resource consent report for a non-...

Application: Devonport Marine Square and Wharf Coastal Permit: 38052, Land Use Consent: LT-2132786

of 94

RESOURCE CONSENT REPORT FOR A NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITY RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION UNDER THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

1 APPLICATION SUMMARY

Auckland Council: Regional and Local Planning (applicant), proposes to undertake an upgrade of Devonport Marine Square and Devonport Wharf (proposed upgrade) which will involve the realignment of pedestrian access from Devonport township to the wharf, provision of a new boardwalk access to the wharf, tree removal and landscaping adjacent to the wharf and the redevelopment of the existing carparking and bus stops.

The application is being processed as an integrated coastal permit and land use consent, and has been publicly notified.

1.1 Application and Property Details

Consent Application Numbers: Land Use Consent: LT-2132786

Coastal Permit: 38052

Reporting Planners:

Sarah Haarhoff (Land Use)

Consultant Planner, Blakey Scott Planning Ltd

Robert Scott (Coastal Permit)

Consultant Planner, Blakey Scott Planning Ltd

Site Address: Queens Parade (Road), 3 Queens Parade (Marine Square), Devonport Wharf, Devonport.

Applicant's Name: Auckland Council: Regional and Local Planning

Agent’s Details:

Tonkin & Taylor

PO Box 5271

Wellesley Street

Auckland 1141

Attention: Catherine Reaburn

Lodgement Date: 15 October 2010

Notification Date: 26 January 2011

Submissions Close Date: 11 March 2011 (extended at applicant's request)

Number of Submissions Received: Total submissions: 39 (4 of which were late submissions)

Submissions in opposition: 24

Submissions in support: 9


of 94

Submissions in support or opposition in part: 4

Neutral submissions: 2

15 submitters wish to be heard

Two submissions were withdrawn after the close of submissions

Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 22936, CT NA616/104 (Marine Square)

Lot 1 DP 135207, CT NA79D/200 (Devonport Wharf)

Site Area: 4,717m2 (Marine Square)

11,444m2 (Devonport Wharf)

Operative Plan(s):

District Plan:

Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section)

(District Plan)

Regional Plan:

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal

(Regional Plan: Coastal)

Zoning:

District Plan:

Recreation 1 & Road

Regional Plan: Coastal:

Port Management Area 5: Devonport

See Attachment 1 for relevant planning maps

Special features or overlays:

District Plan:

Coastal Conservation Area

Foreshore Yard – 9m

Volcanic Cone View Protection (9m height)

Significant Views (22,25)

Stormwater Management Area 5

Category A scheduled items - (323) E.W. Allison Memorial and Clock, and (329) Commemorative Sea Wall

The site is identified on Council’s GIS as being subject to coastal inundation, is a flood sensitive area and contains flood plains

Victoria Road: District Arterial

Queens Parade: Collector Route

Regional Plan: Coastal:

Cultural Heritage Schedule (252) – King Edward Parade Commemorative & Queen’s Parade Seawall (Commemorative Seawall)

Outstanding Landscape (Rating 6)


of 94

See Attachment 1 for Special Features Maps

Map Reference (NZTM): Easting: 1760185.76, Northing: 5922199.62

Date of Site Visits: January 2011

May 2011

Date Requested Date Received Section 92 request:

5 November 2010

11 November 2010

28 March 2011

20 July 2011

26 September 2011

5 January 2011

5 January 2011

27 June 2011

26 August 2011

28 October 2011, 28 November 2011

1.2 Locality Plan

Figure 1: Devonport Marine Square and Wharf, Source: Auckland Council GIS Viewer)

1.3 Current Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)

The following information forms the current application:

Application Form and Assessment of Effects on the Environment (the AEE) prepared by Tonkin & Taylor dated October 2010 and entitled ‘Devonport Marine Square Assessment of Effects on the Environment’ (partly superceded as detailed in Section 2.3.3) (refer Attachment 2 for a copy of the AEE as lodged);

Section 92 and Further Information Correspondence (some sections of which are superseded, as further detailed in Section 1.4);


of 94

Title Prepared by Date Located

Devonport Marine Square Upgrade - LT-21327861

Catherine Reaburn, Tonkin and Taylor

21 December 2010

Attachment 3



21 December 2010

Attachment 3 (same as above)

Devonport Marine Square Upgrade - Section 92 Response - Application Numbers 38052 and LT-2132786


27 June 2011 Attachment 4

Email titled Re: Fw: Devonport Marine Square - 38052 and LT - 21323786


18 August 2011

Attachment 5

Devonport Marine Square Upgrade - Section 92 Response - Lt - 2132786


26 August 2011

Attachment 6

Devonport Marine Square Catherine Reaburn, Tonkin and Taylor

28 October 2011

Attachment 7

Email titled FW: Devonport Marine Square - Bus Survey Capacity


24 November 2011

Attachment 7

Specialist Reports and Correspondence (most current revisions):

Specialist Report Title Prepared by Date/Rev Located

Integrated Transport Assessment Report

Lee Pike, Traffic Design Group

October 2010 (Final)

Appendix 6 of AEE (Attachment 2)

Devonport Marine Square Upgrade Landscape Report

Isthmus Group Ltd 20 December 2010 (Final, revised)

s92 response 21 December 2010 (Attachment 3)

Devonport Marine Square Section 92 Response: Construction Noise Assessment

Marshall Day Acoustics 23 December 2010 (R01)


Archaeological Assessment of Devonport Marine Landing

Russell Gibb, Geometria Ltd

6 May 2011 (Final)

S92 response 27 June 2011 (Attachment 4)

Devonport Marine Square Redevelopment Heritage Issues

Jeremy Salmond, Salmond Reed Architects Ltd

8 June 2011 S92 response 27 June 2011 (Attachment 4)

Arboricultural Assessment Report Marine Square Development

Karl Burgisser, Arborlab Consultancy Services Ltd

June 2011 S92 response 27 June 2011 (Attachment 4)

Marine Square Devonport Company Quotes and Cost Analysis


29 July 2011 S92 response 26 August 2011 (Attachment 6)

Specifications Planting and Trees Isthmus Group Ltd 2 August 2011

S92 response 26 August 2011 (Attachment 6)

Marine Square Development Devonport Assessment of Effects on Heritage Values


26 October 2011

Letter dated 28 October 2011 (Attachment 7)

1 Reply to Coastal Permit s92 request dated 5 November 2011 2 Reply to Land Use s92 request dated 11 November 2011


of 94

Application Plans and Diagrams (most current revisions):

Reference Title Architect/Author

Date Located

RP 01 (Rev 01) Resource Consent Plan

Isthmus September 2010 Appendix D of AEE (Attachment 2)

RP 02 (Rev 01) Resource Consent Plan/Detail


SP 01 (Rev 01) Staging Drawing – Stage 1






PA 01 (Rev 01) Pedestrian Access During Wharf Construction


PA 02 (Rev 01) Pedestrian Access Post Wharf Construction


Devonport Marine Square Carpark Lighting (Rev B)

16 September 2010

Appendix D of AEE (Attachment 2)

103 (Rev 01) Earthworks Plan Isthmus September 2010 Appendix E of AEE (Attachment 2)

26 Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet 1

Isthmus September 2010 Appendix E of AEE (Attachment 2)

101 (Rev 01) Stormwater Plan Pre-Development Catchment


102 (Rev 01) Stormwater Plan Post-Development Catchment


202 (Rev 04) Boardwalk Proposed Site Plan

Isthmus April 2010 Appendix E of AEE (Attachment 2)

203 (Rev 04) Boardwalk Proposed Sub-Floor Plan

Isthmus April 2010 Appendix E of AEE (Attachment 2)

204 (Rev 04) Boardwalk Sections Isthmus April 2010 Appendix E of AEE (Attachment 2)

10575A6A Potential Long-Term Parking Layout

Isthmus 3 March 2011 Email dated 18 August 2011 (Attachment 5)

D 4.01 (Rev 0) Softworks Details Isthmus 17 December 2010


Figures 1-12 Marine Square Devonport

Isthmus N/A Appendix F of AEE (Attachment 2)

Figure 13 Existing Park Conditions Marine Square Devonport

Isthmus Received 28 October 2011


Figure 14 Proposed Park Conditions Marine Square Devonport



Figure 15 Parking Strategy Marine Square Devonport




of 94

N/A Parking Survey Maps

N/A Received 28 October 2011


TS 01 (Rev 5) Tree Strategy Drawing

Isthmus February 2012 (Attachment 8)

1.4 Superseded Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)

Superseded Further Information

Several sections of the further information letters prepared by Catherine Reaburn of Tonkin and Taylor have been superseded during the consent process, as further outlined in section 2.3.3 of this report. In particular the superseded sections are as follows:

Title Prepared by Date Superseded Sections

Located



21 December 2010

Arborist Attachment 3



18 August 2011 All, except first line Attachment 5

Superseded Specialist Reports:

Specialist Report Title Prepared by Date/Rev Located


Isthmus September 2010 Appendix F of AEE (Attachment 2)



16 December 2010


Superseded Application Plans and Diagrams:

Reference Title Architect/Author Date Located


Isthmus September 2010

AEE (Attachment 2)


Isthmus December 2010



Isthmus August 2011



Isthmus October 2011


3 Reply to Land Use s92 request dated 11 November 2011


of 94

1.5 Specialist Reviews

The information has been reviewed and assessed by the following person(s):

Name Title/Position Organisation Located:

Melvyn Moraes Development Engineer Auckland Council Attachment 9 Bin Qiu Environmental Health

Officer Auckland Council Attachment 10

Jon Styles Director and Principal Styles Group Attachment 11 Warren Budd Senior Traffic Engineer

(North) Auckland Transport Attachment 12

Sarah Lindsay Principal Specialist Architecture

Auckland Council Attachment 13

Chris Boucher Consultant Aborist Consultant Arborist Attachment 14 Stephen Brown Landscape Architect Brown NZ Ltd Attachment 15 Jeremy Froger Landscape Architect Brown NZ Ltd Attachment 16 Bryan Bennett Heritage Specialist Auckland Council Attachment 17 Vanessa Tanner Senior Archaeologist Auckland Council Attachment 18 Peter Nagels Consents Engineer

Stormwater Auckland Council Attachment 19

2 THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

2.1 Proposal

The applicant proposes to upgrade the pedestrian, car parking and public transport links between Devonport township and the Devonport Wharf (including Marine Square) and to improve the amenities of the entrance space to Devonport Wharf. Sections 1.0 - 5.0 of the AEE outlines the proposal in more detail, including the rationale behind the proposed works, and the consideration given to alternatives (refer Attachment 2).

2.1.1 Proposed Works to Marine Square (on Land)

The proposal involves the redevelopment of the existing Marine Square layout and design, specifically including:

The realignment of the existing pedestrian access to create a straight and clear pedestrian linkage to the wharf from the corner of Victoria Road and Queens Parade. This linkage is referenced in the AEE as 'the landing' and will be constructed of a continuous raised speed table of concrete panels, to replace the current numerous pedestrian crossings which provide access across the square;

Creation of two new pedestrian priority (zebra) crossings, one on Queens Parade and the second on Wynyard Street;

Creation of additional footpaths within Marine Square to link the Wynyard Street/Queens Parade pedestrian priority crossing and intersection;

Removal of 34 carparking spaces, resulting in 169 parking spaces overall, comprised of the following:

o 96 P24 hour spaces (a reduction of 43 spaces);

o 61 P180 spaces (an increase of 30 spaces);

o Six P60 spaces (an increase of three spaces);


of 94

o Six P5 spaces (all new);

Establishment of one more bus parking bay, approximately three additional cycle stands, and a total of three accessibility spaces;

Construction of a new mountable roundabout at the intersection of Victoria Road and Queens Parade to replace the existing street sign pole and rock base (which will be relocated to the landscaped areas);

The removal of nine pohutukawa trees (Trees 4-124);

The relocation of two pohutukawa trees (Trees 2 and 3) and two Washingtonia palm trees (Trees 13-15) within the square;

Works within the drip line of one pohutukawa tree (Tree 1);

Landscaping islands within the square involving rain gardens (southernmost island only), flower beds and the planting of 10 specimen grade pohutukawa trees;

The establishment of 18 new streetlamps, seating and rubbish bins within the square (which is within a Coastal Conservation Area and a flood plain and flood sensitive area);

Earthworks across a total area of 8,015m2 (which will be within flood plains and overland flow paths, and partially within the Foreshore Yard). A total of 97m2 of earthworks will relate to reinstating redundant planting beds, whereby the beds will be excavated to subgrade level and reinstated with paving. 673m2 of the earthworks will

comprise excavation required for the new planting beds/islands which will be excavated to a depth of 0.6m and filled with topsoil. The remaining area relates to removal and reinstatement of road surface and footpaths.

New paving consisting of a combination of block paving, asphalt and concrete in pedestrian areas and renewal of the existing road surface with new asphalt;

Non-compliance with the New Zealand Standard for construction noise due to the period over which the works will be undertaken; and

Works on the scheduled Commemorative Seawall will be required to construct the proposed timber boardwalk and will include dis-establishing part of the wall and handrail during the works period. The wall will be re-established to the level of the square, with 8m of the heritage handrail removed. The boardwalk in the CMA will be constructed to abut the seawall.

The works will be undertaken in three four-month stages over a 12 month period. Stage 1 will comprise of construction of the boardwalk in the coastal marine area (CMA) (see Section 2.1.3 below), redevelopment of the southernmost and northern most areas of Marine Square, including the new roundabout and footpaths. Stage 2 will involve completion of the boardwalk, upgrade of the northern parking island and northernmost parking layout alteration. Stage 3 will involve upgrade of the southern parking island and associated carparking layout, including raingardens, tree relocation and landscaping. The proposed construction hours are from 7am-7pm Monday to Saturday over the works period.

Pedestrian access through the square will be limited during the 12 month works period for safety reasons, and the public will be directed to follow a ring path around the square to access the wharf and beach. Areas of existing public carparking will be unavailable for use during the various stages however, traffic will generally be able to circulate around the square throughout the works.

4 Refer to numbering system contained in Arborist Report at Attachment 4 (Section 92 response 27 June 2011), and on Tree Strategy Drawing (Attachment 8)


of 94

The historic flower beds in the eastern portion of the square will not be altered by the proposal, nor will the scheduled E.W. Allison Memorial and Clock.

2.1.2 Proposed Works to Devonport Wharf (within the Coastal Marine Area)

The proposed works within the CMA comprise:

The construction of a 706m² triangular shaped timber boardwalk (including 22 piles) to the east of the existing wharf;

The removal of 8m of handrail above the Commemorative Seawall to enable pedestrian access onto the proposed boardwalk;

Removal of part of the existing seawall to install piles and beams for the proposed timber boardwalk, and reinstatement of the seawall with existing facing stones upon completion; and

Construction of a temporary ramp to the beach using 22m³ of sand from the existing beach and subsequent beach reinstatement.

The applicant ultimately proposes to integrate the existing wharf building with the proposed boardwalk with windows and opening doors directly onto the boardwalk. However, this is not proposed as part of this application. No other activities, other than public access and recreational use of the boardwalk, are proposed at this stage (although retail activity, cafes and restaurants are a permitted activity under the provisions of the Regional Plan: Coastal).

Boardwalk Construction

The boardwalk structure will be constructed mainly of precast concrete elements joined by insitu concrete. The surface of the boardwalk will be comprised of timber decking supported by precast concrete slabs and concrete beams sitting atop concrete piles. A total of 22 piles are proposed.

The piles are to be constructed by installing permanent steel tube casings into 400mm diameter holes drilled into the underlying basalt rock. It is proposed to remove all drilled material from the site to an approved landfill. The steel casings will have reinforced steel inserted into them and then cast with concrete insitu. No concrete will be discharged into the CMA.

It is proposed to dismantle the top part of the existing seawall with an excavator to attach the landward section of the piling and beams of the proposed boardwalk. The applicant proposes to retain the existing facing stones and re-construct the seawall upon completion.

The applicant states that access to the site is limited and therefore proposes to use an excavator to construct the boardwalk from the adjoining beach during low tides. Access to the beach would be formed from the road by constructing a temporary ramp from the footpath from existing beach sand. It is proposed that 22m³ of sand will be required to construct the temporary ramp and that the sand would be reinstated on the beach after the conclusion of construction. This structure will be in place for longer than 14 days - being the maximum time limit for temporary structures as a permitted activity in the Regional Plan: Coastal.

It is proposed that the southern section of the boardwalk will link to the existing Victoria Wharf. As this wharf has some existing structural issues no heavy construction machinery or materials will be allowed onto the wharf. The applicant proposes to construct this section of the boardwalk by erecting a temporary platform with driven steel “H” pile supporting steel beams. The temporary structure will be in place for longer than 14 days.

The piles for the boardwalk will be installed using a 12-tonne 'downhill hammer' piling rig, operating during low tides. Precast concrete slabs will be laid on top of the piles by crane. These will be fixed to the piles with concrete, with the concrete pump located on the


of 94

landward side of the seawall. The structure will be built out from the shore, with the remaining timber decking installed using screws.

The applicant states that the detailed construction methodology will be dependent on the methodology chosen by the successful tenderer for the project. However, the applicant proposes to prepare a construction management plan, and accepts a requirement for such a plan as a condition of consent. The construction programme for the boardwalk is expected to take up to 8 months.

2.2 Site, Locality, Catchment and Environs Description

Devonport is located on the northern side of the Waitemata Harbour opposite the Auckland CBD. It is one of Auckland’s earliest European settlements and has served as the main ferry connection for the North Shore for many years.

Associated with Devonport on the seaward boundary of the town centre are two wharves comprising the historic (and decommissioned) Victoria Wharf and the newer Devonport Wharf. Devonport Wharf accommodates the berthage requirements for current ferry services and an associated retail development. On the landward side of the wharf is Marine Square which comprises of carparking, bus parking, and cycle parking associated with the use of the wharf. There are currently more than 12 pohutukawa trees within the southern and eastern areas of the square, with a row of Washingtonia palms within the northern parking island abutting Queens Parade.

There are a number of heritage items within the subject area, including the Commemorative Seawall on the southern seaward boundary of the square and the wrought iron handrail attached to the seawall. The E.W. Allison Memorial and Clock is located within the footpath on the southern boundary of the square, adjacent to the entrance to Victoria Wharf.

Photograph 1: View down Victoria Road to Wharf building and Marine Square.

Devonport Wharf is a focal point for Devonport as the ferry services provide regular commuter access to the CBD (and Rangitoto and Waiheke Island) and it is a popular tourist destination for visitors to Auckland. Marine Square provides commuter parking, with 134 24-hour parking spaces (approximately 28 of which are T25 spaces) and 61 3-hour parking spaces. Three bus bays are located at the entrance to the wharf. The bus services within Devonport are specifically targeted at providing access to the wharf and are often aligned with the ferry timetable. The services that terminate/originate at the wharf

5 T2 spaces require two passengers to be present within the car at the time of parking.


of 94

include Route 813 which travels to Takapuna via Cheltenham Beach, Narrow Neck and Lake Road; Route 779 which travels to Stanley Bay; and Route 815 which travels to Belmont. Routes 779 and 815 currently operate only during peak morning and afternoon peak periods.

Photograph 2: Victoria Wharf on right and Devonport Wharf (and small sandy beach) on left

Victoria Wharf is aligned with Victoria Road (the main street of Devonport) but has structural issues and is therefore only used for pedestrian access. Devonport Wharf is located further to the west and is angled back towards Victoria Wharf such that they both intersect at their southern extent. Direct pedestrian access to the wharves is via Victoria Road via three misaligned pedestrian crossings which provide access through the carparking area and vehicle circulation area within the square.

Devonport Wharf sits atop and bisects a small sandy beach. The area of beach between Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf has limited amenity values and access to the Waitemata Harbour due to it being surrounded by the existing wharves and associated piling.

Photograph 3: Devonport Wharf on left with existing western portion of the sandy beach

The beach area immediately to the west of Devonport Wharf has unencumbered access to the Waitemata Harbour and direct views towards the CBD.

The immediately surrounding area comprises the Naval Base and residential dwellings to the west of the site along Queens Parade, the Devonport town centre on Victoria Road which extends to the north, and the Windsor Reserve and Devonport beach to the east. Vegetation in the immediate area is predominantly comprised of mature pohutukawa trees and palm trees.

2.3 Background

2.3.1 Site History

Devonport waterfront has had a rich history associated with passenger ferry services since 1850s through to the present day. The development of the waterfront has seen significant reclamation to create what is now Marine Square and associated car parking areas and the creation of Victoria Wharf (1870s) and Devonport Wharf (1890s). The Commemorative Seawall along the Devonport waterfront was built progressively from about 1902 through to 1928.

An extensive summary of the built heritage of Devonport is included in the Heritage Assessment by Mr Jeremy Salmond for the applicant (see Attachment 7) and by Mr Bryan Bennett for the Council (Attachment 17).


of 94

2.3.2 Pre-Lodgement of the Application

Community Consultation

The former North Shore City Council began the process of upgrading Marine Square and Devonport Wharf in 2004 through the formation of a Centre Plan Working Group and this included a two-stage design competition involving public display of three finalist designs. A winning entry was selected (prepared by Sills van Bohemen Architecture) and this was adopted by the former North Shore City Community Board and confirmed as the basis for a (non-statutory) master plan process involving public consultation to refine the design. The master plan process was undertaken during 2005 and 2006 and included public notification, public submissions and a hearing. Following the completion of the master plan process a contract for detailed design was given to Isthmus Group.

Iwi Consultation

The applicant has consulted with Ngati Whatua o Orakei on the proposed upgrade. The applicant states that Ngati Whatua recognise the waterfront as a historic landing place for waka and have asked for this significance to be recognised. The applicant has offered to incorporate this significance in the design of the proposed boardwalk handrail and the installation of a Maori "anchor stone" in conjunction with the handrail.

Further detail on consultation is provided in Appendix I to the AEE (see Attachment 2).

2.3.3 Post-Lodgement of the Application

The application was originally lodged as a separate Land Use consent to (the former) North Shore City Council, with one of Council's planners, Zita Talaic, allocated the consent for processing. The Coastal Permit was lodged to (the former) Auckland Regional Council who allocated the application to the current consultant planner, Robert Scott (co-writer). Since the amalgamation of the Councils, the application has been treated as an integrated Land Use/Coastal Permit application to be processed as one application. As part of this process the Land Use consent was reallocated to consultant planner Sarah Haarhoff (co-writer).

During the processing of the application a number of concerns were raised by Council's specialists (as further discussed in Section 5.2 of this report). These concerns formed requests for further information (refer Attachments 3-7). In particular, significant issues were raised relating to:

The heritage effects of the loss of a portion of the beach due to the construction of the boardwalk above;

The effects of the loss of commuter (long-term) parking; and

The effects of removal of those pohutukawa trees, possible relocation options, and the extent of mitigation planting proposed.

Since the application was originally lodged and publicly notified, the applicant has amended the proposal as it relates to the tree removals and mitigation planting. In particular, two of the pohutukawa trees (Trees 2 and 3) will no longer be removed, but will be retained and relocated within the site, and two additional pohutukawa trees will be planted within the southern carparking island.


of 94

3 REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION

Resource consent is required under the provisions of the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section) and Regional Plan: Coastal. It is noted that the reasons for consent applied for as detailed in section 7.2 of the AEE (refer Attachment 2), differ to those identified below.

3.1 District Plan

3.1.1 Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section)

The proposal involves the establishment of structures (boardwalk connection, street lamps, seating and rubbish bins) within the Coastal Conservation Area. This requires consent under Rule 8.4.1.1 as a Controlled Activity.

The proposal involves the removal of nine pohutukawa trees of greater than 3m in height in the Coastal Conservation Area (Trees 4-12). This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 8.4.6.1.3(a)(i).

The proposal involves the removal of one pohutukawa tree located within the Foreshore Yard (Tree 12). This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 8.4.6.1.3(a)(ii).

The proposal involves works within the dripline of a pohutukawa tree located within the Coastal Conservation Area and within the Road Reserve (Tree 1). This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 8.4.6.1.3(b) and 8.4.6.3(b).

The proposal involves the removal of nine pohutukawa trees within the road reserve and Recreation 1 zone. This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 8.4.6.3(b).

The proposal involves site works within the Foreshore Yard which exposes more than 100m2 of bare earth. Site works are proposed over an area of approximately 135m2 within the Foreshore Yard. This requires consent as a Limited Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 9.4.1.3(g).

The proposal involves site works over an area of greater than 100m2 which is either wholly or partially contained within a secondary flow or a 1% AEP flood plain. In this case, it is proposed to undertake site works over a total area of 8,015m2 where portions of the land have been identified in Council’s GIS as being flood sensitive area and containing flood plains. This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 9.4.1.4(b)(v).

The proposal involves the erection of structures (seating) within an identified flood hazard area of 1% AEP flood plain. This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 9.4.1.4(n).

The proposal involves site works within the Foreshore Yard in association with an activity which is a Non-Complying Activity. This is a Non-Complying Activity in accordance with Rule 9.4.1.5.

The proposal involves construction noise which will not comply with the provisions of NZS 6803 P1984 ‘The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work’ as required by Rule 10.5(h). This is not provided for by the District Plan and as such requires consent as a Non-Complying Activity in accordance with Rule 3.10.2.2.

The proposal involves the removal of 8m of handrail which is attached to the scheduled Commemorative Seawall (329), and the deconstruction and reconstruction


of 94

of a portion of the seawall. This requires consent as a Non-Complying Activity in accordance with Rule 11.4.1.2(d).

The proposal involves parking areas associated with transport infrastructure within the road reserve and within the Recreation 1 zone. This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 14.4.2 and Table 14.1.

The proposal involves passenger transport infrastructure and facilities in the Recreation 1 zone. This requires consent as a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 19.5.1 and Table 19.1.

The proposal involves the establishment of the boardwalk within the foreshore yard, requiring consent under Rule 19.6.1.4 and Rule 16.6.1.5A as a Discretionary Activity.

3.2 Proposed Plan Change 24 - Addressing Environmental Effects in Areas Subject to Natural Flooding Hazards

The proposal involves site works within the 1% AEP flood plain which are not associated with flood protection works or network utilities. This requires consent as a Discretionary activity in accordance with Rule in accordance with Rule 9.4.1.4(b)(v).

3.3 Regional Plan

3.3.1 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal

The proposal is located within Port Management Area 5. Consent is required for the following reasons in terms of section 12 of the RMA and the provisions of the Coastal Plan:

Structures (Section 12(1)(b) of RMA)

Rule 31.5.17 Discretionary Activity

Any addition to an existing structure or any new structure in Port Management Area 5.


Any temporary structure in the CMA which exceeds 14 days duration. This applies to the proposed vehicle ramp to the beach and the temporary structure for the construction of the boardwalk link with Devonport Wharf.


Any structure that would modify, damage, or destroy any site, building, place or area scheduled for protection in Cultural Heritage Schedule 2. This applies to the proposed dismantling and reconstruction of the existing seawall and associated handrail.

Occupation (Section 12(2) of RMA)


Occupation of the CMA by the proposed boardwalk and associated piling.

Use (Section 12(3) of RMA)

The following activities on the boardwalk including port activities (Rule 31.5.1); retail activities (Rule 31.5.1); restaurant, cafes takeaway food and food hall activities (Rule 31.5.3); public recreation activities and public facilities – such as seating, toilets, ticketing and information boards (Rule 31.5.5); are all Permitted Activities in Port Management Area 5.


of 94

3.4 Status of the Application

3.4.1 Applications affected by plan changes

Section 88A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) specifies that a plan change must be had regard to if the application for consent was made after the notification of a plan change. In this instance the decision on proposed Auckland Council District Plan North Shore Change 24 was released on 23 September 2009. This application was lodged with the Council on 15 October 2010, therefore it is necessary to have regard to the proposed plan change in considering this application.

Overall, the application is a Non-Complying Activity under the District Plan and a Discretionary Activity under the Regional Plan: Coastal. As the application is being processed as an integrated consent, the proposal is a Non-Complying Activity overall.

4 NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

4.1 Notification

The application was publicly notified on 26 January 2011 at the request of the applicant in accordance with section 95A(2)(b) of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions

At the close of the submission period, a total of 41 submissions were received. Two of these were withdrawn after close of submissions (as further discussed in the following section). Of the remaining 39 submissions, nine were in support, 24 in opposition, two were neutral and four were in support or opposition in part. 15 submitters requesting to be heard.

Four of the submissions were received late, one by six days, two by nine days and one by 21 days. The decision on whether to extend the closing date for submissions rests with the Hearing Commissioners pursuant to section 37 of the RMA. The factors that must be considered in making this decision are:

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

the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal, and

Council’s duty under section 21 of the RMA to avoid unreasonable delay.

A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought and conditions and modifications requested by the submitters is set out as follows (refer actual submissions, contained in Attachment 20 to this report).

The closing date for submissions was extended at the request of the applicant until 11 March 2011 due to the high level of public interest in the proposal.


of 94

4.2.1 Summary of Submissions

Issues Raised

1 Adverse effects as a result of reducing the existing number of carparking spaces;

2 Will improve pedestrian access and legibility;

3 Will improve wharf area and amenity;

4 Will improve Devonport’s connection to the waterfront;

5 Adverse effects on heritage items;

6 Adverse effects on coastal environment and beach;

7 Adverse effects on visual amenity;

8 Adverse effects of tree removal;

9 Master Plan consultation not representative of community;

10 Redesign of area is unnecessary;

11 Bicycle access, safety and parking inadequate;

12 Redesign of pedestrian crossings unnecessary;

13 Need to improve maintenance and upkeep of area;

14 Vehicular and pedestrian access design inadequate;

15 Will improve public transport linkages;

16 Will improve short term carparking availability;

17 Urban design too complex;

18 Pedestrian access does not follow natural route;

19 Seating is unnecessary;

20 Proposed landscaping and replanting is inappropriate;

21 Conservation Plan required;

22 Boardwalk will result in additional Public Open Space;

23 Proposal is too costly;

24 Lack of information on design details in application.

Relief Sought

Note that some submissions sought multiple relief, and one submission sought no relief.

A. Modify proposal (21 submissions);

B. Approve consent (5 submissions);

C. Decline consent (10 submissions);

D. Approve consent subject to conditions (8 submissions);

E. Further information required (3 submissions).


of 94

The following table summarises each submission:

No. Name Physical Address Oppose/Support /Neutral

Issues Raised

Relief Sought

Wish to be heard?

1 Lee Sawyer 10 Albert Rd, Devonport

O 1 A N

2 Karen Beanland

1A Glen Rd, Stanley Point

S 2 B N

3 Sam Elworthy 116 Victoria Road, Devonport

S 3, 4 B N

4 The Steam Tug William C Daldy Preservation Society Inc

Victoria Wharf, Devonport

S, O (in part)

1 A Y

5 Submission withdrawn

6 Jean Minto Revill

2/59 Killarney St, Takapuna

S 2, 3 B N

7 Babs Baker 16 Duders Ave, Devonport

O 1 A, E N

8 Lyndsay and Lianne Brock

10 Bulwer St, Devonport

O 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

A, C Unknown

9 Maree Butler 2/24 Seabreeze Rd, Devonport

O 1 A N

10 Cycle Action Auckland

2A St Aubyn St, Devonport

N 11 A Y

11 Heather Maud Robinson

6 Niccol Ave, Narrow Neck

O 12, 1 A Y

12 Elizabeth Eaglestone

2/35 Merani St, Belmont

O 10, 8, 1,

C N

13 Murray Arthur Skelton

26 Russell St, Devonport

O 1, 6, 23 C N

14 Stan Pearson 26 Russell St, Devonport

O 1, 6 C N

15 Pauline Baker 2/5 Wicklow Rd, Narrow Neck

S 3, 13 D N


of 94

16 David Willetts 10 Seabreeze Rd, Devonport

O 14, 1 C Y

17 Jean D Day 28a Niccol Ave, Narrow Neck

O 1, 6, 10, 8

C N

18 Living Streets Aotearoa inc, North Shore Branch

20A Roberts Ave. Bayswater

S 2, 15 D Y

19 D Renker 94 Stanley Pt Rd, Devonport

S 2, 15, 3, 4

A, D N

20 Alison Joy Mace

11 Queens Pde, Devonport

S 2, 3, 16 D Y

21 Marilyn Robinson

Unknown O 1, 23 C N

22 Submission withdrawn

23 Roger David Brittenden

7 Glen Rd, Devonport

O 1, 5, 17 A Y

24 Christopher Brown

69 Old Lake Rd, Devonport

N 7, 18, 19,

A N

25 Paul Cornish 11 Cambria Rd, Devonport

O 1 A N

26 Devonport Business Association

10 Victoria Rd, Devonport

S, O 1, 3, 20 A, D Y

27 Devonport Heritage Inc

Devonport O 5, 21, 24

C, E Y

28 Heather Silvia Dixon

14 Anne St, Devonport

O 1, 6 A N

29 Dave Donaldson

30 The Promenade, Takapuna

S 2, 3, 4, 15, 22

B Y

30 Roy and Rosemary Gibbons

25 Fraser Rd, Narrow Neck

O 1, 23 A N

31 Murray and Marie Hay

6 Tainui Rd, Devonport

O 1, 10, 23

C N

32 Peter McNab 14 Anne St, Devonport

O 1 A N


of 94

Approximately half of the submissions requested that the proposal be modified. The main requests for modification are summarised, as follows:

Retain existing long-term and short-term carparking spaces;

Retain existing trees;

Redesign proposal to retain all heritage items;

Redesign to avoid the beach;

Provide more cycle parking spaces and facilities;

Retain existing pedestrian crossings or redesign the proposed crossings;

Provide motorcycle parking spaces;

Simplify urban design;

Redesign location of proposed seating areas;

6 Submission is incomplete

33 Denys James Michael Oldham and Margaret Scott Oldham

31 Cowper St, Devonport

O 1, 10, 23

C Y

34 Claudia Page 7 Arawa Ave, Devonport

O 20, 24 D, E Y

35 Robert Nelson Phillips

2/26a Queens Pde, Devonport

S 13 D Y

366 William Wynyard Rayner

2 Cheltenham Rd, Devonport

O 1 Unknown

Unknown

37 David Smaill and Suzanne Butler

29 William Bond St, Devonport

O 1 A, B N

Late Submissions:

38 Maureen McMillan

8/25 Stanley Point Rd, Devonport

O 1 A Unknown

39 David James Mason

6A King Edward Pde, Devonport

O, S 1, 3, 8 A Y

40 James Summerhays

2/15 Church St, Devonport

O 1 A N

41 John Nelson Duder

41A Church St, Devonport

O (in part), S (in part)

1, 6, 10 A, D Y


of 94

Provide an all weather access to the ferry terminal;

Rethink use of pohutukawa trees for replanting;

Redesign to reduce expenditure on proposal.

Conditions Requested

Suggested conditions raised by submissions include the following:

Maintenance plan to ensure that the wharf, beach and amenities are kept clean and rubbish removed;

Provide designated pedestrian crossings to ensure pedestrian priority;

Install signage that alerts drivers to pedestrians using the shared area;

Construction management plan to limit disruption to pedestrians and bus movements;

Ensure that the sightline from Wynyard Street to Auckland Museum is not infringed by future growth of tree canopies;

Undertake replacement planting that reflects the spacing of planting on Queens Parade;

Install signage that prohibits camping;

Provision of a seawall protection methodology during the works and detailed recording of the seawall prior to construction;

Relocate existing recycling and rubbish collection points for the wharf shops;

Provide a non-slip surface on the proposed boardwalk;

Ensure that all transition gradients are smooth and safe for cyclists, wheelchairs etc;

Address issue of sand-blow from the beach into square.

4.3 Withdrawn Submissions

The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) and Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd lodged submissions requesting further information on the archaeological and cultural heritage effects of the proposal (submission numbers 5 and 22). Following this an archaeological assessment was requested as part of a section 92 request for further information by the Council on 28 March 2011. On receipt of the archaeological assessment provided by the applicant, both the NZHPT and Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd withdrew their submissions (refer to Attachment 21). In particular, it is noted that the applicant has agreed in writing to work collaboratively with Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd including engaging Iwi for monitoring and consulting with Iwi during the detailed landscape and design process.

5 CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION

5.1 Statutory Considerations

When considering an application for a non complying activity the consent authority must have regard to Part 2 of the RMA (“Purpose and Principles” – sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104D, and where relevant sections 105, 107, and 108 of the RMA.


of 94

Subject to Part 2 of the RMA, when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received a council must, in accordance with section 104(1) of the RMA have regard to:

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

any relevant provisions of a National Environmental Standard (NES), other regulations, national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement; a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan; and

any other matter a council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

Section 104(2) allows any effects that may arise from permitted activities set out in a plan to be excluded from the assessment of effects related to the resource consent. This is known as the permitted baseline test. The ‘baseline’ constitutes the existing environment (excluding existing use rights) against which a proposed activity’s degree of adverse effect is assessed. Generally, it is only the adverse effects over and above those forming the baseline that are relevant when considering whether the effects are minor. It is at the Council’s discretion whether to apply the assessment of the permitted baseline to any proposal. Essentially, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of any activity on the environment if an operative plan (or an operative rule in a proposed plan) permits an activity with that effect.

When considering an application for resource consent, the consent authority must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition [section 104(3)(a)(i)].

Section 104D sets out the ‘threshold test’ for non-complying activities. A consent authority may only grant consent to a non complying activity if it is satisfied that the adverse effects on the environment are minor, or the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan. If either of the limbs of the test has been passed then the application is able to be considered for approval subject to consideration under section 104 of the RMA.

Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and establishes certain tests and parameters for resource consent conditions.

All considerations are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out the purpose and principles that guide this legislation. This means the matters in Part 2 prevail over other provisions of the RMA or provisions in planning instruments (e.g. regional plans) in the event of a conflict. Section 5 states the purpose of the RMA and sections 6, 7 and 8 are principles intended to provide additional guidance as to the way in which the purpose is to be achieved.

The application of section 5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The RMA’s use of the terms “use, development and protection” are a general indication that all resources are to be managed in a sustainable way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, while sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying and mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. The enabling and management functions found in section 5(2) should be considered of equal importance and taken as a whole.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA outline other matters that a consent authority must consider in addition to giving effect to the purpose in section 5(2)(a),(b) and (c).

Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the


of 94

protection of historic heritage and public access to and along the coastal marine area. In the case of this particular proposal, all the above matters are considered relevant and are considered in the evaluation section of this report.

Section 7 of the RMA requires the consent authority to give particular regard to those matters listed in the section. Section 7 matters are not expressly ranked in order of priority. Therefore, all aspects of this section are to be considered equally. In the case of this particular proposal the following matters are considered relevant: the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (b), the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values (c), and the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment (f). Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report.

Section 8 of the RMA requires the consent authority to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This section of the RMA recognises the relationship of Tangata Whenua with natural and physical resources and encourages active participation and consultation with Tangata Whenua. Any relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report.

5.2 Section 104(1)(a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

Section 104(1)(a) of the RMA requires that a council have regard to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity.

Pursuant to section 104(2), when forming an opinion for the purposes of section 104(1)(a) a council may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the plan or a NES permits an activity with that effect.

5.2.1 Effects that May Be Disregarded

Section 104(2) of the RMA allows the council the discretion to disregard any activities that are permitted by a plan on the basis that they form part of a permitted baseline of effects. Case law has also confirmed that any effects from activities that have been granted consent also form part of this baseline.

Land Use

The activity is a non-complying activity and, as such, no permitted baseline is applicable. Furthermore, the entire works area is within the Coastal Conservation Area (CCA) and requires resource consent for a controlled activity (at minimum) and the removal of any pohutukawa tree in the CCA is a discretionary activity. It is noted that in the Recreation 1 zone, activities that are permitted include: maintenance of open space; noxious weed control and revegetation; and temporary activities on land administered by the Department of Conservation. These permitted activities are not relevant to consideration of the proposal. It is also noted that site works of 300m2 or less is a permitted activity (outside of the Foreshore Yard and Flood Plain), and site works associated with maintenance of roading is a permitted activity. This is of lesser relevance to consider given that the site works will be undertaken on a site which has flood plains and flood sensitive areas across approximately half of its area.

Within CMA

With regard to activities permitted by the Regional Plan: Coastal, the provisions of Chapters 10 (General), 11 (Activities), 12 (Structures) and 31 (Port Management Area 5) are relevant to consider.


of 94

Chapter 10

The provisions of Chapter 10 relate primarily to occupation under section 12(2)(a) of the RMA and include as permitted activities:

existing stormwater and wastewater structures operated by a network utility operator occupying the CMA; and

existing submarine power and telecommunications cables operated by a network utility operator occupying the CMA.

Chapter 11

The provisions of Chapter 11 relate to activities under section (12)(3) of the RMA and include as a permitted activity:

Any activity not requiring the occupation of space in terms of section 12(2)(a) or the restriction of public access to and along the CMA; and

Any activity involving the disturbance of the foreshore which is able to be remedied by natural processes within 7 days of the completion of the activity.

Chapter 12

The provisions of Chapter 12 relate to structures (including the effects of placement or construction of structures) under section 12(1) of the RMA and include as a permitted activity (subject to standards):

The maintenance, repair and reconstruction of any existing lawful structure;

The removal or demolition of structures;

Structures erected and placed entirely below the surface of the foreshore and seabed, by methods other then trenching, but not the occupation of those structures;

The erection, placement, extension, maintenance, repair/reconstruction of and occupation by navigational aids;

The erection or placement of any temporary structure and any associated occupation provided it is not in place for longer than 14 days in any 6 month period;

The maintenance and repair of any existing lawful cables placed on or below the surface of the foreshore and seabed; and

The minor upgrade of any existing lawful electricity transmission structure.

Chapter 31

Chapter 31 relates to Port Management Area 5 which includes Devonport Wharf, Victoria Wharf, the beach and heritage seawalls. The provisions of Chapter 31 include as a permitted activity:

Port activities;

Retail activities;

Cafes, restaurants takeaway food and food hall activities;

Administration office for Devonport Wharf and other office activities;

Public recreation activities and facilities;

Minor ancillary structures and services;

Signs located inside the wharf building;

Navigation buoys and beacons;

Floating oil booms and barriers; and


of 94

Vehicular parking on Victoria Wharf.

In this case, the range of permitted rules for occupation, activities and structures is restrictive and this reflects the general theme of the Regional Plan: Coastal to require resource consent for any significant structures, activities and occupation within the CMA. It is considered that the Council should use its discretion to take these matters into account in its assessment under section 104.

However, it is considered that there are no effects arising from the proposal that are similar to those that may be generated by a permitted activity and as such all effects arising from the proposal are assessed in the following sections.

5.2.2 Effects that must be disregarded

Pursuant to s104(3)(a), when forming an opinion for the purposes of section 104(1)(a) a council must not have regard to any effect on a person who has given written approval to the proposal, nor any trade competition or effects of trade competition.

It is considered that there are no trade competition issues associated with this proposal and no persons have given their written approval to the application, other than Council's Parks division as landowner of Devonport Marine Square (refer section 92 response dated 26 August 2011, Attachment 6). It is noted that although Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd and NZHPT have withdrawn their submissions, this is not considered a written approval to the proposal.

5.2.3 Construction Effects

Earthworks (on Land)

The earthworks will be undertaken over a total area of 8,015m2, with the large majority of this area (7,245m2, or 90%) comprising the removal of the existing road and footpath paving, and reinstatement with new paving. The deepest cut will be for the new planting beds to a maximum of 0.6m in depth, over an area of 673m2. The site has several flood plains crossing it which generally follow the existing perpendicular streets off Queens Parade, following the gentle slope in topography down to the coastal edge. The Foreshore Yard in this location is 9m in width, and as such an area of 135m2 within the Foreshore Yard will be subject to pavement removal and reinstatement, and reinstatement of redundant planting beds. As previously discussed in Section 2.1 of this report, the works will be staged over a 12 month period.

The applicant has not proposed any specific erosion and sediment control measures and the AEE states that silt control measures will be unlikely to be required given the flat topography and gradient of the site and surrounding area. Nevertheless, the applicant accepts that erosion and sediment control measures may be required by Council given the close proximity of the works to the CMA and may be imposed as part of a detailed construction management plan which is proposed as a condition of consent.

Peer Review by Melvyn Moraes

The proposed works have been reviewed by the Council's development engineer, Mr Melvyn Moraes (refer Attachment 9). Mr Moraes has raised no issues of contention with the proposed works, provided conditions of consent are met. Specifically these conditions include the following matters:

Compliance with an erosion and sediment control plan and TP90 (Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region) which has been approved by Council;

Installation of silt and sediment traps in all cesspits; No discharge of washings from the construction into the road, drain or stormwater

system; Measures to control dust;


of 94

Measures to limit any sediment being deposited on the surrounding roads; and That the works shall proceed in accordance with the stages proposed.

Overall, it is considered that provided the recommended conditions of consent are complied with that the effects of the earthworks will be able to be contained within the works area and any effects in terms of sediment-laden runoff and dust will be minor.

Structures in the CMA

The boardwalk structure will be constructed mainly of precast concrete elements joined by insitu concrete. The surface of the boardwalk will be comprised of timber decking supported by precast concrete slabs and concrete beams sitting atop concrete piles. A total of 22 piles are proposed.

The piles are to be constructed by installing permanent steel tube casings into 400mm diameter holes drilled into the underlying basalt rock. It is proposed to remove all drilled material from the site to an approved landfill. The steel casings will have reinforced steel inserted into them and will then be cast with concrete insitu. Site works will be managed to ensure that there is no discharge of concrete into the CMA.

It is proposed to dismantle the top part of the existing seawall with an excavator to attach the landward section of the piling and beams of the proposed boardwalk. The applicant proposes to retain the existing facing stones and re-construct the seawall upon completion.

The applicant states that tidal access to the site is limited and therefore proposes to construct the boardwalk from the adjoining beach during low tides. Access to the beach would be formed from the road by constructing a temporary ramp from the footpath using existing beach sand. No additional works to the Commemorative Seawall is proposed to create this access. It is proposed that 22m³ of sand will be required to construct the temporary ramp and that the sand would be reinstated on the beach after the conclusion of construction. This structure will be in place for longer than the 14 day maximum time limit for temporary structures allowed for as a permitted activity in the Regional Plan: Coastal.

It is proposed that the southern section of the boardwalk will link to the existing Victoria Wharf. As this wharf has some existing structural issues, no heavy construction machinery or materials will be allowed onto the wharf. The applicant proposes to construct this section of the boardwalk by erecting a temporary platform with driven steel “H” piles supporting steel beams. The temporary structure will be in place for longer than 14 days.

The applicant has elected not to submit a detailed construction methodology with the application, preferring to leave that detail to the contractor chosen for the construction works. However, the applicant has offered to prepare a construction management plan (CMP) that will provide accurate detail of how the works will be staged and managed, including the on-site mitigation measures necessary to avoid adverse effects on the environment (especially effects on water quality, and neighbouring residential amenity). The CMP would be prepared in consultation with the successful contractor including statements on preferred construction methods for all aspects of the works and the draft CMP would be submitted to the Council for approval. The applicant states that the construction management plan would include:

Construction methods; Erosion and sediment control measures; Timing of works (including tides); Site access; Maintenance and storage of machinery; Storage and delivery of fuel; and Contingencies for any adverse discharges into the CMA.

In addition to these matters, it is considered that any CMP should also include:


of 94

A detailed project construction staging timetable; Provision for toilets for construction workers; Health and safety measures during construction for construction workers and users of

the wharf; Details on the provision of public access to the wharf areas and adjoining coastal

walkways; Methods to ensure compliance with noise standards; and Methods to minimise the release of suspended solids or turbidity during construction

and methods to minimise sediment discharge into the CMA.

This aspect of the proposal has been reviewed by Mr Moraes who states that approach taken by the applicant for the proposed piling is acceptable.

It is recommended that the requirement to prepare the CMP be included in the conditions should consent be granted. Based on this requirement, it is concluded that any adverse effects on the environment from construction activities will be minor.

Temporary Use of Sand for Vehicle Access

The location of the low tide line and the configuration of the Devonport and Victoria Wharves is such that it is not possible to use a barge crane for the construction of the proposed boardwalk. As an alternative, the applicant proposes to install piling and beams during low tide times with access from land. To achieve this, it is proposed to construct a temporary vehicle ramp to the beach from the footpath using existing sand from the beach. No additional modification of the Commemorative Seawall is proposed for this access. The applicant states that up to 22m³ of sand will be required for this purpose.

The proposed ramp construction methodology includes the use of an excavator on the footpath to form the initial ramp until such time as it can be transported down onto the high tide section of the beach where the ramp will be completed. Following the completion of piling, the ramp will be dismantled and the sand will be redistributed along the beach.

It is considered that this is an efficient method to enable construction vehicles and machinery onto the beach given that a crane barge is not a practical option for the proposed construction works. As the applicant proposes to use local sand and replace it immediately upon completion of the piling activity, any adverse effects are considered to be temporary in nature and minor.

Marine Ecology

The AEE states that the marine habitats around the area of works for the piling for the proposed boardwalk are comprised of soft shore benthic habitat associated with the sandy beach and intertidal area, and marine encrusting organisms that have colonised the seawall and piles. Dominant species in the intertidal area comprise isopods in the intertidal zone and occasional pipi, cockles and nutshell bivalves. Dominant species on the seawall and piles include periwinkles and pacific oyster.

The AEE states that any adverse effects on marine ecology will be minor on the basis that:

The areas affected by construction disturbance support low marine diversity and are typical of other habitats in urbanised and modified areas of the Waitemata Harbour;

Any disturbed areas will recover quickly; and

The proposed CMP will include measures to minimise disturbance of the foreshore and seabed and a requirement to reinstate the beach following construction of the boardwalk.

Based on the above assessment and proposed CMP measures, it is concluded that any adverse effects on marine ecology will be minor.


of 94

Effect on Coastal Processes

The proposed boardwalk will constitute an incremental addition to the existing Devonport Wharf which is also attached to the Victoria Wharf. Over the years, a beach has formed and has remained in place around the location of the two wharves. Since the creation of Devonport Wharf the beach which surrounds it has, more or less, remained stable (see Photograph 2) and it is considered that the two wharves and associated piling have a calming effect on wave and tidal energy and this has assisted the beach to remain in place.

The placement of 22 piles within the CMA is considered to have a similar effect on coastal processes to that of the existing piles and will, if anything, support the retention of the existing beach and may encourage some further incremental growth. As this beach has an existing amenity value for recreation and for its association with the existing seawall (see the Cultural Heritage assessment below) the retention of this beach is seen as a positive effect. Overall, any adverse effects on coastal process are considered to be minor.

Construction Traffic

The AEE states that construction vehicles will enter the site from Victoria Street, with the approximate number of heavy vehicle movements anticipated to be 100 - 140 over Stage 1 (14 weeks). No estimate of vehicle movements for the remaining two stages has been provided.

The applicant has provided an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) with the application, prepared by Traffic Design Group. The ITA comments that as no exact construction methodology has been completed (by way of a CMP) an assessment of the types and number of construction vehicles cannot be undertaken at this stage. The ITA recommends that a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) be prepared prior to the commencement of construction works.

Peer Review by Warren Budd

The proposal has been reviewed by Council's Traffic Engineer, Mr Warren Budd, who has raised no issues of concern in relation to construction traffic provided that the applicant prepares the proposed CTMP to the approval of the Council prior to works commencing (refer Attachment 12).

While no estimate of traffic generation has been provided for the remaining stages of works, it is anticipated that the remaining stages would likely result in a lower level of traffic generation than Stage 1 given that the boardwalk construction and works in the CMA would be largely completed (according to the staging information provided by the applicant).

Overall, it is considered that any potential adverse effects that may arise during the construction period will be managed and mitigated through a detailed CTMP, which is recommended to form a condition of consent.

Public Access and Parking

Pedestrian access through the square will be limited during the 12 month construction period for safety reasons, with the public directed to follow a ring path around the square to access the wharf and beach. Traffic will generally be able to circulate around the square throughout the works.

As identified in the ITA, the areas of existing public car parking that will be removed and/or will be unavailable during the construction works are as follows:

a) Stage 1

The taxi stand and several P60 parking spaces within the northern side of Queens Parade;

The bus bays, 17 P180 parking spaces; and


of 94

One disabled parking space in the southern part of Marine Square adjacent to the coastal boundary and wharf.

b) Stage 2

21 P180 parking spaces in the vicinity of the northern-most parking island within Marine Square.

c) Stage 3

21 P180 parking spaces in the vicinity of the southern parking island within Marine Square.

There will be no additional car parking spaces provided in the area to mitigate the loss of parking during the construction works. However, temporary bus stops will be provided within the square in various locations as the works progress.

It is also relevant to consider the provision of public access to and along the CMA (including ferry services) during the construction period. As mentioned above, the applicant proposes to undertake the works in three stages with the construction of the boardwalk being undertaken in the first stage and the works to Marine Square undertaken in the following two stages. The AEE states (section 6.7.3) that public access will need to be restricted for safety and operational reasons to various parts of Devonport Wharf and Marine Square during the construction phase. However, the AEE does not state how this will be sequenced or managed, although plans PA01 and PA02 (included in Appendix D to the AEE) shows areas around the outer rim of the construction area where public access will be provided throughout the construction process.


The proposed construction period parking arrangements have been reviewed by Mr Warren Budd, who has not raised any issues of concern in relation to public access and parking during the construction period provided that the applicant addresses mitigation measures in the CTMP to the approval of Council prior to works commencing, in particular addressing methods by which there disturbance to ferry and bus timetables will be minimised (refer Attachment 12).

Overall, it is considered that public access (both pedestrian and traffic) can be adequately managed throughout the construction process but greater detail on how this will be achieved should be provided through the CTMP. Conditions to this effect are recommended.

Public Safety

The proposal includes measures to restrict public access from specific construction areas as the works progress, as detailed in the previous assessment. The purpose of restricting access through Marine Square for the duration of the works and to the construction area adjacent to the boardwalk for Stage 1 is largely to protect public safety. It is recommended that details of additional public safety measures, including signage, alternative pedestrian and traffic routes, proposed barriers, and monitoring be provided as part of the Construction Management Plan required through the recommended conditions of consent.

Construction Noise

The works will be undertaken in three stages over a 12 month period, with proposed construction hours of 7am-7pm Monday to Saturday.

Applicant’s Noise Assessment

The applicant originally advised in their AEE that the proposal will comply with the permitted activity noise standards of the Regional Plan: Coastal and the District Plan, and will comply with the NZS 6803P:1984 (The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work).


of 94

An Acoustic Report prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics was later provided by the applicant as part of their reply to a section 92 request for further information (refer further information dated 5 January 2011, Attachment 3). This report identifies that the machinery used for boardwalk construction in the CMA will include a 12-tonne 'downhole hammer' type piling rig, an excavator and cranes. A concrete pump would be used in association with the construction of the boardwalk, and would be located within the seaward limits of Marine Square. The machinery required for the redevelopment of Marine Square will include road milling machines, asphalt laying machines, excavators, rollers, graders, and concrete cutters/breakers. The acoustic report also comments that the final eight months of the construction period will be 'of lower intensity and will not involve significant noise-generating operations'. The report identifies the noise-sensitive receivers as being the residential and business zoned area on the northern side of Queens Parade (i.e. opposite Marine Square).

In terms of assessing compliance with the Regional Plan: Coastal and the District Plan, the Acoustic Report has identified the District Plan rules as the most relevant to consider for the entire works given that the majority of the work area is located on land, and the noise-sensitive receivers are located on land. While the District Plan references the NZS 6803P:1984 for the assessment of construction noise, the standard has since been superseded by NZS 6803:1999 'Acoustics - Construction Noise' (the 1999 standard). The Acoustic Report has been undertaken against the 1999 standard as this is now considered to be best practice. In particular, the report states that the noisiest construction will be undertaken over four months and as such the 'typical duration' (less than 20 weeks) has been applied.

The Acoustic Report has identified the noise-making activities and likely construction noise levels at the nearby residential and commercial interfaces (refer Section 6.0 of report, Attachment 11). According to the 1999 standard, the noise limits at both interfaces is 75dBLAeq between the proposed work hours of 7am-7pm. The noise assessment identifies that the activities that will exceed the noise limits at the residential and commercial interfaces are:

asphalt laying using an asphalt spreader;

aggregate spreading/compaction using graders and rollers;

concrete cutting; and

concrete breaking using an pneumatic breaker.

These works will all be undertaken within Marine Square. The Acoustic Report recommends management and mitigation measures, within a Construction Noise Management Plan, including project management, limitations on use of vehicles, limiting construction to quiet activities between 6.30-7.30am and 6.00pm-8.00pm (although it is noted that construction hours sought are 7.00am-7.00pm), installation of noise barriers, monitoring, contingency measures, and noise complaint management and liaison with neighbouring properties. Overall the report concludes that the construction noise will comply with the noise limits provided the recommended Construction Noise Management Plan is implemented.

Peer Reviews

The proposal has been peer reviewed by two Acoustic Specialists – the Council's Environmental Health Officer Mr Bin Qiu (Attachment 10) and the Council's Consultant Acoustic Engineer, Mr Jon Styles (Attachment 11). The proposal was also reviewed by Council's Development Engineer, Mr Moraes, who recommended standard conditions of consent that require the construction noise to comply with the District Plan provisions. Mr Qiu reviewed the proposal on receipt of the Acoustic Report and concurred with the findings of the Acoustic Report. Mr Qiu further recommended conditions of consent


of 94

including limitations on noise levels and compliance with the proposed Construction Noise Management Plan7.

As part of the integrated consent process, the application was referred to consultant Acoustic Engineer, Mr Jon Styles (refer Attachment 11) for peer review of the construction noise and compliance with both the District Plan and Regional Plan: Coastal. Mr Styles confirms that the applicable standard to review the application against is the NZS 6803:1999 'Acoustics - Construction Noise'. Mr Styles' review indicates that the lack of information provided on the exact nature of the construction activities

... makes it difficult to determine the full nature and extent of the works, and perhaps more importantly what the duration of the noisy works may be.

In particular, Mr Styles considers that the most applicable limits within the 1999 standard should relate to the 'long term duration' rather than the 'short term duration' given that there is no evidence that the noisy works will be confined to the initial 4 months of construction. Mr Styles further notes that some of the noisy works will be undertaken within 1-2m from sensitive receivers in order to undertake drainage, paving and kerbing. At this distance it is considered that acoustic screening would not provide adequate mitigation, nor achieve compliance with the 1999 standard. It is also noted that while the piling activity may be able to comply, this cannot be confirmed without further detail of the piling rig and exact operation proposed. Overall Mr Styles considers that, with mitigation measures, it will not be possible for the construction to comply with the construction noise limits of the 1999 standard. However, subject to a more robust and detailed construction management plan (in particular, proper management and good communication with affected receivers), the noisy aspects of construction can be undertaken without generating significant adverse effects.

The writers concur with this assessment and Mr Styles recommendations to manage and mitigate noise generation shall form conditions of consent. Overall, provided the conditions of consent are complied with for the duration of the works the adverse effects of noise on the adjacent land uses are considered to be minor.

5.2.4 Traffic and Transportation Effects

Car Parking

The proposed redesign of Marine Square will provide the following parking arrangements:

96 long term (P24 hour) angle parking spaces;

Six P60 angle parking spaces;

Nine P180 parallel spaces;

52 P180 angle parking spaces; and

Six P5 drop off spaces.

Overall the number of spaces available will decrease by 34 spaces, with the largest decrease in allocation taken from the long term spaces (P24 hour) which will decrease by 43 spaces. An additional bus bay will be created to allow for a total of four buses to be parked at any one time. Approximately three additional cycle stands will be established, resulting in 13 stands within the square.

The number of parking spaces and the proposed time allocations have been amended from what was originally proposed in the AEE and ITA (refer to most current parking plans

7 Mr Qiu made his comments when the Land Use consent was a separate application to North Shore City Council.


of 94

[Figures 13, 14] prepared by Isthmus and contained in Attachment 7 as part of the further information provided on 28 October 2011).

The rationale for the redesign of the carparking area and reallocation of spaces has been provided by the applicant as follows (refer Figure 15, Attachment 7):

To allow for the 'creation of a true civic square' by providing a continued access from Wynyard Street, where currently there is a dog-leg from Wynyard Street into the square;

To allow for pedestrian connections from Wynyard Street by creating dedicated crossings and creating a footpath within Marine Square to the west of the short term parking area where currently one does not exist; and

To allow for the additional bus parking bay which is required to meet future public transport initiatives.

The applicant's rationale for the reduction of the parking is to:

Create a legible pedestrian connection (the landing) from Victoria Street to the wharf;

Create six P5 ('kiss and ride') spaces for drop off and pick up.

The ITA states that the P5 spaces ('kiss and ride') will reduce the parking demand for commuters and will increase ferry patronage.

The ITA also states that the construction of the new mountable roundabout at the intersection of Victoria Road and Queens Parade to replace the existing street sign pole and rock base is proposed in order to improve manoeuvrability within the area as it will allow for turning of two semi-trailers.

Peer Reviews

The loss of long-term car parking spaces was raised as an issue by the consent processing officers and Mr Budd. It is also noted that 26 submissions (approximately 65%) raised concerns that there would be adverse effects as a result of a decrease in the number of car parking spaces.

The applicant was requested to provide further information relating to future public transport initiatives and existing bus services that may be available to address the effects of the loss of the 43 P24 hour long-term (commuter) car parking spaces.

Additional assessment was provided by the applicant (refer Attachment 7), in relation to ferry and bus usage and capacity, and use of the long term (P24 hour) parking. In summary, the further information found the following:

In the peak period on one day (Tuesday 29 March 2011) between Devonport and Auckland's CBD (7.11am-9.11am), there was a total of 1,043 ferry passengers;

On Friday 7 October 2011 there were 195 vehicles parked within the P24-hour parking zones (including the on-street Queens Parade parking ). 102 of these cars (52%) were registered at addresses within a 400m radius of bus routes that service the ferry terminal. 13 of these cars (7%) were registered at addresses between 400 and 900m radius of the ferry terminal; and

Bus capacity from start to finish of route during peak period (7am-9am) showed that there was an average of 30 seats available on each bus.

In Mr Budd’s review (refer Attachment 12) he notes that while the proposal will result in the loss of 43 P24 hour parking spaces, the P60 and P5 spaces will encourage the use of additional public transport services that will be introduced in the near future. In particular, Mr Budd states:

It is considered that the introduction of the new integrated ticketing facilities by Auckland Transport in late 2012, with improved public transport and ferry services, will encourage the public and local residents to use public


of 94

transport and therefore mitigate the overall effects of removing the parking spaces.

...the effects of the reduction in parking spaces would be mitigated by the introduction of the integrated ticket facilities and improved public transport services.

Mr Budd recommends that the existing number of T2 spaces located within the existing P24 hour area be retained. This is considered appropriate to encourage car pooling associated with the ferry services and as such a condition is recommended to secure this requirement.

Council's Development Engineer, Mr Moraes has also reviewed the proposal (Attachment 9) and has recommended a condition of consent to ensure that the consent holder constructs the roads and vehicular access in compliance with Council's Infrastructure Design Standards. This is also proposed to form a recommended condition of consent.

Overall, the proposal will reduce the number of long term (P24 hour) parking spaces available within Marine Square from 139 to 96 spaces. This will impact on local residents in the area who currently utilise these spaces for commuting to the CBD by ferry. However, it is noted that further information provided by the Applicant indicates that there is adequate capacity within the existing local bus services, with a number of those residents using the existing P24 hour spaces living within walking distance of either the ferry terminal or existing bus routes. No information has been provided on the location of bus stops and whether those parking in the 24 hour spaces have mobility issues or other restrictions that may discourage them from either walking or using public transport. Future public transport initiatives and the provision of an additional bus bay as part of the proposal indicate that public transport to and from the Ferry terminal will improve in the near future, enabling the community to utilise the ferry services to a greater extent. As such, it is considered that while the reduction of car parking spaces at Marine Square may result in short term effects to existing users, there are alternative methods of transport currently available, and improvements to these methods likely in the near future. On balance, it is considered that any adverse car parking effects in the long term will be minor in nature.

Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety

The proposal involves the realignment of the existing pedestrian access to create a more legible access from Victoria Road to the wharf. The 'landing' will be constructed of a long raised speed table which will be one straight crossing intersecting the car parking area within Marine Square. It is also proposed to create two new pedestrian priority (zebra) crossings, one on Queens Parade and one on Wynyard Street, and create a new footpath within the square for pedestrian access from the Queens Parade zebra crossing.

According to the ITA, the raised speed tables/crossings will act as a traffic calming measure. In particular, it is proposed that the raised crossings will have appropriate signage and markings that will provide an indication of shared priority. Tactile strips will be provided on the footpaths adjacent to the crossings to assist the visually impaired. It is stated in the ITA that the shared priority will create:

a level of uncertainty for all users (pedestrians and vehicles) thereby enhancing all road users awareness of each other ...

The ITA acknowledges that this may cause problems for the visually impaired and mitigation measures will be identified and implemented at the detailed design stage in conjunction with the safety auditing process.

The ITA states that the creation of additional on-street parallel parking on Queens Parade to provide for the additional P60 parking spaces will narrow the carriageway, which will assist to slow traffic and create a more pedestrian friendly environment.


of 94

The proposed signage and road markings have not been finalised, and measures such as reducing the speed limit in the immediate area may be proposed during detailed design and the undertaking of a safety audit.

The ITA includes an assessment of the 5-year crash data for Marine Square, Queens Parade adjacent to the square, and the immediately adjacent areas of the roads running perpendicular to Marine Square. The ITA concludes that there are

... no inherent safety problems that will be exacerbated by the proposed upgrade of Marine Square. On the contrary, it is considered that the upgrade, particularly of the pedestrian facilities will improve the safety of the area.


Mr Budd has reviewed the proposal (Attachment 12) and has not identified any concerns in relation to vehicular and pedestrian safety.

Of the submissions, six (15%) commented that the proposal will improve pedestrian access and legibility, whereas one submission considered that the redesign of the pedestrian access was unnecessary, one submission considered that the vehicular and pedestrian design was inadequate, and one submission considered that the proposed pedestrian access does not follow a natural or obvious route.

Overall, it is considered that traffic and pedestrian safety will not be compromised by the proposal provided that signage, road markings, and devices to assist the visually impaired are adequately provided for during detailed design. It is recommended that such details be provided to the Council for approval prior to construction being completed to ensure that pedestrian and traffic safety has been adequately addressed. This shall form a recommended condition of consent.

Traffic Generation

Once the construction works are completed, the available car parking within Marine Square (as previously discussed) will be reduced by a total of 34 spaces. This may be anticipated to result in a reduction in traffic in the area created by vehicles parking within Marine Square during peak rush hour periods due to the reduction in long term (P24 hour) parking spaces.


Mr Budd has reviewed the proposal and concludes that the proposal will have a less than minor impact on the surrounding road network (Attachment 12).

Overall, given the reduction in commuter car parking provided within Marine Square it is considered that the proposal will not result in any long-term effects in terms of traffic generation during peak periods, with less than minor effects on the surrounding road network as a result of the proposed upgrade.

5.2.5 Amenity Effects

Urban Design, Visual Amenity, and Local Character Effects - On Land

The AEE states that the purpose of the proposed redesign of Marine Square is primarily to enhance the linkage between Devonport and the ferry terminal and to enhance the overall amenity of the entrance space to Devonport Wharf. In urban design terms, this relates to improved legibility of access to the wharf through the realignment of the pedestrian linkage from Victoria Road to the wharf. The Applicant considers this to be necessary as the current arrangement means that:


of 94

Pedestrians filter through an expansive parking area in conflict with a range of vehicular movements and an array of historical elements and visual clutter.

The Applicant provided a combined landscape and urban design assessment with the application, prepared by Isthmus Group and dated September 2010. This was superseded by a report dated December 2010 and is annexed in Attachment 3.

The Isthmus Group assessment states that the current environment would result in visitors arriving by ferry and struggling to find visual references that link to Devonport. This is largely due to the existing west-facing pier deck, which faces away from the town centre and the car park area and consequently provides no clear route to Victoria Road and the Devonport township. The assessment considers that the proposed new boardwalk and 'the landing' will result in an improved connection between Devonport township and the Devonport Wharf by creating a more direct pedestrian access and visual link.

In relation to visual amenity, the Isthmus Group assessment makes the following comments:

The design will create a more open and inviting entry statement to the Devonport waterfront, especially when arriving via the ferry service.

The openness is more in keeping with historical character of the village and the iconic Esplanade Hotel will be visually exposed as a result of the proposed layout.

The height, bulk and form of the new structures proposed in the design are consistent with the existing built form of the maritime area.

The materials, colours and design complement and enhance the overall appearance of the wharves.

There will be no adverse effects on views form buildings fronting the Square as a result of the proposal.

The location of the proposed Marine Square upgrade is upon an area of land that has been reclaimed and is highly modified.

It (the proposal) is in scale with the waterfront and village.

Peer Review - Sarah Lindsay

The proposal has been peer reviewed by Council's Specialist Urban Design Architect, Ms Sarah Lindsay (see Attachment 13). Ms Lindsay is supportive of the proposal and concludes that the 'proposal is of a high quality from a design, and urban design standpoint'. Ms Lindsay further comments that the upgrade will result in a 'strong, well-designed 'gateway', and that the proposal enhances the existing historic character of the town centre. This assessment is concurred with.

It is noted that 16 submissions supported the proposal from a design, legibility and visual amenity aspect with two submissions stating that there would be adverse effects on visual amenity as a result of the proposed Marine Square upgrade.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will provide an improved layout from the perspective of pedestrian legibility of access between the wharf and the Devonport township. There are not considered to be any adverse visual effects in terms of the structures proposed within the square (e.g. streetlamps and seating) and design of the layout given the already highly modified nature of Marine Square. The proposal will not significantly alter the character of the area, with the general form and use of the area being generally maintained. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in any


of 94

significant adverse effects in terms of visual amenity, urban design and local character, and will in fact result in positive effects from a legibility perspective.

Trees

The proposal involves the removal of nine pohutukawa trees (Trees 4-12 as referenced in the Applicant's Arborist Report), the relocation of two pohutukawa trees (Trees 2 and 3) and two Washingtonia palm trees (Trees 13-15) within Marine Square and works within the drip line of one pohutukawa tree (Tree 1) (refer to Tree Strategy Drawing contained in Attachment 7). The applicant has advised that these trees require removal and relocation in order to create the new layout. The trees are located throughout the square, predominantly within the existing islands.

As a result of additional section 92 requests for further information and discussions with the applicant, the applicant has amended their proposal since lodgement so that two of the pohutukawa trees (Trees 2 and 3) will no longer be removed, but will be retained and relocated within the site. It is also now proposed that two additional pohutukawa trees will be planted within the southern car parking island (refer letter dated 28 October 2011, Attachment 7). The remaining pohutukawa trees will be destroyed rather than relocated for the following reasons as advised by the applicant (refer letter dated 26 August 2011, Attachment 6):

Traffic visibility and safety

Trees need to have a canopy with at least 2m clearance above ground and trunks of no more than 200mm maximum to ensure visibility between vehicles and pedestrians.

Urban design

The visual and physical linkage between Victoria Road and the wharf cannot be created with the existing trees in their locations. The existing trees are inappropriate to retain as they would require significant pruning and low spreading branches would intrude into parking spaces and bus parking.

Risk and Cost

The cost of relocating Trees 2 - 12 would save $15,000 of project costs. The trees may not survive given that several trees have developed large mounded root systems that would be difficult to accommodate in the new planters. Tree 12 is located close to underground power services.

Visual amenity

Replacement trees would thrive better in the new growing environment than transplanted trees.

The pohutukawa trees to be removed are described in the applicant's Arborist Report prepared by Karl Burgisser of Arborlab (see Attachment 4), as follows:

Tree 4 - 4.5m in height, average vigour, reasonably dense crown and well balanced crown shape. This tree could be relocated.

Tree 5 - 4.0m in height, average vigour, well formed with a balanced crown. The tree should not be considered for relocation.

Tree 6 - 3.0m in height, below average vigour, poor form. The tree should not be considered for relocation.

Tree 7 - 4.0m in height, below average vigour, slightly less dense crown. The tree should not be considered for relocation.

Tree 8 - 4.0m in height, low vigour, sparse crown. The tree should not be considered for relocation.


of 94

Tree 9 - 4.5m in height, below average vigour, slightly sparse crown. The tree should not be considered for relocation.



Tree 12 - 3.0m in height, average vigour, poor branch structure. The tree should not be considered for relocation.

It is proposed to undertake landscaping within the islands in the square involving rain gardens (southernmost island only), flower beds and the planting of 10 specimen grade pohutukawa trees. In particular, as a result of further information requested, the applicant has advised that the replacement trees will be Metrosideros Maori Princess, with a minimum height of 4.7m at the time of planting. The applicant has provided a planting specification and maintenance regime for the replacement planting (refer further information dated 26 August 2011, Attachment 6).

As a result of requests for further information the applicant has provided asset owner approval from Mike Weaver, Team Leader Parks Operations North, for the removal of the pohutukawa trees (refer further information dated 26 August 2011, Attachment 6). The approval includes conditions requiring approval prior to works commencing and placing responsibility on the applicant for costs and replacement planting. These shall be incorporated in recommended conditions of consent.

Peer Reviews

The proposal has been reviewed by Council's Consultant Arborist, Mr Chris Boucher (Attachment 14). Mr Boucher has been involved with the application since lodgement of the land use consent and does not support the removal of the pohutukawa trees, with transplanting of the existing trees considered to be a preferable outcome. Mr Boucher has made the following comments in relation to the proposal:

....the concept of transplanting the better quality specimens (existing Pohutukawa trees) within the project is in my view, a sustainably ethical solution to the proposal.

The fact that these specimens (Pohutukawa trees) have not achieved a more prominent stature...(is) more an indictment of inadequate growing environments provided, historical mismanagement pruning...and lack of ongoing maintenance...The trees appear to be largely condemned for these reason alone, whereas with adequate aftercare following a transplanting exercise, the trees will invariably perform far better than juvenile, forced-grown examples obtained from a sheltered nursery environment.

I am aware (anecdotally) however that the cost of planting similar-sized Pohutukawa trees by the Council at ... Hauraki Corner is comparable with that associated with transplanting the existing trees in Marine Square.

The pruning of nursery-grade replacement trees to achieve desired sight-lines etc, will substantially reduce crown bulk and corresponding visual amenity values that that provided by existing trees ... Accordingly I consider that the applicant's comments in relation to a perception of little change in the effects of amenity values of the existing tree population, should proposals to remove the trees proceed, is significantly downplayed.


of 94

... I consider that relocation of existing trees is a cost-effective and viable proposition and should be adopted as avoidance of adverse environmental effects caused by proposed removal of the trees and their replacement. I am of the opinion that these effects are potentially more than minor.

It is noted that Mr Boucher supports the relocation of the palm trees subject to appropriate methodologies being undertaken during the works, and subject to appropriate aftercare.

The proposed tree removals and mitigation planting was also reviewed on behalf of the Council by Mr Stephen Brown of Brown Limited in terms of potential adverse landscape effects (refer Attachment 15). In Mr Brown's original assessment dated 21 September 2011 he concluded that the removal of much of the existing vegetation at the eastern end of Marine Square would result in a loss of:

continuity and connection with the nearby reserve planting ... it's softening of the terminal profile, and its mitigation of the area of hard standing and car parking between the terminal and Esplanade Hotel.

Mr Brown recommended that some trees should remain to 'anchor' the bottom of Victoria Road adjacent to the pedestrian access proposed, and that at least one additional tree should be proposed within the carparking area to mitigate the high level of hard standing and carparking exposed.

As mentioned previously, in relation to Mr Brown's recommendations, the applicant has since proposed to relocate two of the pohutukawa trees (Trees 2 and 3) to align with the pedestrian access, and two additional trees are proposed within the islands of the carpark. Mr Brown has reviewed the amended proposal (refer Attachment 15) and notes that while the amended proposal does not address all of the concerns set out in his first review, it does address the most significant concern in terms of the planting adjacent to 'the landing' and the visual linkage of the planting to the adjacent reserve. Mr Brown concludes that:

... Isthmus Group's revised planting concept is considered acceptable in terms of its future landscape effects and outcomes.

In terms of actual and potential effects on the environment, the most significant adverse effects to consider would be those effects of the tree removal in terms of amenity (both visual and social).

Four submissions commented on adverse effects from the tree removal, and two submissions stated that the proposed landscaping and replanting as being inappropriate. In this respect it is acknowledged that the existing pohutukawa trees may have some amenity value to local residents. However, it is noted that the trees to be removed are understood to be less than 15 years old and as such should be of less historical or social importance to the Devonport township development. As noted, and since close of submissions, the applicant has proposed to relocate two pohutukawa trees that were proposed to be removed, and has also proposed to plant two additional trees in the islands within the carpark.

Based on comments from Mr Brown, it is considered that the proposal will result in acceptable effects in terms of visual amenity over time, provided that the specimen trees are of a suitable quality and size at planting, and that the trees are maintained thereafter. While Mr Boucher has raised 'sustainability' as a concern in terms of the tree removals, the matter of sustainable management (as per section 5 of the RMA) has been further considered in Section 10.2 of this report (Part 2 of the RMA). It is noted, however, that the proposal will result in positive social and economic benefits (such as a safer and more legible access between Devonport township and the wharfs). Additionally the trees to be removed not have any significant adverse effect on soil conservation or ecosystems, and


of 94

mitigation planting will meet the needs of future generations provided the trees are maintained.

The proposed relocation of the existing Washingtonia palms and works within the dripline of existing pohutukawa trees that will not be removed are considered to result in less than minor adverse effects on the health of the trees provided that tree protection and relocation methodologies are adhered to. Mr Boucher (although unsupportive of this aspect of the application) has provided guidance on such methodologies should consent be granted, which are recommended to form any conditions of consent.

Overall, the proposed tree removal is considered to result in acceptable effects in terms of visual and social amenity effects provided that the mitigation planting is of suitable quality and size and provided the trees are maintained thereafter. Conditions of consent are recommended in this respect.

Natural Character, Landscape, Visual Amenity - CMA

The applicant provided a combined landscape and urban design assessment with the application prepared by Isthmus Group and dated September 2010. This was superseded by a report dated December 2010 and is annexed in Attachment 3. This section of the assessment addresses the landscape and visual amenity aspects of the proposal with the urban design and local character matters addressed in the sections below.

Applicant’s Landscape and Visual Assessment

The assessment discusses the existing environment and acknowledges its function as a ferry hub for the North Shore of Auckland (for both commuters and as a destination for tourists), its relationship to the neighbouring volcanic cones of Mt Victoria and North Head and its historic character.

The assessment acknowledges and describes the relationship between Devonport Wharf, adjoining Marine Square and Devonport township but states that there is no strong legible connection between Devonport Wharf and the township due to the existing offset between the ferry wharf alignment and the main street (Victoria Road). The assessment states that Marine Square's current configuration, referring to a lack of planted permeable surfaces and described the area as “vehicle dominant”, creates pedestrian conflict and clutter as pedestrians seek to filter between the wharf and the township.

The assessment refers to a number of positive effects that would result from the proposal and these are summarised as:

The proposed boardwalk, and upgraded pedestrian spaces would create a better and more direct connection to Devonport township;

Marine Square will be more pedestrian friendly and safer through the use of wider pedestrian walkways and traffic calming devices;

The proposed boardwalk would encourage more recreational use of the Devonport Wharf and would encourage cafes and shops to open onto it;

The proposal introduces planting areas within Marine Square to improve the visual appearance and character of the areas; and

The Devonport Wharf would be more of a destination for tourism rather than as a terminal for ferries.

Natural Character

With regard to natural character, the assessment states that there are few elements in the landscape that add to the natural character of the area and these values are low due to the extent of urban development over the years, including significant areas of reclamation (and


of 94

seawalls) to create Marine Square. Those elements remaining in the area that have some degree of natural character include:

The sandy beach either side of the Devonport Wharf; and

The pohutukawa and Washingtonia palm trees that are aligned with the Queens Parade and Marine Square carriageways and on the abutting Windsor Reserve.

The report states that the proposal will not compromise the highly modified natural character of the coastal environment.

Visual Amenity

The assessment considers that there would be no adverse visual effects from the proposal on the basis that it would improve the linkage between Devonport township and pedestrian access in these areas. The assessment also refers to positive recreation effects through the provision of a more interactive space on the eastern side of Devonport Wharf resulting from the proposed boardwalk.

Peer Review by Jeremy Froger (Brown Limited)

A peer review of the landscape and visual assessment prepared by the applicant was undertaken by Mr Jeremy Froger of Brown Limited and is annexed as Attachment 16. Mr Froger’s review agrees with the applicant’s landscape assessment in terms of the description of the locality, the description of the proposal and the existing character and context of the locality. Mr Froger’s review notes that the assessment does not make reference to Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), which although not identifying the Waitemata Harbour coastline as being regionally significant or outstanding, recognises the Mt. Victoria Volcanic Cone for its geological values and that it is subject to a volcanic cone view protection sightline height limit of 9m across Marine Square and part of Devonport Wharf (including the area where the proposed boardwalk would be located).

Mr Froger’s review also notes that the landscape assessment had not recognised that the coastline comprising Devonport Wharf has been classified as an Outstanding Landscape with a rating of 6 (out of 7) in the Regional Plan: Coastal.

Methodology

Mr Froger’s review generally accepts the landscape assessment methodology adopted by the applicant and notes that applicant has taken a ‘broad’ and ‘holistic’ approach relative to amenity and natural character effects.

Natural Character

Mr Froger’s review states that the assessment of natural character by the applicant does not provide a description of what constitutes natural character or a set of criteria from which an assessment of natural effects has been made. However, it does acknowledge that the natural character of the Devonport waterfront has been substantially eroded by reclamation, coastal structures, vegetation clearance and the urbanisation of the coastal environment. In conclusion, Mr Froger states with regard to the proposed boardwalk in the CMA:

Considering the highly modified nature of the coastal environment and that the new boardwalk would be an incremental addition to the long established Devonport wharf. I agree that the proposal would present very limited natural character effects.

Visual Amenity

With regard to the proposed boardwalk, Mr Froger states that much of the assessment by the applicant is focussed on positive benefits to be achieved through the revitalisation of the spaces and the creation of stronger linkages. However, Mr Froger adds that limited


of 94

discussion has been provided on the effect of “covering-up” part of the beach on the eastern side of Devonport Wharf as a result of the proposed boardwalk. Mr Froger considers the potential adverse effects to be two-fold:

Views to the beach would be obscured – particularly at high tide; and

Public access to and use of this section of beach would be limited.

Mr Froger states:

The beach is one of the few natural elements that softens the seawalls and reduces the heavily constructed nature of the coastal edge. It appears that the location of the beach has migrated eastward with the construction of the Windsor Reserve groyne and now appears relatively well settled under the wharf. That said, it is acknowledged that the beach is visually impinged by the existing structures and has a very contained feeling – the wharfs (sic) almost appear intimidating. It is also acknowledged that a larger proportion of the beach can be easily accessed to the west, where the wharf is much less imposing and views open out across the inner harbour. Given this, the beach would remain legible and the proposal would inject a greater sense of surveillance and activity along its margins.

In conclusion Mr Froger states:

On balance, the proposed reconfiguration of the waterfront, the parking areas and improved public amenity derived from such improvements would outweigh the imposition of the boardwalk. As such, I conclude that the proposal’s low amenity effects would be acceptable – i.e. would be no more than minor.

In this case, the landscape/visual effect experts for the applicant and the peer review undertaken by the Council have reached similar conclusions regarding the nature of the proposal, its potential adverse landscape and visual effects and the urban design outcomes sought by the proposal. Both experts agree that any adverse effects on existing natural character, landscape values and visual effects will be minor. The writers agree with these conclusions that the amenities and legibility of the area would be improved from the proposed upgrade to the wharf and Marine Square.

From a landscape visual perspective, the most contentious issue is the partial loss of the open beach space between Victoria Wharf and Devonport Wharf as a result of the proposed boardwalk addition. This also has heritage implications and this is discussed in detail in the heritage assessment below. However in terms of landscape and visual effects, it is considered that the loss of use of much of this section of beach would have only minor adverse effects for the following reasons:

The section of beach to be covered by the boardwalk is enclosed by the configuration of Victoria Wharf and Devonport Wharf and views to the wider Waitemata Harbour are obstructed by these structures. This has diminished the amenity value at beach level due to the "intimidating" and "constrained" nature and scale of these wharf structures.

The area of beach to the west of Devonport Wharf is open and has expansive views back to the Auckland CBD, marina and port areas. This section of beach also has direct public access from Marine Square. This section of beach has higher amenity values and will not be affected by the proposed boardwalk construction.

Access to part of the existing beach would still be possible via the existing concrete steps following the completion of the boardwalk.


of 94

The covering of this section of beach will be mitigated by the proposed improvements to access, recreation and connectivity between Devonport Wharf, Marine Square and Devonport township.

Public Access to the CMA

At present public access to the CMA is provided at Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf. Devonport Wharf also performs the function as a public transport ferry hub to Auckland CBD, Rangitoto and Waiheke Island. Public access is provided to the small beach areas either side of Devonport Wharf via steps (eastern side) and directly from the footpath (western side). Public access to and along the CMA is provided via footpaths adjoining the seawalls running the length of Queens Parade and King Edward Parade.

As discussed in the urban design and landscape/visual assessments above, the proposal is designed to improve the relationship between Devonport Wharf, Marine Square and Devonport township while also maintaining and enhancing public access to and along the CMA.

In terms of effects on public access to the CMA, it is considered that this will be maintained and enhanced as access and recreational use of Devonport Wharf will be improved without any limitation on its public transport function (other than limited construction effects as discussed above). While there will be some loss of amenity and public access to the beach on the eastern side of the Devonport Wharf, the section of beach to be covered with a boardwalk will still be used to facilitate public access to and along the CMA. Furthermore, access to the remaining area of beach on the eastern side of Devonport Wharf will still be possible from the steps that form part of the seawall. It is therefore considered that this loss of beach access will have a marginal adverse effect which would be adequately mitigated by the provision of access and improved connectivity via the proposed boardwalk.

Lighting and Noise

New street lighting will be established within Marine Square as part of the proposal in order to create a better lit area for pedestrians. A total of 18 lamp poles are proposed throughout the square and along Queens Parade adjacent to the square. The poles will be between 5.0m - 7.5m in height (refer lighting plan, contained as Appendix D to the AEE, Attachment 2). The AEE confirms that the lighting design and associated lux levels (between 2.5 - 20 lux) will comply with the District Plan standards.

The proposal will not produce any ongoing noise post-construction as a result of the proposed Marine Square upgrade and new boardwalk in the CMA above that which already exists from people using the carparking area and accessing the wharf for ferry services and recreation. This has been confirmed by Mr Styles who notes that the 'operational phase has no noise-generating components' (refer Attachment 11).

Amenity Effects Conclusion

Overall, it is considered that the amenity effects in terms of the natural character of the coastal environment, landscape and visual effects, effects on local character, urban design outcomes and public access have been assessed the applicant and the peer reviewed by Council exports and overall these are considered to be minor subject to recommended conditions of consent. In terms of the proposed tree removal, the proposal will result in acceptable effects in terms of visual and social amenity provided that conditions of consent are met.


of 94

5.2.6 Heritage

Built Heritage

Works on the scheduled Commemorative Seawall will be required to construct the proposed timber boardwalk and will include disestablishing part of the wall and the cast iron and pipe handrail during the works period. The wall will be re-established to the height of the adjacent land, with 8m of heritage handrail removed to allow pedestrian access to the new boardwalk. The boardwalk in the CMA will abut the seaward side of the reconstructed seawall. No works are proposed on the second scheduled item within the site, the E.W. Allison Memorial and Clock.

As part of a further information request the applicant has provided an Assessment of Effects on Heritage Values prepared by Jeremy Salmond of Salmond Reed Architects Ltd (refer further information dated 28 October 2011, Attachment 7). This assessment advises that construction of the seawall around Devonport commenced in 1899, with the wall resulting in an increase in the area of level land at the waterfront, significantly changing the harbour edge character from what was a sandy beach. Commemorative works commenced in 1902, resulting in the current handrail which extends 1.2km from the Naval Base to the Devonport Yacht Club to the east. Mr Salmond notes that the railing itself is aluminium tubing of recent origin and the wall has been re-surfaced in recent times using concrete render. Mr Salmond comments that:

... it is arguable that the particular value of this feature lies in its specific design and detail rather than in the absolute authenticity of all its component parts.

and

... that the heritage values of the seawall and handrail will not be affected by the removal of no more than 8 metres of its length. Only minor breaches in the handrail will be caused (adjacent to existing interruptions in its length), allowing for pedestrian access to Devonport Wharf.

Mr Salmond further notes that the actual amount of change to 8m of the seawall affects only 4% of its total length, that the original metal stanchions of the handrail will be reinstated, and the wall has already been modified. The assessment also states that the effects of the proposed change on the character of the scheduled item will be 'imperceptible or less than minor'.

Peer Review - Bryan Bennett

The proposal has been reviewed by Council's Heritage Specialist, Mr Bryan Bennett (refer to Attachment 17). Mr Bennett does not raise any significant issues of contention in relation to the deconstruction and reconstruction of the seawall and removal of the handrail, subject to a requirement that the surplus metal posts and handrail be stored for future use, and that clarification be provided on the extent of the removal of the breastwork wall and methodologies proposed for the works on the wall.

Mr Bennett has, however, raised issues of contention in relation to adverse effects on the seawall as a result of the proposed boardwalk in the CMA covering the beach below, these are addressed in the following Cultural Heritage section of this report.

It is noted that two submitters raised concern in relation to the potential adverse effects on the seawall as a result of the works, and one of these submitters (Devonport Heritage Incorporated) requested that a Conservation Plan be prepared, as required by Rule 11.4.1.5 of the District Plan.

Overall, the proposal to deconstruct and reconstruct the seawall is considered to result in minor adverse effects on the heritage values of the wall given that the wall has already been modified and the change will only be minor in nature and will affect a small portion of the overall wall. The top of the seawall will still be visible as the boardwalk will abut it and


of 94

will not cover it. It is recommended that conditions be placed upon the consent to ensure that the seawall in its current form is recorded prior to deconstruction and to ensure that its reconstruction is undertaken in a complementary manner. Methodologies for the works should be provided to the Council for approval prior to works commencing to ensure that the works do not adversely affect the integrity of the adjacent wall and that no damage to the heritage item occurs. It relation to the handrail it is considered that the effects will also be less than minor given that there are existing breaks in the continuity of the handrail for the wharf and access to the beaches in the immediate vicinity. A condition of consent is therefore recommended to require that the metal posts and handrail be stored for reused within the immediate area, as close as possible to the existing handrail for contextual purposes.

Cultural Heritage

This aspect of the assessment relates to the cultural heritage impact of the proposed boardwalk on the existing beach located between Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf and its relationship with Devonport Wharf and the Commemorative Seawall (which is a heritage item scheduled for protection under both the District Plan and the Regional Plan: Coastal).

The applicant was requested to consider this relationship following an initial peer review response from Mr Bennett who considers the relationship between the beach, Devonport Beach Wharf and the Commemorative Seawall to be significant. Mr Bennett considers that the loss of access to and view of the beach to be covered by the proposed boardwalk and its interface with the seawall would be significant as the beach, in his opinion, provides a cultural heritage context for the existing seawall. In his assessment Mr Bennett states that the Devonport Wharf "touches lightly on the sand" with the beach providing a context for the wharf. Mr Bennett considers that when considered as a whole, Marine Square, the Commemorative Seawall and the adjoining beach constitute a cultural heritage landscape of regional importance, and therefore a matter of national importance under section 6(f) of the RMA). It is noted that the issue of covering the beach was a matter of concern in one submission with the submission seeking that this aspect of the proposal be refused.

Heritage Assessment for the Applicant by Salmond Reed Architects

In October 2011, the applicant engaged Mr Jeremy Salmond a heritage architect with Salmond Reed Architects to assess the heritage values of the locality and the impacts of the proposal on those heritage values (including the proposed placement of the boardwalk on the beach between Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf). The assessment provides a detailed history of maritime development at Devonport, including a history of ferry services and associated development at Devonport and the construction of wharves, reclamations (to create Marine Square), maritime related buildings and public transport services (refer Attachment 7).

Mr Salmond acknowledges the heritage values of the Commemorative Seawall and its classification in the District Plan and Regional Plan: Coastal and, while he recognises the beach as being part of the immediate context of the seawall, he disputes whether the beach constitutes a regionally significant cultural landscape. Mr Salmond states:

Since it is a natural phenomenon, it must be recognised as part of the immediate setting for the sea wall, but is not protected in either plan for these reasons. I would suggest in any case that to characterise the beach alone as the heritage setting for the wall is to ignore the wider seascape of the harbour, and the important constructed urban setting provided by the Devonport wharves. That setting has itself changed repeatedly since the original construction of the sea wall.

I understand from technical advice provided to the project that the new wharf will have no effect on the beach, either by erosion of the existing strand (sic) or by leading to increased sedimentation. The beach will, therefore, continue to exist, and to advance and recede as it has


of 94

customarily done though wave and tidal action. While the greater part of the beach will be covered by the new construction, a significant portion will remain visible at all tides.

Mr Salmond adds that any adverse cultural heritage effect caused by the proposed covering of the beach by the boardwalk will be mitigated by the public benefits attributable to the proposal including integrated shore-based activities and a better relationship between the Devonport Township and the Devonport Wharf ferry services.

Mr Bennett disagrees with Mr Salmond's assessment and maintains that the beach is an important component of the existing cultural heritage landscape. Mr Bennett states:

The interface of the beach with the Commemorative Seawall and the Square is of considerable heritage significance. The existing wharf structures appear to touch lightly upon the shore-line. The contrast between the natural qualities of the small beach – delineated at its interface with the relatively large-scale pedestrian and vehicular circulation area is strikingly unusual and unexpected within the context of the city confines and is a very important part of Devonport’s historic character. Very rarely within the urban context of the inner-harbour wharf facilities – if at all, do we find the direct association with a sandy beachfront – the association is all the more valuable by contrast with the character of the Quay Street wharf facilities. Nowhere else in the city do we have a busy ferry-wharf encompassed by a beach.

For these reasons Mr Bennett maintains that covering most of this section of beach with the proposed boardwalk would constitute an adverse effect on heritage that is more than minor.

In his assessment, Mr Bennett acknowledges that the proposed opening up of the eastern side of Devonport Wharf has merit, provided that it does no encroach upon on the beach area. He states:

The proposed glazing/openings in the walls of the existing wharf building will greatly improve the appreciation of the beach if it was not covered by a deck. However, a smaller deck or bridge, which partially replicates the alignment and appearance of the existing western deck would be more appropriate, thus retaining a larger area of the eastern end of the beach.

Discussions regarding possible design alternatives have been conducted with the applicant on the possibility of an alternative layout that would satisfy Mr Bennett's concerns. However, the applicant has dismissed these proposals on the basis that they are not necessary or practical.

Having considered both the expert opinions of Mr Bennett and Mr Salmond, it is considered that the heritage effects associated with the boardwalk are finely balanced. At a localised level the existing relationship between the beach and the scheduled Commemorative Seawall is considered to be of some relevance and significance to the consideration of an overall effect on heritage values. Accordingly, the covering of a significant portion of this beach will change the way that beach is used and how the beach as a whole is perceived and valued. It is therefore considered that the proposed boardwalk will have an immediate and localised adverse effect on the exiting cultural heritage landscape that, when considered in isolation, would be more than minor.

However, in the context of the wider heritage landscape, which includes Marine Square and the entire length of the Commemorative Seawall (approximately 1.75km), and the retention of the area of beach along the western side of Devonport Wharf, those adverse effects are considered in an overall sense to be less acute. In particular, it is considered that the applicant has been diligent in their efforts to minimise physical damage to heritage resources, including minimising damage to the fabric of the seawall and confining the removal of the existing seawall handrail to only that needed for access to the boardwalk.


of 94

The proposal also avoids any works to the scheduled E.W. Allison Memorial and Clock. It should also be acknowledged that the maritime history of the Devonport waterfront is one of dynamic change in response to the needs of the community and its function as a ferry hub and, more recently, its function as a tourist destination. In this broader heritage context, it is considered that the wider heritage landscape would remain intact and adverse effects would be minor.

Archaeological Heritage

As previously discussed in section 4.2 of this report, the NZHPT) and Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd lodged submissions requesting further information on the archaeological and cultural heritage effects of the proposal. Subsequently an archaeological assessment was requested from the applicant, which was undertaken by Geomeotria Ltd (refer to further information dated 27 June 2011, Attachment 4).

The Geometria assessment provides a comprehensive assessment of the background of the Devonport area. The assessment notes that there are no archaeological sites recorded within the Devonport marine area, with all other landward sites located remote from the subject works. Overall the assessment concludes that:

Although there are no archaeological sites recorded on the property, the history of occupation around the Devonport coastal margin suggests that there is a possibility of archaeological discovery beneath the reclamation fill and within the marine square area bounded by the original coastline.

The seawalls around the wharf that will be affected by bedding of the wharf extension are post 1900 structures and are not recorded archaeological sites.

The assessment makes some recommendations that Iwi consultation should be undertaken, that an authority to modify should be sought by NZHPT, and that a Koiwi Discovery Protocol be developed. The applicant has advised that Iwi consultation is being undertaken (refer further information dated 26 August 2011, Attachment 6) with a protocol being developed. It is also note that both the NZHPT and Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd have withdrawn their submissions.

Peer Review - Vanessa Tanner

Council's Senior Archaeologist, Ms Vanessa Tanner, has undertaken a peer review of the Geometria report (refer Attachment 18). Ms Tanner concludes that the potential effects on archaeology are low and can be mitigated under the Historic Places Act 1993.

The applicant has undertaken consultation with the NZHPT, which has since withdrawn its submission on the proposal.

Overall, it is considered that there is a low probability of effects on archaeological artefacts and as such any effects are less than minor. In any case, a condition is recommended to ensure that works cease should any archaeological artefacts be uncovered and that Iwi, NZHPT, and the Council are contacted immediately in such an event.

5.2.7 Navigational Safety

The proposed works relate to a section of the existing Devonport Wharf which is fully enclosed by other wharf structures (see Figure 1) and is not accessible to vessels other than small non-motorised craft such as kayaks and the like. For this reason, the proposed boardwalk addition poses no navigation and safety risk of any significance.


of 94

5.2.8 Infrastructure and Flood Hazards

Marine Square has been identified on Council's GIS as containing flood plains and is a flood sensitive area. Works within these areas will include earthworks, tree removals, and the establishment of structures such as lighting poles and seating areas.

The applicant has advised in the AEE that the proposal will result in an overall decrease in impermeable (paved) surface coverage within Marine Square by 309m2. Raingardens are proposed within the southern island in the car parking area for stormwater mitigation, with additional stormwater pipes to be installed to collect excess stormwater from the raingardens. The pipes will connect to existing pipes and coastal outfalls.

Further information was requested in relation to details of the raingardens. This information was provided by way of section 92 response dated 21 December 2010 (Attachment 3). In particular, the applicant has confirmed that a 150-200mm drop in level from the pavement to the raingarden will be incorporated into the design, that no kerb is proposed adjacent to the raingarden and that the pedestrian crossing will be raised above the raingardens by 150mm to allow for stormwater flow.

Peer Reviews

The proposal has been reviewed by Mr Nagels - Council's Consents Engineer Stormwater (refer Attachment 19), who has not identified any significant issues of contention, other than the recommendation that the engineering drawings be amended to the approval of the Council to indicate the specific details provided in the applicant's section 92 response. Conditions are recommended in this regard.

The proposal has also been reviewed by Council's Development Engineer, Mr Melvyn Moraes, who has made additional recommendations in relation to stormwater, including that detailed engineering design be provided to Council for approval as an Engineering Works Application. These recommendations shall form conditions of consent to ensure that the systems proposed on site are sufficient for their purpose and do not result in any off-site effects.

Overall, it is considered that any adverse effects in relation to stormwater and flood hazards will be less than minor, provided that the applicant undertakes the works with adequate silt and sediment control protection during earthworks (as previously discussed in Section 5.2.3 of this report), and provided that the on-site stormwater design is undertaken to the approval of the Council. Furthermore it is noted that the impermeable surfaces on site will be decreased by 309m2 and raingardens will be installed where currently such mitigation does not exist within the square.

5.2.9 Positive Effects

The applicant refers to a number of positive effects in the AEE including improved access to the CMA, improved tourism and recreation opportunities, improved public transport services and parking, improved linkages from Devonport Wharf to the Devonport township and associated improved commercial opportunities. These outcomes are supported through the urban design/landscape assessments, traffic and transportation assessments provided by the applicant, and in an overall sense by the applicant's planner. These positive outcomes are also generally supported by the Council's expert peer reviews. The writer’s also agree with those conclusions, and accordingly, it is considered the improvements sought by the proposal will result in positive effects on the environment overall.


of 94

5.2.10 Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect is an environmental effect that will occur as a result of an accumulation of existing like-effects (which in the past may have been minor but have reached a tipping point) or a combination of new effects, each of which may individually be minor, but are more than minor in combination. A cumulative effects assessment is particularly relevant in the case of a non-complying activity as a proposal may pass the through the minor effect gateway assessment under section 104D but may fail under a cumulative effects assessment under the substantive assessment under section 104. The Courts have clarified that a cumulative effect is an effect that will occur as a result of granting consent as opposed to an effect that may occur (including the consideration of an adverse precedent) resulting from the grant of consent.

In this case, while there may be incremental adverse effects associated with localised heritage values (loss of access to a section of the existing beach), tree removal and loss of parking spaces, these effects are considered to be adequately mitigated by positive aspects of the proposal including improved public access to the CMA, improved tourism and recreational opportunities, improved urban design and improved linkages to Devonport township and its commercial activities. Accordingly, any cumulative effects are considered more likely to be positive rather than adverse.

5.2.11 Effects Conclusion

With regard to effects on natural character, the proposal involves the upgrade of existing facilities within a highly modified urban environment and with an extensive history of transportation and recreational activities. The Applicant’s proposal to maintain and enhance public access and to improve legibility and linkages to the Devonport township will assist with mitigating the adverse effects of the proposal and this would assist with improving the public’s enjoyment of the coastal and recreational attributes within Devonport.

With regard to effects on heritage, while there may be a localised adverse heritage effect caused by the covering a section of beach between the Devonport and Victoria wharves, the effect on heritage values is considered to be highly localised in extent and minor in effect when considered in the wider context, and can be adequately mitigated by the proposed improvements to public access, public transport facilities, recreation and urban design linkages to Devonport township. Conditions of consent will ensure that there are no adverse effects on the integrity and nature of the wall as a result of the deconstruction and reconstruction of the seawall.

In relation to the proposed tree removal, any adverse visual and social amenity effects are considered to be acceptable provided that the mitigation planting is of a suitable quality and size and provided the trees are maintained thereafter.

The removal of some of the long-term car parking may affect some residents. However, based on the review by the Council's expert that alternative methods of transport are available, and will be improved in the future, an appropriate level of parking will be retained. Overall, it is anticipated that the upgrade will provide a better layout with improved pedestrian and traffic safety, although further detail of safety measures is required through recommended consent conditions.

It is considered that the actual and potential adverse effects (including cumulative effects) on the environment in terms of coastal processes, natural character, landscape and amenity values are minor, and this has been confirmed through the assessment by experts for the applicant and by peer review for the Council. Other matters including navigational safety, cultural and heritage matters, infrastructure and flood hazard management, and management of noise are also considered to have been appropriately addressed and can be further mitigated through appropriate recommended conditions of consent.


of 94

There will be no long-term adverse effects in terms of noise, earthworks and alterations to the landform of the site as the highly modified environment of Marine Square will not be substantially altered in terms of use or operation. Recommended conditions of consent will adequately mitigate and manage any temporary construction effects.

Overall, it is concluded that the actual and potential adverse effects of the proposed upgrade to Marine Square and Devonport Wharf on the environment will be minor, and that, on balance, the proposal will have positive effects on the community in terms of social and economic outcomes.

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

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

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

There are no National Policy Statements relevant to this application

5.5 Section 104(1)(b)(iv): Relevant provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

The NZCPS is relevant to this application. The purpose of the NZCPS is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand.

The relevant policies of the NZCPS include:

Provide for the integrated management of resources in the coastal environment (Policy 4);

Recognition of the need for infrastructure in the coastal environment important to the social and economic wellbeing of people and communities (Policy 6);

Consider where and how built development on land should be controlled so that it does not compromise activities of national or regional importance that have a functional need to locate and operate in the CMA(Policy 6);

Encourage development in locations that maintain the character of the existing built environment and where development resulting in a change in character would be acceptable (Policy 6);

Consider how adverse visual impacts of development can be avoided in areas sensitive to such effects, such as headlands and prominent ridgelines, and as far as practicable and reasonable, apply controls or conditions to avoid those effects (Policy 6);

Set back development from the CMA and other water bodies, where practicable and reasonable, to protect the natural character, open space, public access and amenity values of the coastal environment (policy 6); and

Recognise that a sustainable national transport system requires an efficient national network of safe ports, servicing national and international shipping, with efficient connections with other transport modes by ensuring that development in the coastal environment does not adversely affect the efficient and safe operation of these (Policy 9);

To protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment (Policy 11);


of 94

To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (Policy 13);

To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (Policy 15;

Recognise the need for public open space within and adjacent to the coastal marine area, for public use and appreciation including active and passive recreation, and provide for such public open space (Policy 18); and

Recognise the public expectation of and need for walking access to and along the coast that is practical, free of charge and safe for pedestrian use (Policy 19).

The relevant provisions of the NZCPS have been considered and it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with NZCPS for the following reasons:

The proposal represents a co-ordinated and integrated approach to the management of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment as it upgrades the land-based, ferry-based and public transport related infrastructure at Devonport;

The proposal relates to important transport infrastructure as Devonport Wharf is a strategically important hub for ferry services to commuters and tourists;

While the proposal would have some localised effect on cultural heritage, overall, the proposal has a minor adverse effect in the wider heritage landscape and on the natural character, visual, landscape or amenity values associated with Devonport and the wider Waitemata Harbour;

The proposal provides for enhanced public access to the CMA and recreational activity within the coastal environment through the provision of a boardwalk that provides a legible and direct link between Devonport township and Devonport Wharf.

5.5.1 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) must be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement.

Section 7 of the HGMPA recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments, and emphasises the life-supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf and the capacity to provide for the social, economic, recreation and cultural wellbeing of people and communities. Section 8 outlines the objectives for the management of the Hauraki Gulf, including the protection, maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity, natural historic and physical resources, cultural and historic associations; the contribution of natural historic and physical resources to the social and economic wellbeing; and the contribution of natural historic and physical resources to the recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf.

The objectives are broad-based and are intended to protect, maintain and where appropriate enhance the life supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands.

The matters to be considered in terms of the HGMPA are not dissimilar to those arising under the NZCPS, and accordingly the conclusions reached in the preceding section of this report are considered to be equally relevant to the HGMPA. In particular, it is considered that the proposal will not detract from the existing (albeit modified urban) natural character


of 94

of the surrounding coastal environment, nor affect the life supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf generally.

Although there is potential for tension to occur between the coastal heritage values of the area and the need to upgrade local amenities and linkages, it is considered that the proposal would have minor effects on marine ecological values, minimal adverse visual impact and as such would maintain the overall amenity and values of the Hauraki Gulf. The proposed Marine Square and Devonport Wharf upgrade also accords with the principles of the HGMPA in terms of recognising the values of the Hauraki Gulf for recreation, as Devonport is a major gateway to islands in the Hauraki Gulf.

The proposal is to enhance those matters raised in section 8(d), (e) and (f) of the HGMPA in as much as the proposal will enhance peoples appreciation of the Gulf (including Devonport), enhance the social and economic wellbeing of the Devonport township and community and peoples recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be contrary with either sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA.

Overall, and as stated above, it is considered that in the context of the nature of the proposed activity, the site and locality characteristics, and the above assessment of effects of the proposed activity on the environment, the proposal would not be contrary to the provisions of the HGMPA.

5.6 Section 104(1)(b)(v) Relevant Provisions of the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement

The Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS) is a strategic document which sets out the direction of managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. This document became operative in 1999.

The strategic objectives and policies of the ACRPS provide a framework to achieve the integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the Region’s resources. This framework is based upon not compromising the strategic direction of containment and intensification and the avoidance of adverse effects on the environment.

Under the ARCPS matters related to environmental protection such as the coastal environment, have specific objectives, policies and methods to achieve sustainable and integrated management of major natural and physical resources in the Region.

Chapter 4 of the ACRPS relates to Transport. Relevant objectives aim to develop a transport network which enables communities to gain access to community resources, provides an acceptable level of accessibility between important activity areas, and which is as safe as practicable. Policies of relevance include integrated planning which reduces the need for vehicle travel and development of transport systems that promote the use of forms of transport which have fewer adverse effects on the environment (i.e. public transport and high occupancy vehicles). In this respect the proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies as it will improve pedestrian access and legibility between Devonport township and the ferry terminals, will provide a safer access for pedestrians, and will allow for additional parking for future extended bus services. Furthermore, the reduction of commuter parking (P24 hour) will reduce the number of single car occupancy commuters who may alternatively utilise bus services.

As noted in the AEE, Chapter 7 (Coastal Environment) of the ACRPS identifies eight issues and has 10 objectives, 10 sets of policies and methods, most of which are relevant to the wharf proposal. In particular: Objective 7.3(1) and Policy 7.4.4(1) require that the natural character of the coastal environment be protected. Objective 7.3(3) is to enable appropriate use and development to be undertaken in the coastal environment. Policy 7.4.10 requires that in assessing the appropriateness of use and development in the coastal environment, particular regard shall be had to:


of 94

natural character; public access; amenity values; public open space; that there is a functional need for use and development within the CMA; that activities are of an appropriate scale, location, and design; and that there are no significant adverse effects on the CMA or adjacent land.

The applicant's landscape and visual assessment concludes that the proposed upgrade development is acceptable and will have minor effects on natural character and landscape values. The peer review assessment by Mr Froger accepts those findings.

Policy 7.4.10(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”. The AEE advises that this policy is met on the grounds that the proposed boardwalk addition is consistent with the established character and intended use of the area as a ferry terminal for commuters and tourists.

The occupation and use of an additional part of the coastal environment for the proposed boardwalk will represent an activity with a visual character that is not incongruous in this locality and corresponds in general terms with the existing range of ferry-related activity which presently occurs at Devonport. As assessed earlier in this report, the proposed upgrade is considered to have a minor effect on the already modified natural character of Devonport and appropriately safeguards the remaining elements of natural character and landscape values of the area and its ecological processes, and therefore will have a minor adverse effect.

Objective 7.3(6) and Policy 7.4.13(1) relate to public access to the CMA, and like the NZCPS, require that this be maintained and enhanced. In this case, the proposed upgrade will provide enhanced public access to Devonport Wharf while also improving its function as the primary ferry terminal for the North Shore of Auckland. As discussed above, the proposal will maintain and enhance public access to CMA and will maintain access to the beach on the eastern side of Devonport Wharf. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be consistent with these policies.

Chapter 8 identifies four issues in relation to water quality (8.2.1-8.2.4), along with an objective and policies and methods which are relevant in part to the proposal (8.3 and 8.4). As noted in the AEE, the policies regarding stormwater and sediment discharges, maritime activities and sewage reticulation and disposal are most applicable to the wharf upgrade development. These issues have been addressed as part of the preceding assessment of effects section of this report.

Overall, having considered the relevant provisions of the ACRPS, it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions. In particular, the proposal will provide for future public transport initiatives and will improve public access between Devonport township and the ferry terminal, with the altered parking arrangement reducing 'commuter parking' and thus encouraging the use of public transport and carpooling. The proposed upgrade is of a scale that can be accommodated without significant change to the modified natural character of the surrounding coastal environment and will continue to maintain and even enhance public access to the CMA at Devonport.

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

5.7.1 Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section)


of 94

5.7.1.1 Relevant Objectives and Policies

The following objectives and policies of the District Plan are considered relevant:

Section 8 – Natural Environment

The objective that applies to coastal conservation aims to protect the natural character, public access, heritage values and ecology and landforms of the coastal environment. The related policies include defining the coastal conservation yard and requiring a foreshore yard in order to protect the coastal environment and management of environmental effects of adjacent development and uses on public access, hazards, and natural values.

The objectives of tree management seek to protect tree cover and retain trees that contribute to amenity, landscape and ecological values. The related policies include the protection of coastal native vegetation and pohutukawa trees in particular, and the retention of trees that contribute to the values of the area in which they are located.

Comment

It is proposed to establish structures (street lamps, seating and rubbish bins) and remove nine pohutukawa trees within the CCA. It is also proposed to connect the boardwalk to the Marine Square within the foreshore yard and CCA.

While Mr Boucher, Council's Consultant Arborist, opposes the removal of the trees, it is considered that the proposed mitigation planting of ten new specimen Pohutukawa trees will, over time, adequately mitigate any visual amenity effects as a result of the proposed tree removal, provided conditions of consent are adhered to.

In terms of the structures proposed these are largely similar in nature to that which currently exists and are of a scale and style which will complement the existing highly modified nature of Marine Square and the adjacent CMA which comprises of a seawall, two wharfs, wharf access to Marine Square, and a wharf building.

Public access will be limited to the coastal margin during Stage 1 of the works for the construction of the boardwalk, however this will only be for a period of 4 months, and the remaining coastal margin will be freely accessible.

Overall it is considered that the proposal will be consistent with the objectives and policies contained in Section 8 of the District Plan.

Section 9 – Subdivision and Development

The relevant objective aims to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of development on the physical environment, biota, amenity values and landscape. The related policies seek to retain significant landscape features, to ensure that silt and sediment control measures manage any adverse effects of run-off, to ensure that new development recognises existing natural features and landscapes, to ensure that natural hazards are not exacerbated, and to manage earthworks in terms of scale, location and timing to minimise cumulative effects within any catchment.

Comment

The proposal involves earthworks over the entire site area. However the majority of these works (90%) merely relate to the removal and replacement of existing paving. The deepest cut is required for creating the new planting beds, and this will only be to a maximum of 0.6m in depth. The site is relatively flat and provided conditions of consent are adhered to relating to silt and sediment control, it is considered that any effects of the earthworks will be acceptable and able to be contained within the site area.



of 94

Section 10 - Pollution, Hazardous Substances and Waste Management (and Noise)

The objective for noise aims to protect the community and high amenity areas such as residential and recreational areas from excessive and unreasonable noise levels. The policies related to achieving this objective focus on setting noise performance standards to ensure amenity values are retained, identifying and mitigating potential adverse noise effects at the consenting stage, and applying mitigation techniques.

Comment

In the view of Council noise expert, the proposal cannot comply with the relevant noise standards for construction noise due to the duration of the works period and likely noisy machinery within proximity to residential and business uses adjacent to Marine Square. As previously discussed, Council's consultant acoustic engineer has advised that even with standard noise reduction measures the noise will not comply with the standard. However, with a more robust and detailed CMP, the construction can be undertaken without generating significant adverse effects. This assessment is concurred with and specific measures to manage noise effects have been specified within the required CMP which forms a condition of consent.


Section 11 – Cultural Heritage

The objective and policies for buildings, objects and places of heritage significance aim to recognise and protect heritage items through ensuring that any works are undertaken in a manner consistent with the heritage values of the item, including the historical association, integrity and environmental character, and ensuring that the quality and character of any scheduled item is not adversely altered or removed.

Comment

As discussed previously, the proposed physical works involving the deconstruction and reconstruction of the scheduled seawall is considered to result in less than minor adverse effects on the heritage integrity of the seawall, provided that adequate recording of the structure is undertaken and the works methodology ensures that the seawall is not damaged.

While the seawall will sit lower for the 8m length of the boardwalk connection than it does currently, the top of the seawall will remain visible as it will not be covered by the boardwalk. Given that in the immediate area there are several breaks in the seawall for beach or wharf access, the proposal is considered to be in character with the surrounding area. The proportion of wall to be lowered is only 4% of the total length of the wall and is within an area where there are existing breaks in the seawall. As such, the overall heritage value and character of the seawall will be affected to only a minor degree.

The proposal will also result in the removal of an 8m portion of the handrail attached the seawall. This is considered acceptable given that the handrail is not continuous in this area currently due to the pedestrian access provided to the existing wharves and ferry building, and to the beach. It is however recommended that the handrail be reused within Marine Square/the adjacent wharf for contextual reasons.

It is noted that Council's Heritage advisor, Mr Bennett, has raised issues of concern in respect of the covering of the beach in the CMA as a result of the boardwalk construction. This matter is addressed fully within section 5.2 of this report and within the following sections addressing the objectives and policies of the Regional Plan: Coastal.



of 94

Section 14 – Network Utilities and Designations

The relevant objectives relating to network utilities aim to construct, operate and maintain network utilities to meet the needs of the community while avoiding any adverse effects on amenity, landscape, streetscape and heritage values that may arise from their construction and/or operation.

Comment

The proposal includes the provision of parking areas associated with transport infrastructure within the road reserve and the Recreation 1 Zone. The location of the carparking is considered appropriate as the parking areas will be located in areas which are already developed for carparking in association with the ferry terminal. The proposal also encompasses landscaping and new street furniture and areas of seating which will aid in improving the visual amenity of the area. It is noted that the car parking area itself does not result in any adverse effects on the heritage items within Marine Square, it is the construction of the boardwalk within the CMA that will require works on the scheduled seawall.


Section 19 – Recreation

The relevant objectives and policies of the recreation zones aim to ensure that there is a range of open space available to meet recreational, conservation and visual needs, to ensure that open space is developed appropriately by protecting native trees and historic sites, and to allow for the provision of carparking and vehicle access as necessary while minimising traffic flows on adjacent streets.

The Recreation 1 zone objective is ‘to conserve those areas and features of open space which are of high environmental value.’ The associated policies give priority to the conservation and protection of natural areas and archaeological and environmental landscape features of value.

Comment

The proposed works within the Recreation 1 zone are discussed in the previous paragraphs. Furthermore, it is noted that the Recreation 1 zone subject to this application is currently already used for the same purpose as that proposed and the proposal will not increase the scale of adverse effects of this activity (being a carparking area in association with the ferry terminal). The addition of the boardwalk which will link into the Recreation 1 zone from the adjacent CMA will be in keeping with the existing character of the site, given the presence of the existing wharf structures which are connected to the site. Furthermore, the boardwalk will improve accessibility to the wharf and as such will meet the recreational needs of ferry users.


Proposed Plan Change 24 - Addressing Environmental Effects in Areas Subject to Natural Flooding Hazards

The Plan Change inserts additional objectives and policies into Section 8 – Natural Environment as they relate to flood plains. In particular, the objectives and policies aim to protect flood plains and overland flow paths and adverse effects of development on flood plains and overland flow paths through avoiding structures in these areas, protecting vegetation cover and ensuring that adverse effects are mitigated.


of 94

Comment

The proposal will result in less paved impermeable area than what currently exists within Marine Square, and additional mitigation measures such as raingardens are proposed to decrease stormwater runoff from the area. The proposal has been reviewed by the Council's development engineer and stormwater engineer who have raised no issues of contention provided conditions of consent are met.

Overall it is considered that the proposal will be consistent with the objectives and policies contained in Proposed Plan Change 24.

Overall Comment

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will be consistent with the provisions of the District Plan because the proposal involves the upgrade of Marine Square which will not alter the nature of the activities that currently exist in the square, will result in minor adverse effects (which can be mitigated through consent conditions), and will result in fact result in positive effects, particularly in terms of visual amenity.

5.7.1.2 Relevant Rules and Assessment Criteria

While the application is a non-complying activity and there are no specific assessment criteria for non-complying activities within the District Plan, it is considered relevant to assess the application against those assessment criteria that would otherwise apply to the proposal in order to provide an understanding of the intent of the District Plan rules.

Having regard to the assessment of the effects of the proposal and the relevant assessment criteria of the Plan, the following comments are made in regards to this proposal:

Section 8 – Natural Environment

Structures within the CCA

The proposal involves the establishment of the boardwalk connection, street lamps, seating and rubbish bins within the CCA. This requires assessment as a controlled activity against the criteria contained in Clause 8.4.1.2 ‘Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities’ as follows:

a) Any existing native bush, or other vegetation which contributes to the natural character, should be retained where practicable, and sufficient landscape planting shall be provided to ensure that buildings blend with the existing natural character of the surrounding coastal landscape.

As discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this report the applicant proposes to remove nine pohutukawa trees within Marine Square which are considered by the applicant to be inferior for relocation due to the nature of the root system of the trees, and relocation is not warranted for cost reasons. The proposed replacement planting of 10 specimen pohutukawa trees along with relocation of other trees within the square is considered to adequately mitigate the removal of the existing trees, and will provide a sufficient level of vegetation in relation to the appearance of the carpark notwithstanding the concerns raised by Mr Boucher.

b) Any earthworks necessary for the creation of building platforms or access should create minimum disturbance to the landform and character of the site.

c) Any driveway and parking and turning areas should be constructed in a manner which requires minimal disturbance to existing landform or vegetation.

The proposed earthworks are predominantly for the replacement of the existing paving for vehicle access, parking and pedestrian access within Marine Square. The earthworks will


of 94

not alter the landform and character of the site once completed. The majority of the existing pohutukawa trees do require removal in order to undertake the works, however the improved, more legible, pedestrian access to and from Devonport township and the ferry terminal will provide a positive benefit to the community.

d) Buildings should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimises any change to the existing landforms and vegetation so that buildings do not visually dominate, they blend with the natural character and are complementary to significant coastal landforms in the locality (such as coastal cliffs).

No buildings are proposed.

e) Wherever possible stormwater shall be disposed of in locations other than the coastal edge.

The proposal involves additional raingardens which will mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff. The applicant has advised that new pipes will be constructed to help with overflow from these raingardens, and these will be connected to the public system which may involve the use of existing outfalls into the CMA. No detail of these existing outfall structures has been provided, however it is noted that no new outfall structures are proposed.

f) The location and design of buildings and structures should have regard to their relationship to coastal hazards.

The streetlamps, seating and rubbish bin structures will be located away from the coastal edge on established paved area, and as such will not be affected by normal coastal processes. However, the boardwalk connection will occur on the coastal edge. The exact construction methodology for the deconstruction of the seawall and construction of the boardwalk will be finalised once detailed design is undertaken. A CMP condition of consent is recommended which will include a requirement for detailed construction methodologies and measures proposed for ensuring stability of the land at the coastal margin.

Removal of Pohutukawa Trees in the CCA

The proposal requires consent as a discretionary activity for the removal of nine pohutukawa trees located within the CCA, the road reserve and the Recreation 1 zone, the removal of one pohutukawa tree in the Foreshore Yard, and works within the dripline of one pohutukawa tree located within the CCA and within the road reserve. This requires assessment against the criteria contained in Clause 8.4.6.6 ‘Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities’ and Clause 8.4.6.7 ‘Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities’ as outlined below:

8.4.6.6.1 General Assessment Criteria

a) Where the removal or destruction of a tree (or trees) is proposed, the Council must be satisfied that circumstances exist to warrant removal, which may include dangerous, diseased or damaged conditions; compliance with any statutory or legal obligation; or undue interference with the reasonable enjoyment of land and/or adjoining land of residential zoning for residential purposes.

The applicant has advised that many of the trees to be removed are unsuitable for relocation. While some of the pohutukawa trees may be able to be relocated according to Council's expert, Mr Boucher, the applicant is not willing to relocate these trees due to the cost of relocation of the trees, which the applicant believes will be greater than using specimen grown trees. Overall it is not considered that the proposed tree removal meets this criterion as the trees are not identified as being dangerous, are not required to be removed for any legal reasons and are not interfering with residential land.

b) The extent of the trimming and maintenance of the tree(s), and the method to be used.

N/A - no trimming is proposed.


of 94

c) The extent to which the viability of the native bush would be adversely affected, including cumulative effects.

N/A - no native bush will be affected.

d) Any alternative methods which may be available to the applicant in the achievement of his/her objectives including consideration of an application for flexibility in respect of any development control where this would encourage retention and enhancement of existing large trees on the site.

The alternative method would be to retain the current layout of Marine Square. However, the proposal will result in a more legible access to and from the ferry terminal and will improve the amenity of Marine Square. As such, while the existing layout could remain it is considered more desirable to proceed with the proposed upgrade.

e) Whether the tree(s) can be relocated.

The applicant has advised that the nine pohutukawa trees cannot be retained for reasons of cost and due to the health of the existing trees and low likelihood of successful relocation. As discussed in section 5.2.5 of this report, Mr Boucher, the Council's consultant arborist, believes that the existing trees could be relocated within the site successfully. The applicant has altered their proposal since lodgement following advice from Mr Brown, the Council's Landscape Architect, allowing for the relocation of two pohutukawa trees which were originally proposed to be removed. While there are differing opinions on the viability of the remaining trees to be relocated, it is considered that over time the proposal as it stands will result in acceptable effects in terms of visual amenity.

f) Whether or not the proposed activities within the root zone are, in the opinion of the Council, likely to damage the tree(s) or endanger its (their) health.

The proposal involves works within the dripline of one pohutukawa tree. Council's arborist, Mr Chris Boucher, has assessed the proposal and has made recommendations for protection measures for the subject tree during the works. These are recommended as conditions of consent.

g) The extent to which the tree(s) or area of bush contributes to the amenity of the neighbourhood, both visually and physically, including as a habitat for birds and other animals.

The existing trees provide a level of visual amenity to the surrounding area, however the applicant's arborist report notes that the majority of the trees to be removed are of average-poor health with sparse canopies. While these trees may have some amenity value for local residents, it is considered that the replacement trees proposed will (over time) provide adequate mitigation for the loss of these trees provided conditions of consent are adhered to requiring that the trees health and habitat is maintained.

h) Any function the tree(s) or area of bush may have in conservation of water and soil.

The existing trees are located within planter pits and as such any role they may play in water and soil conservation will be negligible.

i) Whether proposed landscaping or revegetation can compensate for any loss envisaged.

As previously discussed in section 5.2.5 of this report, it is considered that the replacement planting and relocation of two of the pohutukawa trees will mitigate the removal of the existing pohutukawa trees within the square in terms of visual amenity effects.

j) The extent to which the tree(s) or vegetation contributes to the historical, social and/ or cultural attributes of a site and surrounding environment.

The existing trees are understood to be 15 years in age and are not known to have any particular historical attributes.


of 94

k) Whether clearance of vegetation will increase stormwater runoff downstream and methods for managing effects on-site.

The vegetation removal will be adequately compensated with new planting, and additional stormwater management measures are proposed in the square than what currently exists.

8.4.6.6.4 Works to Trees in Roads and Reserves

a) In addition to the general assessment criteria above, the Council will also assess applications relating to trees in roads and reserves in accordance with the following criteria and methodology:

i. The extent to which the proposed works to trees are necessary for the safe and efficient provision of the network utility service (including consideration of network utility regulations, legislation and safety regulations).

ii. The objectives and policies set out in Part 8.3.4 of the Plan. iii. Any alternative methods and locations available to the applicant for carrying out

the works to the tree(s) or for providing the utility service such as the relocation of the network utility, diversion or bundling of overhead lines or the undergrounding of network utility services.

iv. Whether appropriate steps will be taken to protect a tree(s) against damage during construction work in the vicinity.

v. Whether or not the proposed activities are, in the opinion of the Council, likely to damage the tree(s) or endanger its (their) health.

As discussed in section 5.2.5 of this report, the applicant has advised that the existing trees would provide traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to low branches which would affect sightlines and visibility within the square.

The objectives and policies are discussed in the previous section whereby it was concluded that the proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies.

The square is currently used for carparking in association with the ferry terminal and there are no other alternative locations that would be as accessible to the terminal.

Tree protection measures (which shall form conditions of consent) will ensure that the trees to be retained will be protected during the construction period.

b) In addition to the above assessment criteria, all applications by network utility operators for works to groups of trees as provided for in Rule 8.4.6.3(a)(ii), shall also require an assessment of the following:

i. Any cumulative effects of the works to trees on the amenity, landscape and ecology values of the neighbourhood or city.

ii. The adequacy and effectiveness of the applicant’s Tree Management Plan, which shall be submitted with the application.

The proposal is not considered to result in any adverse cumulative effects given that the replacement planting proposed is considered to (over time) result in a higher level of visual amenity than currently exists. No Tree Management Plan has been provided, however it is recommended that a condition be placed upon the consent to ensure that the consent holder is responsible for ensuring the health of the trees and that replacement planting of similar specimens should occur in the event that any of the trees suffer ill health, or die.

8.4.6.7 Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities

In the case of pohutukawa in the Coastal Conservation Area, whether the continuous canopy will be interrupted.

There is no continuous canopy as such in Marine Square as it is a highly modified environment, with planting largely located between carparking areas. It is however noted that the site is adjacent to Windsor Reserve which has an abundance of pohutukawa trees


of 94

at the street frontage. Due to comments made by Mr Brown, the applicant has since amended their proposal to include the relocation of two of the pohutukawa trees in the eastern area of the square adjacent to Windsor Reserve.

Overall, for the reasons above it is considered that the proposal will generally be in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria of Section 8 of the District Plan. While the proposed pohutukawa removals do not meet the criteria under Clause 8.4.6.6.1(a) in terms of the reasons for their removal, on balance the landscaping proposed is considered to adequately mitigate any adverse visual effects.

Section 9 – Subdivision and Development

The proposal requires consent as a discretionary activity for site works across an area greater than 100m2 where the site is partially or wholly contained within a secondary flow or 100% AEP flood plain. The proposal also involves site works and erection of structures on land that is flood sensitive area and contains flood plains, requiring discretionary activity consent. The site works within the Foreshore Yard require consent as a non-complying activity and as such the assessment criteria for discretionary activities are considered applicable to consider.

These activities require consideration against the ‘General Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities’ in Rule 9.7.1.1 as follows:

1. The Design and Implementation of Site Works

The extent to which site works, their design, location and execution:

a) Employ adequate and effective techniques or measures to capture and retain any sediment generated through site works and/or associated earthworks and prevent the passage of sediment over land, and/or entry of sediment into water systems, whether naturally occurring or otherwise.

The applicant has not proposed any specific erosion and sediment control measures, however it is recommended that a condition be placed on the consent requiring sediment control measures to be developed as part of a detailed CMP.

b) Appropriately minimise site disturbance and vegetation clearance.

The proposed earthworks are predominantly for removal and reinstatement of paving and as such site disturbance is limited in terms of depth of cut and scale. Vegetation clearance is not required as part of the earthworks, but rather as part of the redesign of the square.

c) Utilise recognised methods and techniques for managing effects on long term water quality and aquatic ecosystems.

The proposal includes raingardens to minimise stormwater runoff to the adjacent CMA.

d) Are proximate to and provide for the maintenance and protection of:

i. Protected trees.

ii. Cliff faces/cliff tops.

iii. Sites of geological significance.

iv. Significant landscape features.

v. Steeply contoured land.

vi. Reserves.

vii. Areas of unstable land or other known natural hazard.

viii. Streams, stormwater drains, lakeside or foreshore yards.

The proposed earthworks will not adversely affect protected trees, as tree protection measures of those trees to be retained will be undertaken during the works. The nature of


of 94

the works is such that the character of the adjacent CMA will not be adversely affected as the earthworks will not alter the landform of Marine Square in a perceptible way.

e) Avoids the elevation of activities on raised ground levels, obscuring views from, visually dominating or overshadowing adjacent sites and neighbouring sites.

N/A

f) Are required by the need to provide safe and stable building platforms and access and by the need to provide utility services, (particularly undergrounded).

The works are necessary for the improvement of transport infrastructure.

g) Adequately provides for reinstatement, revegetation and landscaping.

The proposal is to upgrade Marine Square which involves new paving, landscaping and revegetation.

h) May adversely affect land stability.

There are no known land stability issues within Marine Square.

i) May adversely affect drainage.

The review by Mr Moraes, the Council's Development Engineer, confirms that the proposal will not adversely affect drainage infrastructure, provided that the stormwater system is designed to Council's standards through Engineering Works applications.

j) May modify landforms within the foreshore yard.

The works within the foreshore yard relate to removal of one pohutukawa tree and site works for repaving and the infilling of a redundant planting bed. As such, the existing landform will not be altered to any perceptible degree.

k) Avoids the creation of any impediment to flood water flow within the 1% AEP flood plain.

Marine Square is subject to several flood plains and flood sensitive areas. The proposed works will not result in any new significant buildings or structures that would impede flows and it is proposed to install raingardens which will reduce flows within the square to a degree. The Council's stormwater engineer, Peter Nagels, has reviewed the application and has not raised any concerns in relation to stormwater. Conditions of consent will ensure that the raingardens and associated infrastructure are constructed to Council's standards.

6. Protection of Vegetation and Heritage Features

The extent to which site works reduce the features’ visibility, presence or integrity by establishing, undermining, covering, masking or obscuring, demolishing or removing parts, elements or components of the feature.

As previously mentioned, conditions of consent will ensure that appropriate tree protection measures are undertaken during the works to ensure the health of any trees retained. The site works will not affect any heritage features the deconstruction and reconstruction of the scheduled seawall is required for construction of the boardwalk structure in the CMA.

7. Reinstatement and Landscaping

The extent to which:

a) Provision is made for landscaping in the road berms and on the lots created.

b) Such landscaping contributes to the amenity values of the street scene and the local area.

c) Vegetation removed in the course of development is reinstated in accordance with the objectives and policies of the zone in which the development is located.


of 94

d) Earthworks incorporate the reconditioning of surface soils in areas to be set aside as parks and reserves.

The proposal is for an overall upgrade of Marine Square which includes landscaping. The overall upgrade is considered to result in the improved landscape amenity of Marine Square in the short term with regard to hard landscaping and over the medium to long term with regard to proposed replacement trees.

The proposed site works and erection of structures on land that has been identified on Council’s GIS as being a flood sensitive area and contains flood plains, also requires consideration against the criteria contained in Clause 9.7.3.11 ‘Works within a Secondary Flow Path or Flood Plain’, as follows:

a) The extent to which any works within a secondary flow path or 1% AEP flood plain:

i. Avoids adverse effects on the hydrologic or hydraulic capacity of a waterway;

ii. Will create adverse effects on the waterway or compromise its natural values, including but not limited to modification which results in:

Reduction of waterway area; or

Loss of flood plain storage.

iii. Provide appropriate treatment and measures for sediment control and stormwater discharge quality.

iv. Is necessary to enable the development to occur, and no other design options are available.

The flood plains terminate in Marine Square. The flood plains are not related to any waterway and are most likely due to the topographical nature of the area. The proposal includes the provision of new raingardens and the overall impermeable surface area within the square will be reduced. Mr Nagels has not raised any concerns in relation to the works within the flood plain areas.

Overall, for the reasons above it is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria of Section 9 of the District Plan.

Section 10 - Pollution, Hazardous Substances and Waste Management

The proposal involves construction noise which will not comply with the provisions of the New Zealand Standard for construction noise. This is not provided for in the District Plan and as such requires assessment as a non-complying activity. While there are no specific criteria for the activity it is considered relevant to apply the assessment criteria of Clause 10.10 which states that:

The criteria for assessment of any activity or proposed activity within a business zone which fails to comply with the relevant rule shall be whether the potential adverse effects of the activity or proposed activity can be mitigated by conditions to such an extent that they are equivalent to or less than the level of adverse effects that could be generated by an activity complying with the relevant rule or rules.

As previously discussed in section 5.2 of this report, the Council's consultant acoustic specialist, Mr Jon Styles, has advised that mitigation measures will not adequately mitigate the effects of the construction noise to comply with the New Zealand standard for construction noise.. However it is considered that a more robust CMP detailing proper management and communication strategies will ensure that adverse noise effects are minor.


of 94


Section 11 – Cultural Heritage

The proposal includes the removal of 8m of handrail from the scheduled Commemorative Seawall, and the deconstruction and reconstruction of a portion of the seawall with the end result of lowering 8m of the seawall to ground level. This requires consent as a non-complying activity. There are no specific assessment criteria for this activity, however the ‘General Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities’ contained in Clause 11.4.1.3 are used as a guide and are addressed as follows:

i. The category in which the building, object or place is scheduled and the reasons for which it has been scheduled. Category A items must be protected. Category B items should be protected unless there are compelling reasons for change.

The seawall is a Category A scheduled item. The District Plan (Clause 11.4.1.6) states that Category A items are those which have outstanding aesthetic beauty, or architectural, scientific, or historical significance well beyond their immediate environment. It is understood from Mr Salmond's and Mr Bennett's assessments that the seawall is most likely scheduled for reasons of historical significance.

The proposed works on the seawall are considered to be minor and will maintain and protect the integrity of the seawall provided conditions of consent are adhered to and in particular, that a construction methodology is developed that will ensure the surrounding seawall is not damaged during the works. In terms of the lowering of the seawall and removal of an 8m portion of handrail, any effects on the heritage values of the wall are considered to be minor given the context of the seawall in this location, and given that the remaining majority of the seawall (96%) will not be affected by the proposal.

ii. The nature, form and extent of the development, alteration or change. The attributes or features of heritage significance should be identified and protected.

The seawall will be altered to provide pedestrian access to the new boardwalk, and as such will be slightly lowered in level and will have 8m of handrail removed. It will however remain visible as the boardwalk will abut it, rather than covering it. These works are considered to be localised and relatively minor and will not adversely affect the overall character of the wall, particularly given that there are already several breaks in the wall in the immediate area providing access to the wharves and the beaches. The handrail to be removed is recommended for reuse in the immediate area as part of the upgrade of the square.

iii. The effect of these factors on the character of the scheduled item and on the feature or features for which the item was scheduled. Any significant adverse effect should be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Refer to previous comment.

iv. Evidence presented by the owner as to the consequences for the owner of the scheduling or other compelling reasons indicating why the work is necessary.

N/A

v. Any restrictive covenant with heritage implications that the owner may propose.

N/A

vi. The Council may, in accordance with section 92 of the RMA, commission a report on any matters raised in relation to the application, including a review of any information provided with the application. This may include a report by an architect specialising in building conservation, or the Historic Places Trust.

Peer reviews of the application have been undertaken by the Council's Heritage Specialist, Mr Bryan Bennett, and by Senior Archaeologist Ms Vanessa Tanner. It is noted that Mr


of 94

Bennett has raised concerns in relation to the proposed boardwalk in the CMA which will cover a portion of the existing beach adjacent to the seawall. Given that the covering of the beach is within the CMA, outside of the jurisdiction of the District Plan, refer to the discussions undertaken in sections 5.2 and 5.7.2 of this report. Ms Tanner has raised no issues of contention with the proposal.


Section 14 – Network Utilities and Designations

The proposal involves parking areas associated with transport infrastructure which will be located within the road reserve and Recreation 1 zone and requires consent as a discretionary activity. This requires assessment against Clause 14.6.1.2 ‘General Assessment Criteria’.

Marine Square is a highly modified environment and is already used for carparking in association with the ferry building and wharves, and the proposal will not change this use or the scale and nature of the activity significantly, it is considered that there is little benefit in undertaking a full assessment against the assessment criteria contained in this clause. It is however noted that the upgrade will as a whole improve the visual amenity, accessibility, and legibility of Marine Square, and will improve its relationship with the wharf.


Section 16 - Residential (Assessment Criteria for Buildings in the Foreshore Yard)

The proposal involves the establishment of a boardwalk in the CMA which will link into Marine Square and will be located within the 9m Foreshore Yard. This requires consent as a discretionary activity which will be assessed against the criteria contained within Clause 16.7.5 and 16.7.5.1 as follows:

a) Whether the site has exceptional characteristics where the foreshore yard affects a greater than usual proportion of the site such as: where the site has a triangular shape, more than one boundary is affected by the foreshore yard, or it is a narrow site orientated along the coast; or the site has significant specimen trees or other features which mean it is not possible to achieve reasonable development outside the foreshore yard;

The site is considered to have a special characteristic as it is public open space that abuts the CMA which provides an important role in providing access to the ferry services at Devonport. It is not possible for access to the wharf to be undertaken outside of the foreshore yard.

OR

b) The proposed development is for: small-scale development such as accessory buildings, swimming pools, decks or terraces or above ground stormwater infrastructure.

The proposed connection to the new boardwalk within the CMA is small in nature and will not involve any large structure.

AND

c) The proposed reduction in yard would be consistent with the existing pattern of development;

The foreshore yard will not be reduced above ground level, as the boardwalk will provide an at-level connection from the pavement level to the adjacent wharf. Furthermore, the


of 94

connection to the boardwalk is consistent with the provision of pedestrian access to the existing wharves immediately adjacent.

d) The proposed reduction in width would not unduly compromise the ability to achieve an adequate esplanade reserve should an esplanade reserve be required in the future (note: Council has a guideline on future esplanade reserves); and

The connection to the boardwalk will not affect the ability for an esplanade reserve to be created.

e) There would be no more than minor adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment, landscape, vegetation cover, open space, water quality, cultural heritage values or ecological values; and

As previously discussed in section 5.2 of this report, the existing environment is highly modified and in the area of the boardwalk already exists pedestrian connections to the wharves. As such the proposal will be in keeping with the existing character of the adjacent coastal environment. The boardwalk will require an alteration to the existing scheduled commemorative seawall, this is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this report, and in summary it is considered that any effects in terms of built heritage will be minor in nature.

f) Development does not increase the natural rate of erosion or create significant risk of accelerated erosion and/or instability of the site or adjoining land; and

The boardwalk will not result in any instability or erosion effects, and recommended conditions in relation to construction methodology will ensure that the works are undertaken in an appropriate manner to maintain stability of the CMA/land boundary.

g) There would be no more than minor effect on the amenity of the area; and

Overall the proposal is considered to improve the visual amenity of the area, and the minor nature of the connection of the boardwalk to the land will be in keeping with the existing environment given the highly modified nature of the coastal edge, and existing presence of similar structures.

h) If the land is affected by coastal erosion, development is located and designed so as to minimise or avoid the need for associated coastal protection works; and

The proposal involves the rebuilding of the existing commemorative seawall as part of the boardwalk construction which protects the coastal edge form erosion.

i) Where the proposal is for coastal protection works, whether they are the best practicable option to mitigate coastal hazards; and

N/A - no new coastal protection works are proposed.

j) Where coastal protection works are the best practicable option to mitigate coastal hazards, the works are located and designed so as to mitigate any adverse effects on the natural character and landscape of the coastal area, both at the time of development and within the expected future life of the development; and

N/A - no new coastal protection works are proposed.

k) Where the proposal is for a swimming pool within the foreshore yard, the applicant will need to establish that the swimming pool and any associated fences will have only minor adverse effects on the landscape and amenity value of any adjacent beach or reserve area or walkway.

N/A - the proposal does not include a swimming pool.

l) Where the proposal is for above ground stormwater infrastructure within the foreshore yard, the criteria in 8.4.1.5 shall apply, in addition to the above criteria, where relevant.

N/A - the proposal does not include above ground stormwater infrastructure within the foreshore yard.


of 94

Overall, for the reasons above it is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria of Section 16 of the District Plan as it relates to the foreshore yard.

Section 19 - Recreation

The proposal involves passenger transport infrastructure and facilities in the Recreation 1 zone. This requires assessment against Clause 19.7.1 ‘Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities’.

The provision of passenger transport infrastructure within Marine Square is an existing activity and the proposal will not increase the scale or alter the nature of this activity. As such only a brief assessment against the relevant assessment criteria are is considered necessary:

m) Design of Access

Vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the open space shall comply with the Plan’s Transportation Rule 12.4.2.7 to Rule 12.4.2.9 and Rule 12.4.2.11, and must be

i. Sufficiently remote from busy intersections and corners to ensure adequate sight distances and to prevent on-street congestion caused by vehicles entering and departing the site.

ii. Designed to maximise convenience to users of the site.

iii. Where a site has more than one road frontage, location of access shall be chosen for safety and convenience, and designed so as to protect the aural privacy of adjacent sites.)

n) Parking

i. Every activity should comply with the Plan’s parking controls in Rule 12.4.2.1 unless it can be demonstrated that in relation to a particular proposal, an alternative standard is appropriate.

ii. Car parking spaces should be located and designed so as to minimise the effect on adjacent properties and enhance the appearance of the open space by the provision of adequate separation distances, landscaping and fencing.

iii. Wherever practical parking and access should be designed and located so as to enable its joint use by other activities which utilise the open space.

o) Traffic

i. The proposal should not significantly detract from traffic safety or efficiency having regard to the total volume of traffic attracted, times of peak generation, potential traffic conflict and proximity to any major traffic intersection.

ii. Activities should not attract levels of traffic which would significantly detract from the character and amenity of open space or any adjoining residential site. Activities which generate large volumes of traffic should generally not be located on a minor road, and should have ready access to principal roads in order to avoid heavy traffic volumes on minor roads. In addition such activities should preferably be located in close proximity to public transport routes.

The proposal has been designed to improve both vehicular and pedestrian access through Marine Square and to Devonport Wharf. Measures such as new pedestrian crossings on Queens Parade and additional footpaths within the square will allow for a more pedestrian friendly environment. The proposal has been designed with the aim to create a lower speed environment, where priority is shared which is claimed to improve both pedestrian and driver awareness.

The proposal has been reviewed by the Council's Traffic Engineer, Mr Warren Budd, who has not raised any issues of concern in relation to traffic safety or traffic generation.


of 94

Conditions of consent are recommended to ensure that signage, road markings etc adequately provide for both pedestrian and traffic safety to the approval of the Council.

p) Landscape Design and Site Layout

Any development site should be set out and landscaping provided in a manner which will ensure that:

i. Significant effects of the proposal are internalised to the open space or reserve and, in particular, will not significantly detract from the amenities of adjacent sites.

i. The character and appearance of the development site is compatible with the neighbouring area and the character of the reserve.

ii. The character and values of the open space are enhanced.

In order to achieve this:

i. Wherever practical existing trees and bush should be retained and incorporated into landscaping, especially those existing trees in excess of 4 metres in height. Within the Recreation 1, 2 and 3 zones, any removal of significant vegetation shall generally not be allowed. Any development permitted is expected to be restricted to areas clear of vegetation.

ii. Landscaping and fencing should be provided in a manner which is designed to reduce any significant adverse effect of the proposed activity and its associated building(s), parking and access on the street and adjoining sites. The provision of a landscaped front yard comparable to that of any residential sites in the vicinity is of particular importance for community facilities and sports complexes.

iii. Landscaping shall be compatible with the rest of the open space or reserve and be sympathetic with the broader landscape character of the area. In this section of the Plan, the term “development site” means that part of any recreation zone which is the subject of a development proposal. It will include areas to be used for the construction of buildings, parking, access and landscaping.

It is proposed that nine pohutukawa trees will be removed, and the applicant has advised that these trees are either unsuitable or too costly to relocate. The proposed landscaping and tree removal has been discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this report. In summary, the overall upgrade is considered to improve the visual amenity of the site over time, and will be in keeping with the existing character of the area. This is supported by Mr Brown, Council's consultant landscape architect. In relation to Mr Boucher's sustainability concerns it is considered that the proposal will result in positive social and economic benefits (such as a safer and more legible access between Devonport township and the wharfs), and that the trees to be removed not have any significant adverse effect on soil conservation or ecosystems.

g) Intensity and Scale

The intensity and scale of the proposal, in particular the number of people involved in the use, traffic generation, hours of use, site of building and associated parking, signs, noise and other generated effects should be compatible with the character of the open space and amenities of the surrounding area having regard to the objectives and policies of the zone.

The proposed intensity and scale of the Marine Square upgrade is considered to be in keeping with the existing use of the square, for the reasons set out at section 5.2 of this report.

i) Environment


of 94

ii. In the Recreation 1 zone development and activities should be designed and located to ensure that the ecological and visual qualities of the natural environment are protected, with minimal or no earthworks or tree/bush clearance to be undertaken in areas where locally significant wildlife habitats, native vegetation and natural qualities are present.

iii. Activities and associated development should not have any significant adverse effects on any building, tree or feature protected by other provisions of the Plan.

Marine Square is a highly modified environment and the use of the square is not proposed to change as a result of the upgrade.

j) Site Development

Any site works or any retaining walls should comply with the provisions of Section 9: Subdivision and Development:

iii. Should not detract from the amenity values.

iv. Should be limited to those necessary for the formation of any building platform, access, parking areas or installation of any infrastructure.

Site works have been discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this report. The works are necessary for re-grading and repaving the road and footpaths, and for the creation and reinstatement of planter pits. The site works will not affect the landform of the site in a perceptible way.

k) Reserve Management Plan

In considering the matters outlined in a) to l) regard shall be had to the extent to which the proposed development and activities comply with an approved management plan prepared under the Reserves Act 1977.

There is no known reserve management plan for Marine Square.


Proposed Plan Change 24

The proposed plan change inserts one additional assessment criteria to that under Section 14 – Network Utilities and Designations, Clause 14.6.1.2 as follows:

xiii. Where any activity is proposed within a flood plain and/or riparian margin, whether any potential adverse effects on their natural function and integrity have been considered.

N/A

Proposed Plan Change 24 - Addressing Environmental Effects in Areas Subject to Natural Flooding Hazards

In accordance with Plan Change 24, the proposal requires consent for site works within the 1% AEP flood plain which are not associated with flood protection works or network utilities as a discretionary activity. The proposed plan change also amends the following relevant criteria under Clause 9.7.1.1 (underlined text):

1. The Design and Implementation of Site Works

The extent to which site works, their design, location and execution:

…

d) Are proximate to and provide for the maintenance and protection of:

…

ix. Overland flow paths


of 94

x. 1% AEP flood plains.

...

k) Avoids the creation of any impediment to flood water flow within the 1% AEP flood

plain or overland flow paths.

l) The extent to which site works within an overland flow path or the 1% AEP flood plain materially changes the location, scale, intensity, and/or direction of water flow and/or flood waters.

m) The extent to which site works within the 1% AEP flood plain remove vegetation or

limit the ability of the flood plain to function naturally.

The criteria contained in Clause 9.7.3.11 ‘Works within a Secondary Flow Path or Flood Plain’, are also amended by the Plan Change as follows:

9.7.3.11 Works Within an Secondary Overland Flow Path or Flood Plain

a) The extent to which any works within an secondary overland flow path or 1% AEP flood plain:

i. Avoids adverse effects on the hydrologic or hydraulic capacity of a waterway;

ii. Will create adverse effects on the waterway or compromise its natural values, including but not limited to modification which results in:

Reduction of waterway area; or

• Loss of flood plain storage.

iii. Provide appropriate treatment and measures for sediment control and stormwater discharge quality.

iv. Is necessary to enable the development to occur, and no other design options are available.

v. Maintains the continuity of overland flow paths into and from the site, without diverting or increasing the scale and extent of flows within adjacent sites upstream or downstream.

As discussed in section 5.2 of this report, the proposal is not considered to impede the flow of flood water and proposed rain gardens and additional stormwater measures are will reduce stormwater pooling in Marine Square.

Overall, for the reasons above it is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria of Proposed Plan Change 24.

Overall Comment

The matters raised by the relevant assessment criteria within the District Plan have been addressed through the assessment of actual and potential adverse effects set out in section 5.2 of this report.

In particular, the proposal will result in a number of positive effects including improved pedestrian safety and legibility and will allow for additional bus services to and from Devonport wharf. Any adverse effects are considered to be minor and managed or mitigated through consent conditions.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will be in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria of the District Plan.


of 94

5.7.2 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal

Chapter 10: General

Objective 10.3.1 is to provide for appropriate use and development in the CMA. Objective 10.3.2 is to ensure that efficient use is made of the CMA. Objective 10.3.3 is to maintain where appropriate the open space nature of the coastal environment.

Policy 10.4.1 states that use and development which maintains or enhances public use and enjoyment of the CMA shall be encouraged. Policy 10.4.2 directs that any proposal for use and development shall have regard to maintaining or enhancing recreational use of the CMA. Policy 10.4.3 states that use and development of the CMA shall be considered more appropriate where the environment has already been highly modified by human activities, or located in areas where development already exists. Policy 10.4.5 states that any proposal for use and development shall be located, designed and constructed to complement, as far as practicable, the character of the environment in which it is located, and where practicable be consistent with relevant resource management strategies of adjoining territorial authorities. Policy 10.4.10 considers that occupation of the CMA shall be considered inappropriate unless occupation is necessary for the proper functioning of the activity.

It is considered that this proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 10 as the project is to improve public access between Devonport township and Devonport Wharf and will enhance public access and recreation values in terms of policies 10.4.1 and 10.4.2. Policy 10.4.3 is met as the proposal will be located within the context of a highly modified coastal environment and maintains the primary focus on marine related activities.

Policy 10.4.10 relates to occupation and in this case occupation of CMA, and is considered appropriate for the better functioning and operation of Devonport Wharf and its facilities.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 10.

Chapter 11: Activities

The proposed boardwalk addition to the Devonport Wharf will introduce a permanent structure and a range of temporary construction activities into the CMA. Accordingly, the general provisions relating to the activities in the CMA, as contained in Chapter 11 are relevant. These are set out as follows:

Objective 11.3.1:

To provide for a wide range of appropriate activities in the coastal marine area.

Objective 11.3.2:

To ensure that efficient use is made of the coastal marine area.

Policy 11.4.1:

Activities in the coastal marine area which are not permitted activities by this chapter shall generally be considered appropriate where:

a i there is a functional need to undertake the activity in the coastal marine area; or

ii they are ancillary to an activity which has a functional need to locate in the coastal marine area; or

iii no reasonable or practicable alternative location exists including any location outside of the coastal marine area; or


of 94

iv the activities are for the cultural and traditional needs of Tangata Whenua; and

b any landward development associated with the activities in the coastal marine area can be accommodated; and

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

Comment

In this case, it is considered the proposed boardwalk upgrade is an efficient use of the CMA as it improves the facilities at the existing wharf for both commuters and tourists. The scale of the proposed upgrade is considered appropriate, given the long standing association of this area as the primary ferry wharf for the North Shore.

It is considered that the proposed boardwalk has a functional need to be located in the coastal environment as it would facilitate and enhanced the use of Devonport Wharf. In addition, the proposal more than adequately provides for the associated land based activities through the provision of improved pedestrian and public transport access areas within Marine Square.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 11.

Chapter 12: Structures

The proposed wharf upgrade will provide for better pedestrian access, public transport and car parking at Devonport Wharf and will introduce a new structure within the CMA. Accordingly, a series of general objectives and policies related to structures contained in Chapter 12 are relevant to consider. The following are considered relevant:

Objective 12.3.1:

To provide for appropriate structures in the coastal marine area, while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

Policy 12.4.1:

Subject to the limitations stated in Policies 12.4.2 to 12.4.14, structures in the coastal marine area shall generally be considered appropriate where:

a (i) no reasonable or practicable alternative location exists having regard to the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; or

(ii) the structure is proposed for the cultural and traditional needs of Tangata Whenua;

b the purpose for which the structure is required cannot reasonably or practicably be accommodated by existing structures in the coastal marine area; and

c efficient use will be made of the coastal environment by using the minimum area of the coastal marine area necessary for the structure; and

d the structure will not have a significant adverse effect on the adjoining land.

Policy 12.4.3:

Structures in the coastal marine area should as far as practicable, be of an appropriate scale, design, colour and location so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the coastal environment.


of 94

Policy 12.4.4:

Structures for public or multiple use shall be considered more appropriate than the erection of new structures for individual use.

Policy 12.4.5:

Structures shall be avoided where they will modify, other than for the purpose of maintaining intrinsic heritage values, damage, or destroy a site, building, place or area scheduled for preservation in Cultural Heritage Schedule 1.

Policy 12.4.12:

Structures shall be designed and located taking into account relevant dynamic coastal processes, including the possibility of sea level rise.

Comment

In this case, it is considered that the proposed design of the boardwalk and its associated structures are appropriate for the following reasons:

(i) The boardwalk extension uses the existing design of the wharf and extends it to the east so that it aligns with Victoria Road, thereby improving sightlines to the wharf, as well as access and legibility;

(ii) The proposal does not impact on the operation of ferry services or the berthing of other vessels;

(iii) The proposed boardwalk does not create any navigational issues;

(iv) As confirmed by the respective landscape and visual effects experts, the design and location of the proposed boardwalk will have minor effects on existing landscape and visual amenity values;

(v) While there are identified tangata whenua values within Devonport, the local Iwi has withdrawn its submission in opposition to the proposal;

(vi) The physical integrity of the Commemorative Seawall will remain intact and will be reinstated at the completion of the works. While there will be some adverse effects on cultural heritage associated with the covering of part of the beach with the proposed boardwalk, these effects are considered to be localised and minor when considered in the context of the wider heritage landscape and in the context of proposed urban design improvements; and

(vii) The design of the wharf structures has taken account existing coastal processes including the beach that surrounds Devonport Wharf.

(viii) Overall, it is considered that the proposed structures would be an efficient use of the CMA.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 12.

Port Management Area 5 (Devonport Wharf)

Port Management Area 5 (PM5) relates to Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf. The zone is focussed on maintaining and enhancing the port activities associated with Devonport Wharf (and in particular ferry services) as well as providing for a range of commercial, tourism and recreation activities. PM5 has a strong focus on integrating the functions of Devonport Wharf with adjoining land uses and township, while also maintaining and enhancing public access and amenity values. PM5 also recognises the recreation and open space values of the beach which adjoins these wharves.


of 94

Objective 31.3.1

To ensure the efficient functioning of port activities associated with the public transport role of Devonport Wharf.

Objective 31.3.2

To maintain and enhance public access to, through and around Devonport wharf, particularly in association with its maritime passenger transport use.

31.3.3 To maintain and enhance visual and amenity values and the use and enjoyment of Port Management Area 5.

Objective 31.3.3

To maintain and enhance visual and amenity values and the use and enjoyment of Port Management Area 5

Objective 31.3.4

To ensure that any future use and development within Port Management Area 5 is integrated, as far as practicable, with the use and development of the adjoining landward area.

Objective 31.3.5

To maintain vehicular and pedestrian access on Victoria Wharf which enable the servicing of Devonport Wharf and the undertaking of port activities on Victoria Wharf.

Policy 31.4.1

Any use and development that adversely affects the use of the Devonport Wharf for port activities associated with maritime passenger transport and as a ferry passenger terminal shall be avoided.

Policy 31.4.2

Public access to, through, around and on the wharf structures in Port Management Area 5 shall be maintained and enhanced.

Policy 31.4.3

The range of activities which shall be considered appropriate are those which:

a Enable the efficient and effective operation of the ferry terminal and the use of the outer section of Victoria Wharf for port activities; and

b Encourage public use and enjoyment of the wharf; and

c Can be undertaken at the same time as maintaining or enhancing views of the coastal marine area from within the wharf.

Policy 31.4.4

Any proposal for use and development shall maintain a vehicular and pedestrian accessway on Victoria Wharf, and shall not adversely affect the use of the seaward section of the wharf for port activities.

Policy 31.4.5

A passenger waiting area sufficient to comfortably accommodate the number of passengers using the ferry service at peak times shall be provided in that part of Devonport wharf which adjoins the ferry berthage area.

Policy 31.4.6


of 94

Visual and amenity values shall be maintained and enhanced by ensuring that:

a The height, bulk and form of any new structure is compatible with or complements the existing structure; and

b Any new structures should, as far as practicable, be designed in a manner that is compatible with or complements the character of Devonport and to the view it will present from Victoria Street; and

c The building materials and colour, including any proposed signage, are sensitive to and complement the maritime context and prominent visual location; and

d The design provides for views out to the coastal marine area, particularly from public areas and accessways; and

e The design maintains the level of public open space and provides a sense of spaciousness particularly in internal accessways and public areas; and

f The open space and beach between Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf remain free of structures and available for recreational use.

Policy 31.4.7

Minor additions or changes ancillary to the existing structure are generally considered appropriate when they are for the purpose of public access, seating, passenger movement or convenience and where they will not obstruct views from within the complex out to the coastal marine area, or public areas.

Policy 31.4.8

In assessing applications for further development in Port Management Area 5 which cannot meet the condition for parking spaces required by Rule 31.5.14, regard shall be had to:

a the parking requirements for permitted activities; and

b the effect of the shortfall in parking spaces on the availability of parking generally within the Devonport Commercial Area; and

c whether alternatives to the actual provision of parking spaces, in terms of a cash or works contributions to a community parking scheme are appropriate; and

d the level to which the activities proposed are likely to attract visitors who utilise the ferry services or arrive during periods when parking demand by other users is low.

Comment

In this case it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the broad objectives for PM5 as it will maintain and enhance the public transport role of Devonport Wharf and will enhance public access through and around Devonport Wharf, in association with its maritime passenger transport role. As assessed in this report it is considered that the proposal would maintain and enhance the visual amenity values, use and enjoyment of Devonport Wharf and the proposal is focussed on better integrating the function of the wharf with Marine Square and the Devonport township.


of 94

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies for PM5. However, specific reference to Policies 31.4.6 and 31.4.7 are warranted. In this case, Policy 31.4.6 is met for the following reasons:

1. The proposed boardwalk has a size, bulk and form that is complementary to the existing wharf building;

2. The proposed boardwalk is compatible with and complements the character of Devonport and the views it presents to Victoria Street;

3. The proposed boardwalk will be constructed with timber which is complementary to the existing maritime context and will be consistent with the wooden boardwalk on the western side of the wharf;

4. The proposed boardwalk will provide enhanced public views outwards to the Waitemata Harbour and create legible views to and from Devonport township;

5. The proposed boardwalk will enhance public open space and recreation within the CMA and will provide improved linkages to the Devonport Wharf which will support its continued function as a passenger ferry gateway with associated retail activity;

6. In relation to Policy 31.4.6(f), the proposal would cover a portion of the open space between Devonport Wharf and Victoria Wharf. Whist doing so it will reduce the amenity of this area but will not restrict public access to and along this beach as the public will be able to walk under the proposed boardwalk.

Importantly, the proposed boardwalk retains a section of beach between the Victoria and Devonport wharves, retaining a physical separation between the two wharves and retaining their identities and historical significance as separate structures. The positive effects of the proposed boardwalk (improved access to Devonport Wharf, ability to provide better support for retail and cafe activity and better linkages with Devonport township) and its minimal visual effect, and the retention of the two wharves are separate structures outweighs the loss of access to this part of the beach.

In relation to Policy 31.4.8, the applicant has provided a TIA which has assessed the parking requirements of the existing uses on the wharf (and those tenancies which are vacant), and the parking requirements of the additional area of the boardwalk which is considered a 'public recreation, markets and community orientated area'. Overall, the existing uses and boardwalk would require 67 spaces, with the proposal providing a total of 169 spaces. As such Rule 31.5.14 is complied with.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions relating to Port Management Area 5.

Other Relevant Chapters

Other relevant chapters of the Regional Plan: Coastal include: Chapter 3 – Natural Character, Chapter 4 – Landscape, Chapter 5 – Natural Features and Ecosystems, Chapter 7 – Public Access and Chapter 8 – Cultural Heritage. These are discussed below:

Chapter 3 – Natural Character

Objective 3.3.1 and Policy 3.4.1 state that the natural character of the coastal environment shall be preserved and protected from inappropriate use and development, by avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of such use and development on the elements and features which contribute to the natural character of the coastal environment. Policy 3.4.3 states that in assessing the actual or potential adverse effects of subdivision, use and development including cumulative effects, regard shall be had to the relevant policies in Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 8.

As has been described in the natural character effects assessment of this report, the proposed boardwalk is to be located in an area with highly modified natural character. The further modification caused by the proposed boardwalk will be contained within those areas


of 94

already modified for ferry related activity. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 – Landscape

Objective 4.3.2 is to maintain and enhance the diversity, integrity and landscape quality of the coastal environment. Policy 4.4.1 states that use and development is inappropriate if it results in significant landscape effects (in terms of quality, aesthetic value and landscape sensitivity) on outstanding landscapes. Policy 4.4.4 recognises the contribution of the built environment to the environment when considering proposals in the CMA near coastal settlements. 4.4.5 states that in assessing the effects of use and development, including cumulative effects in the CMA on landscape values, particular regard shall be had to ensuring where practicable, that development is of an appropriate scale, location and design which encourage its integration with the type and intensity of development in the adjacent area.

The wider coastal environment surrounding Devonport has high landscape value and it is important that any development within the CMA does not adversely affect these values. However, in this case, the applicant has demonstrated that the works will be confined to the location of existing ferry related facilities that has been modified by human occupation and associated use. By confining the proposed works to areas where modification has already taken place, the integrity of those adjoining landscape values are maintained. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Chapter 4.

Chapter 5 – Natural Features and Ecosystems

Objective 5.3.1 is to protect the dynamic functioning of physical coastal processes. Objective 5.3.3 is to preserve the ecological and physical values and processes of Coastal Protection Areas, from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Policy 5.4.4 states that any development in areas not identified as Coastal Protection Areas 1 and 2 should avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on indigenous vegetation, habitats, natural features, and ecological and physical processes. Policy 5.4.5 states that regard shall be had to protecting the physical integrity, functioning, educational, scientific and amenity values of any natural feature.

The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed boardwalk upgrade will have only temporary adverse effects on the marine ecology at Devonport and the ecology will quickly recover such that no long term adverse effects are anticipated. Furthermore, the proposal will not affect any indigenous vegetation, habitats or natural features given the highly modified nature of the CMA in this location. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Chapter 5.

Chapter 6 – Nga Take Takutai Tuturu Mo Tangata Whenua (Coastal Matters of Significance to Tangata Whenua)

Objective 6.3.1 is to recognise that the CMA has characteristics of special spiritual, historical, and cultural significance to Tangata Whenua. Objective 6.3.2 is to sustain the mauri of natural and physical resources of the coastal environment, and to enable provision for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of Maori. The policies of chapter endeavour to achieve these objectives through recognising and protecting ancentral taonga in the plan and involving iwi in the resource management process.

In accordance with Policy 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 Ngati Whatua o Orakei have participated in the proposal and through the processing of the application, has withdrawn its submission. Accordingly the proposal is consistent with the policies of this chapter.

Chapter 7 – Public Access

Objective 7.3.1 is to maintain and enhance public access to, along, and within the CMA. Policy 7.4.1 recognises that public access to, along and within the CMA should be maintained or enhanced except where it is necessary to restrict access.


of 94

In this case, the applicant proposed to improve public access to Devonport Wharf and its functionality as a ferry terminal with retail and cafe space in the long term. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 7.

Chapter 8 – Heritage

Objective 8.3.1 is to preserve and protect significant maritime cultural heritage sites in the coastal environment. Policy 8.4.3 provides for the protection of cultural heritage sites as identified in Cultural Heritage Schedule 2. Policy 8.4.4 states that when assessing applications involving items listed in Cultural Heritage Schedule 2 regard shall be had to: the intrinsic values of the site, building or area; the integrity of the site building or area; and the extent that the proposed modifications will maintain or enhance the efficient operation of an operating facility. Policy 8.4.6 states that use and development in the CMA should consider any effect on resources recognised as having historical or cultural value, and where practical should avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on these resources.

The Regional Plan: Coastal identifies cultural heritage sites and endeavours to preserve and protect these. The Commemorative Seawall is the only heritage resource identified in the Regional Plan Coastal that will be affected by the proposal. As discussed in the heritage section of this assessment any adverse physical effects on the seawall will be avoided, remedied or mitigated through reinstatement of the seawall following construction and the removal of the minimal length of existing handrail to allow access onto the boardwalk. While there will be a localised cultural effect associated with the covering part of the existing beach on the eastern side of Devonport Wharf, the proposal will retain a separation between the two wharves and retention of the visual separation as two distinct structures with their separate historical contexts.

Overall, the effect on scheduled heritage resources is considered to be minor and balanced by positive outcomes, as discussed in section 5.2 of this report. For this reason, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 8.

Overall Comment

Overall, the matters arising under the objectives and policies above have been addressed through the assessment of actual and potential adverse effects set out in this report. In particular, it is considered that the proposed boardwalk upgrade provides for improved access and use of the CMA associated with an existing ferry terminal and will support and enhance the on-going use of the facility as a ferry commuter wharf and tourist destination.

The proposed board walk fails to meet part (f) of Policy 25.4.6 however, the proposed boardwalk upgrade is sympathetic in scale and considered appropriate for the improved functionality and urban design outcomes desired for Devonport. In this regard, it is considered that the scale of the boardwalk strikes an appropriate balance between maximising the efficient and effective use of the CMA and avoiding, remedying and mitigating the effects of development on the coastal environment.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with, and in many respects gives effect to, the relevant objectives and policies of the Regional Plan: Coastal.

5.8 Section 104(1)(c) Any other matters considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

5.8.1 Development Contributions

Under the Local Government Act 2002, councils are permitted to take development contributions towards the costs that capital growth imposes on the community, based on the Gross Floor Area (GFA) and other particular characteristics of developments. The financial contribution policy of the Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan incorporates a development contribution based on the capital expenditure for infrastructure and community facilities for that ten year period.


of 94

In this case the proposal does not involve the creation of GFA at the subject site and will in itself provide for community facilities in terms of public parking, landscaping, and pedestrian access. As such, no development contribution is deemed necessary.

Chapter 38 of the Coastal Plan sets out assessment guidelines for the consideration of whether or not the Council will impose a financial contribution on any coastal permit.

Chapter 38 provides that applications will be assessed on a case by case basis against the criteria contained at clauses 38.2.1 and 38.2.2. In this regard, the loss of public access or use and enjoyment of the CMA are key considerations under those clauses, and that positive outcomes are able to offset negative effects, and any contribution should be commensurate with the scale of effects.

Accordingly, no financial contribution is considered to be required for the current proposal.

5.8.2 Monitoring

In granting consent to an application, Council may impose conditions to offset any associated adverse effects. In addition, the Council is required to monitor the exercise of resource consents under section 35 of the RMA and may fix a charge under section 36 payable by the consent holder in order to carry out monitoring functions. The amount that can be charged is based on actual and reasonable costs associated with monitoring and covers such tasks as site inspections, carrying out tests and administration.

The main components of this consent which will require monitoring are ensuring that the works are carried out in accordance with the consent conditions, and in particular that the construction activities are managed appropriately, the treatment and discharge of stormwater meets expected standards, that traffic effects are managed appropriately and that the landscape protection measures are in place during construction.

5.8.3 View Protection

Volcanic Cone View Protection (9m height)

Marine Square is subject to a 9m high volcanic cone view protection control to protect views to Mount Victoria (Rule 8.4.4). The proposal does not involve any building or structure that would infringe this control.

Significant Views (22, 25)

Appendix 6 of the District Plan identifies significant views in the vicinity of the subject works. Specifically these views are described in Appendix 8F of the District Plan as follows:

22 - Mount Victoria from the seaward end of Victoria Road, Devonport.

25 - Mount Hobson and Mount Eden from Windsor Reserve, Devonport Beach and the Ferry Wharf.

The proposal will not impede views to Mount Victoria as the only new structure within Victoria Road will be the mountable roundabout which is of very low height and will not accommodate any tall vegetation or structures.

The proposal also involves a new boardwalk structure in the CMA to provide a new access point to the wharf building. The new boardwalk will not affect the views to Mount Hobson and Mount Eden and will in fact enhance the ability for these views to be appreciated by providing public access to the eastern side of the ferry building which is currently lacking.


of 94

5.8.4 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

It is noted that a total of 8,376m2 of impermeable surfaces are proposed within Marine Square as a result of the works, although this represents a reduction in impermeable area by 309m2. If a stormwater discharge consent is not currently held for Marine Square, consent may need to be sought under Rule 5.5.4 as a Discretionary Activity. An advice note will be placed on the consent in regards to this matter.

5.9 Section 104D Particular Restrictions for Non-Complying Activities

Pursuant to section 104D of the RMA, a non-complying activity must pass at least one of the thresholds of either section 104D(1)(a) or section 104D(1)(b) before an application can be assessed to make a decision under section 104B. If the application fails both tests of section 104D then the application must be declined.

It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions of consent, the proposal satisfies both the thresholds of section 104D because, as demonstrated in the environmental effects section of this report, the adverse effects on the environment will be minor and the proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan and the Regional Plan: Coastal.

Accordingly it is considered that the application can be assessed against the provisions of section 104B of the RMA and a substantive decision made.

5.10 Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA

Section 5 in Part 2 identifies the purpose of the RMA as being the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

Section 6 sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for, and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage.

Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.

Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The proposal will be consistent with Part 2 as it will result in the sustainable use of an existing highly modified resource (Marine Square) for car parking and will improve access to an existing wharf structure (Devonport Wharf), public transport, and the CMA. While the Council's consultant arborist considers the removal of the existing pohutukawa trees an unsustainable practice, it is considered that there will be other benefits to the proposal in terms of enabling communities to provide for their social and economic wellbeing due to improved legibility and urban design outcomes of the proposal. Additionally, the trees to be removed are not considered to provide any significant benefit in terms of water, soil and air conservation given their limited growing environment and location in a highly modified urban area. Furthermore, the adverse effects of the proposed tree removal will be mitigated to an acceptable standard over time, provided the applicant meets recommended conditions of consent. The proposal in terms of the tree removals is thus not considered to be contrary to the purpose of the RMA in terms of sustainable management of resources.


of 94

The proposal, and in particular the works within the CMA, will not adversely affect the water quality of the adjacent harbour and access to the existing wharf and its recreational amenity will be improved by the proposal. A small portion of beach which has accreted over time as a result of the wharf structure will be covered by the new boardwalk and this will have an adverse localised cultural heritage effect. However, the proposal overall has a minor adverse effect in the wider heritage landscape and on the natural character, visual, landscape or amenity values associated with Devonport and the wider Waitemata Harbour. The beach will remain accessible and the greater benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh any perceived adverse heritage effects to the cultural heritage values of the beach. Consent conditions will ensure that any temporary construction effects will be managed. The portion of the beach which lies west of Devonport Wharf and is considered to have higher amenity value, will remain unaffected by the proposal.

Overall, it is considered the cumulative safeguards of section 5(2)(a) to (c) have been met and the proposal thereby meets the purpose and principles of the RMA. The proposal is also considered to be consistent with sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA in terms of considerations that include the coastal environment, public access, tangata whenua, efficient use of resources, amenity values and the quality of the environment.

5.11 Section 104B

As a non-complying activity, section 104B of the RMA states that the Council may grant or refuse consent to the applicant’s proposal, and if granted impose conditions under section 108.

Having considered the proposal against the two tests of section 104D, and having considered:

the effects on the environment in terms of section 104(1)(a);

the relevant rules and objectives and policies of the NZCPS, the ARPS and the

Coastal Plan in terms of section 104(1)(b); and

other relevant matters in terms of section 104(1)(c),

it is considered appropriate for consent to be granted pursuant to section 104B of the RMA, subject to conditions.

5.12 Lapsing of Consent

Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within five years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it automatically lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension. In this case, it is considered five years is an appropriate period for the consent holder to implement the consent due to the nature and scale of the proposal.

5.13 Duration of Consent

The applicant seeks the maximum 35 year term provided under section 126 of the RMA for the activities covered in the coastal permit application. This term is sought on the basis that the boardwalk and associated piles are designed for a considerably longer life than 35 years. It is considered appropriate, having regard to the comments in the AEE and the nature of the proposed activities, that the duration of the consent be defined as 35 years in accordance with section 126.

In relation to the construction works, the consent shall expire 5 years after the date of commencement of this consent in accordance with section 12(1) of the RMA.


of 94

5.14 Conclusion

Overall, it is considered that the actual and potential on the environment will be minor and able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated through appropriate consent conditions.

In particular, the proposal is seen as an appropriate upgrade of existing facilities within a highly modified urban and coastal environment which has an extensive history of maritime transportation and recreational activities. The nature and scale of the existing activity and transport infrastructure within Marine Square is not being altered significantly by the proposal. The proposal will maintain and enhance public access and will improve legibility and linkages between Devonport township and the CMA, which will assist in mitigating the adverse effects of the proposal and will improve the public’s enjoyment of the coastal and recreational attributes within Devonport. While there may be a localised adverse cultural heritage and amenity effects caused by the covering of a section of beach between the Devonport and Victoria wharves, the effect on overall heritage values (cultural and physical) is considered to be minor and is adequately mitigated by the proposed improvements to public access, public transport facilities, recreation and urban design linkages to Devonport township. Any adverse visual and social amenity effects resulting from the tree removals are considered to be acceptable provided that the mitigation planting is of a suitable quality and size and provided the trees are maintained thereafter. Some residents may be affected by the removal of some of the long-term car parking, however it is understood that alternative methods of transport are available and these will be improved upon in the future.

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies and objectives and assessment criteria contained in the relevant planning instruments, and in particular Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 19 of the District Plan, and Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 31 of the Regional Plan: Coastal.

Having considered the provisions of Part 2 of the RMA it is concluded that overall, the proposal represents a sustainable use of existing natural and physical resources and will provide for social and economic wellbeing.

6 RECOMMENDATION, DURATION AND CONDITIONS

6.1 Recommendation 1

It is recommended pursuant to section 37A of the RMA that the late submissions received from Maureen McMillan, David James Mason, James Summerhays, and John Nelson Duder be accepted for the following reasons:

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

the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal, and

Council’s duty under section 21 of the RMA to avoid unreasonable delay.

6.2 Recommendation 2

It is recommended that pursuant to sections 104, 104B, 104D and 108 of the RMA, consent is granted to the non-complying activity application by Auckland Council: Regional and Local Planning for a combined land use consent and coastal permit application to upgrade the existing facilities at Devonport Wharf and Marine Square, Devonport (Land Use Consent LT-2132786 and Coastal Permit 38052).


of 94

The reasons for recommending the grant of consent are as follows:

1. In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal are considered to be minor. In particular, any adverse effects on coastal processes, marine ecology, landscape, natural character, and amenity values are minor, and this has been confirmed through the assessment by experts for the applicant and by peer review for the Council. Other matters including transportation effects, cultural and heritage effects, and management of construction noise are also considered to have been appropriately addressed by the applicant and can be further mitigated through recommended conditions of consent. The proposal also has significant positive effects in terms of improved linkages with Devonport township, enhanced public access and improvements to public transport.

2. In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, the matters arising under the objectives and policies of the relevant district and regional planning instruments have been addressed through the assessment of potential adverse effects undertaken by the applicant and peer reviewed by the Council’s experts. In particular, it is considered that the proposed Devonport Wharf and Marine Square upgrade provides improved access, usability and better integration with the adjoining Devonport township and in this regard is an efficient and appropriate use of the CMA. The wharf upgrade is small in scale but considered appropriate for the better functioning and integration of Devonport Wharf with Marine Square and Devonport township. In this regard, it is considered that the scale of the wharf upgrade achieves an appropriate balance between maximising the efficient use of the CMA and avoiding, remedying and mitigating the effects of development on the coastal environment.

3. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the NZCPS, HGMPA, ACRPS, regional coastal plan, Auckland Council District Plan: north Shore Section and in particular those regarding the safeguarding of the natural character of the coastal environment, maintenance and enhancement of public access, promoting public transport usage, promoting the Hauraki Gulf for recreation and the protection of amenity values.

4. In terms of section 104(1)(c) of the RMA, other relevant matters, including monitoring have been considered in the determination of the application.

5. The proposal will be consistent with the purpose and principles of Part 2 of the RMA by promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In particular, the proposal will provide for the social and economic wellbeing of the community with regard to maintaining and enhancing passenger ferry services, enhancing public access, improving urban design linkages and public transport, while avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects on the coastal environment. In particular, the proposal will be located in an area already modified by urban and coastal development including structures and services to support existing commercial ferry activities and tourism. The proposal will further support and enhance these activities. Overall, it is considered the cumulative safeguards of section 5(2)(a) to (c) have been met and the proposal thereby meets the purpose of the RMA.

6.3 Duration of consent

Coastal Permit 38052 shall expire 35 years after the date of commencement of this consent unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to section 138 of the RMA except that the consent for the construction works pursuant to section 12(1) of the RMA shall expire 5 years after the date of commencement of this consent.


of 94

6.4 Conditions

Pursuant to section 108 of the RMA, this consent is subject to the following conditions:

Integrated Conditions for all consents/permits (LT-2132786 and 38052)

1. The proposed activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, being:

(a) Application Form and Assessment of Effects on the Environment prepared by Tonkin and Taylor dated October 2010 and titled ‘Devonport Marine Square Assessment of Effects on the Environment’.

(b) Section 92 Responses and Further Information and Correspondence:

Title Prepared by Date



21 December 2010



21 December 2010

Devonport Marine Square Upgrade - Section 92 Response - Application Numbers 38052 and LT-2132786


27 June 2011



18 August 2011

Devonport Marine Square Upgrade - Section 92 Response - Lt - 2132786


26 August 2011

Devonport Marine Square Catherine Reaburn, Tonkin and Taylor

28 October 2011

Email titled FW: Devonport Marine Square - Bus Survey Capacity


24 November 2011

Specialist Reports and Correspondence:

Specialist Report Title Prepared by Date/Rev

Integrated Transport Assessment Report Lee Pike, Traffic Design Group

October 2010 (Final)


Isthmus Group Ltd 20 December 2010 (Final, revised)

Devonport Marine Square Section 92 Response: Construction Noise Assessment

Marshall Day Acoustics

23 December 2010 (R01)

Archaeological Assessment of Devonport Marine Landing

Russell Gibb, Geometria Ltd

6 May 2011 (Final)

Devonport Marine Square Redevelopment Heritage Issues


8 June 2011



June 2011

Marine Square Devonport Company Quotes and Cost Analysis


29 July 2011

Specifications Planting and Trees Isthmus Group Ltd 2 August 2011 Marine Square Development Devonport Assessment of Effects on Heritage Values


26 October 2011


of 94

Application Plans and Diagrams:

Reference Title Architect/Author

Date

RP 01 (Rev 01) Resource Consent Plan Isthmus September 2010 RP 02 (Rev 01) Resource Consent Plan/Detail Isthmus September 2010 SP 01 (Rev 01) Staging Drawing – Stage 1 Isthmus September 2010 SP 02 (Rev 01) Staging Drawing – Stage 1 Isthmus September 2010 SP 03 (Rev 01) Staging Drawing – Stage 3 Isthmus September 2010 PA 01 (Rev 01) Pedestrian Access During Wharf

Construction Isthmus September 2010

PA 02 (Rev 01) Pedestrian Access Post Wharf Construction


Devonport Marine Square Carpark Lighting (Rev B)

16 September 2010

103 (Rev 01)* Earthworks Plan Isthmus September 2010 26** Stormwater Drainage Details Sheet

1 Isthmus September 2010

101 (Rev 01) Stormwater Plan Pre-Development Catchment


102 (Rev 01) Stormwater Plan Post-Development Catchment


202 (Rev 04) Boardwalk Proposed Site Plan Isthmus April 2010 203 (Rev 04) Boardwalk Proposed Sub-Floor

Plan Isthmus April 2010

204 (Rev 04) Boardwalk Sections Isthmus April 2010 10575A6A Potential Long-Term Parking

Layout Isthmus 3 March 2011

D 4.01 (Rev 0) Softworks Details Isthmus 17 December 2010

Figures 1-12 Marine Square Devonport Isthmus N/A

Figure 13 Existing Park Conditions Marine Square Devonport


Figure 14 Proposed Park Conditions Marine Square Devonport


Figure 15 Parking Strategy Marine Square Devonport


N/A Parking Survey Maps N/A Received 28 October 2011

TS 01 (Rev 05) Tree Strategy Drawing Isthmus February 2012

* Plan 103 shall be amended to illustrate the kerb cuts to allow water entry into the raingardens.

** Plan 26 shall be amended to show the 150-200mm ponding details.

2. Pursuant to section 116 of the RMA, this consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as all charges pursuant to section 36 of the RMA, owing at the time the Council’s decision is notified are paid in full to the Council.

3. The servants or agents of the Council shall be permitted to have access to relevant parts of the site at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.

4. At least 20 days prior to commencement of works a pre-construction site meeting shall be held between the Council and the Consent Holders representatives, including the primary contractor.


of 94

5. The Consent Holder shall inform the Manager in writing of the start date for the works at least 10 days prior to that start date.

Monitoring Charges

6. The Consent Holder shall pay the Council a consent compliance monitoring fee to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent (This charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent). Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice.

Detailed Engineering Design

7. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Manager for approval, at least 40 working days prior to any construction works for each stage of the project detailed engineering designs and drawings of structures, works and specifications for all aspects of the proposed boardwalk, upgrade of Marine Square and other associated development works, which relate to the stage and works about to be constructed.

The detailed engineering designs and drawings of structures, works and specifications for all aspects of the proposed wharf upgrade and reclamation works shall be in general accordance with the plans and specifications submitted in support of the application.

Construction Noise

8. Construction noise shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise. Construction noise levels shall comply with the noise limits provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the Standard except as provided for in the Construction Noise section of the Construction Management Plan (Condition 10(d)).

Construction Hours

9. The hours of work shall be limited to 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday. Construction work shall not be undertaken on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Construction Management Plan

10. The Consent Holder shall submit to the Manager for approval a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for each stage of the works at least 40 working days prior to the intended construction start date of the stage in question. The purpose of the CMP is to confirm final project details, for the approval by the Manager, to ensure that the project remains within the limits and standards approved under this consent and that boardwalk construction and operation activities avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. The CMP will also provide details of the responsibilities, reporting frameworks, coordination and management required for project quality assurance, final detailed construction design and methodologies, and monitoring processes and procedures.

The CMP that shall include but is not limited to:

(a) Quality Assurance

The Quality Assurance section of the CMP shall set out the management frameworks, systems and procedures to ensure quality management of all on-site activities and compliance with the conditions of this consent. This section shall include but not be limited to details on the following:


of 94

(i) Name, qualifications, relevant experience and contact details of an appropriately qualified and experienced project manager, who shall be responsible for overseeing compliance of the CMP ;

(ii) Names, qualifications, relevant experience, and methods for contact of principal staff employed, along with details of their roles and responsibilities.

(iii) Methods and systems to inform and train all persons working on site of potential environmental issues and how to avoid remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects.

(iv) Systems and processes whereby the public are informed of contact details of the project manager and person or persons identified above.

(v) Complaints register, response process, including resultant actions.

(vi) Liaison procedures with Council staff.

(b) Site Management

The Site Management section of the CMP shall set out the procedures to ensure that the site is managed safely and in an appropriate condition throughout the entire construction process. This section shall amongst other matters provide details on the following:

(vii) Measures to be adopted to maintain the site in a tidy condition in terms of disposal/storage of rubbish, storage and unloading of building materials and similar construction activities;

(viii) Location of workers conveniences (e.g. portaloos);

(ix) Methods to control and monitor the release of suspended solids or turbidity during construction works, and methods to minimise siltation and discolouration of the CMA during excavation and construction,

(x) Location of vehicle and construction machinery access and storage during the period of site works;

(xi) Storage of fuels and lubricants (these should be bunded or contained in such a manner so as to prevent the discharge of contaminants to the CMA from spillages);

(xii) Maintenance of machinery and plant to minimise the potential for leakage of fuels and lubricants;

(xiii) The clear identification and marking of the construction zone on land and within the CMA and the provision of directional and/or navigational information to ensure safe and effective access for vessels through the construction zone;

(xiv) A methodology that prescribes the extent to which machinery can operate in the CMA so as to minimise the disruption and damage to the CMA;

(xv) A contingency plan in the event that there is any discharge to the CMA; and

(xvi) Public safety measures, including signage, alternative pedestrian and traffic routes, proposed barriers, and monitoring.

(c) Construction Programme

The Construction Programme section of the Construction Management Plan is to ensure that the Consent Holder has adequately prepared a programme of works for each stage that will enable the wharf to be constructed in a manner


of 94

that is timely, adequately co-ordinated and minimises the adverse effects of construction on the environment. This section shall, among other matters, provide details of the programme for the construction works throughout each stage of stage of the wharf development process.

(d) Construction Noise

The Construction Noise Management section of the CMP shall address the following:

(i) The regime for noise and vibration monitoring for the duration of the works likely to approach or exceed the relevant noise and vibration limits; and

(ii) The hours of work, including the operational restrictions necessary to ensure compliance will be achieved when lower noise limits are in effect; and

(iii) Specific noise mitigation measures, [such as, (but not limited to) screening or alternative equipment etc.] where noise or vibration levels are predicted or demonstrated to approach or exceed the relevant limits; and

(iv) A procedure for the receipt and management of complaints regarding noise and/or vibration arising from the works. The procedures should specify the person(s) responsible for maintaining a complaints register as well as the standard procedure to be followed to resolve the complaints, and how this will be reported to the Council.

(v) A communications strategy for consulting and communicating with the proximate noise receivers. The strategy shall provide for scheduling of works to accommodate any particularly noise-sensitive activities or events during the works; and

(vi) A list of person(s) and their contact details on the site that is responsible for overseeing the works, monitoring and complaint receipt and responses.

(e) Traffic Management

The Traffic Management section of the CMP is to ensure that any adverse effects of construction traffic will be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Traffic Management section shall provide details on the following:

(i) Construction methodologies and works programme;

(ii) How construction related materials will be delivered to the site and how the roadway will be used for this purpose;

(iii) The proposed location of site access, loading and storage areas;

(iv) How any heavy machinery is to be brought to the site, used and stored;

(v) How fuel and/or lubricants will be brought to the site, used and stored;

(vi) Location of parking area for workers and contractors;

(vii) Maintenance of existing ferry and wharf operations including vehicle and pedestrian access to the wharf for ferry operations during the construction phase;

(viii) Contingency plans for accidents, particularly in relation to fuel discharge to the CMA;

(ix) Details of how the works will minimise disruption to ferry and bus timetables;

(x) Access to residential properties throughout the construction process; and


of 94

(xi) Any road closure notices or approvals obtain from Council’s Roading Department.

(f) Erosion and Sediment Control

The Erosion and Sediment Control section of the CMP is to ensure that any adverse effects of earthworks will be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Erosion and Sediment Control section shall provide details on the following, and shall be to the approval of the Manager:

(i) Proposed sediment control measures, with reference to Technical Publication 90 'Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region';

(ii) Proposed dust mitigation measures; and

(iii) Measures to control sediment deposition on surrounding roads.

(g) Public Access

The public access section of the CMP shall detail how appropriate levels of public access Devonport Wharf, to the satisfaction of the Manager, to shall be maintained at all times throughout the construction process.

11. The Consent Holder shall comply with the approved CMP at all times, and all

personnel working on the site shall be made aware of it A copy of the approved CMP shall be held on site at all times for inspection by the Council's Compliance Officer.

Public Access

12. The Consent Holder shall ensure that unobstructed public access is maintained to Devonport Wharf at all times during the construction period.

Earthworks and Sediment Control

13. The Consent Holder shall ensure that all necessary measures proposed within the Erosion and Sediment Control section of the CMP required by Condition 10 have been implemented and shall provide a certificate of establishment to the Council prior to the commencement of any construction works, including any excavation, earthworks or other site works.

14. Prior to the commencement of any site works, the Consent Holder shall, at their expense, install silt and sediment traps (e.g. construction pods) in all cesspits on the site and those within the road which may receive runoff from the subject site. These shall take into account the requirements of the ARC Technical Publication 10 'Design Guideline Manual Stormwater Treatment Devices'. The silt and sediment traps shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Council's Monitoring Officer. The traps shall be maintained by the Consent Holder for the duration of all site works and construction activity on the site. The traps shall be removed by the Consent Holder upon completion of construction.

15. Washings from construction activity shall not be directed/discharged/deposited into any road, gutter, drain or stormwater system. If such material is discharged into one of the above-mentioned features, the Consent Holder shall, at their own expense, take all necessary measures to remove the contaminant from the feature.


of 94

16. In the event that any earthworks material is deposited on the street, the Consent Holder shall take immediate action, at their expense, to clean the street. The loading of earth, fill and other material shall be confined to within the subject site.

Specific Conditions for Land Use Consent LT-2132786

Vegetation

17. The Consent Holder shall provide the name/s of qualified and experienced arborists to be engaged to carry out the supervisory/advisory role as the Works Arborist for the entire project, for approval by the Manager, prior to the commencement of any works on the site.

18. Prior to all work commencing on site, the Works Arborist shall arrange for a site meeting to take place with the Manager and relevant arboricultural staff. All site supervisory personnel shall also attend this meeting. Items for discussion at the meeting are to include (but not limited to) tree-protection measures, tree-pruning requirements, confirmation of trees proposed for removal and/or transplanting and wheel-wash facilities. The Consent Holder shall provide notice in writing at least five (5) working days prior to the date of the meeting. Minutes of the meeting shall be documented by the Works Arborist and forwarded to the Manager for inclusion in site monitoring file.

19. Prior to all work commencing on site, the Works Arborist shall provide (in writing) to the Manager, the following documentation for written approval:

(i) A contract with a reputable supplier confirming the supply of replacement pohutukawa trees of minimum 800 litre container size, height of 4.5 metres, and crown spread diameter of 3.5 metres.

(ii) Specifications for appropriate planter-pit design, structured soil type, irrigation proposed, planting methodology and maintenance regimes.

(iii) A detailed tree-protection, transplanting, aftercare and works methodology statement for all retained and transplanted trees, having regard to the conditions of Consent.

20. All tree-related work shall be carried out under the on-site direction and supervision of a qualified, experienced arborist approved by the Works Arborist. The following issues shall be addressed and implemented by the Works Arborist:

(i) All trees identified for removal shall be identified by dazzle spray paint, before felling and extraction by a Council-approved contractor in accordance with accepted arboricultural practices, avoiding damage to any tree to be retained, or damage caused by machinery and equipment to tree root zones.

(ii) All other trees and palms to be retained and/or transplanted in the vicinity of proposed development at the site, shall be isolated from excavation and construction activities by protective fencing, prior to these works commencing on the site. The fencing shall be of hurricane-mesh panels with ground-anchor spikes and located at the dripline edge of the trees as a minimum enclosure distance. No access to or works shall be undertaken within the protected areas unless directed by the Works Arborist.

(iii) The protective fencing shall be retained in-situ, until all construction activity associated with the project is completed to the satisfaction of the Works Arborist.

(iv) Construction vehicle wheel-wash facilities shall not be installed within the root zones of retained trees/palms and washings from concrete trucks and/or


of 94

associated machinery shall not contaminate any area within the vicinity of retained trees/palms, or areas that are required for landscaping.

21. The Works Arborist shall assume total responsibility for all tree protection, preservation and construction activity within and adjacent to the root zones of retained trees and maintenance and monitoring during construction of the project.

(i) A series of monthly compliance memoranda shall be forwarded the Manager confirming all supervision and monitoring of activities to or within the root zones of retained trees and palms.

(ii) Within one month of completion of the development, the Works Arborist shall provide a written statement to the Manager, confirming that works and activity associated with the project have been conducted in accordance with the degree of adverse effects afforded by this consent.

22. Underground reticulated services to and from the development shall be excluded from all areas within the root zones of retained protected trees. Where there is no alternative, all services within the root zones shall be installed by way of directional drilling/thrusting with all opening pits excavated by hand using hand tools, with on-site supervision from the Works Arborist.

23. Within the first planting season following completion of construction activities on the site, the Consent Holder shall complete planting of all replacement trees at the location.

(i) The replacement trees shall be irrigated and maintained for a minimum of two planting seasons or three years, whichever is longer, and thereafter in accordance with modern arboricultural practices and in good health.

(ii) Should any of the replacement trees die or decline to a point that in the opinion of the Manager, is of no value following initial planting, the trees shall be replaced with like species and be of similar size.

24. A copy of this consent and its conditions shall be kept on site at all times and all contractors and sub-contractors shall be aware of and work in accordance with them. It is the responsibility of the Consent Holder to ensure that this happens.

25. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the tree removals, replanting, transplanting, aftercare and maintenance.

Heritage and Archaeology

26. Prior to works commencing on site the Consent Holder shall undertake a full survey and recording of the heritage seawall an immediately adjacent land/beach which is subject to the works outlined in this consent. A methodology for the deconstruction and reconstruction of the seawall shall be developed in detail, outlining in particular detail relating to reconstruction to achieve a form which is similar to the existing form of the wall. The survey and methodologies shall be provided to the approval of the Manager prior to works commencing.

27. The 8 metre section of handrail to be permanently removed shall be stored safely during the works and shall be reused within the immediate vicinity of the site as part of the works. Detail of the proposed reuse shall be provided to the the Manager for approval prior to completion of the works.

28. Should any archaeological or traditional sites, including human remains be exposed during site works then the following procedures shall apply:

(i) Immediately when it becomes apparent that an archaeological or traditional site has been exposed, all site works shall cease.

(ii) The site supervisor shall immediately secure the area in a way that ensures that any artefacts or remains are untouched.


of 94

(iii) The site supervisor shall notify tangata whenua, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, the Department of Conservation, the Heritage division of Auckland Council and in the case of human remains the Police, that an archaeological or traditional site has been exposed, so that appropriate action can be taken. This includes such persons being given a reasonable time as determined by the Manager to record and recover archaeological features discovered before work may recommence on the site.

Infrastructure and Servicing

29. The Consent Holder shall provide a stormwater drainage and on-site stormwater management system, the design of which shall be presented to the Council for approval with the building consent application, or (if public), as an Engineering Works application. The stormwater system design shall make adequate provision for the drainage of surface water, including from existing or proposed public carriageways.

30. The Consent Holder shall install all water reticulation for the development, the design of which shall be provided to the Manager for approval with the building consent application, or, if public, as an Engineering Works application. This reticulation system shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Council's Infrastructure Design Standards (including fire fighting) such that service and pressure levels are not compromised. Plans shall be approved by the Manager prior to any construction commencing.

Pedestrian and Traffic Safety

31. The applicant shall undertake a safety audit prior to completion of the works which shall identify necessary pedestrian and traffic safety measures, including signage, road markings and speed-controlling mechanisms. Particular reference shall be paid to assisting the visually impaired and ensuring their safety in shared-priority spaces. This safety audit and the recommended measures shall be provided to the Manager for approval prior to signage and road markings being undertaken.

Traffic

32. The Consent Holder shall design the roading and vehicular accessways in compliance with the Infrastructure Design Standards of the Council, making adequate provision for the drainage of surface water and submit drawings for engineering works approval. A building consent application must also be made for any associated retaining walls. The accessway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. On completion a certificate of practical completion shall be provided to the Manager.

Car Parking

33. The applicant shall ensure that 28 spaces within the proposed new long term parking area (24 hour area) shall be allocated for T2 parking (passengers of two or more) only. These spaces shall be provided in the easternmost area of the long term parking area.

Specific Conditions for Coastal Permit (38052)

Post Construction

34. The Manager shall be notified in writing of the expected date of completion of the boardwalk 10 working days prior to the expected completion date.

35. Within one week following the completion of the works, all damage and disturbance to the foreshore and seabed shall be remedied, the beach contour re-established to its pre-construction contour, and all equipment and construction materials removed


of 94

from the CMA, to the satisfaction of the Manager, such that any remaining disturbance of the foreshore and seabed is able to be rectified by the operation of natural processes within seven days.

36. Within one month of receipt of the approved Deposited Plan as per section 246 of the RMA, a copy of the Deposited Plan shall be provided to the Hydrographic Office (Chief Hydrographer, National Topo/Hydro Authority, Land Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington).

37. All structures permitted to occupy the CMA by this consent shall be maintained at all times in a good and sound condition and subject to a regular monitoring programme which includes undertaking annual inspections of the boardwalk structure and supporting components to identify any maintenance that may be necessary. This will ensure structural competence of the boardwalk is maintained into the future. Any repairs that are necessary shall be undertaken subject to obtaining any necessary resource consents.

Advice notes

1. Please read the conditions of this resource consent carefully and make sure that you understand all the conditions that have been imposed before commencing the development.

2. This resource consent will lapse five years after the date of the Council’s decision unless: (a) it is given effect to before the end of that period. To give effect to this consent,

the activity allowed by this consent must be established and the conditions contained in the consent complied with. Please note that there must be compliance with all of the consent conditions once the land use and coastal permit has been established, or

(b) an application is made and granted prior to the expiry of that period for a time extension. The statutory considerations that apply to extensions are set out in section 125 of the RMA.

N.B – all charges owing at the time that the Council’s decision is notified must be paid before a consent can commence.

3. The Consent Holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Historic Places Trust Act 1993. This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the approval of this resource consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously issued building consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be required.

4. A copy of this consent should be held on site at all times during the establishment and construction phase of the activity. The Consent Holder is requested to notify Council, in writing, of their intention to begin works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencement. Such notification should be sent to the Council and include the following details: (i) name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner; (ii) site address to which the consent relates; (iii) activity to which the consent relates; and (iv) expected duration of works.

5. Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by the Council in accordance with section 35(d) of the RMA. This will typically include site visits to


of 94

verify compliance (or non compliance) and documentation (site notes and photographs) of the activity established under the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met will the Council on request of the Consent Holder issue a letter confirming this fact.

7 OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Adequacy of Information

It is considered that the information submitted with the application is sufficiently

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

a) The level of information provides a reasonable understanding of the nature and scope

of the proposed activity as it relates to the District Plan and Coastal Plan).

b) The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment are able to be

assessed.

c) Persons who may be adversely affected are able to be identified.

Report Prepared by:

Title: Sarah Haarhoff, Consultant Planner – Blakey Scott Planning Ltd

Signed:

Date:

10 February 2012

Title: Robert Scott, Consultant Planner - Blakey Scott Planning Ltd

Signed:

Date:

10 February 2012


of 94

Report released by

Title: Alan Moore, Team Leader: Coastal - Natural Resources and Specialist Input

Signed:

Date: 10 February 2012

Title:

Bonnie Lees, Resource Consents Team Manager: Northern Resource Consenting and Compliance.

Signed:


Title:

David Hampson, Acting Team Leader: Earthworks and Contaminated Land - Natural Resources and Specialist Input

Signed:



of 94

Section 10 Definitions

COUNCIL: means the Auckland Council

DISTRICT PLAN: means any operative or proposed plan administered by any of the following former Territorial Authorities as at to 1 November 2010.

Rodney District Council

North Shore City Council

Waitakere City Council

Auckland City Council

Manukau City Council

Papakura District Council

Franklin District Council

REGIONAL PLAN: COASTAL:

Auckland Council Regional Plan (Coastal)

ARPS: means Auckland Regional Policy Statement

HGMPA: means Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

LGAAA: means Local Government Amendment Act 2004

Manager: Means: for any consents required under a Regional Plan, an Auckland Council Team Manager, Resource Consents & Consents Compliance – AC Land / Water / Major Projects; and/or

for any land use consents required under any District Plan an Auckland Council Manager Resource Consenting & Compliance; and/or

any nominated AC staff acting on the relevant Manager’s behalf.

NZCPS: means New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

RMA: means Resource Management Act 1991 and all amendments