a MMA and a
GMA) and any reclamation based marina here would, in my
view, also be a non-complying activity.
322. The existence of the existing unrecorded reclamation in
northern Matiatia Bay, which is effectively being extended,
gives the proposal quite different qualities to other possible
marina proposals. I have outlined earlier the Coastal Plan
provisions envisage reclamations for parking and other on
shore facilities being part of marinas, at least in Marina
Management Areas. Also as I have outlined earlier the
Unitary Plan makes provision for reclamations in the ‘new’
Ferry Terminal zone, so they are to be expected in the future
in Matiatia Bay. In my view the granting a non–complying
activity consent to the reclamation based marina will not
undermine the integrity of the Coastal Plan or the Unitary
Plan.
NZ Coastal Policy Statement Overview
323. Section 4.2 of the AEE contained an assessment of the
marina project in terms of the NZCPS. It focused on the
policy on reclamation and other key policies.
324. The s87F report, in paragraph 845, cites the AEE assessment
and says that “the main conclusions in that section are
generally concurred with.” In paragraph 845 the report then
goes on to state that the NZCPS requirements “are largely
met, although further consideration is need[ed] of Maori
cultural and spiritual values, alternatives to reclamation and
contamination”. My evidence focuses on these three
matters.
83
Policy on the Treaty, Tangata Whenua & Maori Heritage
325. The s87F report correctly identifies Policy 2 as the key
‘touchstone’ policy here. The higher order Objective 2 is also
relevant.
326. The evidence of Mr Rikys, and to a lesser extent Mr Prince, in
my view demonstrate that the NZCPS objective and policy
are met and the archaeological site protection, accidental
discovery protocol and other consent conditions will ensure
this.
Policy on Reclamation
327. Policy 10 – Reclamation & Declamation, and particular parts
(1) (2) and (3) are relevant to the reclamation based marina
option. Part (4) relating to declamation is not relevant. I
note that the s87F report refers to Policy 6 (1) (c). This policy
is not, in my view, the relevant one here as it does not
mention reclamation.
328. Part 1 of Policy 10 policy requires reclamation be avoided
unless four prerequisites are met. In terms of clause (a)
regarding land being available outside of the CMA for use,
this matter was taken into account in the design of the
reclamation, which is to fully accommodate weekday
parking demands from the marina when the adjacent
Council car parking facilities are generally fully utilised. At
the time of the initial marina design investigations were also
carried out into the use of Council and other land in the
area being available for marina parking. In my view
‘appropriate regard’ has been had to Part 1 of the policy.
329. Clause (b) requires the reclamation be used for activities
that can only occur in or adjacent to the CMA. This is the
situation here as parking for marina users adjacent to the
84
CMA is required. On this basis I consider appropriate regard’
has been had to Part 2 of the policy.
330. Clause (c) that requires there be no practical alternatives is
also tied to the above matters and been given ‘appropriate
regard’. The parking deck proposal has been developed as
an alternative. As described in the evidence of Mr Poynter
the parking deck has no significant ecological, or water
quality benefits. Mr Pryor has likewise come to similar
conclusion. Mr Wardale has in evidence identified a
reduction in construction time as compared to the proposed
reclamation. However the build cost is much higher, as
outlined in his evidence, and construction traffic would be
similar. Mr Apeldoorn has identified in paragraph 89 five
construction and operational advantages of a reclamation
compared to a deck, which I agree with. Taking into
account the above I consider that ‘appropriate regard’ has
been had to this part of the policy.
331. Clause (d) requires that the reclamation “provide significant
regional or national benefit”. The proposed reclamation will
be adjacent to the islands main transport hub, which is of
regional significance. It will provide the required parking for
marina users, a significant proportion of which are mooring
holders in the bay, and avoid use being made of the public
parking areas during the working week, when it is under
greatest pressure. This will be of a regional benefit. Also in
the longer term if the Mixed Use Area adjacent to the ferry
terminal is redeveloped, and new (including multi-level)
parking facilities are established, then some of the proposed
reclamation could be used for short stay shuttle and taxi
parking. This would also be of regional benefit. In my view
‘appropriate regard’ has been had to this part of the policy.
332. Part 2 of the policy lists seven matters that are to be ‘had
regard to’ with the form and design of ‘suitable’
85
reclamations. The matters concerned, in summary, are
effects of climate change, visual appearance, use of
‘clean’ (not contaminated) material, provision of public
access, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, avoidance of
cultural sites/landscapes, and avoidance of natural hazards.
All of the matters listed have been ‘had regard to’ in the
form and design of the reclamation.
333. Part 3 of the policy requires that in considering the extent,
location and purpose of reclamation regard be had to
certain matters, including “the efficient operation of
infrastructure, including…coastal roads, pipelines electricity
transmission,...and ferry terminals and of marinas and
electricity generation”. The WML expert evidence in my
view shows that ‘appropriate regard’ has been given to this
part of the policy. The supporting letter from Fullers Group
Ltd, the main ferry services operator, is also relevant here.
334. The proposed reclamation will enable the efficient operation
of the ferry terminal and marina, by providing for marina
parking during weekdays when all the public parking is
required for commuters and other ferry users. The parking for
marina users on the reclamation will in that sense ‘enable’
the nearby ferry terminal operations. The evidence of Messrs
Apeldoorn and Mitchell establishes that the marina traffic will
have minimal effect on ferry related traffic, even at the peak
times of the year for ferry users.
Policy on Discharge of Contaminants
335. The s87F report concerns with the ‘contamination’ are linked
to the Council peer review of the NIWA and Poynter
antifoulant risk reports mentioned earlier in my evidence and
Policy 23(5) (a) as outlined in paragraph 849. Mr Poynter has
addressed this matter his statement of evidence. In my
opinion ‘appropriate regard’ has been had to the policy, to
86
the extent that it may apply to the granting of the consents
for the marina, noting that none of the marina structures will
release antifoulant into the CMA.
336. Policy 23 – Discharge of Contaminants is in five parts. Parts
(2) and (3) relate to discharges of human sewage that are
not relevant here, whilst Part (4) relates to stormwater
discharges that the s87F report has no concerns with. Part
(1) is an ‘overarching’ provision that is also relevant to the
antifoulant effects issue raised in the s87F report. Mr Poynter
has addressed this technical matter in evidence and in my
opinion ‘appropriate regard’ has been had to the policy.
Auckland Regional Policy Statement Overview
337. Section 4.3 of the AEE contained an assessment of the
marina project in terms of the ARPS. It focused on the
objectives in Chapter 6-Heritage, Chapter 7-Coastal
Environment and Chapter 8–Water Quality.
338. The s87F report also sets out in paragraphs 857-869 the
relevant provisions of the ARPS, including Change No.8. It
makes reference to the AEE analysis and states that is
“generally concurred with” (paragraph 859).
339. The s87F report finds in paragraph 864 that the marina
project is ‘consistent’ with the ARPS provisions in terms of
coastal processes, ecology and water quality. Although not
explicitly stated I believe the report makes a similar finding in
respect of coastal natural character, landscape and
heritage values in the preceding paragraph 863.
340. The only concern the Council report raises in terms of the
project not giving appropriate ‘regard’ to the ARPS (as
required under Section 104 (1) of the RMA) is in respect of
“the extent to which cultural and spiritual associations of
tangata whenua with the waters of the gulf and Matiatia
87
Bay will be compromised and any places of wahi tapu lost.”
(paragraph 865).
341. The abovementioned concern is tied to the Chapter 6-
Heritage, that, as outlined above, I assessed as part of the
AEE. Chapter 6 – Heritage, deals with cultural and natural
heritage, including landscapes.
Heritage Objectives & Policies
342. Chapter 6 has nine objectives four of which relate, at least in
part to cultural heritage. Policy 6.4.16 deals with evaluation
of cultural heritage, whilst Policy 6.4.1. deals with its
preservation and protection. Relying on the evidence of
Messrs Prince and Rikys I consider that appropriate regard
has been had to these policies.
343. The Chapter 6 objectives and policies on landscape
heritage have been assessed in Mr Pryor’s evidence.
Objectives 6.3.4 and 6.3.6 relate to ‘outstanding natural’
landscapes identified on maps in the plan. As outlined in Mr
Pryor’s evidence the land surrounding the marina site is not
identified on Map 15 as an ‘outstanding natural landscape’.
344. Objective 6.3.5 seeks “to maintain the overall quality and
diversity of character and sense of place of the
landscapes...”. The marina project does this by being
located within a mooring area and adjacent to a transport
terminal.
345. The policies in Section 6.4.22 are related to the objectives
and many relate to ‘outstanding natural landscapes’ that
are not relevant to the project. None of the policies mention
marinas or are directed at Matiatia Bay.
88
Coastal Environment Objectives & Policies
346. Chapter 7 – Coastal Environment, has eleven objectives and
nine sets of policies and methods, most of which are
relevant. In terms of issues the section recognises that
“dredging is necessary in some parts of the CMA and the
disposal of dredged material….needs to be provided for in a
way which avoids significant adverse effects”. The objectives
are derived from the identified issues and other matters.
Objectives 4-7 are the most specific to the project in terms of
‘enabling use of, and ‘recreational opportunities in, the
coastal environment’ (4 & 7), ‘reducing the risk of
environmental damage’ (5), and ‘enhancing public access
to publicly owned land in the CMA’ (6).
347. The Chapter 7 sets of policies and methods are very
comprehensive, with those on natural character, subdivision,
use and development, public access and
dredging/dredging disposal being the most directive in
terms of the marina proposal. The policies on natural
character distinguish between areas which have ‘high’ and
‘not high’ natural character values. As outlined in Mr Pryor’s
evidence the marina site falls into the ‘not high’ category.
348. There are ten policies and four methods on subdivision, use
and development in Section 7.4.10. Policy 2 requires
applicants to have regard to the ‘appropriateness’ of
activities with clause (vii) directing attention to “scale,
design, and location that maintain or enhance landscape
values in the area, including seascapes and landforms”.
Policy 2 is met in terms of proposing a relatively small
compact marina adjacent to existing wharf, boat launching
and parking facilities. Policy 4 requires applicants to have
regard to ‘any available alternatives’, with proposals
89
involving rights to occupy the CMA. This has been done as
outlined earlier in my evidence.
349. The policies on public access and dredging - dredging
disposal have also been given appropriate regard. Public
access to the CMA will be enhanced through the
reclamation, boardwalk/deck, southern access pier and
primary breakwater proposals.
Water Quality Objectives & Policies
350. Chapter 8 – Water Quality, identifies four issues and has one
objective and eight sets of policies and methods, several of
which are relevant to the marina proposal. In terms of issues
I note the section states that “coastal waters adjacent to
areas which have been extensively urbanised are also at
high risk of degradation due to cumulative effects of urban
activities.” It goes on to note that “the impact of
contaminant discharges on areas with good tidal flushing is
difficult to determine …” and “these areas have been called
susceptible to degradation, but indeterminate”. The issues
section also recognises that “some water bodies and coastal
waters have significant high ecological values and are
susceptible to degradation”. Areas which fall into these
categories are identified on maps (Map Series 5) in the
policy statement.
351. Matiatia Bay is not identified on the relevant Map 5 Sheet 1 –
Water Quality – Degraded & Susceptible Areas as an ‘Area
of Known Degradation’ or ‘Area Susceptible to
Degradation’. The bay is also not shown on Map 5 Sheet 3 –
Areas of High Ecological Value as an ‘Area requiring Greater
Emphasis for the Avoidance and Mitigation of Adverse
Effects of Water Quality’.
90
352. The policies on stormwater and sediment discharges,
maritime activities and sewage reticulation and disposal are
in my view most applicable to the marina. In accordance
with Policy 1 on stormwater the parking and other onshore
facilities are to be served by a system which will “mitigate
the adverse effects of urban stormwater runoff on the
aquatic receiving environment.” The provision of a sewage
pump out facility is also in accordance with the Policy
8.4.13.1 on discharges from ‘maritime activities’.
Appropriate regard has been had to the policies on these
matters.
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act
353. The relevant provisions of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act
2000 (HGMPA) were outlined in Section 4.11 of the AEE. They
generally augment those of the RMA and NZCPS. Of
particular relevance are those in Part 1 and in particular
Sections 7 and 8 that require the ‘national significance’ of
the Gulf and its islands and catchments to be recognised
and for specified objectives to be met. The first four
objectives are directed at ‘protection and where
appropriate enhancement’ of life-supporting capacity,
natural, physical, historic and other resources, values and
associations, whilst the last two are directed ‘maintenance
and enhancement’ of them for ‘economic and social well
being’ and ‘recreation and enjoyment’.
354. The proposed marina is in my view consistent with these and
other provisions in the Act. It will ‘protect’ and ‘where
appropriate enhance’ the resources, values and
associations mentioned and contribute in a significant
manner to both ‘economic and social well being’, and
‘recreation and enjoyment’. It will provide a protected
anchorage and enhanced recreational boating and public
access to the gulf.
91
355. The s87F report, in paragraph 852, finds that the marina
project is in accordance with HGMPA in terms of coastal
natural character, ecology and water quality matters.
However, in paragraph 853 it identifies the opposing
submissions and cultural concerns from Ngati Maru and the
Piritahi marae. Also in in paragraph 854 the report indicates
that the (negative) “landward impacts on the community as
result of potential constraints on the future development of
the transport hub”, counterbalances the (positive)
recreational and social well-being aspects of the marina. As
such in paragraph 855 the report concludes that “the
proposal raises inconsistencies with sections 7 and 8 of the
HGMPA.”
356. I do not share the concerns raised in the s87F report and do
not find the proposal inconsistent with the HGMPA. Mr Rikys
has in evidence addressed the cultural concerns and Messrs
Apledoorn and Mitchell have addressed the transport hub
concerns.
Marine & Coastal Area Act
357. Part 2 of the Marine & Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act
2011 contains provisions relating to reclaimed land that are
relevant to the status of the unrecorded reclamation and
the future ownership of proposed reclamation by the Crown.
Part 3 of the Act contains provisions relating to customary
interests and in particular protected customary rights.
358. Part 3 provisions regarding protected customary rights are
addressed in paragraphs 909-911 of the s87F report. I
understand from this report and Mr Rikys evidence that there
are no protected customary rights affecting the marina site
and as such the provisions in Section 55 do not apply.
359. The Part 2 provisions in the Act will, I understand, apply to the
92
proposed reclamation and also the unrecorded
reclamation. I understand that the unrecorded reclamation
will have to be surveyed when the proposed reclamation is
surveyed and the two will vest in the Crown under Sections
31 and 30 respectively. Once this process has been
completed then I understand that Section 35 WML can seek
from the appropriate Minister a freehold or leasehold interest
in the proposed reclamation.
Section 105 (Esplanade Area) Considerations
360. The Section 105(2) requirements regarding the provision of
an esplanade area on the reclamation were considered
earlier and are in my view met.
361. The S87F report addresses these matters in paragraphs 934-
940. In paragraph 937 the report agrees with the proposed
variable width esplanade reserve around the edge of the
reclamation and the rationale for it.
362. Section 105(2) is linked to Section 108(2)(g), which empowers
consent authorities to impose an esplanade reserve or
esplanade strip of any specified width on any reclamation.
An esplanade strip is an alternative here, depending to
some extent on the future ownership of the reclamation. If
WML were to seek ownership of the reclamation under the
Marine & Coastal Area Act then an esplanade strip is likely to
be more appropriate. This is because it would still guarantee
public access around the outer edge footpath area, whilst
leaving long term maintenance of the whole reclamation
with WML. On the other hand an esplanade reserve would
effectively result in split ownership and management of the
reclamation and esplanade reserve that is not desirable. In
order to allow for alternative reclamation ownership (taking
into account the unrecorded reclamation) I am of the view
that the consent conditions should refer to an esplanade
93
area (reserve or strip) of variable width in accordance with
the Axis plan.
Section 105 & 107 (Discharge) Considerations
363. The s105(1) matters regarding the nature of the discharges
from the dredging operations and stormwater facilities , the
sensitivity of the receiving environments, reasons for the
chosen methods and alternatives are covered in the
evidence from Messrs Leman, James and Poynter. Based on
this evidence I consider that ‘appropriate regard’ has been
given to the provisions and they are effectively met.
364. The s107(1) requirements that also apply to the dredging and
stormwater related discharges and receiving environment
‘mixing’ effects are also addressed in Mr Poynter’s evidence.
With reference to this evidence I consider that these
requirements are also met.
365. The s87F report addresses these matters in paragraphs 933
and 941, primarily with reference to the specialist stormwater
report from Mr Blackburn. It finds that both provisions will be
met, subject to ‘appropriate’ consent conditions being
imposed.
Non RMA Based Plans
366. Section 4.12 of the AEE identified seven non RMA plans as
being ‘relevant matters under Section 104 (1) (c). They are
the Matiatia Directional Plan 2008, Matiatia Transportation
Plan 2009, Auckland Transport Plan 2009, Auckland Regional
Land Transport Strategy 2010, Auckland Regional Public
Transport Plan 2010, Hauraki Gulf State of the Environment
Report 2011 and the Auckland Plan 2012.
367. The s87F report identifies Matiatia Directional Plan and the
Matiatia Transportation Plan in paragraphs 915 – 926 as
94
being relevant, along with the Essentially Waiheke Plan in
paragraphs 927- 932. I note this report also refers to the
Waiheke Project 2010 report prepared by the University of
Auckland. Mr Apeldoorn has covered relevant transport
gateway and tourism aspects of this report in his evidence
and I don’t consider it further.
Matiatia Directional Plan & Matiatia Transportation Plan
368. The two related Matiatia plans prepared by the former
Auckland City Council were briefly assessed in Section 4.12
of the AEE. The s87F report is more comprehensive and
records past Community Board views on possible
implementation of the plans and other matters. Although
the current position of the Council on the plans is not stated,
the report concludes in paragraph 926 that “the proposal
may compromise the ability to achieve strategic
development and transport outcomes for the area”.
369. Messrs Apeldoorn and Mitchell have responded to this
matter in their evidence. I note that Mr Apeldoorn finds that
the marina proposal will have a negligible impact on the
strategic gateway capacity of Matiatia. Mr Mitchell
concludes that the marina will not compromise the current
operation of the transport hub, nor the future vision of
separating ferry and development traffic along with
additional parking and improvements to bus shelters, cycle
facilities and pedestrian walkways. I agree with their
respective findings.
Auckland Transport Plans & Strategies
370. The Auckland Transport Plan 2009, Auckland Regional Land
Transport Strategy 2010 and Auckland Regional Public
Transport Plan 2011 that were also prepared by predecessor
Council organisations. These Council plans have some
95
‘relevance’ in terms of providing fairly high level guidance
on the future of the Matiatia transport services and terminal
area.
371. Sections 4.12.1, 4.12.2 and 4.12.3 of the AEE contained my
assessment of them in relation to the marina project. A copy
is in Annexure K. I consider that appropriate consideration
has been given to them.
Essentially Waiheke Report
372. The AEE did not cover the Essentially Waiheke report. I note
that it was prepared by the former City Council in the late
1990s, adopted in 2000 and amended in 2005. The s87F
report identifies its general principles and some other
components of the 100 page report. It does not mention
Section 4.3 – Wharves and Airfields, that contains some key
strategies and actions for the Matiatia wharf area.
373. The report is referenced in Part 3.3.2 of the District Plan.
Section 3. 3.4 contains a related objective, whilst Section 3.3
5 contains nine underlying policies. The objective is an
overarching one aimed at ‘providing economic, social and
cultural wellbeing’ whilst protecting historic heritage,
landscape character and other values. The proposed
marina does this. It also meets the relevant policies, of which
4-9 are the most pertinent. Policies 1 and 3 are directed at
‘villages’, whilst Policy 2 is directed at the use of rural land,
neither of which are relevant here.
Part 2 of the RMA
374. Section 6 lists seven matters of national importance to be
recognised and provided for. All of them, except clause (b)
relating to ‘outstanding natural features and landscapes’
are potentially relevant to the marina project.
96
375. The six relevant matters have been largely addressed in
earlier parts of my evidence and the other expert evidence.
376. In terms of clause (a) Mr Pryor’s evidence shows that the
overall ‘natural character of the coastal environment will be
preserved’ and the marina is ‘an inappropriate form of use
and development’.
377. In terms of Clause (c) Mr Poynter’s evidence shows that the
marina will not adversely affect any ‘areas of significant
indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous
fauna’.
378. In terms of Clause (d) my evidence, along with that from Mr
Wardale shows that the marina will maintain, and indeed
enhance public access, to and along the CMA.
379. In terms of Clause (e) the evidence from Mr Rikys shows that
‘the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with
their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other
taonga’ has been recognised and will be provided for
through the accidental discovery protocol and other
consent conditions. Mr Rikys’ evidence also demonstrates
that in terms of Clause (g) ‘recognised customary practices’
will not be adversely affected and they are therefore
‘protected’. Mr Prince’s evidence shows that in terms of
Clause (f) the marina proposal will not adversely affect any
‘historic heritage’ and therefore it is an ‘appropriate’ form of
use and development.
380. Section 7 lists eleven further matters which applicants and
consent authorities are to have regard to. Most of them are
relevant to the marina project. Several of them, notably
Clause (c) on amenity values, Clause (d) on ecosystems,
and Clause (f) on the quality of the environment have been
assessed in the ‘effects’ and/or ‘policy’ parts of my
97
evidence. I consider that all of the relevant provisions are
met.
381. Section 8 requires all persons to take into account the
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I consider this has been
done in terms of the initial process of consultation with iwi
and the more recent investigation of matters raised in
submissions, which are covered by Mr Rikys evidence.
Consent Terms
382. The consent terms sought Section 14 of the AEE were
discussed earlier in my evidence. They are also discussed in
Section 13 (paragraphs 960- 64) of the s87F report. This part
of the report considers that should the consents be granted
then the appropriate terms for the coastal permit for the
marina and the stormwater diversion and discharge permit
would be the maximum 35 years in the RMA. This would
allow for ‘integrated compliance monitoring’ as set out in
the report.
383. Section 13 of the s87F report does not discuss the term of the
coastal permit for the capital dredging. As outlined earlier in
my evidence the capital dredging is a ‘one off’ activity
during construction and in my view should have a much
shorter consent term than the permits mentioned above.
From my discussions with Mr Leman and Mr Wardale I
consider a five year term based on the ‘default’ provisions in
the RMA would be appropriate.
384. Section 13 of the s87F report notes that if the land use
consent is granted it would have an unlimited term in
accordance with the RMA. I agree with this.
Conclusions
385. In my opinion granting the resource consent applications for
98
the Matiatia marina would be in accordance with Part 2 of
the RMA. The WML expert evidence shows that the
reclamation based marina passes both the ‘effects’ and
‘policy’ tests for non-complying activities in s104D.
Appropriate regard has also been had to the NZCPS, ARPS,
other relevant legislation and non RMA plans and strategies.
The alternative parking deck based marina proposal also
satisfies the provisions in s104(1).
Max Dunn
30 April 2014
AA0283 – Max Dunn WML evidence Annexure A
Annexure A to Evidence of Max Dunn
Amended & Additional Plans Provided to Council in Response to Section 92
Requests
Plans attached to ASL letter S92 Response Letter of 13 May 2013
IMC 4208 –SK6 of 24-03-13 – Breakwater cross section plan
Riley DWG 101780-20 & 21– Additional primary breakwater cross section plans
Wardale Marine Consulting Ltd - Revised construction programme (Figure 34 of AEE)
Riley – Amended services plan 10178- 13-Rev 5 (Figure 17 of AEE)
IMC 4208 –102 –Rev D - Amended marina office plan (Figure 16 of AEE)
Plans attached to ASL letter S92 Response Letter of 16 October 2013
IMC 4208-SK8/B of 30-09-13 –Aerial photo with existing buoys overlay
Wardale Marine Consulting Ltd - Revised long term moorings management plan (Figure 36
of AEE)
Submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Sections 123 and 125, Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
Clause 6 of the First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991
To: Unitary Plan Submission Team, Auckland Council
Freepost Authority 237170
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142
1. Submitter Details
Waiheke Marina’s Ltd
PO Box 344,
Oneroa,
Waiheke Island
2. Scope of Submission
The specific provisions that this submission relates to are:
(a) Planning Maps - Northern Matiatia Bay area
Coastal General Marine and Moorings zoning
Historic Heritage overlay
(b) Chapter D
Section 5 – Coastal Zones - Introduction
Section 5.2 – Marina Zone – Zone Description, Objectives and Policies
Section 5.3 - Coastal Mooring Zone – Zone Description, Objectives and Policies
(c) Chapter I
Rule 6.6.1 – Coastal General Marine Zone -Special Information Requirements – Design
Statement
Rule 7.1- Marina Zone - Activity Table
Rule 7.2 - Marina Zone – Notification
Rule 7.3 – Marina Zone - Land Use Controls
Rule 7.4 – Marina Zone – Development Controls
Rule 7.5 – Marina Zone – Assessment – Restricted Discretionary Activities
Rule 7.6 – Marina Zone - Special Information Requirements
Rule 8.1- Coastal Mooring Zone - Activity Table
(d) Part 4 –Definitions
Marina & Earthworks definitions
(e) Chapter H
Auckland Wide Rules – Rule 1.2.3.2 - Number of parking and loading spaces Table 4 –
Parking Rates – All Other Areas - Marinas
(f) Chapter E
Section 5.2 – Sites & Places of Value to Mana Whenua – Overlay description, objectives
and policies
(g) Chapter J
Rule 5.2 – Sites & Places of Value to Mana Whenua – Activity table, Development controls
and Assessment
2
(h) Part 5 - Appendix 4.2
Schedule of Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua - Item ID 1730 – Archaeology of
Maori origin - Matiatia Bay Historic Reserve
3. Reasons for Submission
Our submission is:
a) Waiheke Marina’s Ltd (WML) have lodged resource consent applications with the Council
for a marina in Matiatia Bay. The applications are also the subject of a direct referral to
the Environment Court. The Court has recently advised that a hearing of the applications
and submissions is being scheduled for October 2014. WML are expecting a decision on
the applications and submissions before decisions are made by the Council on submissions
to the Proposed Unitary Plan.
b) The Matiatia marina site is zoned Mooring (primarily) and General Coastal Marine in the
plan. Attached is a map showing the proposed marina in relation to the Mooring zone
boundaries. The company request that the whole site of the marina be included within
the Marina zone. The attached plan shows the extent of the Marina zone being requested.
c) WML Ltd generally support the Marina zone provisions in the plan because they recognise
the importance of marinas to the economic and social wellbeing of the region. The zone
rules also recognise the need to provide for the progressive refurbishment and alteration
of marinas as structures age and recreational boating demands change.
d) WML note that the Marina zone applies to existing marinas and one recently consented in
the Sandspit area. WML generally supports the Marina zone provisions in the plan. This
includes supporting the rules that provide for capital dredging, new structures, wave
attenuation devices and maintenance dredging as restricted discretionary activities,
along with reclamation as a discretionary activity.
e) WML note that the Marina zone covers both the coastal marine area and land areas at
some marinas and this approach is requested for the Matiatia marina. WML support this
approach as it will lead to more effective integrated management of the CMA and land
areas developed by WML and be consistent with the wider plan provisions and Resource
Management Act.
f) Most of the Matiatia marina site is within the Mooring zone, which covers a long established
mooring area. As a matter of principle WML consider that marinas should be generally
provided for in the Mooring zone, because historically they have been established within
these areas and they are generally appropriate locations for them. This is recognised in
the current Regional Coastal Plan where marinas are provided for as discretionary activities
in Mooring Management Areas, including the two in Matiatia Bay, one of which includes
the marina site. Marinas make much more effective use of valued water space and have
other environmental benefits compared to pile and swing moorings.
g) WML submit that the Mooring zone rules should be amended to provide for marina’s.
Marina’s, along with ancillary capital dredging and maintenance dredging should be
listed as restricted discretionary activities, with ancillary reclamation for land based marina
facilities being provided for as a discretionary activity. The requested provisions would be
consistent with those proposed by the Council for the Marina zone.
h) WML also consider that as a matter of principle the same or very similar provisions for
marinas should be incorporated into the General Coastal Marine zone. Most of the
recently built or consented marinas in Auckland, including Orakei and Sandspit, have
involved sites that had a General Management Area zoning in the Regional Coastal Plan.
3
The General Management Area parts of the built or consented marina sites have generally
been the shallower areas near the land that have mooring limitations, but with some
dredging are eminently suitable for a marina.
i) WML have concerns with Rule 7.6 of the Marina zone in Chapter I that requires a ‘design
statement’ for buildings over 200m2 in the CMA. The rule is not particularly explained and
uses words like ‘streetscape’ that are inappropriate for a CMA based building. Also the
rule is inconsistent with the definition of marina that specifically excludes ‘buildings’.
j) The WML submission requesting a Marina zoning of the Matiatia marina site relies on there
being an appropriate definition of marina in Part 4 of the plan and that definition being
linked to the requested activity provisions. WML generally support the definition of marina
in Part 4 of the plan. However WML have concerns with two parts of it.
k) The first WML concern is the exclusion of ‘buildings’ from the marinas definition. The
exclusion is not explained and would affect the status of the marina office proposed at
Matiatia marina, and other buildings that could be built in the future, and are found in
some existing marinas. The second WML concern is the inclusion only of ‘land based’ areas
for parking and vessel storage within the definition. This limitation is also not explained and
could affect the activity status of floating dinghy racks planned within the Matiatia marina
and also found in some existing marinas. Although the use could possibly be covered by
the terms of ‘pontoons’ and ‘associated facilities and services‘ (that are included in the
definition) the distinction between ‘land based’ and ‘water based’ facilities is largely
artificial and inappropriate. The same rationale applies to the apparent differentiation
between ‘land based’ and ‘water based’ areas for parking. Some marinas use decks for
parking that are primarily ‘water based’. The plan provisions on these two matters as
notified are inconsistent with other plan objectives and policies and Part 2 of the Resource
Management Act.
l) The WML resource consent applications lodged with the Council include a reclamation
that is to be used for parking. Neither the operative Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan, nor
the operative Regional Coastal Plan contain parking standards for marinas. The parking
standard of 0.35 spaces per berth in the Proposed Unitary Plan, will provide more certainty
for marina developers. The proposed parking standard is reasonably consistent with the
Australian Standard – Guideline for Design of Marinas AS3962- 2001 that has a minimum of
0.3 parking spaces per berth. Also the standard recognises the limited demand for parking
at marinas, especially during weekdays, and the need to encourage alternative means of
transport, especially where established services are in place, like at Matiatia.
m) WML note part of the site of the proposed marina is subject to a Historic Heritage Overlay
(Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua) being identified in Appendix 4.2 as being Site
ID 1730 – Archaeology of Maori origin. The extent of the overlay being a 200m diameter
circle as it affects the proposed marina is shown on the attached plan.
n) The Appendix 4.2 record identifies the site as being recorded in the NZ Archaeological
Association data base as R11- 1654. The NZAA record, a copy of which is attached,
indicate that the site is a partially exposed shell midden between a boat shed (on private
land) and the shore. The site record does not indicate that the midden extends into the
water or coastal marine area (CMA). As such any plan overlay relating to the site should
be confined to the land and not extend into the CMA.
o) The NZAA records do not indicate that the site is anywhere near the scale recorded by the
200m diameter circle on the planning map. In addition, being a recorded archaeological
site it is fully protected under the NZ Historic Places Act.
4
p) The recorded archaeological site also appears to be largely within the Matietie Historic
Reserve and protected under the Reserves Act. If any complimentary protection is sought
by the Council through the unitary plan then it should relate simply to the NZAA recorded
site and not an arbitrary 200m circle surrounding it and in turn rules on earthworks that
impose a further 50m wide buffer around the circle, resulting effectively in a 300m diameter
circle.
q) The basis of the heritage overlay circle itself is also questioned. The centre of the circle,
which is expected to represent the approximate centre of the recorded archaeological
site, appears from the planning maps to be on the shoreline, if not in the water (CMA) itself,
rather than further inland as indicated from the NZAA records. As a result the overlay circle
extends even further into the CMA and extends the sphere of influence of what is simply a
land based heritage site (midden).
r) The activity table in Chapter J Rule 5.2.1 deems any earthworks within 50m of a site or
place of value to mana whenua to be a restricted discretionary activity. The basis of the
rule is not sufficiently explained in the plan and as outlined above it effectively places a
300m diameter restriction on earthworks, within which are often small midden and other
protected archaeological sites. The related overlay description, along with the objectives
and policies in Chapter E 5.2, do not adequately justify the earthworks rule and are
inconsistent with other plan objectives and policies and Part 2 of the Resource
Management Act.
s) The Part 4 definition of earthworks is relevant to the above matters, particularly in terms of
whether the associated rules on earthworks, ‘catch’ the dredging proposed for the marina.
The earthworks definition refers to ‘disturbance of soil, earth and substrate land surfaces’
and then lists a number of ‘included’ activities. Dredging of the CMA is not amongst the
‘included’ activities. WML are seeking clarification of this matter to the extent that
dredging (both capital and maintenance) is specifically listed as an activity excluded from
the definition of earthworks. WML is also seeking clarification that initial placement of piles
and floating marina structures and their future maintenance within the historic heritage
overlay are not affected by the associated overlay rules. A request is made for Chapter J
Rule 5.2 to be amended to include a specific activity listing for the Matiatia marina
structures, if the principal relief sought of removing the overlay from the CMA is not
accepted.
4. Relief Sought
a) Alteration of the planning maps to include all of the Matiatia marina within the Marina
zone as shown on the attached map;
b) Inclusion of “Northern Matiatia Bay” in the list of sites where the Marina zone applies in
Chapter D –Section 5.2;
c) Inclusion in Chapter D - Section 5.3 of a statement in the Mooring zone description that
marinas have traditionally been established within mooring areas and that some of these
areas are expected to have marinas in the future in order to cater for the growing number
of recreational craft in the Auckland region.
d) Inclusion in Chapter D – Section 5.3 of an objective and a policy in the Mooring zone
recognising that marinas make much more effective use of water space than moorings
and have other environmental benefits and as such are generally considered to be an
appropriate use within the zone.
e) Inclusion in the Chapter I - Rule 8.1 - Mooring zone activity table, of rules that provide for
marinas, capital dredging and ancillary maintenance dredging as restricted discretionary
5
activities, and ancillary reclamation as a discretionary activity;
f) Inclusion in the General Coastal zone activity table in Rule 6.1 of Chapter I, rules that
provide for marinas, ancillary capital dredging, ancillary maintenance dredging and
ancillary reclamation, as a discretionary activities.
g) Deletion of Chapter I Rules 6.6.1 and 7.6 – Special Information Requirements, in their
entirety.
h) Deletion from the definition of marinas of the words “excludes buildings”.
i) Deletion from the definition of marinas of the words “land based” from the term “land
based areas for parking and vessel storage”, i.e. the amended term simply reads “areas
for parking and vessel storage”.
j) Confinement of the Historic heritage overlay – Site ID 1730 (midden site) to land, i.e.
deletion of the overlay from the CMA.
k) Amendment of the Part 4 definition of earthworks to exclude dredging (capital and
maintenance).
l) Amendment of Chapter J - Rule 5.2.1 Activity Table to provide for the erection and
maintenance of marina structures in northern Matiatia Bay as a permitted activity if the
Historic heritage overlay – Site ID 1730 (midden site) is not removed from the CMA.
m) Inclusion of appropriate explanations in the plan relating to the above matters.
n) Such other consequential amendments as are necessary to give effect to the above
requests.
5. Trade Competition Matters
WML could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.
_____________________
By authorised agent
Max Dunn
26 February 2014
Address for service of the submitter:
Andrew Stewart Ltd
PO Box 911310
Victoria St West
Auckland 1142
Attention: Max Dunn - Manager Planning Services
Phone 09 3030311
Email [email protected]
Annexure D to Max Dunn Evidence: Matiatia Marina: Effects Summary
Effect WML Evidence
Reclamation
Based Marina
WML Evidence Deck
Based Marina
Council s87F Report
Reclamation Based Marina
Coastal Processes Minor adverse Minor adverse No more than minor adverse
Land Stability & Natural
Hazards
Minor adverse Minor adverse No more than minor adverse
Ecological Minor adverse Minor adverse No more than minor adverse
Water Quality Minor adverse Minor adverse No more than minor adverse
Visual Effects More than minor from
3 of 13 viewpoints
More than minor from
3 of 13 viewpoints
May be more than minor
adverse
Natural Character Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Amenity Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse
Cultural Minor adverse (at
most)
Minor adverse (at
most)
May be more than minor
adverse
Heritage (Archaeological) Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor adverse
Boat Navigation & Safety Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse
Public Access Positive Positive Minor adverse
Recreation Minor adverse Minor adverse No more than minor adverse
Construction Traffic Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Operational Traffic Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
May be more than minor
adverse
Parking & Loading Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Noise Minor adverse Minor adverse May be more than minor
adverse
Vibration Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Lighting Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
No more than minor adverse
Amenity (Other) Minor adverse Minor adverse More than minor adverse
Infrastructure Less than minor
adverse
Less than minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Economic Positive Positive Neutral
Social Positive Positive Neutral
Cumulative Minor adverse Minor adverse May be more minor adverse
Overall Minor adverse Minor adverse More than minor adverse
Part 13 - Transport
Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Operative 2013Page 6
2. How to ensure that adequate provision is made for bicycle facilities so that cycling is
appropriately recognised and provided for.
13.2.7 Passenger transport
Passenger transport is the principal means of access to the islands from the mainland. It is
also an important method of transport around the islands. Existing bus services on Waiheke
link with the ferry service. With car travel putting pressure on the existing road network it is
important that the Plan integrates land use planning with transport and provides for the
efficient and effective operation of passenger transport.
Principal issue
The significant resource management issue which needs to be addressed in the Plan is:
• How to ensure that the importance of passenger transport is recognised in the Plan and
its use encouraged throughout the islands.
13.3 Resource management objectives and policies
13.3.1 Objective - wharves
To sustainably manage the use and development of the islands' wharves and associated
infrastructure, while protecting the character and amenity values of the islands.
Policies
1. By recognising and providing for wharves and associated infrastructure at
appropriate locations.
2. By integrating the land transport network with wharves to ensure accessibility to and
from the islands is maintained and enhanced.
3. By ensuring that passenger transport is integrated with wharves, where those
wharves have a passenger transport focus.
13.3.2 Objective - airstrips and helipads
To sustainably manage the use of the islands' airstrips and helipads and associated
infrastructure, while protecting the character and amenity values of the islands.
Policies
1. By recognising and providing for the use and development of airstrips used for
passenger and goods transport purposes and their associated infrastructure at
appropriate locations.
2. By avoiding the location of activities sensitive to aircraft noise within the Claris and
Okiwi airfield noise contours, unless the adverse effects can be adequately
mitigated. At the airfield on Waiheke, adverse effects to the north of the airfield are
managed by controlling the number of flight movements.
3. By recognising the need for helipads in remote locations, which may be difficult to
access by other modes of transport.
4. By recognising that airstrips or helipads may be required for farming activities in the
landform and rural land units.
5. By acknowledging that the gulf islands are a popular tourist destination and that air
travel to, from and around the gulf islands is a recognised component of the tourist
industry.
6. By not providing for helipads in locations that can adversely affect the amenity of
surrounding residents.
Part 13 - Transport
Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Operative 2013 Page 7
13.3.3 Objective - roading
To recognise and provide for the existing road system as an important resource for an
integrated transport network, while managing it to ensure the adverse effects on the
surrounding environment are minimised.
Policies
1. By providing for and enhancing the road network to ensure it is safe, effective and
efficient for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
2. By reducing conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists around key
community focal points, such as wharves, commercial centres, schools and other
public facilities.
3. By requiring a low impact design approach for new roads.
4. By continuing the council's programme for legalising roads.
5. By adopting and applying a functional road classification to roads on Waiheke to
control access at specified locations.
6. By discouraging traffic generating activities in environments where they would have
significant adverse effects.
13.3.4 Objectives - parking and access
13.3.4.1 Objective
To ensure the impact of activities on the safety and efficiency of the road network is
addressed while avoiding adverse effects on the environment.
Policies
1. By requiring sufficient on-site parking to meet the demand generated by different
activities.
2. By ensuring that there is not an oversupply of on-site parking, which can encourage
traffic generation and result in unnecessary on-site modification.
3. By encouraging travel management plans to reduce the adverse effects of travel
from new development.
4. By placing an upper limit on the number of on-site parking spaces which can be
provided as of right to avoid the adverse effects associated with oversupply.
13.3.4.2 Objective
To ensure access to sites is provided at appropriate locations, while avoiding or mitigating
adverse effects.
Policies
1. By controlling access at specific locations to ensure vehicle, pedestrian and cycle
safety.
2. By controlling access gradients to avoid adverse environmental effects, such as
sediment and stormwater runoff, safety, vegetation removal, stability and visual and
amenity impacts.
3. By requiring a low impact design approach for accessways.
4. By requiring roadside parking platforms rather than accessways where access may
give rise to significant adverse environmental effects.
5. By encouraging stable gradients for on-site accessways, and for the land on the
adjacent road, to reduce erosion and sedimentation of waterways and the coastal
environment.
6. By encouraging shared driveways where possible.
Part 13 - Transport
Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Operative 2013Page 8
7. By acknowledging that all terrain vehicles can provide adequate access without
needing to comply with access gradients.
13.3.5 Objectives - cycling, walking and horse riding
1. To improve cycling and pedestrian access to key community focal points such as
residential areas, wharves, commercial centres, schools, and other public facilities.
2. To enhance the opportunities for recreational cycling, walking and horse riding.
Policies
1. By recognising that the road network must provide for pedestrians and cyclists as
well as vehicles.
2. By encouraging the establishment of cycle facilities and cycleways, especially
around key community focal points and public facilities.
3. By providing for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, especially around
key community focal points and public facilities.
4. By considering cycling and walking issues and bridle paths when assessing
subdivision applications.
5. By recognising and providing for recreational cycling, walking and horse riding.
13.3.6 Objective - passenger transport
To recognise and provide for passenger transport to, from and around the islands.
Policies
1. By continuing to improve passenger transport facilities.
2. By providing passenger transport facilities that integrate all transport modes.
3. By giving priority to public passenger transport where appropriate.
4. By working with transport providers and authorities to encourage greater
connectivity between public passenger transport routes.
13.4 Resource management strategy
13.4.1 Context
This part of the Plan focuses on matters that are within the domain of resource
management. The measures adopted within this part of the Plan need to complement and
help give effect to the relevant regional plans and strategies, as well as the council's
transport strategy - Connecting People and Places, and the Gulf Transport Strategy. In
accordance with these other plans and strategies, the Plan adopts measures that integrate
planning, transport and the environment, improve energy efficiency and accessibility and
encourage a multi modal approach to transport.
13.4.2 Wharves
The commercial 7 (wharf) and Matiatia land units provide the relevant land use provisions
for the land behind the wharves throughout the islands. As wharves are a vital component
of the transport infrastructure it is important that this part of the Plan is consistent and
integrated with the relevant provisions that control wharves elsewhere within the Plan.
13.4.3 Airstrips and helipads
The council has included within the Plan designations for the commercial airfields on Great
Barrier. It may also investigate identifying appropriate sites for helipads on inner islands
such as Rakino that do not have regular ferry services. This will provide for their ongoing
Part 10a - Land units: objectives, policies and activity tables
Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Operative 2013 Page 69
8. How to protect the Maori heritage values associated with the site, particularly the
urupa.
10a.18.3 Objectives and policies
10a.18.3.1 Objective
To develop a safe and efficient transport network while maintaining the landscape character
of Matiatia.
Policies
1. By identifying a specific area for the safe and efficient operation of wharf-associated
activities and passenger transport so that these activities have priority over single
occupancy vehicles.
2. By providing for the further development of carparking areas and carparking
buildings and other transport infrastructure where such development will enhance
the safety and efficiency of the transport network at Matiatia.
3. By requiring carparking areas and buildings and other transport infrastructure to be
integrated with the proposed mixed use development (referred to in the objective
below at clause 10a.18.3.2).
4. By providing for the relocation of Ocean View Road if that is necessary to achieve a
safe and efficient road layout, and if road stopping procedures have been
undertaken.
5. By requiring safe and convenient pedestrian walkways between the wharf and the
mixed use development and carparking areas and buildings.
6. By ensuring that medium to large scale carparking areas and carparking buildings
are not located adjoining the esplanade reserve nor are highly visible to those
arriving at Matiatia, in order to avoid adverse effects on the landscape character of
Matiatia.
10a.18.3.2 Objective
To create a safe and attractive mixed use development that will meet the needs of the
residents and visitors using the area while maintaining the landscape character and Maori
heritage values of Matiatia.
Policies
1. By requiring a mix of activities to occur on the site, to meet the needs of both
residents (eg retail, offices and restaurants and cafes) and visitors (eg visitor
accommodation and function facilities).
2. By providing for residential activity so that there are people in the area during both
the day and night.
3. By ensuring that the built environment is designed to be safe and attractive and
does not have adverse effects on the landscape character of Matiatia.
4. By requiring areas of open space to be developed for public use, both within the
mixed use development and adjoining the esplanade reserve, adjacent to the
Matiatia Bay foreshore.
5. By ensuring that the layout of buildings and walkways on the site is clear and easy
to follow for pedestrians and vehicles and is integrated with the carparking areas
and buildings and other transport infrastructure.
10a.18.3.3 Objective
To ensure development at Matiatia does not have adverse effects on natural features and
resources and gives effect to environmental sustainability principles.
Part 10a - Land units: objectives, policies and activity tables
Auckland Council District Plan - Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Operative 2013Page 70
Policies
1. By limiting the use and development that can occur in the wetland area to public
recreation activities and associated structures.
2. By ensuring that the level and nature of activities provided for can be serviced in
terms of water supply and wastewater disposal without resulting in adverse effects
on the environment.
3. By requiring buildings to have a 'low impact' on the environment through the use of
'green building' methods and 'environmentally sustainable design' principles.
10a.18.4 Resource management strategy
The strategy outlined below will provide a framework for the implementation of the final form
of development.
The resource management strategy for Matiatia is to divide the land unit into three different
areas so that each area can be developed and used in different ways.
The areas are as follows:
1. Transport area
The transport area is located directly behind the wharf and ferry building and makes
specific provision for the passenger transport (buses, taxis and other multiple
occupancy vehicles) and wharf associated activities located in this area.
2. Mixed use area
This area is located on the valley floor and is the area that will be redeveloped for a
mixed use development. Threshold controls have been adopted for this area in order
to ensure that the development will contain a mix of activities, some of which will
primarily meet the needs of residents using the area (eg retail, offices and
restaurants and cafes) and some of which will primarily meet the needs of visitors
using the area (eg visitor accommodation and function facilities). Some activities (eg
cafes) will meet the needs of both residents and visitors).
Dwellings are also provided for in the mix of activities. This is because residential
activity ensures that there is a 'people presence' on the site at all times, which in turn
provides a feeling of safety and vitality for those using the area. This feeling of safety
and vitality is especially important for Matiatia as it will create a positive environment
for visitors arriving on Waiheke and for residents using the ferry services.
The built environment of a mixed use development is very important as the buildings
create a 'sense of place' and entice people to use the activities located within the
area. To ensure that buildings are attractive, inviting and maintain the landscape
character of Matiatia, buildings within the mixed use area require consent as a
restricted discretionary activity. The restricted discretionary activity consent process
also provides the opportunity to assess applications for buildings in order to ensure
that they will not have an adverse effect on the urupa at Matiatia.
The development platform for the mixed use activity is placed over Ocean View Road
and the existing carparking areas. This is so that buildings can be located in these
areas if it is found to be necessary and if road stopping procedures have been
undertaken.
Carparking and other transport infrastructure have also been provided for within this
area in recognition that these activities are vital to the transport role of the land unit.
It is, however, recognised that the final form of these activities and the road will need
to be determined in conjunction with the final form of the mixed use development.
The amount of activity provided for in the mixed use development has been set at a
level, by the threshold controls, which can be serviced in terms of water supply and
wastewater disposal. Wastewater from the mixed use development will be treated
and disposed of by the Owhanake wastewater treatment plant located on the upper
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � �
� � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � " # � ! � � $ � % � � � � # � � � ! � � & ' ( � ! � � � � � ! � % � ! % � � � � ) ! � � ! � � � �� � � � ! � � % � � ! * % ! � � � � ! � � % � � ! * � � � + � � � � ) � , � � - � % ! � � � % � ! � . � � / � � � � � � $ � � � � � ! � . % ! / � % � � �� � � % ! � � ! � � � ! + � ) � � � ! � � % � 0 � % 1 - � * � � $ � � � + � � � � 23 % � 4 % 1 - � * � � $ 5 � � + � * � � � 6 � � � % � 7 8 9 ' : 7 ; % � � � < = 5 � 1 - % � � � � � - � � � � � > $ � � . � * ? � � % � � � � � % � 0 � % 1 - � * � � $ � - - � � � � � % � � 2� � � * 1 # � 1 � � � � � � ! � � 1 � : � ; % ! � � 1 � : � ; 2 @ � 1 � : � ; ! � " # � ! � � � � � � > � � + � ! � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � + � *% � � � � � + � ! % � 1 � � � � 1 � � % ! ? ) . � � � � � � 1 � : � ; ! � " # � ! � � � � � � � + � * > � % � � � % � ! � ! * % � � % � A � � � + � �% ! - % � � � � � � % � � � ! � � � + � � - � � � ? 2 B � � � % � 0 � % 1 - � * � � $ � - - � � � � � % � � % � � � % 1 � � % � � % � � � � � � ! � � � � � � � � 6 � � � % � 7 8 9 ' � � � � 1 # � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � % � � � � � % ! . � � � ! � % � � � � � ! � � % � # � � � !6 � � � % � 7 8 9 ) ( � ! C � � � � � % � � ! - ! % + � � � % � � % � � � < = 5 2� � � - ! % - % � � � ! � � � � 1 � � % � � � � � � ! � . % ! / � % � � � � � � % ! � � ! � � � ! + � . � � � ) � # � A � � % � � � 1 - % � � � % � % � � � � � � � � � � + % � � � � � � � � � 1 � � $ � � % � 1 � � � # ! � � % # � � � � � � � ! � � � ! � � � � � ! � - % ! � � � � � ! � � � � � � % � � � � � % � � � � % � � ) � � + � > � % 1 % ! � 1 � � % ! ? � � � � � � 2 3 � � � � ! % � � � � � � � � + � � � � . � � � � � � % � ! � ! * % � � ! � $ � % � � �� � � � � � ! � � - � � � % � A � � � + � � % ! - % � � � � � � ) � � $ � � � ! � � � * % # � � � � � � � � � � ! � - % ! 2D E F F G H I J H K L M I N O P H J L Q L R S T H J K U V Q� � � - ! % - % � � � 1 � ! � � � � � . � � � � � � � ! � � � # � A � � % � � W � # ! � / � X # � � = � ! � � 1 � ( � ! / 5 � : C 8 8 8 ; 2� � � - ! � 1 � ! * - # ! - % � � % � � � 5 � � � 6 � � � % � Y � � � Z[ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d ` a ` e a f d _ d b a f a _ ` ] g ` e a _ d ` h c d i j e ^ k ` ] c ^ l j d _ m n e o k ^ l d i c a k ] h c l a k ] g ` e a p d h c d q ^r h i g j ^ ` k ^ k i d _ m k d _ m l d ` l e f a _ ` k s t� � � 5 � - ! % + � � � % � � $ � � � ! � � � * � # $ 1 � � � % � � % � � � < � � % # ! � � = � � � $ � 1 � � 5 � � � � � � 3 u 4 % � � � �( % � � � * 6 � � 1 � � 2 & � - � ! � � # � � ! ! � � � + � � � � � ! � � � � % � � % . � � $ � # � � � � � % � � % � 6 � � � % � v � � ! � " # � ! � � �1 � � � $ � 1 � � % � � � W � # ! � / � X # � � % ! � � % $ � � � � 1 � � ! � % � � � � % � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � Z\ e a n c ] ` a l ` ^ ] _ d _ m j w e a c a d n n c ] n c ^ d ` a j ` e a a _ e d _ l a f a _ ` ] g ` e a _ d ` h c d i j e ^ k ` ] c ^ l j d _ m n e o k ^ l d ic a k ] h c l a k ] g ` e a p d h c d q ^ r h i g j ^ ` k ^ k i d _ m k j d _ m l d ` l e f a _ ` k x\ e a n c ] ` a l ` ^ ] _ ] g ` e a l h i ` h c d i d _ m e ^ k ` ] c ^ l d k k ] l ^ d ` ^ ] _ k ] g n a ] n i a d _ m l ] f f h _ ^ ` ^ a k ^ _ d _ md c ] h _ m ` e a p d h c d q ^ r h i g w ^ ` e ^ ` k _ d ` h c d i j e ^ k ` ] c ^ l j d _ m n e o k ^ l d i c a k ] h c l a k x\ e a f d ^ _ ` a _ d _ l a d _ m j w e a c a d n n c ] n c ^ d ` a j ` e a a _ e d _ l a f a _ ` ] g ` e a _ d ` h c d i j e ^ k ` ] c ^ l j d _ mn e o k ^ l d i c a k ] h c l a k ] g ` e a p d h c d q ^ r h i g j ^ ` k ^ k i d _ m k j d _ m l d ` l e f a _ ` k j w e ^ l e l ] _ ` c ^ y h ` a ` ] ` e ac a l c a d ` ^ ] _ d _ m a _ z ] o f a _ ` ] g ` e a p d h c d q ^ r h i g g ] c ` e a n a ] n i a ] g ` e a p d h c d q ^ r h i g d _ m { a w| a d i d _ m t5 � % # � � � � � � � 6 � � � % � Y � � - ! % - % � � � 1 � ! � � � . � � � - ! % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # ! � � � � � % ! � � � � �- � * � � � � � ! � � % # ! � � � % � � � X # � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � . � � � � � � � � � % � � ! - ! % + � � � % � � � � � � 5 � 2D E F } ~ Q � S J P H Q Q S J �� � � � % � � % . � � $ � % � < = 5 � � � � � - � � � � � ! � ! � � � + � � % � � 1 � ! � � � - ! % A � � Z= � � � � � ' � ! � � � % � � � ( � � � C 8 8 v= � � � � � � ! � � � - % ! � � % � ( � � � C 8 8 �5 # � / � � � � � ! � � � - % ! ( � � � C 8 8 �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5 # � / � � � � < � $ � % � � � @ � � � � ! � � � - % ! 6 ! � � $ * C 8 7 85 # � / � � � � < � $ � % � � � ( # � � � � � ! � � � - % ! ( � � � C 8 7 8W � # ! � / � X # � � 6 � � % � � � � � + � ! % � 1 � � < � - % ! C 8 7 75 # � / � � � � ( � � � C 8 7 C� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �B � C 8 8 v � � � % ! 1 � ! 5 # � / � � � � 4 � * 4 % # � � � � � � $ � $ � � � $ ! % # - % � � % � � # � � � � % - ! � - � ! � � = � � � � �' � ! � � � % � � � ( � � � 2 4 % # � � � � ! � � % ! � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � . � � � � � � � � � % - ! % + � � � � C 8 * � � ! + � � � % � � % ! � � � # # ! � � � + � � % - 1 � � % � � � = � � � � � � ! � � � � � � � � � � � � % � ) $ � � . � * � � � ! � � � - % ! � # � 2 ' � � � � ! � � > ! � � � � � 1 � � � $ � 1 � � % - � % � � ? � � � > � � + � � % - 1 � � � , � � ? . � ! � � � + � � � $ � � � � � � � > � � � � 1 � � � � � �% + � ! + � � . ? . � � - ! % - % � � � 2� � � � ! � � - � � � . � � - ! � � � � � � % � � � % ! 1 � ! � � � / � / � 4 % 1 1 # � � * � % � ! � � � � # � � C 8 8 � 2 4 % # � � � � � � � �� � + � � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � � � % ! 1 2� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � = � � � � � � ! � � � - % ! � � % � ( � � � . � � � � � � � � � � � C 8 8 � 2 4 % # � � � � ! � � % ! � � � � � � � � � � � . � � � � + � � % - � �� � � � � � � * % � � � ! � � � ! � � � - % ! % - � ! � � % � � � � � � # � � � # � . � � � , - � � � � � % � � � � # � � � % � $ � ! 1 ! � � � - % ! � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � . � � � � % # � % 1 � � % � � � � ! � � = � � � � � ' � ! � � � % � � � ( � � � 2 � � � ! � � % ! � �� � � � � � � � � � � � ! � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � � � % ! � ! 1 � � � % � � % � � � � � � � � � ! % - � ! � � % � % � � � � , � � � � $ - � ! / � � $ � ! � � � � � � � 1 - ! % + � � - � � � � ! � � � � � � � * 2� � � � ! � � - � � � . � � � � � % � % � � � � � ! � � � * � � � % ! 1 � ! � � � / � / � 4 % 1 1 # � � * � % � ! � � � � # � � C 8 8 � 2 4 % # � � � �� � � � � � + � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � � � % ! 1 2� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � 5 # � / � � � � � ! � � � - % ! ( � � � C 8 8 � : 5 � ( ; . � � - ! � - � ! � � � * � � � % ! 1 � ! 5 # � / � � � � < � $ � % � � � � ! � � � - % ! 5 # � % ! � * : 5 < � 5 ; 2 � � � - � � � � % � � � � � � % # ! � � � - � ! � ) � � # 1 � � ! % � � - - � � � � � � � ) � � $ # ! � � ) 1 � - � � � � � � � � � 2 � � � - � � � � � 7 8 * � � ! � % ! . � ! � - � � � � � � $ � % � # 1 � � � � [ y c ^ _ b k ` ] b a ` e a c n c ] z a l ` k ` ] ^ f n i a f a _ `` e a ` c d _ k n ] c ` n ] i ^ l ^ a k ] g ` e a b ] � a c _ f a _ ` d _ m c a b ^ ] _ t s B � � � � # � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � / � * - ! % A � � �� � � � # � � � $ � � � � ! � � � � � � % � % � � � ! � � � � � . % ! / � � � � � � � � $ ! � � � � � / � � � $ � * � � 1 � % ! - # � � � � ! � � � - % ! 24 � � - � ! C ¡ B 1 - � � 1 � � � � % � ( � � � C 8 8 � 0 C 8 7 � ) � � � � # � � � � � � � � % � % � - # � � � � ! � � � - % ! 2 � � � � � � � � / �B � � � � � � � ! ! * � � ! + � � � � � � � � � - � ! � � # � � ! � � = � � � � � � � ! ! * � ! 1 � � � � � � � % 1 � � � % � � � 2 � � � - � � � � % � �� % . � + � ! ! � � � ! % [ d m m ^ ` ^ ] _ d i g a c c o ` a c f ^ _ d i k d _ m k a c � ^ l a k ` ] n c ] � ^ m a d m m ^ ` ^ ] _ d i l d n d l ^ ` o g ] cl ] _ _ a l ` ^ � ^ ` o y o k a d t s 3 % � - � � � � � � � � � � � / � B � � � � � � � � � � - ! % A � � � � ! � � � � � � � � � � 6 � � � % � C 2 Y ¡ � � �¢ � � ! ( � � � 24 � � - � ! 9 ¡ 5 � ( ( ! % $ ! � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � % � > � ! � � $ � � � ! � � ? � % � # � � � � % # � % 1 � � 2 � � � � � 7 7 0 B � � 1 # �� � � � . � � + � � % � # � � � � % # � % 1 � � 2 3 % � � % � � � 1 � � ! � � � � � � � � � � / � B � � � � � � � � � � - � ! � � # � � ! � � ! ! *� � ! + � � � � % � � � � ! % 1 � � = � � � � � � ! � � 2� � � � � � � � � � � � � � £ � ¤ � � � � � ¥ � � � � � � � � � � � � ¦ � � � � � ¤ §� � � < � $ � % � � � @ � � � � ! � � � - % ! 6 ! � � $ * C 8 7 8 0 C 8 9 8 : < @ � 6 ; . � � - ! % � # � � � � * � � � % ! 1 � ! 5 # � / � � � �< � $ � % � � � 4 % # � � � � : 5 < 4 ; � � 5 - ! � � C 8 7 8 2 � � � ! � - % ! � � � � � , � � � - � ! � � � � � � + � ! � � � - - � � � � � � � 2
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¨
4 � � - � ! C ¡ © � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � % # ! - # � � � � ! � � � - % ! � � ! + � � � > � � * � ! � ? ª � � � � $ � < � - � � � ! � � � � 3 � . % ! /: < � 3 ; ) � « # � � � * � ! � � � - % ! 3 � . % ! / : « � 3 ; ) � @ % � � � 4 % � � � � % ! 3 � . % ! / : @ 4 3 ; � � � � � ! $ � � � 6 � ! + � � � �: � 6 ; 24 � � - � ! 9 ¡ � � � 6 ! � � $ * ! � � � ! � % � � « � 3 � � � � � � $ ¬ d _ a ` w ] c q ] g g d k ` e ^ b e g c a h a _ l o d _ m e ^ b e h d i ^ ` o n h y i ^ l ` c d _ k n ] c ` ] n a c d ` ^ _ b y a ` w a a _ l a _ ` c a k t ^ _ l i h m ^ _ b k ] f a g a c c o k a c � ^ l a k 2 ® � � � � � � � � / �B � � � � � � � ! ! * � � ! + � � � � � ! � � % � � � � � ! � � % � � - � ! % � � � « � 3 26 � � � % � 9 2 ¯ 2 Y 0 < % � � % � ( # � � � � � ! � � � - % ! ) � % � � � � � � C 8 8 ° - # � � � � ! � � � - % ! � � � % # � � � � % ! Y 2 � ± % � � � � ! � - � � # � � � � � � , - � � � � % � � � ! � � � � % 7 8 2 Y ± � * C 8 9 8 2 B � � $ � � � $ � � � � � 1 - % ! � � � � % � � � ! ! � � � � % �� # ! ! � � � * � � � � � � � � # # ! � � % � � $ � � * � ! � � � � � % 1 % + � � � ! $ � � # 1 � � ! � % � - � % - � � � � . � � �- % - # � � � % � � � � ! � � 25 - - � � � � , ² 0 ( # � � � � � ! � � � - % ! 6 � ! + � � � X # � � � � � � � � � � � % # � � 1 � � � 1 # 1 � � ! + � � � � � + � � $ # � � � � � � � � � % !< � 3 ) « � 3 � � � @ 4 3 � � ! + � � � � 2 B � ! � � - � � % � « � 3 � # � � � � � � ! ! * > ! � � � � � � � � * � � � - # � � # � � � * ? � � 2 � ± % �� � ! + � � � � � ! � � , - � � � � % � � % - � ! � � � � � � � � � � # � � � � � � � ³ ± . � � � � ³ 1 � � # � � % � � � � � � # � � 2� � � � � ´ � � � � � � � � £ � ¤ � � � � � � � µ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � 5 # � / � � � � < � $ � % � � � ( # � � � � � ! � � � - % ! ( � � � C 8 7 8 : 5 < ( � ( ; . � � - ! � - � ! � � � * 5 < � 5 � � � # � � C 8 7 8 2 � � �- � � � � � � � � + � � � � � - � ! � � � � ! � � � � � � - - � � � � � � � 2 B . � � - ! � - � ! � � # � � � ! � � ( # � � � � � ! � � � - % ! = � � � $ � 1 � � 5 � C 8 8 v � � � ¬ k n a l ^ g ^ a k ` e a n h y i ^ l ` c d _ k n ] c ` k a c � ^ l a k w e ^ l e ¶ · \ ¶ n c ] n ] k a k g ] c ` e ac a b ^ ] _ d _ m ` e a n ] i ^ l ^ a k w e ^ l e d n n i o ` ] ` e ] k a k a c � ^ l a k t s4 � � - � ! Y 0 � ! � � � � % ! 1 � � $ 6 ! � � $ � � 4 % � � , ) % # � � � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � � � � � � � + � � % � 1 - ! % + � � � � � . % ! / 26 � � � % � Y 2 C 2 ³ 0 B 1 - ! % + � � $ � � B � � ! � � ! # � # ! � ) � � � � > � � ! ! * ? � % 1 - % � � � � � � � � � � ! � � � � . % ! � � � � � � � �� � ! ! * � ! 1 � � � � � 2 = � � � � � � � � % % � � % � � � 1 2 W % . � + � ! � � � � � 1 � � � � � % � � % � � � % � � � � 1 - % ! � � � �% � � � � , � � � � $ � � � ! � � ! # � # ! � � � � � � � � � % ! - ! % $ ! � � � � + � � 1 - ! % + � 1 � � � 2 B � � � � ª¬ ¶ l ] f n c a e a _ k ^ � a ^ _ ` a b c d ` a m n d k k a _ b a c ` c d _ k n ] c ` k o k ` a f f h k ` y a k h n n ] c ` a m y o ^ _ g c d k ` c h l ` h c a ` ]f d q a n d k k a _ b a c ` c d _ k g a c k a d k o d _ m ` ] n c ] � ^ m a c a i ^ d y i a ` c d � a i ` ^ f a k s tB $ % � � % � % � % � Z[ \ c d _ k n ] c ` ^ _ ` a c l e d _ b a g d l ^ i ^ ` ^ a k d ` · \ { k ` d ` ^ ] _ k d _ m f d z ] c _ ] m a k ] _ ` e a ¸ \ { w ^ i i g d l ^ i ^ ` d ` a n d k k a _ b a c` c d _ k g a c y o c a m h l ^ _ b ` c d _ k g a c m ^ k ` d _ l a d _ m ` ^ f a j n c ] � ^ _ b d k d g a c a _ � ^ c ] _ f a _ ` g ] c w d ^ ` ^ _ b d _ mn d k k a _ b a c f ] � a f a _ ` k d _ m b ^ � ^ _ b d l l a k k ` ] ` c d _ k n ] c ` ^ _ g ] c f d ` ^ ] _ d _ m ` c ^ n n i d _ _ ^ _ b e a i n t s� � � = � � � � � . � � ! � � � � � � ! ! * � ! 1 � � � � � � � 1 � A % ! « � 3 � % � � 2 B � � � % � � � � � � % � � @ 4 3 % � � # � � � ) � , � �� � � % � � ! � � ! + � � � � 24 � � - � ! 9 ¡ ( # � � � � � ! � � � - % ! & � A � � � + � � ) � � � � � � � � � . � � + � % � A � � � + � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¬ ` ] h _ m a c n ^ _` e a · ¹ \ º d _ m k h n n ] c ` ` e a k ` c d ` a b ^ l m ^ c a l ` ^ ] _ g ] c n h y i ^ l ` c d _ k n ] c ` t ® 2 ² � ! ! * � � ! + � � � � � � � � � - � ! � � # � � ! � % � � � � ! + � � $ � � � � � / � B � � � � � ) � ! � � % � - � � � � � � � � � * 1 � � � % � � � � # � ! � � � � � ! � � � * - � ! % � % ! � � � / � � %� � + � ! � � % � � � % � A � � � + � � 2 & � - � ! � � # � � ! � % � � ! � & � A � � � + � C ¬ d _ ^ _ ` a b c d ` a m _ a ` w ] c q ] g k a c � ^ l a k ` e d `f d q a k ^ _ ` a c l e d _ b a y a ` w a a _ d _ m w ^ ` e ^ _ f ] m a k a d k o ® � � � & � A � � � + � � ¬ d e ^ b e k ` d _ m d c m ] g ` c d _ k n ] c `^ _ g c d k ` c h l ` h c a ® 2 � � � � , - � � � � � % � % � � � � � ! % � A � � � + � ! � � � ! � % s w a i i m a k ^ b _ a m d _ m w a i if d ^ _ ` d ^ _ a m t t g a c c o ` a c f ^ _ d i k t s t4 � � - � ! ³ 0 ( % � � � � � � » 5 � � % � � � � � 1 % ! � � � � � � � � - ! % + � � � % � � � � � � � � � # � � � � � � % � � % . � � $ ! � � � ! � � � � � %� � ! ! * � � ! + � � � � Z
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¼
½ t ¾ ¿ { a ` w ] c q º ` c h l ` h c aÀ ] i ^ l o ¾ t ½ ¿ ¬ Á f n c ] � a m d l l a k k ` ] t g a c c o ` a c f ^ _ d i k s . � � � ! � � > � � � % � � ? � % � � ª � � �À ] i ^ l o ¾ t ¾  ¡ ¬ º a c � ^ l a k ` ] p d h c d q ^ r h i g Á k i d _ m k d _ m ® . � � � ! � � � � � % � � ) � � � � # � � � $ ¬ g d l ^ i ^ ` d ` a g a c c ok a c � ^ l a k ` ] p d h c d q ^ r h i g Á k i d _ m k t ®= � � * % � � � % � � ! 4 � � - � ! ³ - % � � � � � � � � � � � � % � � � ! � � � ! � � � * � - - � � � � � � � % � � � � ! ! * � � � % � � ! - # � � � � ! � � � - % ! � � ! + � � � � � � � ! � � � � � � � = � � � � � 2 � � � � � � � � � # � � ( % � � � * � � ³ 2 C 0 3 � . % ! / B � � $ ! � � % � ). � � � � � � � � # � � � � � # ! ! � � � � ! ! * ) � # � � � � - � ! / � � � ! � � � � � ! + � � � � 2 ( % � � � * � � ³ 2 9 ¡ 6 � ! + � � � < � � � � � � � � * ) � � �( % � � � * � � ³ 2 � ¡ B � � ! � � ! # � # ! � � ! � � � � % ! � � � + � � 25 - - � � � � , Y ¡ ' � � � � � � 6 � ! + � � � ' � � � ! � - � % � � ) � % � � � � � � � � % ! 1 � � % � % � � � � # ! ! � � � � � � � / � � � � � � � � � ! ! *� � ! + � � � � ) � � � � # � � � $ � � � ! > � ! � " # � � � * ? � � � > � � ! + � � � - � ! � % � ? 2� � � � � Ã Ä � � � � � � Å � � Æ ¦ � � � � � Æ � Ç � È � É � � � � Ê � � � £ � � � � �� � � W � # ! � / � X # � � 6 � � % � � � � � + � ! % � 1 � � < � - % ! : C 8 7 7 ; . � � - ! % � # � � � � * � � W � # ! � / � X # � � ² % ! # 1 2� � � � % ! # 1 . � � � � � � � � � � � � # � � � ! � � W � # ! � / � = � ! � � 1 � ( � ! / 5 � � � � � � 1 � � � % � ! � - ! � � � � � � + � � % �� % � � � � � � ! � $ � % � � � 4 % # � � � � � ) � � � ! � � $ % + � ! � 1 � � : ' % 4 ) = � % ! � 5 � � � � ! � ) � � � = � � � � ! * % � ² � � � � ! � � � ; � � � � � $ � � . � � � # � 2 B � � � � � # � � � 1 � 1 � � � $ � ! � � � � � � - # � � � � � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � ! � - % ! � % � � 1 - � � 1 � � � � $ � � 5 � 2� � � 6 � � % � � � � � + � ! % � 1 � � < � - % ! � � � � � � ! � % � � � ! � " # � ! � � ! � 0 � � � # � � ! � - % ! � � � ! � � � � � � � � � � � * � � $ ¬ n c ] b c a k k ] _ ` ] w d c m k ^ _ ` a b c d ` a m f d _ d b a f a _ ` d _ m c a k n ] _ k a k ` ] n c ^ ] c ^ ` ^ k a m k ` c d ` a b ^ l^ k k h a k ® 2 � � � ! � - % ! � � � � � + � � � � � - � ! � � � % � $ . � � � 4 � � � ! 1 � � ? � � % ! . � ! � � � � � , � � # � + � � # 1 1 � ! * 24 � � - � ! Y 0 � � � X # � � ) � % � � � � � � # ! ! � � � � � � � � % ! � � � � ! � � � � � � % ! 1 � � % � % � � � � � � # ! � � � � � + � � # � � % � � � $ # � � ) 1 # � � % � . � � � � � � ! � � � + � � % � � 1 � ! � � � - ! % A � � 2 & � - � ! � � # � � ! � % � � ! � � � � � � � % � � % �$ � % � % $ * ) � # ! ! � � � � � � � � ! � # � � � % � � � � � 1 � � � ) ! � � � � � � � � � $ # � � � � % � * � � 1 2 6 % 1 � % � � � � � � % ! 1 � � % �� � � � � � � � � % � � � � � � � � � � � ( % * � � ! � � % � % $ * ! � - % ! 24 � � - � ! 9 0 � � + � ! % � 1 � � � � B � � � � � % ! � ) � � � % � � � � � % % � + � � # � � � � � � � % ! 1 � � % � � � � � � � � � � 1 � � � % �� # ! � � � � � - # � ) � � � � 1 � � � � % � ) . � � ! " # � � � * ) � � � � � ! � � � ) � � � � � % � � + � ! � � * � � � ! � ! � � � + � � % � �1 � ! � � � - ! % A � � 2 5 � � � % + � � % 1 � % � � � � � � � % ! 1 � � % � � � � � � � � � � 1 � � . % ! / � � � � � � � � � � ( % * � � !! � - % ! 2 6 � � � % � 9 2 7 8 0 4 % � � � � ' � + � � % - 1 � � � % � � ) � � � � � $ � � � � � $ ) � 1 % � $ � � � � � � % ! � � � � � � � � $� % � � � � � � + � � % - 1 � � ¬ f ] m ^ g ^ l d ` ^ ] _ ] g _ d ` h c d i l ] d k ` i ^ _ a ` e c ] h b e c a l i d f d ` ^ ] _ d _ m l ] _ k ` c h l ` ^ ] _ ] gf d c ^ _ d k ® 2 � � � ! � � % � � � � � � � � % � % � # � % � � � - ! � � � # ! � % � � � � # ! ! % # � � � � $ � � � � 1 � � � � ! % 1! � � � � � � � � � � � + � � % - 1 � � ) � % � � % � � � 1 - � � $ $ ! % # � � � � � � % � � ! � � � % ! � 24 � � - � ! ³ 0 < � � � � ! � � X � - � » & - - % ! # � � � � � ) 4 � � - � ! ° ¡ � � � $ � � � � � � # � � � � 4 � � - � ! ¯ 0 < � � - % � � � % 6 ! � � $ � � B � � # � � ) � % � � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � + � � # � � � � � � � � $ � � � � � � � � � � � + � � 2 6 � � � % � ¯ 2 7 8 ¡ 4 % � � � �' � + � � % - 1 � � ) � � $ � � � $ � � � � � # 1 # � � � + � � 1 - � � % � � � + � � % - 1 � � % � � � $ # � � � � % � % $ * � � � � � � � � � � - � � 2B � � � % ! � � � ! � % ! � � � + � � < = 5 � � � � � - � � � � � � � � � - ! % - % � � � 5 # � / � � � � 6 - � � � � ( � � � 2� � � � � Ë � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � 5 # � / � � � � ( � � � . � � - ! % � # � � � � � � � � % ! � � � � � . � � - ! % + � � � % � � � � � � @ % � � � X % + � ! � 1 � � 5 � � � ! � " # � ! � � � 5 # � / � � � � 4 % # � � � � - ! % � # � � � > � - � � � � ? % $ # � � � � # # ! � $ ! % . � � � � � � + � � % - 1 � � % � � � � ! � �% + � ! � � � � , Y 8 * � � ! � 2 � � � - � � � � � � � � � � � � % 1 � / � 5 # � / � � � � > � � � + � � � � � ! - � � � � � � � � � � � % .� � � � ! � � � � � . % ! � � ? � 1 % � � � + � � � � � � � * ? 2 B . � � � � % - � � � * � � 4 % # � � � � � � � ! � - ! % � � � � % �� % 1 1 # � � * � % � � # � � � % � ) � � = � ! � � C 8 7 C 2
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
= � - ¯ 2 C 0 6 � $ � � � � � � � < � � ! � � � % � � � � ( # � � � � & - � � 6 - � � � 5 ! � � � ) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! W � # ! � / � X # � � � ! � �� � � � # � � � $ � � . � � ! � � ! % # � � � � � � � / � B � � � � � � � � - � � � � % � > � � $ � 1 � ! � � 1 � ! � � ! � � � % � � � # � � � % ! � � � � � � $� � � � % � � � $ ? 24 � � - � ! ³ 0 5 # � / � � � � ? � < � � ! � � � % � � � � 6 - % ! ) � % � � � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � ! � � � + � � > - ! � % ! � � � � ? 2 � � � � �� � � � # � � ( ! � % ! � * Y ) ¬ Ì d Í ^ f ^ k a ` e a l ] _ ` c ^ y h ` ^ ] _ ] g c a l c a d ` ^ ] _ d _ m k n ] c ` ` ] ¶ h l q i d _ m Î k a l ] _ ] f ^ ln c ] k n a c ^ ` o ® 2 B � � � � ! � $ � ! � 4 � � # � � Y ° C � % � � ¬ \ e a c a l c a d ` ^ ] _ d i f d c ^ _ a ^ _ m h k ` c o ^ k d _ ] ` e a c f d z ] cl ] _ ` c ^ y h ` ] c ` ] ] h c a l ] _ ] f o j w ^ ` e Ï Â Ð ] g { a w | a d i d _ m Î k f d c ^ _ a l ] f n d _ ^ a k y d k a m ^ _ ¶ h l q i d _ m d _ ml ] _ ` c ^ y h ` ^ _ b Ñ ¾ Ò Ó f ^ i i ^ ] _ ` ] ¶ h l q i d _ m Î k r Ô À t · a l c a d ` ^ ] _ d i y ] d ` ^ _ b j ^ _ l i h m ^ _ b q d o d q ^ _ b j k d ^ i ^ _ b d _ mn ] w a c y ] d ` ^ _ b j ^ k a Í n a l ` a m ` ] l ] _ ` ^ _ h a d k d l ] _ ` c ^ y h ` ] c ` ] ` e a ¶ h l q i d _ m a l ] _ ] f o 2 ®4 � � - � ! 7 C 0 5 # � / � � � � ? � ( � * � � � � � � � � 6 % � � � � B � � ! � � ! # � # ! � ) � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � ! � � � + � � - ! � % ! � � � � )� � � � # � � � $ ( ! � % ! � * C ¬ À c ] ` a l ` j a _ d y i a j d i ^ b _ j ^ _ ` a b c d ` a d _ m n c ] � ^ m a k ] l ^ d i d _ m l ] f f h _ ^ ` o ^ _ g c d k ` c h l ` h c ag ] c n c a k a _ ` d _ m g h ` h c a b a _ a c d ` ^ ] _ k ® 2 B � � � � % � � , % � � � 5 # � / � � � � 0 . � � � > " # � � � * % � � � � � ? ) ' � ! � � � + �7 C 2 v � � � / � % ¬ Ì d ^ _ ` d ^ _ d _ m a Í ` a _ m ` e a n h y i ^ l ] n a _ k n d l a _ a ` w ] c q j k n ] c ` ^ _ b g d l ^ i ^ ` ^ a k j k w ^ f f ^ _ bn ] ] i k j w d i q w d o k d _ m ` c d ^ i k j d _ m c a l c a d ` ^ ] _ d i y ] d ` ^ _ b g d l ^ i ^ ` ^ a k ^ _ i ^ _ a w ^ ` e b c ] w ` e _ a a m k t ® � � � = � � � � �1 � ! � � � - ! % A � � � � � � � � � � � + � � % - � � . � � � # � ! � $ � ! � % � � 5 # � / � � � � ( � � � 2 � � � 1 � ! � � � . � � � � � � % � � � �� � � � � ! � � % � � � $ � ! � � ! � � � % � � � � % � � � $ ) � . � � � � # - - % ! � � � � % � % 1 � � � � � * � 1 - % ! � � ! � � ! � � � % � � �1 � ! � � � � � � # � ! * ) � � � � . � � � � � � - � � � ! � � � � # ! ! � � � � � � # # ! � � % � > 1 % % ! � � $ ? � � � � � % � � � W � # ! � / � X # � � 2D E F Õ Ö × Ø � I N Q H Q L × Ø Ù Ö × Ø � L Ú S J H Q L × Ø × O U O O S V Q S Ú T H J Q L S �� � � � � � £ � � � � � É � � � � � � Û Ü � � � � � � � � � � � Ý É � � É � � Þ6 � � � � # � � 9 % � � 5 � � � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � 1 � � ! � � � � � % # � � � � � � � � # � � � � � � � 5 � � 2� � � * � � � � # � � � � � % � � % . � � $ Z[ ^ m a _ ` ^ g ^ l d ` ^ ] _ ] g ` e a n d c ` ^ a k d g g a l ` a m y o ` e a n c ] n ] k d i j ` e a l ] _ k h i ` d ` ^ ] _ h _ m a c ` d q a _ j ^ g d _ o j d _ md _ o c a k n ] _ k a ` ] ` e a � ^ a w k ] g ` e a d _ o n a c k ] _ l ] _ k h i ` a m 2 ®4 % � � # � � � % � . � � > � � � � � � � ? - � ! � � � 2 � � % � $ . � � � % � � - � ! � � � . � � � � � ! � � � � � � � - ! % A � � � � $ � � � �� � ! � * C 8 8 � � � � ! � � � � � % � � � � ! � � � ! C 8 7 7 1 � ! � � � � � � � $ � 2' # ! � � $ � � C 8 8 � 0 C 8 7 7 - � ! � % � � � # 1 � � ! % � - � ! � � � . � ! � � % � � � � � � * � 1 � � � ) � � � ! � � � ß % ! - � % � � � � �� � # 1 � � ! % � 1 � � � � $ � � � � � 2 ² % � � % . � � $ . � � � ! � . � % � � � � - - � � � � � % � � � % ! � � C 8 7 7 - ! % A � � � � # 1 � � !% � - � ! � � � . � % ! � � � � � � % � � � ! � � � � % # � � 1 � ! � � � � � � � $ � � � � ! 1 � % � � � ! ! * . � / � � ) . � + � � � � 1 � � � � �� % � � � + � $ � � % � � � � � � � � * . � ! � � % � � � � � � � � � � � � # � � � % � � � � � � 2 ' ! � � - � � � � . � ! � � � + � � % - � � � � �! � � � � � � � # ! � � $ C 8 7 C � � � � � ! � * C 8 7 Y 2à á á â ã ä å æ ç � % � � � � � � % - � � � % � ! � � � + � � � % ! ! � � - % � � � � � � � ! % 1 � = @ � � � � � � � + � � % ! � ) � � % � $ . � �! � � - % � � � � � ! % 1 � % 1 � % � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! � � � � - � ! � � � % + � ! � � � % # ! * � � ! - � ! � % � 2 � � �� % � � # � � � % � - ! % � � � � � � � � % � # � � � % � � % � � - � ! � � � . � % � ! � � % � � � � � ! � � % � � > � � � � � � � ? � * � � - ! % A � � 2W % . � + � ! � � � % ! � � � � � � � 1 � � � % � % � � � � � # 1 � � ! % � . � � � ! > � � � ! � � � � ? - � ! � � � � � % # � � � � � � � � �! � � % � � � � � � � � % � 2� � � ! � � % ! � % � � % � � # � � � % � � � � � # � � � � % 1 � ! � � � + � � 1 � � ! � � � � ! % 1 � � � � ! � � � ! C 8 7 7 1 � ! � � � - ! % A � � 2� � � � � � � � � � # � � � � C 8 7 Y ! � + � � � � 1 � ! � � � � � * % # � � � � 1 � � � ! � � � � # 1 � � ! % � ! � � - � � � ) . � � � � - ! � � � � - � �� � � � � ! � � � � � � � � � $ � � ! % � / � ! � � / . � � ! � � � � � � � � � % � � � - � � � 1 % % ! � � $ � � % ! � � � � � � � 1 % % ! � � $ � % � � � ! � 2