a full description of the proposal is provided in section...

Technical Memorandum – Natural Resources & Specialist Input Unit

To: Haylee Minoprio, Consultant Planner – AR Associates Ltd

CC: David Hampson, Earth and Stream works, Trees and Contaminated Land, NRSI

From:

Michael Dunphy, Consultant to Earth and Stream works, Trees and

Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit, Resource

Consents

Date: 22 July 2016

1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

Application and property details

Applicant's Name: Asia Pacific International Group Ltd

NRSI application number: SLC-66696 (NRSI No 46671)

NRSI file number:

NRSI activity type: Earthworks of 1,268,510m3 over a disturbed area of 46.6191ha within the 1,828ha site associated with the development of 207-lot rural-residential subdivision.

Site address: Moirs Hill Rd, Pohuehue 0983

2.0 PROPOSAL AND THE SITE

2.1 Proposal relevant to this permit/consent only

A full description of the proposal is provided in section 3.1 of the application report titled

Moir Hill Subdivision and Regional Resource Consent Application prepared for Asia

Pacific International Group (NZ) Ltd for submission to Auckland Council, dated January

2016 and prepared by Beca Limited (hereby referred to as the Application Report).

Aspects relating to erosion and sediment control are detailed in Chapter 7 and

Appendix A of the application report. These aspects were further detailed in the

information accompanying the s92 response of 26 April 2016 with supplementary

information received in May to July 2016.

This technical memorandum provides a review of the short-term construction-related

aspects of the earthworks and forest harvesting.

195

Consent: SLC-66696 2 Address: Moirs Hill, Pohuehue

The works are associated with the development of a 207 lot rural-residential subdivision

based on a combination of bush retirement and augmented with enhancement planting.

The overall site area is approximately 1,828ha. The subdivision is proposed to be

undertaken in five development stages in accordance with the granted Development

Concept Plan to occur over a timeframe of some 10 years.

The earthworks are required to:

Upgrade the existing roads and tracks which extend through the various sites.

A majority of these were formed during the harvesting of the pine forest in the

area and will be upgraded to chip-sealed roads. The roads will have cut slopes

of 1V:2.5H to enable planting;

Progressive formation of the building platforms which will in the most part utilise

the flat sites formed as forestry skid sites and/or on natural ridgelines. The

timing of their formation will be demand-driven;

Utilizing four soil disposal areas (SDA’s) to accommodate the excess cut

material from the earthworks (predominately during the road formation). These

will be predominately utilised in Stage 1 and 2 of the development. The

remaining stages (3 – 5) will use an off-site facility for cleanfill export;

Minor earthworks associated with the formation of on-site wastewater

treatment and walking tracks, etc.

The earthworks are proposed to be separated into five earthwork zones as outlined in

the table below.

Earthworks Area Cut Vol (m3)

Fill Vol (m3)

Cut Area (m2)

Fill Area (m2)

Zone 1 – Dorset Rd 81,121 661 36,716 2,206

Zone 2 – Watson

Rd

252,498 2,603 105,401 5,192

Zone 3 to 5 Moir Hill 467,167 47,960 217,428 28,697

TOTAL 800,786 51,224 359,545 36,095

In addition, the SDA’s have the following areas and volumes.

Earthworks Area Cut Vol (m3)

Fill Vol (m3)

Cut Area (m2)

Fill Area (m2)

Zone 1 – Dorset Rd - 99,700 - 22,152

Zone 2 – Watson

Rd

- 316,800 - 48,399

Zone 3 to 5 Moir Hill - offsite - offsite

TOTAL - 416,500 - 70,551

196


The applicant revised their proposal so that the excess fill (approximately 631,200m3)

in Zone 3 – 5 will be exported offsite. Accordingly, there will be a total of 1,268,510m3

of earthworks and as mentioned previously, the excess material will be predominately

stockpiled in the SDA’s. The earthworks occur over a total disturbed footprint of

46.6191ha.

A portion of the area is covered in remnant plantation pine forest estate as well as

“wildings” which have naturally regenerated following the harvesting activities. A great

majority of these trees are uneconomic in view of their size and lack of silviculture and

their harvesting is dependent on the staging of the development. Harvesting is not

likely to occur until Stage 3.

2.2 Site description

The site is located at Moirs Hill, Pohuehue. The applicant has provided a description of

the site and associated receiving environment in the application report, section 4.1. In

brief:

The site has an area of 1,828ha which is held under several certificates of title

and is currently covered in a mixture of grass pasture, significant stands of

native vegetation and remnant pine forest. The site is moderately to steeply

sloping with Moirs Hill providing a major catchment divide orientated in an east-

west trend.

The hill country comprises a sequence of broad river valleys, notable high

points with a highly dissected, dendritic pattern of stream gullies, ridgelines and

steep escarpments throughout.

The catchment north of the Moirs Hill divide forms the right branch of the

Mahurangi River which ultimately discharges into the marine environment of

Mahurangi Harbour. The southern catchments are occupied by the Hungry

Creek and Puhoi Rivers which discharge into the Puhoi Estuary.

2.3 Background and site history relevant to this permit/consent only

Not applicable.

3.0 REASON FOR CONSENT – EARTHWORKS

3.1 Reasons for consent

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRP:SC)

Regional earthworks consent is required because:

The area of disturbance within the Sediment Control Protection Area (SCPA)

is greater than 0.25Ha. Consent is required as a Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1

197


Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

Infringements for earthworks under the PAUP are noted as:

Resource consent is required as the area and volume of the earthworks

exceeds the 2,500m2 and 2,500m3 thresholds in the Rural Production Zone.

This requires a Non Complying Activity consent under Rule H.4.2.1.2.

With respect to the forest harvesting, it was considered by Council that consent is

required under the provisions of Rule 3.H.4.2.2.1.2.2.3.5 as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Overall, the application is considered to be a Non-complying Activity.

4.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

Earthworks Activity

The applicant has provided a series of key documentation in their assessment of effects

comprising: erosion and sediment control drawings, details of the various devices,

estimates of soil loss using the USLE and bench testing with PAC of soil reactivity to

chemical coagulation. In addition, they have identified a number of devices and

methodologies in accordance with TP90.

The proposed suite of erosion and sediment controls includes:

Sediment retention ponds (SRP’s) and decanting earth bunds (DEB’s)

primarily for the soil disposal areas and the road formation together with

formed dirtywater channels to convey flows to these devices;

A series of super silt fences;

Using the natural contour for the diversion of cleanwater flows as well as a

constructed earth bund;

Stabilised entrance way;

Stabilisation.

Plans have been provided which outline the above measures and show the location of

the key site controls with examples provided for Watson Road. Essentially, this

involves the upgrade of the existing road, predominately by cutting into the slopes with

some minor filling in key areas. The linear nature of the roads allied with very steep

slopes, can be problematic for the siting and sizing of sediment controls, as the terrain

will dictate the placement of the SRP or DEB. This will place significant constraints on

the catchment to be treated and therefore cleanwater diversions are critical to keep the

catchment to pond volume ratio in accordance with TP90 prescriptions. It is noted that

super silt fences will also utilised but are not used as the prime form of sediment

removal. This approach is endorsed.

198


With regards to the SDA’s, these have been reduced from eight individual sites down

to four for Stages 1 and 2 only. The tipping head will utilise a sediment retention pond

and the area isolated by a combination of catchment divide and cleanwater drains.

There is no mention of progressive stabilisation for these sites and it is recommended

that this is undertaken on a regular basis to minimise the potential for sediment

entrainment.

The building sites, albeit on flatter portions of the site, do not have a typical erosion and

sediment control plan. Whilst these are not expected to be large contributors to overall

sediment yields, they nevertheless pose a risk and it is recommended that the annual

erosion and sediment control plan as discussed below, includes these features.

There are a number of elements unique to this proposal, not least is the extended time

period of construction which runs contrary to a “typical” earthworks operation of four to

five years. The time period is therefore analogous to a quarry which uses seasons of

overburden stripping based on a management plan approval. The applicant intends to

work in five earthwork stages extending over a 10-year life and this aspect presents

challenges with regards to the uptake of new technology. As an example, chemical

treatment of sediment ponds 10 years ago was in its infancy with limited use applied.

Moreover, floc socks as a cost-effective passive dosing system were not used as

prevalently as today. In a similar manner, polymers are gaining popularity as a form of

instant stabilisation. To overcome this aspect, a consent condition has been

recommended allowing review of the consent conditions and will enable the earthworks

methodology to be updated in accordance with recent technologies.

Some estimates of sediment yield using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) have

been undertaken ranging from 5 tonnes/year to a maximum of 427 tonnes/year with

controls installed. It is assumed that these yields are for the entire year rather than the

duration of construction and do not take into account the duration that the area is open,

erosion control techniques or chemical treatment of ponds. In addition, the USLE

highlights the correlation between steeper portions of the worked area and higher

sediment yields.

These elevated yields draining into a sensitive receiving environment of the Mahurangi

Harbour suggest that a conservative approach be adopted to assist with the sediment

minimisation strategies. In light of the above commentary, it is considered that the

following attributes should be addressed within any proposed conditions of consent in

addition to the “standard” suite.

1. Providing definitive detail on the decants and strict sizing criteria for

decanting earth bunds. Site experience has indicated that DEB’s are viewed

as a “quick and dirty” approach to sediment control and are generally

undersized with poor length to width ratios. A consent of consent is

recommended which spells out these aspects.

2. Utilising the results of the bench testing into a chemical treatment plan. This

will need to be updated periodically as the works progress into different soils

and enabling the provision for new approved products to be utilised.

199


3. Formalising the time for stabilisation of exposed areas following the area

brought up to grade. It is suggested that the affected area is stabilised within

10 working days (or similar period) following. This aspect does not preclude

the winter shut down period.

4. Submitting a revised earthworks management plan before the start of each

earthworks season which requires the certification of Council and would also

address the building platform works. Flexibility should be built in so that

additional areas of the overall consented site can be included. This approach

allows for the innovations that an individual contractor may have with

earthworks methodology. In addition, when augmented with regular

compliance visits the siting of these controls can be optimised.

5. Imposing the winter earthworks season as a condition of consent. However,

as works outside of this period will generally not be permissible without the

written approval of Council, no further restrictions in this regard are

considered necessary.

6. An “insurance policy” in the form of an adaptive monitoring of the sediment

controls. This approach has been utilised with success on Auckland

earthworks sites and provides a quick review of the operational efficiency of

the pond and the train of remedial measures required. It would entail grab

sampling of the ponds during a rainfall trigger event (e.g. >25mm rain in the

previous 24 hours).

7. In view of the 10 year time frame, provision for a consent review under s128.

Forest Harvesting

An assessment of the forest harvesting component of the operation is moot as the

works are proposed to be undertaken in 2031 following the completion of Stages 1 and

2. The current statutory requirement for harvesting in the Auckland region is

predominately as a permitted activity subject to the specific attainment of conditions in

these plans.

The applicant has provided a template of a forest harvest plan and the expectation

would be that a document of this nature is provided before harvesting commences and

an assessment made at that time.

Conclusions

It is important to clarify that the introduction of erosion and sediment controls will

operate at best, according to a host of variables including but not limited to; the natural

conditions, rainfall volumes and frequency, erosion control strategies, the competency

of the operator and the efficiency of the sediment device itself. These devices will not

completely stop sediment being discharged but will serve to significantly reduce this

amount. This should be placed in the context of the proposal where there are steep

catchments and a significant volume and area of earthworks which drain into the

Mahurangi Harbour. As an aside, a dedicated compliance and integrated catchment

200


program dedicated to reducing sediment inputs into the harbour has been in effect for

some years. This is in response to the accelerated sedimentation in this feature.

The works will be distributed over 10 years and will operate in “pulses” over an

earthworks season. Accordingly, the riskiest portion of the works such as the main

road upgrade at Watson Rd, can be arranged so that it occurs during the earthworks

season from October to April. In essence, this will stage the work so that each

successive package of work can be stabilised against erosion before the next phase

proceeds. This approach will assist in reducing the potential for sediment entrainment.

Any sediment discharging from the sediment retention devices is likely to be fine

particulate and colloidal suspensions arising from clay and fine silts on the site.

Discharges from sediment retention devices are likely to have elevated levels of

turbidity and can be expected to discolour the water column of the receiving waters

during elevated flow conditions. This effect will only be evident during and immediately

after rainfall events where the flows exceed the holding capacity of the sediment

devices.

To alleviate these adverse effects, a suite conditions have been proposed which

provide a number of outcomes.

Allowing a reassessment of the erosion and sediment control plan following

the contract being awarded. Fundamentally there are many different

approaches to undertaking erosion and sediment control and this condition

enables contractor experience, innovation and potentially a “better way” of

doing the work.

An “insurance policy” with the adaptive monitoring of the various erosion and

sediment controls. This allows a direct connection between performance of

sediment control measure, operator competency and to some degree, the

consequential effects on the watercourse. This approach is currently used

in areas with large earthworks and sensitive receiving environments (eg

Weiti, Long Bay, Hobsonville Point) and allows early intervention for remedial

actions of the devices and methodologies;

Providing a feedback mechanism in the annual management plan where the

data from the monitoring, learnings and experiences from the previous

earthworks season are “repackaged”.

A clear pathway which defines the actions and responsibilities in the event

of failure of any device or methodology.

Finally, a catchall condition which enables review if the sampling trends and

compliance monitoring indicates poor performance.

It is acknowledged that the conditions proposed represent a conservative stance to

provide a high level of certainty and confidence. In view of the staged approach, a

requirement to comply with TP90 outcomes and supported by the non-structural

practices outlined in these conditions, it is considered that the potential adverse effects

of the activity on the environment are considered to be appropriately managed.

201


5.0 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Objectives and policies of the ACRP:SC and PAUP

The following general objectives and policies of the ACRP:SC may also be relevant to

the planner’s assessment of the application:

Objectives 5.1.1 and 5.1.2

Policies 5.2.1 and 5.2.2

The Proposed Unitary Plan Auckland (PAUP) following general objectives and policies

of the PAUP (Part 2 - Regional and District Objectives and Policies - Chapter C - 5.2

Earthwork) may also be relevant to the planner’s assessment of the application.

5.2 Other statutory documents

The following statutory documents may be considered relevant to the planner’s

assessment of the earthworks application:

Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement, particularly Chapter 8 and Objective

8.3(1)

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

5.3 Other relevant matters

There are no other matters considered relevant and reasonably necessary to consider

with respect to the earthworks and streamworks activity.

5.4 Duration of consent: Section 123

A term of 10 years has been requested. This is considered appropriate in light of the

review condition which enables a review of the earthworks methodology in light of any

changes to best practice that may occur during this period.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS

6.1 Adequacy of information

The above assessment is based on the information submitted as part of the application

and through the provision of further information. It is considered that the information

submitted is sufficient to enable the consideration of the above matters on an informed

basis as:

a. The level of information provides a reasonable understanding of the nature and

scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the relevant planning documents;

and,

b. The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment are able to be

202


assessed.

6.2 Recommendation

The assessment in this memorandum does not identify any reasons to withhold

consent from an erosion and sediment control perspective, and the aspects of the

proposal considered by this memorandum could be granted consent, subject to

recommended conditions, for the following reasons:

1. Subject to the imposition of consent conditions, it is assessed that the effects on

the receiving environment will be appropriately managed;

2. The sensitivity of the receiving environment to the adverse effects of the

earthworks activities will not be compromised given the application of suitable

erosion and sediment control technology, appropriate on site management and

adaptive monitoring techniques; and,

3. The applicant has proposed best practice options in order to avoid, remedy and

mitigate the potential effects of the earthworks and associated sediment yields.

6.3 General conditions

The following general conditions are recommended:

X.1 The earthwork activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all

information submitted with the application, outlined below and all referenced by Council

as SLC-66696.

Moir Hill Subdivision and Regional Resource Consent Application prepared for

Asia Pacific International Group (NZ) Ltd for submission to Auckland Council

Resource Consent Application. Prepared by Beca Ltd and dated February 2016

Pre commencement

X.2 Prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity for any earthworks season in

which earthworks are proposed, the consent holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that:

a. is located on the subject site

b. is scheduled not less than five days before the anticipated commencement of

earthworks

c. includes Auckland Council officer[s]

d. includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works

The meeting shall discuss the erosion and sediment control measures, the earthworks

methodology and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and familiar with the

necessary conditions of this consent.

The following information shall be made available at the pre-start meeting:

Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;

Identification of any higher risk locations on the site;

203


Resource consent conditions; and

Annual Management Plan (required by condition X.3)

A pre-start meeting shall be held prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity

in each period between October 1 and April 30 that this consent is exercised.

Advice Note:

To arrange the pre-start meeting required by Condition (X.2) please contact the Team

Leader, Northern Monitoring. The conditions of consent should be discussed at this

meeting. All additional information required by the Council should be provided 2 days

prior to the meeting.

Evaluation and Reporting

X.3 The consent holder shall submit to the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring an Annual

Management Plan for the site containing the following information:

a. Areas to be earthworked and forest harvesting over the next 12 months (if any);

b. A revised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as detailed in Condition X.5 below;

c. Chemical Treatment Management Plan as required by Condition X.13 including any revisions to the CTMP;

d. Results of any sampling carried out during the previous 12 months as required by Condition X.15, including summarised rainfall record and assessment of results;

e. An assessment of effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures and any sediment related effects on the receiving environment; and,

f. The change or improvement in erosion and sediment control measures in response to the sampling programme as required by Condition X.15.

X.4 The Annual Management Plan shall be submitted no later than 10 working days before

the preconstruction meeting as outlined in Condition X.2.

X.5 As required by Condition X.3 above, a revised Erosion and Sediment Control

Management Plan (ESCP) shall be prepared in accordance with TP90 and submitted

to the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring. No earthworks activity on the subject site

shall commence until confirmation from Team Leader, Northern Monitoring is provided

that the ESCP satisfactorily meets the requirements of TP90, and the erosion and

sediment control measures referred to in that plan have been constructed and certified.

Advice Note:

The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should contain sufficient detail to address the

following matters:

specific erosion and sediment control works (location, dimensions, capacity);

supporting calculations and design drawings;

catchment boundaries and contour information;

location of stockpiles;

204


Details of earthworks associated with the wastewater disposal system and the

access driveway;

details of construction methods;

timing and duration of construction and operation of control works (in relation to

the staging and sequencing of earthworks);

details relating to the management of exposed areas (e.g. grassing, mulching);

and,

monitoring and maintenance requirements.

Advice Note:

In the event that minor modifications to the proposed erosion and sediment control

measures are required, any such modifications should be in general accordance with,

or exceed, the requirements of Auckland Council Technical Publication Number 90,

Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland

Region. Modifications should be limited to the scope of this consent and as identified

in the approved plans. Any changes to the erosion and sediment control measures

which affect their performance or level of treatment they provide, may require an

application to be made in accordance with section 127 of the RMA. Any minor

amendments should be provided to the Team Leader –Northern Monitoring, prior to

implementation to confirm that they are within the scope of this consent.

Specific Requirements for SRP’s and DEBs

X.6 All decanting earth bunds utilised during earthworks shall be designed to ensure that

they:

a. have a three (3) percent storage capacity, being at least three cubic metres of impoundment volume for every 100m2 of contributing catchment;

b. have a level invert and two layers of geotextile covering and pinned securely to the emergency spillway to prevent erosion;

c. Use floating decant devices that discharge at a rate of 3 litres per second, per hectare of contributing catchment;

d. All DEBs shall be chemically treated in accordance with the Chemical Management Plan required under condition X.13

Advice Note:

The decanting earth bunds required by condition X.6 should be constructed in

accordance with Auckland Regional Council, Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion &

Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

X.7 All decanting earth bunds and sediment retention ponds shall be cleaned out no less

often than when 20% full of sediment, and removed sediment deposited in an area

where it cannot wash into receiving waters.

X.8 All decanting earth bunds and sediment retention ponds shall be constructed to

withstand a 100 year Average Recurrence Interval storm event without breaching and

shall incorporate an emergency spillway to accommodate such an event.

X.9 The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control

measures specifically required by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be

205


maintained throughout the duration of earthworks activity, or until the site is

permanently stabilised against erosion. A record of any maintenance work shall be

kept and be supplied to the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring on request.

X.10 The construction of the sediment retention ponds shall be supervised by a suitably

qualified engineering professional. Certification from a suitably qualified engineering

professional responsible for supervising the works shall be provided to the Team

Leader, Northern Monitoring confirming that the works have been completed in

accordance with Condition X.10 within ten (10) working days following completion.

Written certification shall be in the form of a geotechnical completion report, or any

other form acceptable to the Council.

As Builts

X.11 Prior to earthworks commencing, a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and

experienced engineer shall be submitted to the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring, to

certify that the erosion and sediment controls have been constructed in accordance

with the erosion and sediment control plans as specified in condition 5 of this consent.

Certified controls shall include:

Sediment retention ponds;

Decanting earth bunds;

Cleanwater and dirtywater bunds/channels;

Silt fences and super silt fences.

The certification for these measures shall be supplied immediately upon completion of

construction of those measures. Information supplied if applicable, shall include

confirmation of compliance with TP90.

Seasonal Restrictions

X.12 No earthworks and streamworks on the site shall be undertaken between 30 April and

1 October in any year, without the prior written approval of the Team Leader, Northern

Monitoring at least two weeks prior to 30 April of any year. Revegetation/stabilisation

is to be completed by 30 April in accordance with measures detailed in TP90 and any

amendments to this document.

Chemical Treatment Plan

X.13 As required by Condition X.3 above, a Chemical Treatment Management Plan (CTMP)

shall be prepared in accordance with Council’s Chemical Treatment Guidelines and

submitted to the Team Leader Northern Monitoring. No earthwork activities shall

commence until confirmation is provided from council that the CTMP satisfactorily

meets the requirements of the above guidelines, and the measures referred to in that

plan for the sediment retention pond(s) have been put in place.

Advice Note:

The CTMP required by Condition (X.13) should include as a minimum:

Specific design details of chemical treatment system based on a rainfall activated

dosing methodology for the site’s sediment retention ponds and batch dosing

206


requirements for the decanting earth bunds;

Monitoring, maintenance (including post-storm) and contingency programme

(including a record sheet);

Details of optimum dosage (including assumptions);

Results of initial chemical treatment trial;

A spill contingency plan; and

Details of the person or bodies that will hold responsibility for long term operation

and maintenance of the chemical treatment system and the organisational structure

which will support this system.

Monitoring & Environmental Monitoring Plan

X.14 The sediment and erosion controls at the site of the works shall be inspected on a

regular basis and within 24 hours of each rainstorm event that is likely to impair the

function or performance of the controls. A record shall be maintained of the date, time

and any maintenance undertaken in association with this condition which shall be

forwarded to the Council on request.

X.15 Prior to the commencement of any earthworks, or the establishment of sediment and

erosion controls on the site, the consent holder shall provide for the written approval of

the Team Leader Northern Monitoring an Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and

Management Reporting Plan (AEMMRP) outlining how they will monitor and report on

the effects of the sediment discharge and adapt the sediment and erosion control

management plan for the earthworks activity. The AEMMRP shall include, but not be

limited to:

a. Details of sediment discharge monitoring from the site including a water quality sampling regime for rain events in excess of an accumulated 25mm in any 24 hour period or 15mm in any 1 hour period. Samples should be collected within 12 hours of the rainfall trigger being reached and include samples of the discharge point from any sediment retention pond as well as downstream and/or upstream water samples,

b. Details outlining the reporting of these results including testing for Total Suspended Solids, visual assessments taken at sampling time (photographs) and analysis of the results,

c. Details of the triggers that will be established to determine the need for any adaptive monitoring approach,

d. Any proposed actions to be taken where triggers are exceeded,

e. A management framework outlining the parties responsible for sampling, testing, analysis and reporting of results to the Council,

f. Details of ecological monitoring to determine the effects of sediment discharge on the freshwater receiving environment and which analyses the effects being generated and make recommendations, if required, to remedy those effects.

X.16 No earthworks shall commence on site until the consent holder receives written

approval of the AEMMRP from the Team Leader Northern Monitoring.

207


X.17 In the event of a failure of any erosion and sediment control device, where an

uncontrolled discharge occurs to a permanent or intermittent freshwater body,

wetland or estuarine/marine environment the consent holder shall:

a. ensure that the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring is notified immediately;

b. engage a suitably qualified ecologist(s) who shall inspect the relevant area within 24 hours of the consent holder becoming aware of the discharge and monitor the ecological values where and when appropriate;

c. either repair or replace the device as soon as practicable;

d. review the reasons for the failure and, as soon as practicable following the failure, carry out a review of, and any appropriate repair works on, all other erosion and sediment control and devices; and

e. where the ecologist considers there has been an adverse effect that is more than minor and is not temporary, confirm an appropriate course of action in consultation with the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring and subject to approval shall implement the certified course of action.

Stabilisation

X.18 All earthworks area shall be progressively stabilised against erosion in accordance with

TP90 as soon as practicable, or within 10 working days of completion which ever occurs

first.

X.19 Upon abandonment or completion of earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare

earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of the Team

Leader, Northern Monitoring.

Advice Note:

Should the earthworks be completed or abandoned, bare areas of earth shall be

permanently stabilised against erosion. Measures may include:

the use of mulching

top-soiling, grassing and mulching of otherwise bare areas of earth

aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a

normal pasture sward

The on-going monitoring of these measures is the responsibility of the consent holder.

It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s

monitoring officer who will guide you on the most appropriate approach to take. Please

contact the Team Leader, Northern Monitoring [email protected] or

via the call centre on or 09 301 0101 for more details. Alternatively, please refer to

Auckland Regional Council, Technical Publication No. 90, Erosion & Sediment Control:

Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

Consent Review

X.20 That the conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Team Leader, Northern

Monitoring pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, by the

giving of notice pursuant to Section 129 of the Act, in July 2017 and every year

thereafter. The purpose of the review shall be:

208

mailto:[email protected]


a. To deal with any adverse effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage;

b. To require the consent holder to adopt the best practicable option to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment;

c. To deal with any other adverse effects on the environment which the exercise of the consent may have an influence on; or,

d. To deal to any adverse environmental effect identified as a result of water quality sampling.

Memo prepared by:

Michael Dunphy

Environmental Consultant

Date: 22 July 2016

Memo and technical review reviewed and approved for release by:

David Hampson

Team Leader, Earth and Stream works, Trees and Contaminated Land Natural Resources and Specialist Input, Resource Consents

Date: July 2016

209

Auckland Council - Biodiversity team has reviewed the amended application and following a number

of meetings and clarifications a number of requests for further information have been satisfied to

enable assessment:

However there remains other areas of discrepancy and insufficient information following discussions

with the applicant’s consultants and review of the supplied reports. These need to be addressed to

fully complete our ecological assessment. These include:

Qualifying Bushlot / Rehabilitation entitlements: Bush areas identified as qualifying for lot or

rehabilitation entitlements are not all consistent with previous surveys and in some instances

have been recognised differently in different reports. Areas identified for bush protection are

not cognisant of the entire bush area (i.e. only protecting a portion of the surveyed bush

present, or identifying bush that Council ecologists have previously indicated they would be

unlikely to qualify as native bush and more robust assessment is required). Rehabilitation

areas are included with SEV/ERC requirements.

Staging appears to have been overly influenced by delivery of the forestry operation at the

expense of achieving the necessary biodiversity outcomes. This poses a risk as should

development curtail after stages1 – 2, biodiversity outcomes may not be fully realised as

required.

Connections / robust linkages appear subservient to development design and are limited by

forestry operations.

Missing information, in particular:

- How impacts to threatened fauna within development areas will be managed.

- Species palette detail

1 TECHNICAL MEMO

To: Haylee Minoprio

From: Rue Statham, Ecologist, (Biodiversity Team)

Date: Monday 24th July, 2016


Applicant's Name: Asia Pacific Ltd

Application number: SLC-66696

Site address: Moir Hill, Puhoi

2 REVIEW

210

- Biosecurity management plan

Qualifying native bush: A meeting was held on 26/05/2016 in which Auckland Council - Biodiversity relayed its concern

regarding the complying nature of some of the bush areas. Figure 5: Moir Hill Vegetation Date: 31

May 2016 - Revision: A, has been submitted with some of these areas still a matter of conjecture;

namely Lots 9, 10 & 34, where the bush is essentially narrow riparian vegetation, or contains a high

proportion of exotic species, and/or essentially comprises a mostly exotic canopy.

Further to this, several key areas of native bush are excluded from the application, e.g. Lots 4, 19,

20; those areas of bush that were previously surveyed by Kingett & Mitchell and Scrubs Ltd, both

consultancies being consistent with one another.

To summarize we are left with doubts as to the complying nature of some areas of bush, and how,

by excluding key bush areas from protection the application meets the intent of SA208 by

considering the management and rehabilitation of the Mahurangi Forest land in a holistic manner1.

Also of note, is the ability to protect native bush from the potential adverse effects relating to pine

harvest. Auckland Council – Biodiversity team has sought assurances from the applicant as to how

native bush areas will be protected from pine harvest operations. There has been the suggestion that

a buffer will be created surrounding (property boundaries allowing) native bush areas. How this will

work in practice is uncertain, particularly given that small isolated native bush areas are being

protected in an ad-hoc way through early stages. Should the staging of the protection of native bush

and land rehabilitation occur in the anticipated subarea / compact stage scenario, as set out in

SA208 (see footnote), these potential issues could be avoided and compliance with any resultant

conditions of consent easier to manage for both Council and applicant.

Auckland Council - Biodiversity has previously indicated its opinion that many of the submitted

scheme plans are misleading in so much that they indicate “native bush” where native bush does not

exist, i.e. riparian vegetation areas (i.e. CRP: Figure 11: Ecological linkages). None of the scheme

plans have been amended, and we are unclear as to why, given this has been raised on a number of

occasions; and the application still contains numerous incorrect references to natural habitats.

The stream reclamation appears to afford only 20metres of riparian protection to the mitigation

package; this is contrary to SEV and TP148 & TP350 which requires 20metres either side of the

stream in rural areas, therefore being a total of 40metres. Given that stream mitigation is being

considered by the NRSI dept we have not commented on the merits of a reduced area of stream

mitigation from an ecological perspective other than to note that our general advice SEV/ECR

mitigation for stream reclamation in rural areas is for 40metres which is in accordance with Council’s

1 See SA208 explanations and reasons

211

published documents and recognized ecological practice. If 40metres was applied as SEV mitigation,

it would could affect the areas of rehabilitation relating to SA208 resulting in changes to proposed

covenant boundaries.

Staging and connections:

Given the complexities of the numerous lot boundaries and the ability to utilize various District Plan

rules (i.e. bush protection, boundary relocations, SA208) a request was put to the applicant to supply

a set of scheme plans that showed each stage and how lot boundaries are varied throughout the

development; a plan annotating the progression and rearrangement of lot boundaries is still

outstanding.

The need for this information is highlighted with the fragmenting of bush remnants (e.g. 4 & Lot 31)

whereby the full extent of the bush areas are not protected. Comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan

(CRP) Figure 16 - Indicative Rehabilitation and Subdivision Stages shows the staging of

rehabilitation in relation to the bush remnants, except not all the bush remnants will be protected and

there is no guarantee provided as to at which stage they will be. In addition, to note that this

particular plan does not identify all the bush areas the application seeks to protect as Significant

Native Bush in the first stages of the development, i.e. Lots 9, 10 & 34. The staging plans received

(T3136 / A-S7, July 2016) show that bush in Lots 10, 25, 31 & 36 will be protected in later stages, not

in stage 1, conflicting with both the CRP (June 2016) and the updated assessment of ecological

effects (22nd June 2016).

Another significant matter is the staging of the rehabilitation required for lot entitlement which

focuses on forestry production operations. The forestry operations are a significant complicating

factor in the ability to provide robust linkages and ensure habitat restoration. The consent timeframes

leave considerable doubt as to the deliverability of the proposal in its entirety. The CRP gives the

impression that a 30yr timeframe will be consented, although this timeframe is unprecedented. The

outcome of the consent period is a significant factor in how the development will proceed and may

change the entire development considerably. There is insufficient information to accurately assess

how and whether implementation of rehabilitation and mitigation will be carried out based on a more

realistic consent timeframe (for example 10 years).

Whilst it is agreed that some of the regenerating bush areas are supported in the early stages of the

development, i.e. Lot 19 and stage 1-2, the latter staging is unclear as to the delivery and timeframes

associated with realization; e.g. stages 3-5.This coupled with the location of the numerous residential

lots that will result from the development, will hinder and fragment ecological connections and

linkages.

It is unclear why the staging of the development is not more cognizant of existing SEA/SNA bush

areas and rehabilitation areas that are already well on their way to realizing canopy closure, e.g. Lot

19 & 20, where these existing titles adjoin an already significant area of bush that is well-managed

212

by the landowner and contains significant biodiversity value. The intent of SA208is to build on areas

of existing high value and stage the rehabilitation outwards from them. SA208 clearly anticipates that

subdivision will not proceed in an ad-hoc manner, with the restoration being “dealt with for an entire

“stage” or catchment rather than a piecemeal approach, scattered across the site”. Scheme plan

T3136 / A-S7 is inconsistent with both the ecological AEE and CRP staging plans.

This holistic approach to development and restoration will ensure habitats are protected and

enhanced, and that they also remain stable and resilient to stress; principles supported by relevant

Objectives and Policies of ACDPRS2 chapters 6 and 7. Development and subdivision should be

“sympathetic to and support the needs of native biodiversity”, and should provide for “significant

linkages between large areas of native bush” etc.

Most, if not all, residential lots are located along former forestry roads which are situated on top of

ridgelines. Scheme plan T3136 – S18, pg5 of 19, indicated the residential lot locations. Note the

elongated strip development in Stage 2 to the south, and the significant clustering in Stages 3 & 4 to

the north (plan T3136 / A-S7). Both these factors contribute to a fragmentation of ecological

connections east to west in the north and southwards. Stage 5 lots also appear quite isolated from

one another, leading to further fragmentation.

Whilst development is constrained by geo-technical matters, and there is also an element of urban

design factored into any development, the predominance of some lots in relation to ecological

outcomes is highly questioned particularly when the application notes that forestry roads are being

utilized as foraging routes (these are not wildlife corridors, see CRP Figure 10: Priority Restoration

Areas), but have stopped short of providing any further information necessary for Auckland Council -

Biodiversity to fully understand the implications of the development in relation to ensuring that these

linkages and connections will be fully realized.

Missing Information:

Threatened species:

Auckland Council - Biodiversity has repeatedly identified that indigenous fauna are an issue in this

development and that development should be located away from significant populations of

threatened species. The ecology AEE highlights many areas throughout the landholding that contain

concentrated populations of protected and/or threatened species; for example in close proximity to

Lot 16.

Whilst the applicant has reached assurance from DOC that fauna can be relocated during

development, where necessary, it remains the opinion of Auckland Council - Biodiversity staff that

this is not meeting the objectives of the District Plan, or the RMA, in avoiding effects in the first

2 Auckland Council District Plan (2011) Rodney Section

213

instance. As an example, Auckland Council - Biodiversity has requested an understanding of bat

populations and their roost sites.

The application suggests that whilst bats elsewhere in New Zealand have interacted with

urbanization, especially transport routes, the development is not staying away from significant known

population hot-spots, in particular. Lot 16, which is adjacent to a large area of habitat, possibly a

‘home-roost’ site given it’s age and maturity of large trees. Even with the removal of exotic trees as a

permitted forestry activity from within Lot 16, these populations are unlikely to relocate given the

likely home-roost being on the neighboring property. However, without appropriate surveys to

understand where home-roost locations are the development cannot be assured of avoiding potential

adverse effects.

The ecological AEE is silent on pet ownership, for example, and ownership of domestic pets could

adversely affect biodiversity values. Given the considerable number of residential titles that will be

created, in an area that has low populations, the recommendation is that all properties have at least

no cat covenants and dogs be kept on leads when outside of an individuals’ property. Pet-free

covenant conditions have been included for other subdivisions in rural Rodney including the Te Arai

coastal development.

Species Palettes:

Auckland Council - Biodiversity requested a scheme plan that clearly annotates where the specific

ridgeline treatments will occur, noting that these require specific species palettes that will, in time,

deliver the expected ecosystem outcome. The scheme plan, CRP Figure 20 - Upland-Lowland -

Active Revegetation Areas, submitted does not give the information as requested. The plan doesn’t

articulate the upper slopes, and includes lowland areas high upon ridgelines and upland area deep

within gullies. The Plan is misleading and incorrect in its annotations. The annotations should be

relatively straightforward, being a map of higher elevations of ridgelines that will utilize the specific

species palette appropriate to the topography.

Due to the spread of Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA), the inclusion of Agathis australis (Kauri) in

any planting regime is not supported. This has been articulated to practitioners in the past. We would

request that Kauri is not suggested as an appropriate revegetation species, even though it is

naturally present in the area.

There is no reasonable explanation as to why, given the significant lead-in time to the restoration

effort, eco-sourced plants from the immediate area cannot be used. The CRP suggests that plants

may be sourced from elsewhere in the Auckland Region where those that are sourced locally “are

considered to be at greater risk of failure if used”. It is unclear why the applicant considers plants

sourced locally could be more likely to fail, or would fail. Plant growth and successful establishments

are generally more positive when sourced from the immediate area to the planting. Given the

214

significant vegetation within and in close proximity to the development footprint, and the ability to

source from existing populations, localized eco-sourcing should be a requirement.

Biosecurity:

A clear requirement of the DCP is the submission of a pest and animal management plan. This is

particularly important for a development this scale and nature and is a standard requirement for

much smaller and less complex development proposals. Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant

has supplied a high-level document relating to weeds and pest animal control, the site specific

requirements of physical control in each stage have not been completed. While some aspects of pest

plant and animal management plan – particularly the details relating to later stages of the

development - could be dealt with through condition of consent, Councils Biosecurity Team have

advised that a site specific plan, for each area, is required. There are a number of biosecurity issues

relevant to this site including considerable populations of feral ungulates in the area and the lack of

site specific weed management plans (esp. proposed covenant bush areas). Further detail is

required on the delivery of the pest management regime, given the size of the property and the very

real threat of re-incursions, and the extremely fragmented nature of the proposed staging.

The following has been received from the Biosecurity Team as an interim response:

“this application has not had a comprehensive Pest Plan submitted with the application therefore

pest plant and pest animal control across the number of blocks proposed cannot be assessed for

suitability.

It must also be noted that this area has a high level of goat and pig incursion and these pest pose a

great risk to the success of protection of bush lots, rehabilitation and ongoing control for each

lot. Intensive control will be required in the short-term, and long term follow-up control will also be

required. This also highlights the need for Pest Plans to be site specific across each proposed block

as impacts of the pests currently present and risk of possible future incursions of pest both animals

and plants will vary across the area. Possum control over the whole block has been minimal and

there will also be the risk of high levels of rodent and possibly deer present.

Pest plants for each proposed bush lot also need to be identified, there is likely to be a variance in

pest plant species across the whole area and each bush lot will require individual assessment of

current pest plants requiring control and future risks of incursions to these blocks. Therefore it would

be best that each bush lot be allocated a site specific Pest Plan, that directly relates to each lot of the

subdivision for reference for future landowners to satisfy pest control issues and requirements.

A Pest Plan should sit as an independent document from the main application; essentially a Pest

Plan must be a document the landowner can utilise for undertaking required work on site. The Pest

Plan must include relevant information related to the specific site, details such as weeds surveyed on

site, pest animals’ present and possible incursions/risks to the site for both pest plants and animals

needs to be identified. Relevant information for control of all species should also be included with

information inclusive of but not exclusive to: control methods available; reasoning for choice of

215

control methods; best practice information; timing of control; precautions and certifications required

for certain methods of control; and monitoring requirements etc.

Kauri Die Back should also be included into this Pest Plan, details of the disease should be included.

A base survey should be completed for detection of the disease, information regarding prevention

and containment precautions with be methods should be included. Ongoing surveying should also be

included within this document”

Other matters:

Trails and footpaths:

As noted in feedback, including 18th June 2015, Auckland Council - Biodiversity requested a detailed

analysis of recreational trails, the rehabilitation of unused tracks and forestry roads. This information

has only partially been provided and is of importance to not only the recreational aspirations of the

development, but regarding the rehabilitation of forestry roads and biosecurity requirements. The

only reference to paths, from the applicant, has been to identify pathways adjacent to residential

roads, some minor walking tracks, and the main Te Araroa trail; the latter, incidentally, does not

appear annotated on any Subdivision Scheme Plan (T3136-S18: 2016-07-15). An Urban Design

report plan was submitted A15057_200, dated 19/11/2015, however this ‘masterplan’ is now

outdated and does not fully articulate the requirements of the questions posed, especially in relation

to the rehabilitation of former forestry tracks which are included in rehabilitation areas and will be

expected to be rehabilitated as part of any future subdivision aim. This information is a requirement

of DCP condition 8.

Fencing:

In its correspondence of 19th February 2016, Auckland Council - Biodiversity requested an indication

of fence placement, including whether external fences or internal demarcation fencing around

building sites (if only indicatively on a plan or descriptively) is intended. To our knowledge, no

scheme plan has been forthcoming; this is a requirement of DCP condition 9.

It is recommended that all external property boundaries, boundaries with grazing paddocks and

individual Lots be either fenced from stock, or fenced appropriately to prevent incremental creep into

covenant areas by residential activities or erection of structures; an issue the Auckland Council -

Biodiversity knows can cause significant implications for biodiversity values in covenants.

Incorporated Society:

SA208 requires the development to protect all natural and rehabilitation covenant areas within an

incorporated society. We acknowledge that the applicant has changed their approach from that of a

series of societies (see section 2.3.5, Moir Hill Subdivision and Regional Resource Consent

Application AEE, January 2016), to that of a single incorporated society, with increasing membership

as the development progresses. That approach is supported, and it is recommended that

216

management of all areas of rehabilitation / native planting on the individual / privately owned lots is

included in membership. This is to ensure that planting on individual lots receives the same

management as planting across the wider development footprint.

Transfer of Titles:

Auckland Council - Biodiversity did highlight at pre-application meetings that an appropriate outcome

could be to transfer a percentage of the titles away from Moir Hill, to more appropriate areas, such as

Countryside Living Zones. We accept that applicant has not applied to do so, however this would

reduce fragmentation between areas of native bush and/or rehabilitation, and would also reduce

earthworks, stream reclamation, roads, stormwater, wastewater needs etc. This advice seems to

have gone un-noticed or ignored, but remains an option should be applicant reconsider.

Whilst we do not foresee this to be a condition of consent, it could remain an option for future stages.

3 CONCLUSION

Whilst we do agree, in part, that biodiversity gains can be realised from this development, there

remain a number of issues and uncertainties that need to be resolved.

This report does not focus on highlighting all areas of discrepancy, but has primarily focused on

those areas where there is insufficient certainty and/or disparity in the information provided

preventing a comprehensive ecological review

A significant area of concern remains insufficient information to confirm that all the bush areas

nominated for bushlot covenants are significant, particularly given that the two previous habitat

surveys have identified all areas of Significant Native Bush on the property, and Auckland Council -

Biodiversity has previously agreed to those. Furthermore, areas of bush that easily meet the

significance criterion remain excluded without any apparent justification or rationale.

Bush protection and staging of the consent remains unclear and misleading. As noted, stage 1

appears not include areas of bush protection, and yet these are nominated for protection, a clear

disparity in the AEE, CRP and staging of the development. It appears that one, or all, of these

individual components have not been updated, as required.

In my opinion, Stage 1 should utilise only boundary relocation opportunities and from there progress

to a more holistic native bush / rehabilitation scheme that is easier to understand and consider from

an ecological and compliance perspective.

The staging of rehabilitation does not build upon, and outward of, existing areas of native bush even

where there are opportunities to do so, for example Lot 19. This is contradictory to the ecological

AEE and CRP reports where staging is organised differently (T3136 – S7, pg1 of 3). The staging is

essentially subservient to forestry operations, not the forestry being compliant with expected

biodiversity outcomes. The most logical way to progress the development would be for each stage,

217

subsequent to boundary relocations, to protect native bush areas and rehabilitate land within each

specific stage area holistically; and not, as the application lends, in a random, seemingly

uncoordinated, manner.

There is insufficient information to demonstrate the development is avoiding significant fauna

habitats; the application has focussed heavily on the assumption that protected species can, or will,

be relocated outside of any development footprint. Whilst DOC have given their agreement, in

principle, to relocating protected species, development should primarily be avoiding habitats in the

first instance. The application highlights a number of areas within the property with high species

value of which development should avoid, and yet this is not proposed. The development will

fragment rehabilitation efforts, and weakens habitat linkages; notwithstanding the significant cost

associated with relocating a number of protected species.

Alternatives could be sought to avoid fragmentation, by virtue of transferable title rights or more

clustering of residential lots.

As noted above, biodiversity is essentially subservient to the development, not the development

being reactive to the expected outcomes as would be expected from Rule 7.14.2.7 Conservation

Subdivision Plan Requirement.

Concerns not addressed comprehensively, or still outstanding, include the following: species palettes

eco-sourcing, biosecurity, trails, paths and rehabilitation of forestry roads.

4 RECOMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the CRP is updated, where required, to ensure there are no disparities

in the delivery of the rehabilitation and development, with any conditions of consent, should the

application be granted.

It is recommended that the areas of native bush are revaluated in accordance with the feedback

from Auckland Council - Biodiversity staff, as previously provided, and to be consistent with all

surveys from Kingett Mitchell and Scrubs Ltd. All areas nominated by Boffa Miskell that are

inconsistent with previous findings, including riparian vegetation, should be excluded from

development stages and removed from all CRP/AEE plans as areas of significant native bush.

Furthermore, all contiguous areas of bush, i.e. Lots 4 & 31 should be included for protection as

part of stage one, or within individual staging areas where they are contiguous with rehabilitation

areas and are considered in a more holistic manner.

That development seeks to further compact the extent of development, e.g. relocate outlier

development areas such as Lots 12, 18-24 etc. to reduce fragmentation of habitat, reduce

threats to native fauna, and improve ecological linkages. Contingency Lots ibn Stage 5 are

particularly out-lying and access to ‘C’ & ‘D’ has not been assessed or shown on the plan

To reassess specific species palette areas to be consistent with the objective of rule 7.14.2.3,

218

and annotate clearly topographical features that require planting treatments necessary to

achieve biodiversity outcomes; for example use of altitudinal benchmarks for ridgeline planting.

To provide an assessment and submit site specific weed and animal pest management plans

for areas in the first stage of the development and then all subsequent stages.

To submit a fencing, footpath and trails plan for approval; written confirmation of the formation of

these trails is needed, including any earthworks, culverting of streams and or installation of

bridges.

To be included in the CRP, are measures to ensure that unused forestry roads will be

rehabilitated in accordance with the approved CRP, and shall include appropriate species

palettes as necessary.

That all properties have at least no cat covenants, similar to much smaller rural subdivision

proposals, and dogs be kept on leads when outside of an individuals’ property.

Memo prepared by:

Rue Statham,

Ecologist, Biodiversity

Date: 24 July 2016

219

1 TECHNICAL MEMO

To: Haylee Minoprio

From: Rue Statham, Ecologist, (Biodiversity Team)

Date: Friday 4th November, 2016


Applicant's Name: Asia Pacific Ltd

Application number: SLC-66696

Site address: Moir Hill, Puhoi

The purpose of this memorandum is to address the specific submissions raised in the notification

process, and to address any changes as a result of Unitary Plan Decisions Version (PAUP (DV)).

Specific biodiversity related submissions are numbered: 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22.

3 REVIEW

Submissions:

Of the submissions in support, they are generally sympathetic to the proposals intention to

rehabilitate the land and restore wildlife habitats; although whilst indicating a position of support

for several submissions this is contingent on identified restoration outcomes being achieved,

including the need for thorough weed & pest animal control and compliance of conditions and

The following table is a brief synopsis of the matters raised in submissions in relation to

biodiversity: of the submissions received, 4 are in support, 5 are neutral and 6 are in opposition:

No. Submitter View Main matters raised

3 O’Connor Planning Support General comment in support

4 Joanna Pike Neutral Compliance with conditions

6 Forest & Bird Oppose Rehabilitation, management, covenanting, etc.

7 Mrs Valarie Dunn Q.S.M Support Wildlife, Weed & Pest Animal control

8 Mr & Mrs Chistophersen Neutral Weed & Pest Animal control

9 Ms Williams & Mr Robbers Oppose Wildlife, Vegetation Clearance

10 Mr Muller & Ms McErlich Oppose Environment (generally)

11 Mr & Mrs Cranna-Powell Support Bush re-planting, creating wildlife habitat

13 Mr Friconnet Oppose Wildlife

14 Mr Spinks Neutral Wildlife

2 INTRODUCTION

220

16 Mr. Bennett Neutral Restoration and compliance

17 Director General DOC Neutral Restoration, Wildlife

19 (Behalf of) Mr & Mrs Rowsell Oppose Rehabilitation, compliance, wildlife, vegetation removal

20 Mr Mason Oppose Vegetation clearance

22 Mr & Mrs Uys Support Revegetation, wildlife

Those submissions neutral to the application are similarly sympathetic to the proposals intention

to rehabilitate the land and restore wildlife habitats but identify the need for thorough weed &

pest animal control and compliance of conditions.

Those submissions in opposition to the application whilst similarly sympathetic to the proposals

intention to rehabilitate the land and restore wildlife habitats more strongly identify the need for

thorough weed & pest animal control and compliance of conditions. . They raise concerns

regarding the loss of habitat, where in their opinion avoidance should be demonstrated.

Two submitters in particular, Forest & Bird and the Director General of Conservation have raised

matters pertaining to domestic pet ownership.

I consider that most aspects of the submissions related to biodiversity have been addressed in

the Biodiversity submitted report, noting in particular the recommendation for excluding domestic

cat ownership.

In the conclusion of the Biodiversity report, I have highlighted an approach to the revegetation of

forest, which if carried out as per the recommendations, could help alleviate some of the

concerns raised by submitters on weed and pest animal management.

Unitary Plan (PAUP (DV))

The Following are matters of consideration in the Unitary Plan (PAUP (DV))

E39.2. Objectives

(8) Subdivision maintains or enhances the natural features and landscapes that contribute to the

character and amenity values of the areas.

(15) Subdivision maintains or enhances the natural features and landscapes that contribute to the

character and amenity values of rural areas.

E39.3. Policies

Protection of indigenous vegetation, wetland, and revegetation planting

(15) Enable limited in-situ subdivision through the protection of indigenous vegetation identified in

the Significant Ecological Areas Overlay and indigenous revegetation planting.

221

(16) Encourage the transfer of titles through the protection of indigenous vegetation or wetlands

identified in the Significant Ecological Areas Overlay and indigenous revegetation planting.

(17) Require indigenous vegetation or wetland within a site being subdivided to be legally

protected in perpetuity.

(18) Provide limited opportunities for in-situ subdivision in rural areas while ensuring that:

a. there will be significant environmental protection of indigenous vegetation;

b. subdivision avoids the inappropriate proliferation and dispersal of development by

limiting the number of sites created;

c. subdivision avoids inappropriate development within areas of the Outstanding Natural

Landscape Overlay, Outstanding Natural Character Overlay, High Natural Character

Overlay and the coastal environment;

d. adverse effects on rural and coastal character are avoided, remedied or mitigated;

e. sites are of sufficient size to absorb and manage adverse effects within the site; and

f. reverse sensitivity effects are managed in a way that does not compromise the viability

of rural sites for continued production.

E39.6.4.5. In-situ subdivision creating additional sites through establishing indigenous

revegetation planting

(1) Any established revegetation planting must meet all of the following:

(a) not be located on land containing elite soil or prime soil;

(b) be located outside any Outstanding Natural Character, High Natural Character or Outstanding

Natural Landscape overlays; and

(c) be contiguous with existing indigenous vegetation identified in the Significant Ecological Area

Overlay. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Decision Version 19 August 2016 18 E39 Subdivision -

Rural

(d) the criteria as set out in Appendix 16 Guideline for native revegetation plantings.

222

Table E39.6.4.5.1 Maximum number of new sites from establishing native revegetation planting

(to be added to existing indigenous vegetation identified in the Significant Ecological Area

Overlay) subject to protection

Minimum area of established

native revegetation planting (to

be added to an existing

indigenous vegetation

identified in the Significant

Ecological Area Overlay)

subject to protection

Maximum number of new sites

for Transferable Rural Site

Subdivision

Maximum number of new sites

for in-situ subdivision

5ha – 9.9999ha 1 1

10ha – 14.9999ha 2 2

15ha or more 3 (Maximum) 3 (Maximum)

The following sections need also be considered, and set out specific assessment criteria and

matters to be addressed in any application submitted.

Appendix 15 Subdivision information and process

Appendix 16 Guideline for native revegetation plantings

Unitary Plan Review

The application generally follows matters needing consideration in Polices and Objective of the

PAUP(DV), and both appendices (15 & 16): in particular Appendix 15.6.3 where 80% canopy

closure (minimum) is achieved prior to 224(c).

One aspect where the application potentially differs is the maximum number of lots created from

revegetation planting; with the application possibly exceeding the maximum 3 rural residential

titles per parent site. The applicant has not demonstrated how the development is consistent with

E39.6.4.5.

The Scheduled Activity 208 is based on rehabilitation of steep erodible land, essentially being a

modification of rule 7.14.5 of the Rodney District Plan. Whereas the PAUP (DV) does not

specifically cater for this type of rehabilitation / enhancement proposal, being less directive

towards these two forms of restoration initiative. PAUP (DV) does allow for the revegetation of

non-elite or prime soils; noted, the land is not identified as either LUC1, 2, or 3 soil types.

223

The connective nature of the planting being adjacent to Significant Ecological Area (SEA) is more

directed in PAUP (DV).

For any subdivision pursuant of E39.6.4.4 Appendix 15 must also be complied with. Section 15.6

requires the planting plan to identify all of the following:

how revegetation planting will be ecologically linked to an area of contiguous Significant

Ecological Areas (indigenous vegetation) and if possible any other additional existing

ecological corridors or connections;

how revegetation planting will provide robust and high value ecological connections

without gaps to the Significant Ecological Areas; Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Decision Version 19 August 2016 5 Appendix 15 Subdivision information and process

how revegetation planting will buffer the Significant Ecological Areas and ensure long

term viability and resilience of the Significant Ecological Areas

Based on the road network (existing and proposed), the location of SEA’s on site, and the

planting (as per the proposed staging) it is unlikely that the application will meet all of the above

as is intended. There will be elements of fragmentation to the planting, as it will not wholly link,

connect or buffer SEA’s; this is discussed on Pg3 of the ecological review memo.

Generally, the application seeks to protect areas of identified SEA through bush provisions,

although the applicant would need to demonstrate that they have sufficient SEA to obtain the

number of Lots currently sought.

The Unitary Plan is also clear on the number of Lots that can be created and held in-situ, versus

the number of Lots that are encouraged to be transferred away from the subject site. The

application seeks to retain all Lots in-situ. The application therefore would seem inconsistent with

Objective E39.2.14 (b), and Policy E39.3.11 & E39.2.16

4 CONCULSION

I consider that the substantive matters raised in the submissions have been considered in the

Biodiversity review.

The PAUP (DV) is much more restrictive on the number of Lots that can be created through

revegetation planting, having a maximum limit of three, and specifying that revegetation must

224

connect, link and buffer existing SEA. The recommendations in the Biodiversity review, especially

in the staging of planting and rehabilitation could help ensure that the PAUP (DV) aspirations

would be achieved.

Whilst I would agree that overall the application would significantly exceed the total number of

Lots permitted by the PAUP (DV), the transfer of at least some of the titles could help avoid a

number of other potentially significant adverse effects (notably stream reclamation and habitat

removal).

However, as discussed in the conclusion in the ecological memo, whilst there are some

outstanding matters that could be addressed and further clarified, the revegetation of the

~1300ha of habitat achieved through a well-managed rehabilitation, pest animal and weed

management plan could benefit native fauna and flora.

Memo prepared by:

Rue Statham,

Ecologist, Biodiversity

Date: 4th November 2016

225

Building C, 9 Piermark Drive, Rosedale 0632 www.cmwgeosciences.co.nz

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In June 2015 I was engaged by Auckland Council to complete the Council review of Geotechnical aspects

of a pending application by NDG for DCP for the Moir Hill site. Since that time the works have progressed

through DCP and into Resource Consent application and assessment. This memo is the final response

to geotechnical issues for the Resource Consent application. Previous reporting was as follows:

Memo referenced AKL2016_0123AA Rev 0, dated 2 November 2015 regarding methodology for

the DCP

Memo referenced AKL2016_0123AB Rev 0, dated 11 February 2016 outlining additional

geotechnical information sought for S88 for the formation of stable roads, building platforms and

access to building platforms, together with formation of spoil disposal sites.

Memo referenced AKL2016_0123AC Rev 0, dated 8 March 2016 outlining additional information

sought for S92.

Previous versions of this memo referenced AKL2016_0123AD Rev 0 and Rev 1 from May and

June 2016 relating to close off of geotechnical issues. During this period there has been

considerable discussion on the proposed spoil disposal sites that have led to amendments to the

application and changes to the responses, culminating in this version of this memo.

This review has incorporated the documentation provided in the initial Resource Consent application,

together with amendments and additional information received up to and including 18 July 2016 as

circulated by the Council project team.

2 OUTSTANDING GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

2.1 Stormwater Run-off

The only geotechnical question I raised during the S92 response was Q58 of the S92 document, relating

to the appropriateness of the ground conditions for the proposed storm water outlets associated with the

roads.

In their response to Q58, Tonkin & Taylor have created a toolbox of options for addressing storm water

discharges from roads. The toolbox states (and I concur) that “Site specific assessment will be required

at detailed design stage to confirm the geotechnical risk downstream of high risk outlets….”.

I consider that performance monitoring and site specific assessment is appropriate and that appropriate

remedial works will be able to be designed for each of the high risk cases during detailed design. I

consider that this issue has now been adequately addressed by the applicant, subject to the toolbox

requirements for monitoring and detailed design being included as a condition in the Resource Consent.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

To: Hayley Minoprio From: Richard Knowles

Attention: Date: 20 July 2016

Email: [email protected]

Reference: AKL2016_0123AD Rev 2

Cc: Pages: 3

Subject: SLC66696 – Moir Hill Assessment of Applicant Responses to Geotechnical Questions under Sections 88 and 92

227

PROJECT MEMORANDUM 20July 2016

CMW Geosciences (NZ) Ltd Ref. AKL2016_0123AD Rev 2

2

2.2 Spoil Disposal Sites

Several issues have arisen with respect to the proposed spoil disposal sites. The most recent

documentation confirms that the number of these sites has now been reduced.

Tonkin & Taylor have demonstrated that their proposed generic remedial works (shear keys) to stabilise

the spoil dump sites are conservatively designed and therefore are appropriate under the range of ground

conditions expected to be encountered across the sites. However specific geotechnical investigations

and design are required for each of the proposed spoil dump sites to confirm the ground models, stability

conditions and remedial works requirements. This again should form a condition of the Resource

Consent.

Their standard details for each spoil site include subsoil drainage trenched into the base of the gully areas

beneath the spoil and extending through a shear key that will be keyed into competent ground and

backfilled with imported granular filling. These details are considered appropriate and will pick up any

seepages that are present below the level of the spoil fill and take them to beyond the toe of the fill.

At the finished surface level of the spoil, cut-off drains are proposed to be formed in the natural ground

around the spoil sites to address overland flow from the surrounding catchment areas. The location of

these drains in natural ground will negate any concerns of these flows undercutting poorly compacted

spoil fills and transporting the resulting silt into the catchment below. Details have been provided for rock

lining to the cut-off drain channels. In general these appear appropriate, although proposed drain batters

will be locally steep. As ground conditions may be variable, T&T have confirmed in their response to Q41

that there will be monitoring of the performance of the diversion channels. Nevertheless it is

recommended that a Resource Consent condition requires a period of monitoring of all such channels to

confirm that localised instability is not occurring extensively along these batters (leading to siltation

issues) and to provide appropriate remediation if any such issues are identified.

3 POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

On 5 February 2016, my office was contacted by a potential client with respect to providing geotechnical

services for a separate proposed subdivision to the north of the NDG land on Moir Hill – a site accessed

from Matthews Road.

The enquiry and subsequent proposal preparation, investigation planning and implementation and

reporting were handled by one of my associates, an experienced engineering geologist. My role in the

work on that site was limited to a high level overview of the proposal in mid-February 2016, periodic

updates on progress of the works, a site visit in late April 2016 and review of the final report prior to issue

on 5 May 2016.

The timeline of the two projects indicates that by the time CMW were first approached regarding the

Matthews Road site, The NDG site work was at assessment of s88 issues, but had already been through

meetings and discussions. Issue of my memo regarding s88 issues occurred at essentially the same time

as CMW was engaged on Matthews Road and by that time the remaining s92 issue had already been

raised.

Subsequent to the s88 memo, the only outstanding issues for the NDG site related to the issues around

the spoil disposal sites. It is my understanding that there are no similar disposal sites on the Matthews

Road development.

For these reasons, I do not consider that I had a conflict of interest on these projects that impacted on

my work or recommendations for the NDG site:

The timing of the work on the projects is such that I had effectively undertaken my work on the

NDG site for any related issues prior to CMW’s involvement on the Matthew’s Road land;

228

PROJECT MEMORANDUM 20July 2016

CMW Geosciences (NZ) Ltd Ref. AKL2016_0123AD Rev 2

3

I was not personally engaged with the client on the Matthew’s Road site;

Given the timing and dynamics described above, my understanding of the NDG site was used

retrospectively to inform the team on the Matthews Road land of geotechnical issues they would

need to address. At no stage was I able to (given the timelines), nor did I even consider tailoring

my work on the NDG land to benefit the client on the Matthews Road land, which would have

clearly been a conflict of interest.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

For and on behalf of

CMW Geosciences (NZ) Ltd

Richard Knowles

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

229

Building C, 9 Piermark Drive, Rosedale 0632 www.cmwgeosciences.co.nz

I confirm that on behalf of Auckland Council I have completed geotechnical review of the documentation supplied by

the applicant for the proposed 200 lot rural subdivision at Moir Hill. My opinion, as expressed in previous reports I

have provided is that I consider the land to be geotechnically suitable for the proposed subdivision.

I have reviewed the geotechnically related remarks in the objections to the Resource Consent and confirm that as a

result I have not altered my opinion on the suitability of the land for the proposed development.

Specifically in relation to the geotechnical content of objections I comment as follows:

Submission 5 (Jeanette Jones Trust et al) submits that the land is, in the main, too steep for rural residential and too difficult to maintain.

Significant portions of the land are steep. However the development proposals limit the creation of roads

and building platforms to the inherently more stable and less steep ridgeline areas where appropriate grades

are able to be formed and where appropriate stability conditions have been demonstrated for these works.

Submission16 (Stuart Bennett) submits that stability issues may be created at his property’s road

boundary at 396 Moir Hill Road.

Issues relating to specific locations at property boundaries such as this will be examined and addressed at

the time of Engineering Approval when full details of the proposals have been submitted.

Submission 19 (Rebecca Rowsell and family) submits in bullet point 6 that adverse impacts of the large scale earthworks will include giving rise to slippage and subsidence in an already unstable geological environment.

The earthworks proposals predominantly incorporate cutting from the ridgeline areas and filling lower-lying

areas or exporting the spoil from the site. These works reduce the forces that lead to slippage or instability

and increase buttressing in some locations and so are advantageous to stability conditions. Beyond the

earthworks themselves, sediment and erosion control works will be put in place to mitigate scour effects

during the works. Detailing of the stormwater systems to address scour and slippage from long term

stormwater has been addressed by the applicant.

Subsidence typically occurs from additional loading (e.g. deep fills). It is controlled in engineered fills by

remediation of the fill subgrade, drainage works and compaction control and so is not expected to be

problematic across building platform and road areas on this development. Subsidence will occur over time

within the fill placed in spoil areas and for this reason, no development will occur over these areas.

For and on behalf of

CMW Geosciences (NZ) Ltd

Richard Knowles

Principal Geotechnical Engineer

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

To: Auckland Council c/o AR Associates From: Richard Knowles

Attention: Hayley Minopiro Date: 4 November 2016

Email: [email protected]

Reference: 2016_0123AE Rev 1

Cc: Pages: 1

Subject: SLC66696 – MOIR HILL GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

231

memo

To: Haylee Minoprio

AR & Associates

From: Leo Jew

Auckland Design Office

Date: 8 July 2016

Subject: Landscape Review - Moir Hill Subdivision

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This memo assesses the landscape component of a proposal to develop the

former Mahurangi Forest Estate for residential development under Scheduled

Activity 208 and Rule 4 (General Subdivision and Development) of the operative

Auckland District Plan – Rodney Section.

1.2 The site is currently zoned General Rural within the Operative Auckland Plan

(Rodney Section). A Development Concept Plan (DCP) for this site was approved

in accordance with the requirements of Scheduled Activity 208 in December 2015.

2.0 The Site

2.1 The development site is located immediately north of Puhoi and covers an area of

over 1800ha. The site has significant topographic variety creating prominent

ridgelines and narrow enclosed stream gullies. The land drains into the

Mahurangi River within the north eastern portion of the site and the Puhoi River to

the south.

232

2.2 The site is predominantly covered in unmanaged pine trees with small pockets of

native vegetation. The site is adjacent to areas of Outstanding Natural

Landscapes (ONL) with small portions within the site.

2.3 The site has previously operated as a production forest with a series of flat skid

site dispersed along the ridgelines.

2.3 Due to the sites limited access and topography it has a sense of relative

remoteness. However the Te Araroa Walkway passes through and the proposed

Puhoi to Warkworth Highway (P2W) will bisect the site from north to south

creating greater visual prominence to this area.

3.0 Proposed Development

3.1 The proposed development gives effect to the previously consented DCP that

provides for the subdivision and development of the site for rural residential use, in

exchange for the retirement of forestry activities and its rehabilitation into

indigenous vegetation.

3.2 The key landscape and urban anticipated outcomes of Scheduled Activity 208 are:

that the residential sites are clustered of less than 4, or more than 29; and

8 hectares of land is permanently retired for each additional rural

residential site created.

3.3 Subdivision, being developed in accordance with a DCP, is a restricted

discretionary activity. Key assessment criteria, from a landscape and urban

design perspective, include consideration of whether the development:

would require extensive landform modification;

could be located to ensure that adverse effects on the rural character

would be no more than minor; and

avoids adverse effects on significant natural and/or rural landscapes and

prominent ridgelines.

233

3.4 Due to the steep topography the roads often follow the ridgelines and the building

platforms are predominantly associated with existing skid site from previous

forestry operations. While this places buildings on prominent ridgelines it

minimises earthworks within the sensitive catchment headwaters of the Mahurangi

River, Kourawhero Stream and Puhoi River. It is proposed that many of these

roads retain their rural character and as a result will not meet the required

standards for vesting with Auckland Transport. As such a number of these roads

will be retained in private ownership and management.

3.5 The use of these skid sites means that some of the proposed building sites are

located in close proximity to the road or ROW and do not meet the requirements

of the operative District Plan for front yards.

4.0 Planning Framework

4.1 The statutory framework establishes a series of outcomes sought through this

development and includes the underlying General Rural Zone and Special Activity

208.

4.2 Assessment criteria for Restricted Discretionary Subdivision under Special Activity

208 includes:

2. Whether or not development can be located to ensure that it does not have

adverse effects that would be more than minor on rural character or the

landscape values associated with the open space nature of the land

holding.

4. Whether the subdivision and development, including access provisions,

building site locations and site development avoids adverse effects on

significant natural and/or rural landscapes and prominent ridgelines.

4.3 Conditions of the Special Activity assessment criteria provides for the introduction

of measures to mitigate adverse effects:

6. Whether any necessary measures are proposed in relation to the

construction of buildings to ensure that any adverse effects on the

environment, resulting from the construction of dwellings will not be more

than minor. Such measures may include, but not be limited to the following:

234

(a) Limitations on height.

(b) Limitations on floor area.

(c) Limitations on exterior colour and cladding.

(d) Requirements for landscaping.

(e) Limitations on reflectivity.

4.4 The Operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement defines rural character as:

”the distinctive combinations of qualities which make an area ‘rural’

rather than ‘urban’. These include the dominance in the landscape

of natural vegetation and primary production regimes and the

absence or subservience of man-made structure other than those

related to primary production.”

4.5 The Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Rodney Section) identifies

elements making up ‘rural character” include:

(a) The predominance of natural features over man made features

(b) A very high ratio of space not built upon (open space) to built upon space

on individual sites.

(c) The presence of large areas of vegetation, in the form of grass, trees,

crops and indigenous vegetation.

(d) The presence of large numbers of farmed animals and extensive areas of

plant or fruit crops and plantation forests.

(e) Noises, smells and visual effects associated with the use of the land for a

wide range of farming, horticultural, mineral extraction and forestry

purposes.

(f) A low density of building and structures because site sizes are in hectares

rather than square metres.

(g) Low population densities.

(h) Generally narrow roads with swales/open drains, including a number of

unsealed and low speed geometry roads; and generally low traffic volumes

(except State Highways and arterial roads).

(i) A general absence of urban scale and urban type infrastructure, such as

roads with full kerb and channel, sealed footpaths and vehicle crossings,

streetlights, electricity transformers, bus shelters, telephone cabinets and

demarcated carparking areas on roads.

(j) The use of land for mineral extraction activities.

235

5.0 Landscape and Visual Effects

5.1 The landscape effects of the development have been detailed by the applicant

and I believe that these identify many of the potential landscape effects of this

application. I generally concur with the findings of this assessment and believe

that the key landscape effects are:

The landform modification to form the access roads, driveways and

building platforms, and the resulting spoil heaps and stream diversions;

The change from pine vegetation to native forest; and

The resulting change in landscape character generated primarily from the

change in vegetation and the introduction of residential dwellings.

5.2 I am of the view that potential adverse visual effects are likely to be derived from:

The proposed buildings to adversely impact the ONL (46) above Puhoi;

and

The presence of buildings along ridgelines visible from outside the site,

and in particular from near viewing distances from the proposed Puhoi to

Warkworth Highway.

5.3 External Views

The existing pine vegetation within the site belies the sites elevated position and

potential long distant views that will be available upon their removal and

subsequent replacement with native vegetation. The steep drops in the

topography from the ridgelines will, in many instances reduce the screening

potential of the proposed revegetation. With the majority of the dwellings located

on the ridgelines there is the potential that the visual effects will be inconsistent

with the anticipated rural character sought through Special Activity 208.

5.4 The proposed Puhoi to Warkworth Highway that bisects the site will provide closer

viewing of some of these dwellings. The alignment of the highway, as proposed

through the Notice of Requirement, is likely to provide views to some of these

dwellings at relatively close viewing distances.

236

5.5 The P2W Highway passes within 350 metres of the proposed dwellings at the end

of Cook and Watson Roads (Lots 18, 19 and 22). At this point, between chainage

61500 and 60300, the proposed highway is within a series of cuts limiting visibility

of these dwellings. I consider that there will be a low to negligible adverse visual

effect of these lots on the P2W Highway because of the topography and viewing

distances. It is recommended that no additional building or mitigation controls be

required.

5.6 Lots 10 - 15 are clustered close to chainage 58500 where the highway is on a

raised embankment (CH 58700 to 58400). (Refer to Figure 1) The closest

building platform is located 400m away. It is considered that this cluster of

buildings has the potential to create an adverse visual effect, particularly when

they are viewed collectively. It is recommended that the proposed building on Lot

12, because of its proximity and prominence have controls on its height and all

buildings on Lots 10 and 11 have colour controls to reduce their adverse effect

when viewed from the P2W Highway.

5.7 Lots 2 – 9 are located at the end of Dorset Road and are in proximity to the P2W

Highway where it is on an embankment between chainage 57200 and 58000.

(Refer to Figure 2) Dwellings are as close as 225 metres and, with the exclusion

of Lots 4 and 5, will the potential to be read as a continuous ribbon development

eroding the rural character. It is recommended that these building platforms (Lots

2, 3 and 6 -9) have height and colour controls to minimise their dominance along

this ridgeline.

5.8 The proposed building platforms on Lots 147 – 150 at the end of Waterfall Road

coincide with chainage 55800 to 56300 where the P2W Highway is running

through a series of cuts. When this is combined with viewing distances of 450

metres any potential adverse effects are likely to be low to negligible. I do not

consider it is necessary to place any additional building controls on these building

platforms.

5.9 Lots 122 – 125 and 127 are located at the end of Airstrip Road and coincide with

chainage 55300 and 55700 where the P2W Highway is on a raised embankment.

(Refer to Figure 3) Buildings on these lots could potentially be viewed from the

highway over a distance of 400 – 500 metres. To assist in the retention of the

237

rural character it is recommended that Lots 122 and 123 have controls on their

building height and colour, due to their prominence at the end of the ridgeline. It is

considered that Lots 124, 125 and 127, being set further back, can be mitigated

through controls on building colour.

5.10 Lots 95 – 97 are located at the end of Redwoods Road on the boundary with the

P2W designation boundary. (Refer to Figure 4) Between chainage 54600 and

55000 the highway is on a raised embankment and with the closest building

platforms located less than 200 metres away there is the potential for buildings to

dominant the ridgeline, particularly when viewed from the south. It is

recommended that both height and colour controls be placed on buildings within

Lots 95 – 97.

5.11 Lots 85 – 89 are located at the end of Marshall Road at the northern most portion

of the site. At its closest point (CH 53800) the P2W Highway is approximately 400

metres away and in transition from an embankment to a cut. Because of the

viewing distances, intermediate vegetation and the screening from landform

buildings in these locations are likely to have a low to negligible adverse visual

effect. I do not consider that any additional building controls are required on these

lots.

5.12 The southern boundary of the site adjoins and escarpment identified as an

Outstanding Natural Area (ONL 46). This ONL has been identified as having very

high geological/topographical values with “Very clearly defined sequence of major

hill ridges and stream escarpments framing valleys and stream corridors. Dramatic

topography”. It has also identified as processing a high memorability with a

“combination of terrain and vegetation cover creating a clearly defined matrix, with

a high level of cohesion and continuity”.

5.13 The proposed development has the potential to adversely impact on these

qualities of the ONL where buildings may be visible. The presence of building

form has the potential to reduce the visual cohesion and continuity along the

ridgeline with some building sites located within 10 metres of this ONL.

5.14 The ONL contributes to the Puhoi Village and its wider valley providing a strong

sense of visual containment and remoteness.

243

5.15 An additional visibility analysis has been undertaken by the applicant (Appendix A)

and maps areas where dwellings restricted in height to five metres will be visible

(without mitigation). This analysis shows that many of these buildings will be

visible above the ONL from the south, particularly from higher ground within the

Puhoi Valley. From the more sensitive valley floor views of dwellings are more

restricted with:

4 house locations potentially visible from the Puhoi Hotel at the corner of

Ahuroa and Saleyard Roads

7 house locations potentially visible from at the head of Bruce MacGregor

Lane

1 house location potentially visible from the Puhoi Cemetery

1 house location potentially visible from adjacent to the Puhoi Valley

Cheese Factory

5.16 I concur with the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects that identifies 15

sites adjacent to the ONL that requires height and colour controls (Lots 19, 21, 30,

33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53).

5.17 Despite these controls I am of the opinion that some additional developments

along the ridgeline have the potential to generate adverse visual effects and do

not meet Assessment Criteria 2 and 4 of SA208. Assessment Criteria 2 requires

development to be located in a manner that ensures that it does not have adverse

effects that would be more than minor on rural character or the landscape values

associated with the open space nature of the land holding. Assessment Criteria 4

requires development to avoid adverse effects on significant natural and/or rural

landscapes and prominent ridgelines.

5.18 Specific lots that I consider to have the potential to generate adverse visual effects

are scheduled below with the recommended mitigation measures that I consider

are necessary to avoid adverse effects that are more than minor.

Lot 20 - Reduction in extent of building platform and relocation of

recommended building location, height and colour controls (refer to

Figure 5)

Lot 24 - Height and colour controls

Lot 31 - Height and colour controls

244

Lot 32 - Reduction in extent of building platform and additional planting

(refer to Figure 6)

Lot 33 - Reduction in extent of building platform and additional planting

(refer to Figure 6)

Figure 5

Figure 6

245

5.19 Spoil Disposal Sites

There are eight spoil disposal sites located across the site to accommodate

excess cut generated from road and building platform creation. I am agreement

with this general principle of minimising earthworks and control of sedimentation.

There are however adverse visual effects generated, particularly throughout their

construction, but upon successful regeneration I concur with the applicant that

long term landscape effects will be positive.

6.0 Recommended Building Controls

6.1 To assist in the integration of the development into the rural environment and

meet the objectives of SA208 a number of general and lot specific controls are

recommended. General controls apply to all sites and relate to landscape and

visual effects, ancillary buildings and structures and retaining walls. Specific

controls apply to identified lots that have sensitivity to building height, colour or

require specific mitigation. These lots are scheduled in 6.6.

6.2 Ancillary Buildings and Structures

All ancillary buildings and structures, such as garages and water tanks, are to be

designed to relate to the main dwelling in terms of bulk and scale, form and

location. Water tanks shall either be located underground or built into the

structure of buildings or associated decking/garden elements e.g. pergolas. All

buildings shall integrate chimneys, aerials, solar panels and satellite dishes within

the overall roof design as best as practically possible. These structures shall not

extend above the roofline by more than 1.5m.

6.3 Retaining Walls

The maximum height of any retaining wall shall be 2.0 metres (cut and/ or fill, i.e.

the total combined height is 2.0 metres) as measured from finished ground level.

Any retaining walls greater than 1.3 metres in height (cut and/ or fill, i.e. the total

combined height is 1.3 metres) as measured from finished ground level shall

include planting to either overhang the wall, or grow up against it.

6.4 Building Height

A number of building platforms have been identified as being height sensitive and

it is recommended that the maximum building height within these lots be restricted

to 5.0m.

246

6.5 Building Colour

Some lots have been identified as having colour sensitivity and it is recommended

that within these sites there are controls on buildings, ancillary structures and

fencing. It is anticipated that the colour of all buildings, fencing and structures be

based on the British Standard BS5252:1977 with a 40% reflectivity value for

greyness group A, 35% for group B and a 25% reflectivity value for greyness

group C. Colours outside these groups are not permitted. This shall not apply to

windows, window frames, bargeboards, stormwater guttering, downpipes or doors.

These items may be of any colour. Roof cladding shall have a colour with a

reflectivity value of no more than 25% for greyness groups A and B and 10% for

group C. All buildings shall recess areas of glazing greater than 5m² (including

frames) below wide eaves of at least 1.2m. Mirrored glass shall not be permitted.

6.6 Schedule of specific controls

LOT Recommendation

2 Maximum building height: 5.0m

Colour controls in accordance with paragraph 6.5











10 Colour controls in accordance with paragraph 6.5

247








20 Reduction in extent of building platform and relocation of

recommended building location (Refer to Figure 5)

Maximum building height: 5.0m










32 Reduction in extent of building platform and additional planting (refer

to Figure 6)



33 Reduction in extent of building platform and additional planting (refer

to Figure 6)


248


























249












7.0 Summary

7.1 To successfully meet the objectives of the planning framework this project must

balance the landscape and visual effects of the development.

7.2 Placing the dwellings on the ridgelines reduces earthworks and limits adverse

landscape effects. However the greater prominence of future dwellings on the

ridgelines has the potential to create adverse visual effects and diminish the rural

character.

7.3 To minimise the visual effects a series of controls have been recommended to

address colour and height sensitive sites. I am of the view that if the

recommended building controls and building platform and lot relocations are

undertaken that the rural character will be maintained

7.4 Overall I am of the view that the proposed development will provide positive

landscape effects while retaining the rural character of the site.

250

a full description of the proposal is provided in section...

Documents