summary of decisions requested - proposed plan change 24 · email address: [email protected]...

Sub # Sub Point Submitter Name Contact details Summary of submission

1 1.1 Gamini Tilak Wijayanayaka [email protected] Decline the plan modification

2 2.1 Alexandra Johanna Deeley [email protected] Decline the plan modification

3 3.1 David Tham [email protected] Decline the plan modification

4 4.1 Jan Haynes [email protected] Amend the plan modification if it is not declined

5 5.1 Grant R Oliver [email protected] Decline the plan modification

6 6.1 Auckland TransportAttn: Rebecca Phillips

[email protected] Decline the plan modification, unless the transport effects of the proposal are avoided, remedied or mitigated, specifically the matters set out in Attachment 1 to Auckland Transport's submission, and/or any other relief that will address the matters/concerns raised in this submission.

7 7.1 Samuel James Dick [email protected] Decline the plan modification

8 8.1 Fletcher Living Attn: Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited

[email protected] Accept the plan modification

Private Plan Change 24 - Waiata ShoresSummary of Decisions Requested

1 of 1

The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission.

Contact details

Full name of submitter: Gamini Tilak Wijayanayaka

Organisation name:

Agent's full name:

Email address: [email protected]

Contact phone number:

Postal address: 4 Brylee Drive Conifer Grove Takanini Auckland 2112

Submission details

This is a submission to:

Plan modification number: 24

Plan modification name: PC 24 (Private): Waiata Shores Local Centre

My submission relates to

Rule or rules: Super Market by Woolworth

Property address:

Map or maps:

Other provisions:

Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified

Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? Yes

The reason for my or our views are: We live in a residential area. Having commercial activity will alter the peaceful living condition we enjoyed so far. There will be traffic congestion and people movement in the area will be magnified. Even late in night (till the Super market open) the roads in the vicinity will be busy. This is a residential area.

I or we seek the following decision by council: Decline the plan modification

Submission date: 15 May 2019

Attend a hearing

#01

Page 1 of 2

mailto:[email protected]

hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

1.1

Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? No

Declaration

Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No

Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that:

• Adversely affects the environment; and

• Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

Yes

I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public.

#01

Page 2 of 2


Contact details

Full name of submitter: Alexandra Johanna Deeley

Organisation name:

Agent's full name:



Postal address: 3 Keywella Drive Conifer Grove Papakura 2112

Submission details





Rule or rules:

Property address: Waiata Shores Local Centre

Map or maps:

Other provisions:


Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? No

The reason for my or our views are: Extra traffic congestion both directly at the lights going into Waiata Shores and the lights at the intersection of Weymouth Road and Great South Road. Increased problem with rubbish blowing around the outside of the supermarket . I have seen the problem first hand by the local supermarket I do not see the need for another supermarket with both Countdown and Pak and Save in very close proximity to Waiata Shores.


Submission date: 30 May 2019

Attend a hearing

#02

Page 1 of 2


hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

2.1


Declaration





No


#02

Page 2 of 2


Contact details

Full name of submitter: David Tham

Organisation name:

Agent's full name:


Contact phone number: 021940029

Postal address: 32 Te Napi Drive Waiata Shores Takanini Auckland 2112

Submission details





Rule or rules: Brylee Road link (Refer to para. 2.3.4 of pc24-appendix-e-integrated-transport-assessment.pdf document)

Property address:

Map or maps:

Other provisions: Paragraph 7 of pc24-appendix-e-integrated-transport-assessment.pdf document.



The reason for my or our views are: From the considerations that a residential access road being turned into a bypass road to ease peak traffic volume at the Great South Road Takanini interchange and additional traffic from shoppers exiting Road 2 causing traffic buildup along Te Napi Drive and possibly Gosper Road; as a result, concerns of safety, noise and air pollution.


Submission date: 4 June 2019

#03

Page 1 of 4


hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

3.1

Supporting documents Peak Period Traffic Buildup Along Te Napi n Gosper Road 2019-06-04.pdf

Attend a hearing

Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes

Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? Yes

Declaration





Yes


#03

Page 2 of 4

Children playground

Proposed Gosper-Brylee bypass to ease traffic at the Takanini intersection (Refer para 7.2.2 of pc24-appendix-e-integrated-transport-assessment.pdf)

Waiata Shores Residential Estate

#03

Page 3 of 4

Mahia – Great South Road Junction

Expected traffic build up within Te Napi Drive & Gosper Road from Great South Road bypass traffic

Please study traffic build up from increased traffic (104/hr) using Brylee bypass during peak traffic volume.

Please consider: a) Traffic light timing at Mahia junction,b) Traffic light timing at Te Napi Drivec) length of road between Mahia junction and Te Napi Drive,

number of vehicles it can hold between light changed) Number of vehicles using Brylee-Te Napi as a by passe) Add number of vehicles exiting Road 2 after shopping

Is a residential access road use to handle main trunk road traffic volume reasonable from the consideration of road safety, noise and air pollution?

Has safety been considered as there a playground along Gosper Road, in front of cafe?

Children playground

Waiata Shores Residential Estate

#03

Page 4 of 4


Contact details

Full name of submitter: Jan Haynes

Organisation name:

Agent's full name:



Postal address:

Conifer Grove Auckland 2112

Submission details





Rule or rules:

Property address: 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores

Map or maps:

Other provisions: Any requirement for road links between Conifer Grove and Waiata Shores (via Brylee Drive, Keywella Drive or other sites



The reason for my or our views are: I oppose any land use amendments and or rezoning which require or allow vehicular access and/or roading between Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove. There would be negative impacts for the Conifer Grove community, residents and businesses should this occur. Additionally, I oppose increased presence of non-New Zealand businesses which detriment the livelihoods of and opportunities for hard working small business owners. I would support the rezoning IF there was NO roading links into Conifer Grove and the business centre exclusively fostered New Zealand businesses.

I or we seek the following decision by council: Amend the plan modification if it is not declined

Details of amendments: See above

#04

Page 1 of 2


hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

4.1


Attend a hearing


Declaration





Yes


#04

Page 2 of 2


Contact details

Full name of submitter: GRANT R OLIVER

Organisation name:

Agent's full name: GRANT R OLIVER


Contact phone number: 021 115 4642

Postal address: 53 KEYWELLA DRIVE CONIFER GROVE Auckland 2112

Submission details





Rule or rules: PROPOSED CHANGE TO ZONING DESIGNATION

Property address: 2 Te Napi Drive Waiata Shores

Map or maps:

Other provisions:



The reason for my or our views are: I consider the application for rezoning in relation to 2 Te Napi Drive to allow a supermarket to be established by Woolworths Ltd is totally unjustified for the following reasons: - a supermarket is not part of a "local community centre" as purported by some of the comments in submission seeking the zoning change. It is smaller locally owned businesses that become part of a community. - use of residentially zoned land for "commercial " purposes in the current climate of housing shortages and homelessness is socially irresponsible. It has been suggested that the site is not really suitable for housing due to it's proximity of SH1 and the Takanini interchange. This is an erroneous suggestion and with common sense design a very pleasant 4 - 5 storey apartment complex could be developed close to Te Mahia station. - there are already 2 competing supermarkets within 4 -5 km (3 or 4 bus stops) south of the proposed new supermarket plus more supermarkets in easy reach at Manurewa and Clendon. - I note that some of the planning comments offered in favour of the proposed re-zoning is predicated on the expectation that Gosper Drive and Brylee Drive will be connected irrespective of

#05

Page 1 of 2


very strong community resistance to this ACC proposal. This to me indicates that the ACC planning group have no empathy or consideration for the long term residents in Conifer grove who have survived amazingly well for over 30 years without a supermarket "on their doorstep". - there is already significant traffic flows along Gt South Rd in the proposed location and these flows will be further increased by the presence of a supermarket with its inevitably large carpark and regular delivery visits by trucks of varying sizes. - the new road layout along Gt South Rd will have 6 sets of traffic lights within a distance of less than 2 Km immediately outside the re-zoned site which will add further to the traffic congestion, increase driver frustration and add to road safety issues. There is no valid reason why the surrounding area which has no room for additional housing development needs the presence of a supermarket and this application is, I consider, based simply on the desire of the site developer to increase ther financial return rather than improve the future community environment.



Attend a hearing



Declaration



• Adversely affects the environment; and• Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

Yes


#05

Page 2 of 2

hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

5.1

- nA ^ landTransport

An Auckland Council Organisation

20 Viaduct Harbour Avenue, Auckland 1010Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

Phone 09 355 3553 Website www.AT.govt. nz

7 June 2019

Auckland CouncilPrivate Bag 92300Auckland 1142Attn: Planning Technician, Plans and Places

Email: unita lan aucklandcouncil. ovt. nz

Re: Submission on Proposed Private Plan Change 24 - Waiata Shores Local Centre

Please find attached Auckland Transport's submission on the above Proposed Private PlanChange.

If you have any queries in relation to this submission, please contact Rebecca Phillips,Manager Land Use Policy/ Planning, Auckland Transport on 0211905751.

Yours sincere

^

Tracey BerkahnExecutive General Manager: Planning and Investment

^

#06

Page 1 of 7

Submission on Proposed Private Plan Change 24 - Waiata Shores LocalCentre at 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores

To: Auckland Council - Plans and PlacesPrivate Bag 92300Auckland 1142

From: Auckland Transport - Planning and InvestmentPrivate Bag 92250Auckland 1142

Submission on: Proposed Private Plan Change 24 - Waiata Shores Local Centreat 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores

1. Introduction:

1. 1 The Proposed Private Plan Change 24 - Waiata Shores Local Centre seeks torezone land from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre at2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores.

1.2 Auckland Transport (AT) is a Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) of AucklandCouncil and the Road Controlling Authority for the Auckland region (excluding statehighways). AT has the legislated purpose, from the Local Government (AucklandCouncil) Act 2009 section 39 to contribute to an 'effective, efficient and safeAuckland land transport system in the public interest'. AT is responsible for theplanning and funding of most public transport; operating the local reading network;and developing and enhancing the local road, public transport, walking and cyclingnetwork.

1. 3 AT's submission seeks to ensure that the transport effects of the proposal areappropriately considered and addressed.

1. 4 For the avoidance of doubt, AT is not a trade competitor for the purposes of section308B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. Auckland Transport's submission is:

To oppose Proposed Private Plan Change 24 in part in its provision of zoning for aLocal Centre to be created at Waiata Shores, unless AT's concerns areappropriately considered and addressed to ensure that the extent, scale andintensity of potential effects and the methods for mitigating these effects areaddressed to achieve a rezoning that is appropriate to the transport context.

If the transport concerns cannot be addressed to AT's satisfaction the rezoningshould not proceed and the proposed plan change should be declined.

3. Specific parts of the provisions that the submission relates to:

3. 1 The specific parts of the proposed re-zoning to Business - Local Centre that thissubmission relates to are the transport effects of the proposal which are more

#06

Page 2 of 7

specifically set out in Attachment 1. In keeping with AT's purpose, the key mattersraised relate to transport and include:

1. Information to be included in the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA)2. Traffic modelling3. Transport and road pavement improvements4. Intersection improvements5. Walking and cycling for access, connectivity and safety

3. 2 AT supports in principle a rezoning from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban toBusiness - Local Centre for its ability to provide a conveniently located Local Centreto Waiata Shores, however insufficient information has been provided for AT to beable to support this proposal in part at this stage. The matters raised in Attachment1 (and any other transport effects) must be appropriately addressed to ensure thatany adverse transport effects of the proposal can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.If those transport matters cannot be addressed, then the proposed Plan Changeshould not proceed in its current form and/or should be declined.

3. 3 The applicant may be able to address some of the matters raised in this submissionby providing additional information to support the proposal. AT also considers thatthere may be other methods that could be considered to ensure the actual andpotential transport effects will be appropriately managed.

3.4 As identified in the application material, a resource consent has been prepared for adevelopment including a supermarket. This submission does not address specificmatters that would assessed as part of that application process.

3. 5 AT is available and willing to work through the matters raised in this submission withAuckland Council and the applicant.

4. Recommendation sought:

4. 1 That the Council declines Proposed Private Plan Change 24, unless the transporteffects of the proposal are avoided, remedied or mitigated, specifically the mattersset out in Attachment 1 , and/or any other relief that will address thematters/concerns raised in this submission.

4.2 If AT's concerns are not resolved or cannot be addressed, then the Proposed PlanChange should be declined.

5. Appearance at the hearing:

5. 1 AT wishes to be heard in support of this submission.

Name:

Signature:

Auckland Transport

LTracey Berkahn

#06

Page 3 of 7

hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

6.1

Date:

Contact person:

Address for service:

Executive General Manager; Planning and Investment

7 June 2019

Rebecca PhillipsManager Land Use Planning / Policy, Auckland Transport

Auckland TransportPrivate Bag 92250Auckland 1142

Telephone:

Email:

0211905751

[email protected]. nz

#06

Page 4 of 7

Attachment 1

Issue Position and reasons

Integrated Transport The Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) supporting theAssessment of rezoning proposed rezoning is primarily based on a specificproposal development proposal. There is insufficient consideration of

the potential development and activity which could occur on aBusiness - Local Centre zoned site of 1.9191 hectares asbeing sought, and the transport effects which could begenerated by that zone potential.

The development proposal does include some areas allocatedto relatively intensive uses such as a supermarket and generaloffices. However, the Business - Local Centre zone allowssuch uses and other intensive retail, office, entertainment,community use, retail, food and beverage (including drive-through restaurants), as well as residential activity, across thewhole site and up to a height of 18 metres (5 storey). The usesof the site and their intensities may be controlled by the owneror applicant as well as by the Auckland Unitary Plan, but theproposed plan change rezoning to Business - Local Centredoes not include any additional limitations than those of thezone.

The ITA needs to be amended to ensure the full scope ofdevelopment enabled by the proposed zone being sought isaddressed. Alternatives to this may include the ITA identifyingdevelopment and activity intensity thresholds, including thenominal proposed mixed supermarket / retail / officedevelopment, which could not be exceeded withoutassessment and addressing of transport and transport networkeffects.

It is not AT's intention that development of the land should belimited, but only that future effects of more intensivedevelopment on the transport network should be consideredwithin the full zone potential.

Decision sought from the Council

Require the ITA to be amended to supports the fullpotential development and use of a 1. 9 hectare block inline with the proposed Business - Local Centre zone asbeing sought, before any such rezoning can be accepted/ approved. Alternatives or other methods may includeidentification of development and activity intensitythresholds of the nominal proposed mixed supermarket/retail / office development, which could not be exceededwithout further assessment and addressing of additionaltransport and transport network effects. Accepting theproposed rezoning could be contingent on thosethresholds being reflected in specific precinct ordevelopment plan provisions, or in encumbrances orother instruments upon the land that might be offered bythe applicant / owner.

#06

Page 5 of 7

Issue

Traffic modelling

Transport and road pavementimprovements required with achange in land use

Position and reasons

Traffic modelling provided as part of the ITA and the furtherinformation provided by the applicant to Auckland Council isnot considered sufficiently robust to support the proposed planchange. Existing information has not been used to inform abaseline for the modelling. The project model must be re-calibrated to reflect the local traffic operation. The ITA needsto provide further information on why future traffic patterns willchange. The supermarket development is expected to becompleted within the short term 2026 modelling period. Futureprojects to connect Rangi Road with Mahia Drive and toremove railway level crossings are long term proposals andnot currently programmed or funded. It is not clear whetherthese projects are excluded from the higher tier (SATURN)traffic model, from which traffic demands have been obtainedfor the project model. The modelling needs to address a futurenetwork with and without a connection between Brylee Driveand Gosper Road.

Transport improvements to the immediate road network needto be identified and addressed for the rezoning fromResidential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - LocalCentre. These would include footpath widths, connectivity,public transport connections, cycle provision, and intersectionupgrades. The proposed reading network needs to addressObjective 3 and Policy 1 7(c) of the Business - Local Centrezone. Some of the transport improvements can beimplemented through subsequent resource consentingprocesses, however, acknowledgement of what changes arerequired should be highlighted through this plan changeprocess and documented in a revised ITA.

The previous Engineering Plan Approval (EPA) assessmentfor the new immediate road network was for a residential roadand the pavement design is not considered suitable for a roadcarrying heavy commercial vehicle traffic.


Require the provision of revised traffic modelling which isbased on existing traffic conditions, confirmed futuretransport projects and includes scenarios both with andwithout a connection between Brylee Drive and GosperRoad to enable an appropriate assessment of theproposed rezoning.

Any decision to rezone the land from Residential - MixedHousing Urban to Business - Local Centre must identifythe transport improvements that would be required toprovide for the proposed rezoning and the activitiesprovided by that rezoning including the applicantupgrading the road pavement for heavy commercialvehicle traffic, and also any safety improvements whichmay be required for Brylee Drive for traffic calming andcycling accessibility for this change in land use. The ITAneeds amending to consider safety as well as trafficdelay.

#06

Page 6 of 7

Issue

Intersection improvements

Walkingaccess,

safety

and cycling forconnectivity and

Position and reasons

The further information received addressed delay andcongestion of Brylee Drive, but should assess what safetymeasures should be incorporated into Brylee Drive if it is to beconnected to Gosper Road and have a role carrying trafficbetween Conifer Grove and the Waiata Shores Local Centreand supermarket. Connection of Brylee Drive to Gosper Road,if it occurs, would allow public transport connectivity throughConifer Grove and Waiata Shores, and including to the LocalCentre, and also have a stronger connectivity role for cyclingand walking.

The ITA is silent on how necessary infrastructureimprovements to address the rezoning proposed will beprovided, as no precinct plan is proposed and the matters ofdiscretion at consent stage may not allow full consideration ofneeded transport improvements.

Te Napi Drive and Road 2 intersection: AT considers that aroundabout is required at the intersection of Te Napi Drive andRoad 2 to provide for the rezoning / change in land use.

Great South Road and Te Napi Drive intersection: Furtherinformation is required of the intersection improvements forpedestrians at this intersection, and including any changes tomodelling to address the rezoning / change in land use.

The ITA provided to support the proposed Plan Change doesnot include sufficient information about walking and cycleaccess and connectivity. Gaps in the surrounding walking andcycling networks should be identified and addressed to enablethe change in land use proposed..


Any decision to rezone the land from Residential - MixedHousing Urban to Business - Local Centre must identifythe transport improvements that would be required toenable the rezoning, particularly safety requirements.This should include a roundabout at the intersection of TeNapi Drive and Road 2 and upgrading for pedestriansafety at the intersection of Great South Road and TeMapi Drive.

Any decision to rezone the land from Residential - MixedHousing Urban to Business - Local Centre must takeaccount of walking and cycling transport networkimprovements needed to support the proposed localcentre.

#06

Page 7 of 7


Contact details

Full name of submitter: Samuel James Dick

Organisation name:

Agent's full name:



Postal address: 2 Gaylord Place Conifer Grove Auckland 2112

Submission details





Rule or rules: Rezone 1.92 hectares of land at 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores from Residential - Mixed Housing Urban to Business - Local Centre.


Map or maps: 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores

Other provisions:



The reason for my or our views are: These are stated in the submission documents I have attached.



Supporting documents Proposed Plan Change - Waiata Shores.pdf Pizzini on Brylee Drive.pdf

#07

Page 1 of 11


hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

7.1

Attend a hearing


Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? No

Declaration



• Adversely affects the environment; and • Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

Yes


#07

Page 2 of 11

Submission in response to: Proposed Private Plan Change 24: Waiata Shores Local Centre

Applicant: Woolworths New Zealand Limited

Location: Land on the corner of Te Napi Drive and Great South Road, Conifer Grove.

Details of proposed activity: Private plan change that seeks to rezone 1.92 hectares of land at 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores from Residential – Mixed Housing Urban to Business – Local Centre.

Background My name is Samuel Dick and I live with my long-term partner Alejandra Ortega Rocca at number 2 Gaylord Place, Conifer Grove. We purchased this property in November 2017 as a desirable place to live and raise our family. In particular, we were attracted by the low crime rate, quiet neighbourhood along with its singular access. This singular access plays a vital role as a deterrent for potential burglars as it is very easy to block their only escape route. The residents of this area also help to fund the CCTV cameras which monitor the traffic movements in and out of the Western side of Conifer Grove. The most important factor of this purchase is the cul-de-sac end to Brylee Drive not far from our property.

Submission I am writing this submission as I oppose the application for a private plan change in its entirety. There are two significant aspects to my opposition to the application:

1. I seriously question the need for yet another supermarket and shopping area located in Waiata Shores.

2. Should the zoning be changed to allow the construction of a supermarket and shopping

area, I believe this would be used as a lever and justification to achieve the opening up of the Brylee Drive to Gosper Road connection.

Additional supermarket and shopping area located in Waiata Shores There already exists, a vast range of supermarkets, convenience stores and a variety of other retail stores and facilities within close proximity of Waiata Shores. Within the immediate vicinity of Waiata Shores there is already the recently developed Takanini Gateway, the Takanini Village and Southgate Shopping centre - all of which are within 2km from the area subject to the application for land zoning change. Collectively these shopping areas provide a very broad range of goods and services. Closer to Waiata Shores are the following:

200metres A wide range of convenience stores 600metres Fruit & vegetable store, bakery and café 700metres Medical Centre and Pharmacy 800metres Newly built retail centre

#07

Page 3 of 11

The closest supermarket (a Countdown store owned by Woolworths New Zealand Ltd) is less than 2km away. In fact, within a 4.5km radius of Waiata Shores there are already 6 large supermarkets – 4 are Countdown stores, 1 x New World and 1 x Pack n Save. In my opinion, the statement contained in the report prepared by Phillip Brown “Residents of Waiata Shores would need to access everyday services at other existing centres, all of which are located a significant distance from their homes” is simply not accurate. I struggle to see the need for the services intended for this proposed area with the overwhelming choice available within 2km of the site. It is clearly illustrated in the maps below the close proximity of the surrounding supermarkets and convenience stores to Waiata Shores.

#07

Page 4 of 11

Potential consequences of land zoning change application being approved

When the initial development application for Waiata Shores was applied for, the zoning was approved as Residential – Mixed Housing Urban. This report from Phillip Brown continues by stating “The amenity of the site is compromised for residential use by its proximity to the Motorway, Great South Road and Industrial area to the North”. I find such a statement very alarming and one must question how and why this area was processed and approved by Auckland Council with the zoning as Residential – Mixed Housing Urban if it is now seen as “compromised for residential use”? The “Motorway, Great South Road and Industrial area to the North” were exactly as they are today. Is Phillip Brown accusing Auckland Council of failing in their processes? The approval and associated zoning was not that long ago – were there unpublished plans afoot at that time to apply for rezoning after such a short time? In my opinion such conflicting opinions and statements undermine the authorities responsible for the planning and zoning of such areas and also raise alarming questions of what looks to be vested interests by those involved. Fletcher Residential Ltd applied to have a connection between the end of Brylee Drive and Gosper Road at the end of 2018. This application was strongly opposed by those aware of the proposal - more specifically, those living in the Conifer Grove Area. Given the very strong opposition to the proposed opening of the roadway from Brylee Drive, is this zoning change application seen as a “backdoor” way to get the proposed roadway opened anyway? By stealth and deception? Why was this zoning change application not included as part of the entire initial Waiata Shores development application? I have grave concerns about both the immediate and long-term effects the developments which would result from approval of the private zoning change application will have on, not only my family, but the Conifer Grove area as a whole. Various documents refer to a connection between Brylee Drive and Gosper Road. I have grave concerns that this connection will be pushed through with this land zoning change as a result of a “need to service the proposed supermarket and shopping area”.

Connection between Brylee Drive and Gosper Road The intense opposition to the application by Fletcher Residential Ltd at the end of 2018 to have a connection between the end of Brylee Drive and Gosper Road remains. One of the principal issues of the opposition is the inevitable compromise to the relative security currently enjoyed by all residents of Conifer Grove. This security risk has been supported through the report of David Pizzini (see attached) and his CPTED analysis of the security risks associated with this potential through road. David had an extensive career in the New Zealand Police until 2014 and, most importantly, he spent the majority

#07

Page 5 of 11

of his Policing Career based around the Counties Manukau district. This vast experience in South Auckland gave him an overwhelming amount of exposure to the behaviour and patterns of criminals. His CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) analysis of the proposed connection is as follows; “Surveillance: Brylee Drive currently serves the residential properties situated on that street, and cul-de-sacs off it. Even during rush hours, it is a quiet street. This enhances the opportunity for casual surveillance by local residences in the sense that any persons or vehicles doing pre-crime reconnaissance stick out. That would not be the case if Brylee Drive is turned into a busy through road.” “Access Management: Criminals choose to avoid Conifer Grove west of the bridge because they know that if residents report them acting suspiciously, police can easily trap them by setting up a check point on the bridge. The same principle applies in The Gardens. When offenders are disturbed committing crime, or suspicious persons or vehicles are reported they know police will “prop” the two exit points which are within eye-sight of each other.” “Territorial Reinforcement: clear boundaries encourage community ownership. Keeping Brylee Drive separate from Gosper Road establishes a clear boundary at the northern end of that neighbourhood; to join Brylee Drive would be to make that boundary redundant. Put another way; connecting the two streets would provide potential offenders ready and unnoticed access to potential targets.” “Quality Environments: Residents currently enjoy a relatively quiet and safe neighbourhood. To connect the streets would have a detrimental impact on the amenity and character that neighbourhood offers, thereby reducing community ownership.” In conclusion from Mr Pizzini; “As stated in the Introductory paragraphs of the “National Guidelines for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in New Zealand”, reducing crime and building safer communities is a priority for all New Zealanders. In my opinion, to connect the streets would have an immediate and serious counter-productive impact on the incidence of crime and the feeling of safety of residents of Conifer Grove”. It is of grave concern to me, for my family and the residents of Conifer Grove that a man of Mr Pizzini’s expertise has such strong opinions about the negative impact this through road will have on our community. Not only is there a significant security risk associated with this potential connection, it also introduces a considerable safety risk to the houses along Brylee Drive, Waiata Shores and Walter Strevens drive. Since residing in Conifer Grove, I have noticed the significant number of children who walk to their local primary school from both sides of the motorway. If this development was to happen - followed by the connection - it would pose a potentially deadly risk to the current generation who will have to negotiate the busy roads and cross a large roundabout at peak times. Not only, will the increase in traffic pose a risk but commuters will use this road as a shortcut in order to avoid Great South Road congestion and do so in the shortest time e.g. rat-running.

#07

Page 6 of 11

Summary Conifer Grove is currently one of the sought-after areas in this part of Auckland due to its position, “island like” layout and access. This singular access plays a major role in maintaining its reputation with quiet, peaceful streets and an uncharacteristically low crime rate. If the zoning change application was successful and the subsequent development of the supermarket and shopping area was to happen and the through road is to go ahead, it will change the amenity values of all properties. I believe there is a need to maintain the existing “emergency access” status between Waiata Shores and Conifer Grove but not an open access road. I request that the application to change the zoning of the land at 2 Te Napi Drive, Waiata Shores be declined in its entirety. I also reserve the right to speak to the submission, should I deem it necessary. Kind Regards, Sam Dick. 0274449553 [email protected]

#07

Page 7 of 11

1

Veritas Investigations Ltd

Veritas = Truth

Level 4, Park View Tower

28 Davies Avenue

MANUKAU CITY

www.veritas.nz

__________________________________________________________________________________

CPTED ANALYSIS TO INFORM EVIDENCE ON A PROPOSAL TO CREATE A THROUGH-ROAD AT BRYLEE

DRIVE

I am a Licenced Private Investigator operating under an Individual licence; number 14-

015548, which expires on 31 October 2019. I am a Co-Director of Veritas Investigations

Limited, based at Manukau City.

Between January 1980 and July 2014, I was a sworn member of New Zealand Police.

I spent approximately 30 of those years as a member of the Criminal Investigation Branch in

three different ranks; 9 years as a Detective; 11 years as a Detective Sergeant and 10 years

as a Detective Senior Sergeant.

Between 1986 and my retirement in mid-2014 I was stationed at various locations in the

Counties Manukau police district, arguably the most challenging and busiest district in New

Zealand.

During my career I have investigated, interviewed, arrested and prosecuted several hundred

people who have breached the criminal law. I was the officer-in-charge of over 100 jury trials

in the District and High Courts; the majority of which were for serious crimes, including 14

homicides involving 20 accused. Of the trials I was responsible for I enjoyed a conviction

success rate of 97%.

#07

Page 8 of 11

http://www.veritas.nz/

2

One of the skills I built up over the years was interviewing persons suspected of criminal

offending. Interviewing is an art refined by practice. I investigated, interviewed and arrested

scores of burglars and car thieves. I prided myself by gathering evidence pointing to their

guilt prior to approaching them; putting that evidence to them during an interview and

obtaining admissions and confessions for the matters under enquiry.

The final phase of a suspect interview is the “intelligence de-briefing”. My education of how

criminals profile their targets, plan their crimes and operate has been gleaned from

undertaking “intelligence de-briefings”. As a general duties and Criminal Investigation

Branch supervisor and Senior Sergeant I regularly mentored staff under my control in the art

of interviewing; including the “intelligence de-brief” phase. Knowledge I gained from this

informed my operational crime prevention plans in the areas I worked.

My experience of investigating, interviewing and arresting dishonesty offenders (burglars

and ‘car knockers’) is that most are egotistical people who enjoy bragging about their

exploits in committing crime. My practice was to drill down on their modus operandi by

asking probative questions, such as:

What was it about that house that led you to choose to break into it?

Why didn’t you break into the neighbouring houses?

What made that street attractive to you (to burgle in)?

Why didn’t you choose to break into houses in adjacent streets?

Why do you choose that model of car to take?

Intelligence gathered from this process was invaluable in recognising crime patterns and

even signatures left by offenders.

#07

Page 9 of 11

3

One undeniable fact was that dishonesty offenders avoided areas featuring strong CPTED

principles (Surveillance; Access Management; Territorial Reinforcement; and Quality

Environments) in favour of neighbourhoods with weak CPTED principles.

I am familiar with Brylee Drive, Conifer Grove. I am aware it is the safest neighbourhood in

the Counties Manukau South Area by a comfortable margin in reported dishonesty offences

per capita.

I will now address each of the four CPTED principles in turn; as they relate to the current

configuration of the residential street access and regress to and from the area west of

Walter Strevens Drive bridge, and the impact of connecting the streets:

(i) Surveillance: Brylee Drive currently serves the residential properties situated on that

street, and cull-de-sacks off it. Even during rush hours, it is a quiet street. This

enhances the opportunity for casual surveillance by local residences in the sense

that any persons or vehicles doing pre-crime reconnaissance stick out. That would

not be the case if Brylee Drive is turned into a busy through road.

(ii) Access Management: Criminals choose to avoid Conifer Grove west of the bridge

because they know that if residents report them acting suspiciously, police can easily

trap them by setting up a check point on the bridge. The same principle applies in

The Gardens. When offenders are disturbed committing crime, or suspicious persons

or vehicles are reported they know police will “prop” the two exit points which are

within eye-sight of each other.

(iii) Territorial Reinforcement: clear boundaries encourage community ownership.

Keeping Brylee Drive separate from Gosper Road establishes a clear boundary at the

northern end of that neighbourhood; to join Brylee Drive would be to make that

boundary redundant. Put another way; connecting the two streets would provide

potential offenders ready and unnoticed access to potential targets.

#07

Page 10 of 11

4

(iv) Quality Environments: Residents currently enjoy a relatively quiet and safe

neighbourhood. To connect the streets would have a detrimental impact on the

amenity and character that neighbourhood offers, thereby reducing community

ownership.

Conclusion:

As stated in the Introductory paragraphs of the “National Guidelines for Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design in New Zealand” reducing crime and building safer communities is a priority

for all New Zealanders. In my opinion, to connect the streets would have an immediate and serious

counter-productive impact on the incidence of crime and the feeling of safety of residents of Conifer

Grove.

Dave Pizzini,

10th of September 2018

#07

Page 11 of 11


Contact details

Full name of submitter: Fletcher Residential Limited trading as Fletcher Living

Organisation name: Fletcher Residential Limited trading as Fletcher Living

Agent's full name: Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited



Postal address: PO Box 276121 Manukau Auckland 2241

Submission details





Rule or rules: Plan Change 24 in its entirety


Map or maps:

Other provisions: This submission supports the proposed rezoning of the land from Residential – Mixed Housing Urban to Business – Local Centre.

Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we support the specific provisions identified

Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? No

The reason for my or our views are: The land is ideally located to accommodate retail and commercial activities that will complement development of land by the submitter at Waiata Shores to establish a new residential community comprising a range of high quality residential typologies. The proposal to establish a local centre at 2 Te Napi Drive will enable a range of retail and commercial activities to establish on the land that will service the day-to-day needs of the new Waiata Shores community as well as a wider catchment area.

I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification

#08

Page 1 of 2


hannons

Line

hannons

Typewritten Text

8.1


Attend a hearing



Declaration



• Adversely affects the environment; and• Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

No


#08

Page 2 of 2

summary of decisions requested - proposed plan change 24 · email address: [email protected]...

Documents