assessment of environmental effects hearing...

HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Assessment of Environmental Effects

Hearing Report

Notice of Requirement by Telecom New Zealand Limited for a new designation for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes at its existing Three Kings Exchange site at 589 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings

Report to: The Hearing Commissioners

From: Kelly Seekup, Consultant Planner

Date: 2 March 2011

Keywords: Notice of Requirement, telecommunication, radiocommunication

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................... 2

2.0 The Notice of Requirement............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Designation Sought ........................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Overview of Proposal and Surrounding Environment ....................................................... 4 2.3.1 Proposal .................................................................................................................... 4 2.3.2 Site Description and Surrounding Environment ........................................................ 4

3.0 Submissions .................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Late Submissions .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Summary of Submissions.................................................................................................. 6

4.0 Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Assessment of Effects on the Environment ...................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Radiofrequency Effects ............................................................................................. 8 4.1.2 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3 Visual Effects, Overshadowing and Dominance ..................................................... 14 4.1.4 Access, Parking and Traffic ..................................................................................... 19 4.1.5 Hazardous Substances ........................................................................................... 21 4.1.6 Contaminated Site/Flood Risk ................................................................................. 22 4.1.7 Heritage Effects ....................................................................................................... 24


4.2 Other Matters raised by Submissions ............................................................................. 24 4.2.1 Submissions from Watercare Services Limited and 2Degrees ............................... 24

4.3 Relevant Provisions of Policy Statements and Plans ..................................................... 25 4.3.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement ...................................................................... 25 4.3.2 Auckland City District Plan ...................................................................................... 27

5.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 28

6.0 Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 29

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Copy of the Notice of Requirement and Noise Report

Appendix 2 Photos of the site

Appendix 3 Previous District Scheme designation information

Appendix 4 Submissions

Appendix 5 Correspondence to/from Applicant relating to a S92 request

Appendix 6 Specialist Comments

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference This hearing report (hereafter referred to as ‘this report’) is intended to assist the Hearing Commissioners (the Commissioners) in considering the requirement by Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) to designate land for telecommunication and radiocommunication and ancillary purposes at its existing Three Kings exchange site. The report is also intended to assist the Commissioners in considering the submissions received in respect of the designation requirement.

This hearing report should be read in conjunction with the Introductory Hearing Report outlining the statutory framework and the information that is relevant to all 14 exchange sites and the proposed designations.

The comments in this report should not be construed as a conclusive recommendation, particularly as further evidence may be provided at the hearing both on behalf of the Requiring Authority and the submitters.

2.0 THE NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT

2.1 Designation Sought

The Requiring Authority seeks a designation for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes at its existing Three Kings exchange site, which is located at 589 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings and is legally described as Lot 1 DP 373402. The proposed location of the designation is shown below.


A copy of the notified NoR is included in Appendix 1.

The Three Kings Exchange comprises a two storey pitched roof structure that covers a substantial area of the site. Plans and photographs of the existing site are contained in Appendix 2. Previous District Scheme designation information (dated 1980) is contained in Appendix 3.

The Requiring Authority proposes that conditions be attached to the designation to allow for existing works and facilities on the site, as well as any future upgrades. This is consistent with the designation purpose sought by Telecom nationally. The proposed conditions concern matters around the height of any mast or antenna and their finished appearance, details of building envelopes for any new buildings at the site, noise limits and compliance with New Zealand Standard NZS2772.1:1999.

The Requiring Authority gave notice of its requirement to designate land to the Council on 8 July 2010.

The requirement was publicly notified on 1 November 2010 as proposed Plan Modification 290 (Isthmus District Plan). The closing date for submissions was Friday 26 November 2010 and 5 submissions were received (see Appendix 4). No late submissions have been received.

2.2 Background

This is a long established telecommunications site. The site was previously designated as a P & T Depot under the Auckland District Scheme prior to local government amalgamation in 1989 (Borough of Mt Roskill Third Proposed Second District Scheme Review 1980). However, for reasons that are unclear, the roll-over of this designation into the current Auckland Isthmus District Plan


did not occur. The site is currently operating under existing use rights. The property files include a number of building consents for the site from 2006-2007 and the rear lot (Lot 2) has been subdivided (ref AS/02/01484/R5674/17).The applicant advises that Lot 2 is not subject to this notice and will be sold off by Telecom.

2.3 Overview of Proposal and Surrounding Environment

2.3.1 Proposal

Telecom proposes to designate the existing exchange site described in Section 2.1 above, which incorporates the following existing infrastructure:

Telephone exchange building with a pitched roof; Back-up electricity generators (electricity alternators) and associated

fuel storage; Air conditioning plant; and Concrete driveway.

Future work at the site will include maintenance, upgrades and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works as necessary and as required for the continued provision of telecommunications and radio-communications services.

Current planned works for exchanges within the Auckland Isthmus in the next five years include, but is not limited to, replacing DC power plant, batteries, standby plant, replacing, upgrading and new air conditioning units, new and replacement diesel tanks (ranging from 1,500L to 10,000L tanks).

Six of the exchanges have co-location work programmed over the next 5 years. This work involves putting in new power feeds and footplates for the new Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) that other telecommunication customers wish to locate in the exchanges. Where antennas are located on exchange sites, these are subject to continual upgrading and reconfiguration to meet evolving technology and customer demand.

The NoR states that designation of the site would allow Telecom the flexibility and certainty to establish, maintain and upgrade this equipment and other ancillary work necessary for the continued operation of the exchange to provide a world class telecommunications system to Auckland.

2.3.2 Site Description and Surrounding Environment

The subject site is zoned Residential 6a in accordance with the Operative Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section (District Plan).

The site is noted on Council’s records as being contaminated and subject to flooding. The site is also subject to a Building Line Restriction that relates to road widening by 3m (ref F06-04). Mt Albert Road is a Regional Arterial Road.

The areas surrounding the exchange site are zoned for residential uses. To the immediate south and west of the site is Lot 2 (587 Mt Albert Road) which is not included in the proposed designation as the Requiring Authority intend to sell this parcel of land. All other properties surrounding the site and on the opposite side of Mt Albert Road comprise residential dwellings.

3.0 SUBMISSIONS

A total of 5 submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are provided in Appendix 4 of this report.

Table 3-1 below summarises the submissions by the recommendation sought.


Table 3-1 Recommendations Sought in Submissions

Recommendation Sought Submission(s)

Accept (1) 1 (The Albert/Eden/Roskill Ratepayers and Residents Association)

Accept with amendments (2)

2 (Watercare Services Limited)

3 (NZ Historic Places Trust)

Decline, or accept with amendments (2)

4 (2degrees)

5 (Turner Bremner Family Trust)

3.1 Late Submissions

No late submissions were received on Plan Modification 290.


3.2 Summary of Submissions The following table summarises the matters raised by submitters, the decision sought, and any specific relief sought.

Sub. No.

Name Matters Raised Specific Relief Sought Recommendation Sought

1 The Albert/Eden/Roskill Ratepayers and Residents Association

Wishes to be heard

Supports

The Ratepayers and Residents Association supports the designation given the existing use rights that the exchange site enjoys and further states that telecommunication is an emerging/enlarging useful industry and is now deemed essential for modern business communications.

The submitter seeks the following relief

The designation be accepted

Accept

2 Watercare Services Limited

Wishes to be heard

Neither supports nor opposes

Watercare is concerned that designation of the site may restrict Watercare’s ability to operate, maintain or upgrade the wastewater and water network.


If the requirement is confirmed, Watercare seek that appropriate conditions are attached to the designation to ensure that Watercare’s ability to operate, maintain or upgrade its assets are not unreasonably restricted or prevented.

Accept with amendments

3 NZ Historic Places Trust

Wishes to be heard

Support but seek amendments

In order to promote the identification, protection, preservation and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand, the NZ Historic Places Trust wish to ensure that the requiring authority is aware of the archaeological provisions


Seek an advice note be added to the designation conditions to ensure that the requiring authority is aware of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act.

Accept with amendments


Sub. No.

Name Matters Raised Specific Relief Sought Recommendation Sought

of the Historic Places Act.

4 2degrees

Submission does not state whether wishes to be heard

Decline, or accept with amendments

An integrated co-location cell tower company which is a specialist site owning company is required.

2degrees supports designation, only after the impact of competition has been analysed and reviewed by the Auckland Council.


Seek that the Council decline the designation and request that Telecom resubmit with a plan for a site for an integrated co-location cell tower company which is a specialist site owning company.

Decline and resubmit

5 Turner Bremner Family Trust

Decline, or accept with amendments

The proposed Notice of Requirement will enable a level of use and development that would result in adverse effects on 591 Mt Albert Road that are not appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Concerns include the noise and hours of operation, fumes from trucks, lack of screening, 15m height for masts and associated antennas, uncertainty over numbers, need for detail and conditions at NOR stage and confirmation of the proposed use of Lot 2.


The submitter seeks that the plan modification be withdrawn or modified to impose conditions that address the concerns raised to the satisfaction of the submitter.

Decline or Modify to address concerns raised


4.0 ASSESSMENT

The Notice of Requirement lodged by Telecom provides an assessment in terms of the matters set out in section 171 of the RMA. The following discussion summarises the key findings of the assessment and provides additional commentary where it is considered necessary to assess relevant matters in more detail, including in relation to the details raised in the request for further information and Telecom’s response, as well as the issues raised by submitters.

4.1 Assessment of Effects on the Environment

The Notice of Requirement generally provides an accurate assessment of environmental effects associated with the infrastructure which is currently located on the site. The Three Kings exchange is a long established telecommunications site, forming part of the existing environment. As such, there will be no immediate effect on the environment by designating this site. It is considered that any effects on the environment will only arise should additional works or uses be undertaken on the site. Moreover, the future potential effects associated with upgrading the site have been assessed accordingly.

It is concluded that any adverse effects will generally be acceptable provided the recommended conditions are attached to the designation. Recommendations regarding amendments and additions to the proposed conditions are made in Section 6.0 of this report.

The proposed project is considered to result in positive effects, as the planned works give Telecom the opportunity to maintain and upgrade its exchanges to provide a world class telecommunications system to Auckland. This project will allow future work on Telecom’s remaining strategic sites to be carried out in a nationally consistent manner which will have social and economic benefits for the community and the nation as a whole.

Additional assessment is now provided in relation to the following effects, including, where relevant, assessment of matters raised in the submissions.

4.1.1 Radiofrequency Effects

Outline of Potential Effects

The Ministry of Health considers that there are no established adverse effects from exposures to radiofrequency (RF) fields that comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and the New Zealand standard. The Environment Court has similarly concluded that there are no adverse health effects arising from exposures to RF fields that comply with the New Zealand standard. The New Zealand standard is NZS 2772: Part 1: 1999 Radiofrequency Fields Part 1 – Maximum Exposure Levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz.

Clause 4 of the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities, which came into force in 2008, requires compliance with the New Zealand Standard, and is relevant to all telecommunications facilities that generate RF fields.

Requiring Authority’s Assessment

There are no existing antennas or masts at the site. Telecom has advised that any future equipment transmitting RF fields will comply with the New Zealand standard.


Requiring Authority’s proposed mitigation (including conditions)

Telecom has proposed a condition in the NoR application that any equipment transmitting RF energy is to be operated in accordance with the New Zealand Standard for exposure to RF energy (NZS2772:1999 Part 1) as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities 2008 (NES). Specifically proposed Condition 10 states:

‘Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in New Zealand Standard NZS2772.1:1999 at any place where the public has reasonable access’.

Issues raised by Submitters

None of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised concern about radiofrequency fields.

Assessment

It is considered that the proposed condition is appropriate, with an amendment to ensure compliance with the current NES as follows:

‘Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in current New Zealand Standard as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities at any place where the public has reasonable access.’

This will ensure that the New Zealand Standard for exposure to RF energy as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities and the Ministry of Health guidelines will be met in perpetuity.

Conclusion and recommendations

Overall, it is considered that the amended condition proposed by Telecom be imposed to ensure that there will be no adverse effect in relation to RF fields as follows:

‘15. Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in the current New Zealand Standard as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications FacilitiesNZS2772.1:1999 at any place where the public has reasonable access.’

4.1.2 Noise

Outline of Potential Effects

The exchange site currently contains noise generating equipment, including a condenser unit, which is used for the cooling of equipment in the exchange, as well as backup electricity generators also known as electricity alternators. The potential effects from this equipment are assessed as follows.

Condenser Units

Telecom has advised that over time, and as the exchange site is upgraded, they will strive to improve the noise levels from the site, should pre-existing noise issues continue to occur. This is the case as sometimes the older condenser units are not able to comply with residential noise limits. Despite this, Telecom has advised that with the installation of a new unit, it will not always be economically feasible to resolve all existing noise issues from all units on site. Accordingly, Telecom has proposed a condition, which is consistent for all of its exchanges in the Auckland Isthmus. The condition relates to requiring all new equipment to meet the proposed boundary noise


limits in their own right, and to not result in any cumulative increase in existing noise emitted from the site.

Telecom are of the opinion that this will ensure that there will be improvements in noise levels over time, if any issues exist, but that the proposed condition will be flexible enough to allow upgrades to occur that are economically feasible.

Further, Telecom states that an assessment of existing noise and the effect of any upgrading, replacement or addition of new equipment can be assessed in any outline plan for such works.

Electricity Alternators

Electricity Alternators (EA’s) only operate infrequently during electricity outages but they are essential to allow for continued service. However, Telecom advises it is generally impractical for them to meet residential noise limits. For this reason, Telecom’s proposed designation conditions exclude the operation of EA’s from general noise compliance.

Test runs to ensure their reliability are also carried out for approximately one hour each week during normal working hours, as well as one five hour test annually.

Telecom has advised that as the EA’s are upgraded over time they will need to demonstrate the best practicable option as part of any outline plan process for any new or upgraded equipment. This in turn will allow Council the opportunity to assess and comment on the reasonableness of noise levels and mitigation for any such projects. It is noted that this process normally provides the opportunity to improve any existing noise effects from EA operation.

Load Shedding

In the past, Telecom has been approached by some power supply and line companies to make EA’s available for ‘load shedding’ during emergency circumstances, such as when the electricity network is under extreme pressure and is facing supply cuts. As the exchanges are large power users, the EA’s have the ability to take the exchange off the electricity grid for short periods to assist with avoiding electricity blackouts. While this can cause short term nuisance, Telecom has advised that it has counter-balancing benefits of taking pressure off stressed electricity supplies, which would in turn benefit any parties that may suffer some noise nuisance.

Telecom provided a noise assessment of the 14 exchange sites in the Auckland Isthmus as Appendix C to their NoR application.


Telecom has supplied an Acoustic Assessment prepared by Noise Control Services (NCS) with its NoR. This assessment is included as Appendix C to Telecom’s AEE (refer Appendix 1 to this report).

This assessment sets out a site specific assessment and overview of each of the 14 exchange sites in respect of the existing noise outputs. The assessment then carries out a review of the text in the current Auckland District Plan and provides discussion around existing use rights and also highlights the responsibilities of Telecom under Section 16 (Duty to avoid unreasonable noise) and Section 17 (Duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects).

In respect of the Three Kings site, the acoustic assessment reported on the nature of the existing land use activities surrounding the exchange site. It states that “the site is located within a high daytime ambient [noise] area due to traffic noise on Mt Albert Road. We would expect the traffic noise to reduce


during nightime to a typical Auckland residential background level..... A Telecom yard at the rear of the property provides a distance correction of thirty five metres to the rear boundary but houses on the site side boundaries are relatively close at a distance of 12 metres. There is existing mechanical plant on three sides of the building... The EA is situated within a purpose built building facing the side boundary.” No existing noise levels were provided by Telecom based on the current infrastructure equipment which exists on the site.

NCS commented on the potential for increase in overall site noise emissions with the growth in the telecommunications sector and the increase in extra equipment being located at the exchange sites. NCS is of the opinion that this additional noise can be offset by the careful selection of newer technologies with lower noise emission and the careful location of new or replacement equipment in the least noise sensitive location on each site.

As a consequence NCS has recommended that three conditions be implemented in order to satisfy the noise limit obligations at each site. Specifically, the conditions are as follows:

1. All new equipment (excluding any electrical alternator required for emergency back-up power) shall not exceed the following noise limits:

At the boundary of any Residentially Zoned property:

7am – 10pm Monday to Sunday Leq 50dB(A)

At all other times Leq 40 dB(A)

These noise levels are to be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6801:2008 and NZS6802:2008.

2. All new equipment (excluding any electrical generator required for emergency back-up power) shall cumulatively in combination with any other noise generating equipment on the site, not increase present noise levels.

3. Where noise from new electricity alternator equipment exceeds the levels noted in Condition 1, an outline plan is to be submitted which demonstrates how the equipment and mitigation measures are the best practicable option (BPO) to ensure noise does not exceed a reasonable level.


Telecom’s AEE sets out the proposed noise mitigation measures to be employed in order to mitigate adverse noise effects. These measures reflect the wording in the recommendations proposed by NCS and go further to embellish the wording in doing so, providing clarification and enforceability. The recommended conditions are shown on page 4 of Telecom’s NoR application.

Statutory Matters

Section 16 of the RMA contains a general duty to avoid unreasonable noise, requiring every occupier of land to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise does not exceed a reasonable level. Section 17 also contains a general duty for every person to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried out by or on behalf of a person.

While the acoustic assessment by NCS has highlighted these sections of the RMA, it is noted that Telecom’s NoR has not provided a discussion on how it is addressing its duty under Section 16 and 17 of the Act.


Further Information Request

A Section 92 request for further information was sent to Telecom on 20 August 2010, which attempted to gain a better understanding of the potential noise effects associated with the designation of this site. The information request identified an issue concerning noise complaints for some exchange sites from surrounding properties regarding technician visits. Council therefore requested that Telecom provide parameters around typical hours for technicians to undertake routine maintenance work (not emergency work).

Telecom’s response was that they cannot propose any restrictions to non-emergency technicians work hours for routine maintenance work. Telecom explained that the technicians must have unrestricted access (24 hours a day and 7 days a week) for planned routine operations and maintenance work. This work cannot be undertaken during standard business hours without the risk of significant disruption to customer services. Telecom has stated that it will continue to work with its service providers to ensure any potential risk of neighbours disruption is minimised from the coming and going of technicians as part of their daily work.

The Council had concerns regarding the proposed noise conditions in terms of the noise emissions of existing EAs on the site. Telecom was therefore requested to provide a methodology to manage the noise emissions of the existing EAs to ensure that the best practicable option (BPO) has been adopted and that the existing EAs generate no more than a reasonable level of noise in the context of any scheduled maintenance and emergency operations.

Telecom responded by stating that their strategy is to ensure the continuing improvement over time as equipment is replaced or upgraded. The EAs are used during electricity supply failures and accordingly, they did not consider it appropriate to propose any additional conditions that could affect the operation of its existing EA. Telecom has advised that they will respond and investigate any noise concerns raised by its neighbours as they have done for other exchange sites within the Auckland area.

Issues raised by Submitters

One of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council was from a residential property to the south of the site, adjacent to Lot 2 (587 Mt Albert Road), with access along the eastern boundary of the site. The submitter raised a concern about noise generated by technicians working on site.

Assessment

The NoR and its accompanying acoustic assessment has been reviewed by Jon Styles of JPStyles Ltd, who has been engaged by the Council to undertake an assessment of all 14 proposed designation sites.

JPStyles Ltd has noted in their assessment that the sites are currently operating subject to the development controls of the underlying zone notwithstanding any existing use rights that may apply. It is not clear to JPStyles Ltd which of the existing sites, if any, are currently compliant with the noise limits in the District Plan. Further JPStyles Ltd is of the understanding that no noise measurements have been undertaken relative to the proposed Designations. Mr Styles further notes that existing use rights, whether confirmed or otherwise do not absolve the duty to comply with the requirements of s16 of the RMA, particularly in complying with a reasonable level of noise.

The JPStyles Report discusses the acoustic assessment lodged with Telecom’s NoR. Mr Styles comments that this report sets out the results of a subjective


acoustic assessment for each of the 14 sites, detailing matters such as nearest receivers, separation distances and general configuration of plant and noise sources. Mr Styles is of the opinion that this information is useful in terms of understanding the layout and general nature of the sites and surrounds but the report does not contain any measured noise level data for the sites.

The existing noise environment forms part of the established permitted baseline for the site and therefore it is considered appropriate to only control new noise generating equipment and this is reflected in the proposed and recommended conditions. Further details of the noise effects would be assessed as part of the outline plan of works stage.

With regard to noise concerns raised by a submitter, it is noted that given the existing use rights of the existing exchange, it would seem unreasonable and inappropriate to include conditions that would attempt to control technician visits when they have occurred as part of the previous 30 years at least (previous designation 1980). Regard should also be given to the need for Telecom to have unrestricted access to the exchange site to undertake routine and emergency maintenance work.

It is considered that it would be inappropriate to include conditions that would restrict the hours in which technicians can complete internal maintenance works or emergency works, as although one submitter has raised concerns regarding the noise generated by the closing of van doors etc, such nuisance type effects are unlikely to increase above existing levels.

It would, however, be appropriate to control the hours in which maintenance work that is external to the exchange building may be carried out. The reason for this is that the noise generating potential for external works is far greater than works carried out within the exchange building and it is also likely that such works would not to relate to the equipment within the exchange building and are therefore less likely to require urgent attention. It is therefore recommended that a condition be included on the designation that will restrict any external upgrades or maintenance and testing and routine maintenance of Electricity Alternators to occurring between the hours of 7am and 10pm.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s proposed designation conditions, the submissions received and the review of the proposal by Mr Styles, it is considered that the proposed designation has the potential to result in adverse effects on the amenity of adjacent residential properties should certain aspects of the operation not be restricted to reflect the residential nature of surrounding sites.

It is considered that the conditions proposed by Telecom should be accepted, with two new conditions as follows:

13. The testing and routine maintenance of Electricity Alternators on site shall be restricted to the hours between 7am-10pm Monday to Sunday, with no testing or routine maintenance permitted outside these hours.

14. The hours of operation for routine external maintenance and upgrade (excluding emergency and urgent maintenance and upgrade or internal works within the exchange building) shall be between the hours of 7am-10pm Monday to Sunday.

These additional conditions are considered reasonable and necessary and will provide Telecom with the flexibility for emergency and urgent maintenance or internal works, while protecting the amenity of the surrounding residential area.


4.1.3 Visual Effects, Overshadowing and Dominance

Outline of potential effects

The existing exchange as already discussed in section 2.1 of this report is a two-level pitched roof structure that takes up the majority of the site. The site immediately to the rear is currently used for storage, is not part of the NoR and is to be sold by Telecom. All sites in the vicinity, including the subject site, are zoned Residential 6a.

Potential visual, shadowing or dominance effects on the adjacent properties and the streets scene arising from the proposed designation are assessed below.


Telecom has carried out an assessment of the potential visual effects associated with the proposed designation of this site. Telecom advises in its assessment that the site is a long established network utility operation that forms part of the character of the local area. Telecom is of the opinion that the conditions proposed will allow them some flexibility to operate and upgrade services on the site whilst controlling the scale of the structures to ensure that any adverse effects on adjoining residential properties in the area are not unreasonable.


Telecom, in acknowledging that this exchange site is in a residential location, has proposed a range of conditions to avoid and mitigate adverse visual and dominance effects on the surrounding environment.

The conditions cover the following matters:

Limit the height, diameter and location of any new mast and attached antennas.

Allow the ability to reconfigure antennas on the existing mast

Limit the height above the roofline of any antennas attached to the roof of buildings

Provide a building envelope to control the scale of any future building additions.

For the exact wording of these proposed conditions, see section 7.0 of this report.

Further Information Request

A Section 92 request for further information was sent to Telecom on 20 August 2010, which attempted to gain a better understanding of the potential visual effects associated with the designation of this site. This information request identified concerns around the mast envelope, including mast numbers, mast location, mast height and antennas on new masts. It also highlighted concerns around bulk and location, including the building envelope, antennas on buildings and temporary structures.

Telecom was asked whether they were proposing to limit the number of masts that may be installed at the site. Further, should the limit exceed a single mast, Telecom was asked what methodology was proposed to ensure that the potential adverse visual effects of multiple masts can be satisfactorily assessed.


Telecom’s response was that it is satisfied its proposed conditions offer an appropriate balance between permitting activities on the site and the requirement to manage effects on the environment. Telecom further stated that they are not proposing any specific limit on the number of masts at this site.

They are of the opinion that the methodology for addressing visual effects would be the Outline Plan of Works process in Section 176A of the RMA. To further assist with identifying the circumstances where outline plans will be submitted or required, Telecom has suggested an additional condition as follows:

“That an Outline Plan of works shall not be required for any internal building works (excluding equipment generating external noise), ‘like for like’ replacement of equipment, the replacement of any antennas with antennas of similar size provided that there is no increase in the overall height of the facility, or boundary fencing otherwise permitted by the District Plan.”

Telecom was asked how it would ensure that any new masts would avoid generating more than minor adverse visual effects on streetscape values. Telecom’s response was that they agree that a condition requiring compliance with height in relation to boundary controls is appropriate. The existing condition can be modified to also apply a 2m and 55 degree height in relation to boundary control from road boundaries.

Council asked for details of specific factors of the exchange site and surrounding area which ensures that the proposed 15m height for a new mast is appropriate in scale and that the effects of this will be no more than minor.

Telecom advised that the proposed height of 15m is to provide for transmission paths clear of obstacles such as buildings and trees. Telecom is of the opinion that the proposed height in relation to boundary control offered as a condition is to encourage such masts on the property to minimise any overshadowing or dominance. They further stated that the condition limiting the diameter of masts and antennas to 1m for those parts of the equipment exceeding 8m in height above ground level will ensure any such structures and attachments are generally slim line in appearance, also minimising any potential overshadowing or dominance, in turn mitigating any potential adverse visual effects from the height of any new mast itself.

Council raised concerns about the lack of control over the number of antennas which could be installed at the site. It was considered that a large number of antennas, despite complying with the proposed diameter control, may generate adverse visual effects on the surrounding environment. In turn, Telecom was asked how they propose to address the visual effects of multiple antennas at the site. Telecom responded by stating that they were not prepared to propose any further controls on the numbers of antennas at the site. Antennas being proposed for a new mast or any replacement antennas on the existing mast will need to be contained within the parameters of the proposed envelope diameter condition, which will in Telecom’s opinion, effectively limit the bulk and visual effects of the antennas. Telecom reiterated that the visual effects of any future antennas or masts can be adequately assessed through the outline plan process.

Council raised a concern that having no control over building coverage, impervious surface area and landscape permeable surface area has the potential to generate adverse effects on surrounding sites. In turn, this could result in an over-developed appearance on the exchange site which could be


out of character for the area. Council therefore requested a methodology from Telecom for appropriately managing the potential adverse effects from over-development on the surrounding area; including background information on the approximate building, impervious and permeable surface coverage areas that currently exist on the site.

Telecom replied advising that changing technology has resulted in excess floor space at its exchange site and as such, substantive changes in building coverage, if at all, are not anticipated. Telecom is not in a position to provide detailed plans confirming building and impervious building coverage for this site. Given that no site development is proposed as part of this application for designation, Telecom does not consider there to be any need to quantify detailed coverage of buildings and impervious surfaces. Telecom is of the opinion that as exchanges are not dwellings, they cannot reasonably be expected to meet the same envelope controls as typical dwellings on residential sites. In addition, exchanges have high proportions of sealed areas, utilised for parking and in some cases for storage of some equipment outdoors. Moreover, Telecom has advised that the site buildings and areas of non-permeable surfaces is an existing situation.

Council was of the opinion that the proposed conditions did not restrict the maximum number of antennas that can be placed on the roof of the exchange building. Consequently, Telecom was asked to provide information of how they will address the visual effects of multiple antennas. Additionally, the conditions do not require antennas attached to buildings to comply with the relevant HIRB controls of the District Plan. Telecom was asked to provide information to address potential visual dominance and shading effects associated with this. Alternatively, Telecom could provide a methodology to control these potential effects within the NoR. Council also sought guidance from Telecom as to whether or not the operation of the exchange would require the use of dish antennas. If so, Telecom was asked what the maximum diameter of these would be and how many of these could be installed on the roof of the exchange building.

In response, Telecom advised that they do not consider a limit should be placed on the number of antennas that can be erected on buildings, nor on the diameter or width of antennas that may be placed on the roof of the exchange building. As such they consider the proposed conditions to be sufficient. Again, Telecom has cited the Outline Plan process as an opportunity for Council to suggest changes to address adverse visual effects if necessary.

Telecom has agreed however to limiting antennas on buildings by adding in the requirement for compliance with the height in relation to boundary controls into proposed Condition 3, as follows:

“Antennas mounted on the roof of buildings shall not extend more than 3m above the maximum height of the roof of any existing building and shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road as included in the Auckland City District Plan as at 1 January 2009 where antennas are mounted above the roofline (will not apply to antennas mounted against the building fascia and not extending above the roofline).”

Lastly, the Council requested that Telecom consider placing limitations on location, size, and timeframes for temporary structures to assist in assessing any potential adverse visual effects.


In response, Telecom advised that any temporary structure would still be required to meet the purpose of the designation and comply with its conditions. Further, the Outline Plan process provides the Council with the opportunity to address potential adverse effects from those structures. Accordingly, Telecom does not consider that any further restrictions are necessary.

Issues raised by submitters

One of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised a concern about the visual impact of the proposed designation and in particular stated that the proposed bulk and location controls offered by Telecom would enable development that results in adverse environmental effects on their property beyond that which could be anticipated from the Residential 6a zoning.

The submitter commented that the 15m height limit for masts and associated antennas would result in structure(s) that are visually dominant and obtrusive, and which would detract from the residential character and amenity of the surrounding area. The submitter advised that the 15m height limit should be reduced to either 8m or 10m. The submitter also stated that compliance with maximum height should be measured from existing ground level. The submitter commented that the lack of any restriction on the number of masts on the site and the number of antennas per mast and on top of the existing building were opposed as such a situation provides uncertainty for neighbours and the Council as to the likely environmental effects of future operations. Concerns were also raised with regard to the absence of any controls on building coverage, impermeable and hard surfaces and yards.

Assessment

The site is located in the Residential 6a zone and is surrounded by properties in this zoning. The site comprises a long established telecommunications facility and the existing exchange building comprises the majority of the site with a parking/service area located along the western site boundary. There are existing antennas on the building, however there is no mast on the site. Conditions have been proposed by Telecom which would restrict the height of any new building to 8m and the height of any new mast to 15m. In addition, Telecom have proposed a condition to ensure that any mast or antenna is restricted to 1m diameter above 8m.

Given the narrow nature of the site it is considered that the proposed height in relation to boundary controls will ensure that any future mast or antennas are located a reasonable distance from any residential boundary.

It is important to note that the site fronts onto Mt Albert Road and there is a street light directly in front of the site in the road reserve. Under the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities (2008), an antenna could be added to this existing utility structure to a height of 3m above the existing height without resource consent.

Given the sensitive nature of the nearby residential environment, it is considered that allowing more than one mast on the site, or an unlimited number of antennas, may cause adverse visual effects. As such, it is recommended that the number of masts be restricted to one and the number of antennas on buildings restricted to eight (allowing a practical but not unlimited number).

It is also considered that the proposed conditions by Telecom that restrict new buildings in terms of height and location are acceptable with minor changes to ensure all boundaries, including the road, are considered for Height in Relation to Boundary, a clarification in relation to height measured from existing ground


level and with a new condition proposed in relation to compliance with building coverage for new development. To ensure a reasonable outcome, given the existing use rights of the exchange building, the condition is clarified with the statement that ‘this shall not restrict the maintenance, upgrading and replacement of any existing building where it already infringes this condition provided there is no additional exceedence of the standards within this condition’. Given the nature of the existing site it is not considered necessary to place controls on landscaped permeable surface or side yards as the height in relation to boundary controls and building coverage would protect the amenity of residential properties to an acceptable degree.

A new condition relating to new fencing is proposed which requires Telecom to comply with the underlying zone. This is considered reasonable and necessary given the existing character of the site and to protect the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

Therefore, on balance, given the particular site characteristics, the nature of existing development on the site and the restrictions recommended with regards to height in relation to boundary, number of masts/antennas, building coverage and fencing, it is considered that the proposed designation and conditions outlined below are acceptable as the surrounding residential area would be sufficiently protected in terms of height and bulk to ensure no adverse visual, shadowing or dominance effects.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s proposed designation conditions, all comments from consultees and an assessment of the site characteristics, it is considered that the proposal would have no more than minor adverse effects on the surrounding environment given the recommended conditions as outlined below. Further, the proposed and recommended conditions will provide Telecom with a degree of flexibility to upgrade the existing exchange site whilst preserving the existing amenity values of the surrounding area.

The recommended conditions are as follows (deletions in strikethrough and additions underlined):

1. The height of any mast and antennas (on a mast or a building) shall not exceed 15m above existing ground level (excluding any lightning rod).

2. Any new masts and associated antennas shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road boundary as included in the Auckland City District Plan as at 1 January 2009. Any mast and associated antennas shall not exceed a diameter of 1m for those parts of the equipment exceeding 8m in height above ground level.

3. The total number of masts on site for use by the Requiring Authority shall not exceed 1.

4. Antennas mounted on the roof of buildings shall not extend more than 3m above the maximum height of the roof provided they comply with Condition (1) One and shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road boundary as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as at 1 January 2009 where antennas are mounted above the roofline (will not apply to antennas mounted against the building fascia and not extending above the roofline).


5. The total number of antennas on buildings for use by the Requiring Authority shall not exceed 8.

6. All antennas and support structures shall be painted or supplied in a recessive colour or supplied in a material that will weather to a dull finish (e.g galvanised steel brackets and antenna components).

7. Any building, excluding masts, exhaust flues, antennas and air conditioning equipment shall be contained within the following building envelope:

a) Height – 8m

b) Front yard – 2.5m

c) Height in relation to boundary – shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road boundary as included in the Auckland City District Plan as at 1 January 2009.

d) Building Coverage – shall comply with the relevant building coverage controls as included in the Auckland City District Plan for the Residential 6a zone.

Except this shall not restrict the maintenance, upgrading and replacement of any existing building where it already infringes this condition provided there is no additional exceedence of the standards within this condition.

For the avoidance of doubt, building height may be measured by either a rolling height method, or average height of the periphery of the building, whichever is the greater.

8. That an Outline Plan of works shall not be required for any internal building works (excluding equipment generating external noise), ‘like for like’ replacement of equipment, the replacement of any antennas with antennas of similar size provided that there is no increase in the overall height of the facility, or boundary fencing otherwise permitted by the District Plan.

9. Any new fencing shall comply with the relevant development controls for the Residential 6a zone as included in the Auckland City District Plan.

4.1.4 Access, Parking and Traffic


The existing access and car parking arrangements are utilised by Telecom contractors visiting the site. Currently the site is accessed from Mt Albert Road via two vehicular crossings and it contains spaces for parking on site along the western boundary and directly in front of the building. Mt Albert Road is a Regional Arterial Road.

The site is subject to a Building Line Restriction that relates to road widening by 3m (ref F06-04).

No substantive changes to access and parking are envisaged for any future works on the site given that the site is fundamentally developed already.


Telecom has advised that should any significant change to access and parking ever be proposed, relevant access and car parking issues can be considered through the outline plan process.


Council expressed its concern as to how the potential effects of parking, access and vehicle movements will be adequately addressed at the outline plan stage in the Request for Further Information letter sent to Telecom on 20 August 2010. In particular, it asked:

1. What does Telecom consider as a ‘significant change’ in site layout?

2. What specific considerations will be made regarding parking and access?

3. How does Telecom propose to address the effects of a potential increase in vehicle movements on the site should a ‘significant change’ in site layout occur?

Telecom responded on 5 October 2010 by stating that the current parking and access arrangements for the site are adequate for meeting Telecom’s needs.

Further, “a ‘significant change’ would essentially be the demolition and rebuilding of the structure.” Telecom is of the opinion that this would not be necessary due to the significant changes which have occurred to the telecommunications industry over the years, which has meant that most sites no longer have permanent staff, and therefore, there is excess floor space. Consequently, substantive changes in building coverage, and therefore the need to rebuild, are not currently anticipated by Telecom.

However, should the building be increased in size, such that the parking is reduced, the Outline Plan process would enable Council to address potential adverse effects through section 176A(3)(d). This subsection requires the consideration of vehicular access, circulation and provision for parking in an outline plan.


Telecom are therefore of the opinion, that no specific designation conditions regarding access and parking should be proposed.


None of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised concern about access and parking.

Assessment

Council’s Traffic Engineer, Pravin Dayaram recommended in his memo to the consulting planner dated 9 August 2010 that more details about the actual use of these facilities at each site, such as the frequency of movements to and from the site and occupancy of available parking spaces are provided to assist the public’s understanding and to provide a baseline of information, with which to assess any future significant changes proposed. Mr Dayaram consequently suggested a general access condition be imposed on all of the designation sites.

It was considered inappropriate to request Telecom to provide the above details as the exchange site is existing and has been operating on existing use rights and granted resource consent applications for many years. Most of the above information can be obtained by carrying out a site visit to the exchange.

However, it is considered that a condition should be imposed on the designation in the event that any significant change is proposed in the site layout or if any additional building works are planned for the site. Should this be the case, a traffic impact assessment will be required to address matters of access, carparking and trip generation. This information will be required to be submitted


as part of the Outline Plan of Works process and will mitigate any potential adverse traffic effects on the environment. It is noted that any increase in building at the site would require a resource consent for a building coverage infringement.

The Council’s Traffic Engineer also recommended that as there are two existing accesses to the site, the eastern 3m wide access should be removed and the kerb reinstated to comply with District Plan requirements. It is acknowledged that the existing crossing extends for 11m across both access ways and includes the wall in between them, however the proposed designation would not alter the existing access arrangement or nature of activity at the site and therefore it is considered that this issue can be dealt with as part of any redevelopment of the site, via the outline plan of works process.

With regard to the Building Line Restriction of 3m, the existing building does not infringe this restriction and it is considered essential that any future works comply with the relevant restriction at that time to ensure traffic safety. A condition and advice note to ensure this restriction is adhered to as part of the designation is therefore recommended.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s assessment and the Transportation assessment by Council (Pravin Dayaram), it is considered that subject to the condition outlined below requiring a Transport Assessment to be submitted as part of the Outline Plan of Works process and the condition to ensure that any Building Line Restriction is adhered to as outlined below, there will be no adverse traffic effects on the environment arising from the proposed designation.

Transport

16. Should any significant change in site layout or any additional building works be proposed a traffic impact assessment which addresses access, carparking and trip generation shall be submitted as part of the outline plan of works process to ensure any potential adverse effects are appropriately mitigated.

Building Line Restriction

17. No new buildings or structures shall be located within the Building Line

Restriction contained in designation F06-04 notated on the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section.

4.1.5 Hazardous Substances


Telecom has advised that diesel storage associated with the running of the generators is located on the site.

Telecom has advised that any upgrade of the facilities at the existing exchange site will need to meet current Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 regulations.


Telecom has advised by way of an email dated 10 December 2010 that they have a diesel tank replacement strategy in place, which involves removing all underground tanks installed by the New Zealand Post and replacing all single skin constructed tanks with double skinned tanks. The upgrade of the 14 tanks


in the Auckland Region is planned for the 2010/2011 financial year from approved capital funding.

The underground tanks are typically single skin construction in a concrete bund with a sand medium in between. All of the underground tanks are pressure tested as part of Telecom’s maintenance routine for HSNO stationary container certification.

Telecom has also been upgrading all of its single skin underground and indoor day tanks to modern Supervault double skin above ground tanks and DMS Manufactured double skin day tanks up to 1200 litres since the late 1990s. Telecom has further advised that these tanks meet all manufacturing standards, are HSNO compliant and are either installed indoors or in a caged area.


Telecom has not provided any details for proposed mitigation measures of having diesel stored at the site, except to say that it will meet current HSNO regulations.


None of the submissions received on this NoR raised concerns or issues relating to the storage of hazardous facilities.

Assessment

It is acknowledged that the storage of diesel at the exchange site is controlled under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HNSO) Act 1996. This legislation provides the means to set conditions on the management of hazardous substances which apply irrespective of their location. However, conditions to manage the risks at a particular site are controlled under the RMA.

It is considered that the actual and potential effects associated with the storage of diesel at the exchange site is no more than minor as the storage of the diesel is fully compliant with HSNO regulations. The majority of the diesel is stored securely underground, or in a restricted location. Telecom’s planned upgrade will further avoid the potential for adverse effects by replacing all of the older underground tanks and replacing the single skin constructed tanks with double skin constructed tanks in the 2010/2011 financial year.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s assessment it is considered that the storage of diesel at the site is being appropriately managed, such that, the actual and potential adverse effects of the diesel’s existence at the exchange site are avoided and mitigated to be no more than minor, through their location on the site and the planned upgrade works in the current financial year. An advice note is recommended relating to compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

4.1.6 Contaminated Site/Flood Risk


The site is listed on Council’s records as being a potentially contaminated site and within the 10 year and 100 year flood plain. The contamination notation is as a result of the dangerous goods licence held for the site, given the underground storage of diesel.

Given the existing use of the building and storage at the site, any future development has the potential to result in effects on the environment in relation to soil contamination and flood risk.



Telecom has not provided an assessment of the contamination or flood risk restrictions on the site.


Telecom has not provided any details for proposed mitigation measures for contamination or flood risk.


None of the submissions received on this NoR raised concerns or issues relating to the stability or contamination of the site.

Assessment

The subdivision consent in 2002 acknowledged that the site is identified with a contamination hazard due to the present use falling within a definition on the hazardous activities and industries list and therefore has the potential for contamination. The site currently contains an underground 3000 litre petroleum tank for the generator on site. As part of this consent, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the potential of actual land contamination is negligible and there was no record of actual contamination resulting from the storage of petroleum on site, no records of non-compliance and no records of complaints.

It is considered that a condition is required to ensure that any excavation at the site associated undertaken as part of any future development of the exchange site is assessed in accordance with the Council’s requirements for potentially contaminated sites to ensure the avoidance and mitigation of the potential hazard.

No flooding issues were raised as part of the 2002 subdivision consent. However, given the notation on Council’s Records, a condition is required to ensure that the potential flood hazard resulting from any future development is also assessed in accordance with relevant criteria as part of the Outline Plan of Works process.


Overall, having considered the site characteristics and the potential adverse effects on the environment, it is considered that conditions 18 and 19 outlined below should be imposed on the designation to ensure there will be no adverse effects on the environment.

18. Should an outline plan of works involve earthworks and/or excavation, the requiring authority (Telecom) shall undertake an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to be submitted with the outline plan of works. The ESA shall be comprised of a desktop study, a walkover of the proposed development area to identify potential contamination and soil sampling within the proposed development area. The results of the ESA shall demonstrate the level of contamination within the area of works and propose mitigation in the event that the contamination is above the regulatory guideline values for the protection of human health in the relevant zone.

If evidence of contamination which has not been previously identified is discovered during works, the Requiring Authority shall immediately cease works and notify the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring, and provide a detailed site contamination report and action plan to the satisfaction of the Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring.


The Requiring Authority shall ensure the excavated materials that require offsite disposal are disposed of in an appropriate landfill and provide evidence of the disposal to the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring.

19. The site is subject to potential flood hazards. Any future developments shall be required to provide an assessment of the criteria in Part 5D.6 of the 1999 Auckland City Council District Plan as part of the outline plan of works.

4.1.7 Heritage Effects


The site does not contain any identified heritage features; however it is possible that future excavation on the site may uncover unknown heritage items.


Telecom advised that the District Plan does not identify any heritage feature on this site.


No assessment was provided by the Requiring Authority in the Notice of Requirement.


The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has submitted on all 14 designation notices and it is seeking an advice note be added to the designation conditions of each of the NoRs. The advice note is to ensure that Telecom, as the Requiring Authority, is aware of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act.

Assessment

The advice note proposed by the NZHPT is considered appropriate to ensure the Requiring Authority is aware of its obligations under the Historic Places Act should archaeological sites be uncovered during future excavations.


It is recommended that an advice note relating to the Historic Places Act be added to the designation, should earthworks be required as part of any future works planned for the site.

4.2 Other Matters raised by Submissions

Two general submissions have been received from Watercare Services Limited and 2degrees and these raise issues that are not directly applicable to Section 171(1).

4.2.1 Submissions from Watercare Services Limited and 2Degrees

Watercare Services Limited (‘Watercare’) has submitted in relation to 9 of the 14 designation notices. Watercare is concerned that designation of the sites may restrict their ability to operate, maintain or upgrade the wastewater and water network. Watercare has requested in their submission that appropriate conditions are attached to the designation to ensure that Watercare’s ability to operate, maintain or upgrade its assets are not unreasonably restricted or prevented.


It is considered that as the designation relates to the requirement by Telecom as a requiring authority to designate land for telecommunication and radiocommunication and ancillary purposes, the Council as the territorial authority does not have the ability to restrict the land for other purposes as part of this designation process and therefore it is not considered appropriate to recommend a condition or advice note in this instance.

It is further noted that Watercare as a Council Controlled Organisation has separate powers under the Local Government Act 2002 that will enable them to operate, maintain or upgrade their wastewater and water network regardless of the designations by Telecom over their exchange sites.

2degrees have submitted on all 14 designation notices and considers that the Council should make changes to the designation to require Telecom to allow its telephone exchange locations to be used for co-location and co-siting of future cellular equipment by other telecommunication companies. 2degrees have requested that the designation would be supported only after the impact of competition has been analysed and reviewed by the Council and the sites designated on the condition that co-location is facilitated at realistic rental costs.

As part of the designation process the regulations (section 171(1A)) state that a territorial authority must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition when making its recommendation in accordance with s110 (1A).

It is also considered that the designation will not inhibit co-location as this can be pursued through the appropriate avenues such as the resource consent process where required.

Telecom have advised that six of the existing exchanges have co-location work programmed over the next 5 years. This work involves putting in new power feeds and footplates for the new Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) that other telecommunication customers wish to locate in the exchanges.

2degrees state that there is no integrated regulatory framework to ensure the most environmentally friendly outcome for competing telecommunication operators. It is considered that changing the regulatory environment is beyond the scope of the designation process and Telecom’s application.

The designation will allow Telecom as the requiring authority to utilise land for telecommunication and radiocommunication and ancillary purposes at its existing exchange site and no further comment regarding other operators or co-location is required as part of this process.

4.3 Relevant Provisions of Policy Statements and Plans

Section 171(1)(a) requires a territorial authority to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to relevant provisions of National Policy Statements, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, a Regional Policy Statement or proposed Regional Policy Statement, and a Plan or proposed Plan.

There are no relevant National Policy Statements or Coastal Policy Statements relevant to this proposal. Nor are there any Regional Plans, which are relevant to this proposal.

4.3.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement

The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) makes provision for the consideration of significant physical resources when determining the


sustainable management of the Auckland region’s overall resources. Issue 2.3.4 states:

“Regionally significant physical resources, including infrastructure, are essential for the community’s social and economic wellbeing. The location, development and redevelopment of infrastructure is of strategic importance in its effects on the form and growth of the region. However, the long term viability of regionally significant infrastructure and physical resources can be compromised by the adverse effects, including cumulative effects, of other activities. These regionally significant resources can equally give rise to adverse effects, including cumulative effects on the environment, and on communities. They can be adversely affected by conflicts if sensitive uses are allowed to develop near them or if they are inappropriately located.”

Key issues involving regional infrastructure which are relevant to this proposal include the need for replacement or upgrading of infrastructure in order to increase the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate growth. In addition, the need to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects generated by proposed changes to infrastructure and to consider alternative ways of avoiding or remedying them.

Specifically, the Strategic Direction for the Auckland Region recognises the needs of future generations by:

“Enabling the providers of significant regional resources to meet economic and social needs of the community while ensuring that adverse environmental effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.”

The Strategic Direction also recognises that not all adverse effects can be avoided as a result of development processes. In such circumstances “the strategic response is to seek a direction that leads to the least adverse effect which is most capable of being managed over the long term”.

Where an activity or the use or development of any resource results in, or is likely to result in, some adverse effects on the environment, the RMA identifies three approaches to achieving a balance of the competing values and interests involved. These are to ‘avoid’ adverse effects, to ‘mitigate’ the effects, or where the resources are already affected, to ‘remedy’ the adverse effects.

The above direction is reflected in the Strategic Objectives and Policies for the Auckland Region (2.5.1 and 2.5.2, respectively) which together, seek to ensure that the region has the capacity to accommodate growth and development, and at the same time to protect the quality and efficient use of the natural and physical resources.

Telecom has provided a brief assessment against the ARPS. They are of the opinion that “a modern and reliable telecommunications system is critical to the regional economy, and enabling the efficient use of exchange sites through designation with appropriate conditions”. Telecom further advised that they therefore consider themselves to be consistent with these provisions.

It is considered that the proposed works by Telecom are consistent with the relevant strategic objective and policies namely; 2.5.1.1, 2.5.1.6, 2.5.1.8 and 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.6 and 2.5.2.7 which relate to growth and the provision of infrastructure.

The urban growth management policies of the ARPS are also relevant. It is also considered that Telecom is providing for 2.6.1.2 (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii) which


relate to the provision of necessary infrastructure, the efficient provision of services and the protection of amenity.

4.3.2 Auckland City District Plan

4.3.2.1 Designations

It is noted that Telecom has demonstrated in its NoR application how it has met the information requirements for designating a site in accordance with Part 4A.3 of the District Plan.

4.3.2.2 Network Utility Services

Part 4A.4 of the operative Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section (District Plan) makes provision for network utility services.

It is considered that the following objectives and policies are relevant to this proposal:

Objective 4A.4.2

To maintain levels of infrastructure which provide for the citizens of the district.

To allow for the provision of new network utility services whilst mitigating adverse environmental effects.

Policy 4A.4.3

By providing for the continued existence and maintenance of established network utility services.

By providing for new network utility services, provided that any adverse effects on amenity values are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

It is considered that Telecom will be meeting the above objectives and policies in designating this existing exchange site for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes. In doing so, the requiring authority will be providing for the on-going provision of telecommunication services, which are critical for not only Auckland’s, but New Zealand’s population. In doing so, Telecom has proposed several conditions for the designation which seek to avoid any adverse health effects, and/or remedy and mitigate any adverse visual, amenity and acoustic effects on the surrounding environment associated with the long term provision of its services at the Three Kings exchange site.

4.3.2.3 Residential 6a Zone

In addition to the above parts, it is also considered that Part 7 of the District Plan provides several relevant objectives to this designation in respect of Residential Activity.

It is considered that the following objectives and its related policies are relevant to this proposal:

Objective 7.3.2: To identify, maintain and enhance the recognised character and amenity of residential environments.

Objective 7.3.4: To recognise that certain non-residential activities can be located in residential areas in a way which maintains and enhances the amenities of the area and enables people to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety.

Policy


By providing for non-residential activities in certain residential areas where the activities are not disruptive of residential amenities.

By taking into account the impact of location, scale, and generated effect on neighbouring sites and the local environment when administering development controls in relation to non-residential activities in residential zones.

Objective 7.6.6.1: To provide for medium intensity residential neighbourhoods in appropriate locations.

Policy

By imposing controls on developments which protect the external environment of the site, while achieving a reasonable level of amenity for medium intensity developments.

By permitting a wider range of activities in these locations than is permitted in the lower intensity zone, while maintaining the appreciated amenity.

It is considered that the designation of the site is consistent with the above-mentioned objectives and policies as it will allow this non-residential activity to operate from this residential site in a way which will maintain the existing amenity values and character of the surrounding residential area. Stringent controls will be in place through the proposed conditions of consent, which will apply to any new masts and antennas and new buildings on the site, which will avoid and mitigate any adverse visual and/or amenity effects on the residential area to a reasonable level.

Any future upgrades or additions to the site will continue to reflect the low intensity character of the residential area through a height limit of 8 metres for new buildings, 15m for masts (with a restriction on diameter above 8m), a front yard requirement of 2.5 metres and a requirement to comply with the height in relation to boundary controls for the area.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Telecom seeks a designation which would allow itself flexibility and certainty to establish, maintain and upgrade its equipment and other ancillary work necessary for the continued operation of the Three Kings exchange to provide a world class telecommunications system to Auckland.

The proposed works planned for the site including maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works are considered necessary for achieving this objective. The planning tool of designation is considered to be reasonably necessary for achieving this objective and it is the most cost effective method available.

Appropriate conditions attached to the designation will ensure that any adverse environmental effects associated with the upgrade works are avoided, remedied, or mitigated. It is considered that the proposed designation is consistent with promoting the purpose and principles of the RMA (sustainable management) and also gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and the Auckland City District Plan prepared under the RMA.

A total of 5 submissions were received, including no late submissions. Of the 5 submissions received:


1 submission sought a recommendation that the requirement be withdrawn, or amended;

1 submission sought that the requirement be confirmed; 2 submissions sought that the requirement be confirmed subject to

amendments; and 1 submission sought a recommendation that the requirement be

declined. Key issues raised in the submissions include a concern from an adjacent residential property that the designation would result in adverse effects on the amenity and character of the area and therefore the designation should be withdrawn or amended to the submitter’s satisfaction, a concern from Watercare Services Limited that designation of the site may restrict Watercare’s ability to operate, maintain or upgrade the wastewater and water network. Should the requirement be confirmed, Watercare seek that appropriate conditions are attached to the designation to ensure that Watercare’s ability to operate, maintain or upgrade its assets are not unreasonably restricted or prevented. The Historic Places Trust has requested that an advice note be included as a condition of the designation alerting Telecom to the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act. 2degrees has sought the decline of the designation and requested that Telecom resubmit the designation with a plan for a site for an integrated co-location cell tower company which is a specialist site owning company. On this basis 2degrees supports designation, but only after the impact of competition has been analysed and reviewed by the Auckland Council.

Taking the submissions and all other matters addressed in this report into account, it is recommended that the Commissioners recommend that Telecom confirms the requirement, subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That unless new evidence is produced at the hearing which would lead to a different conclusion, pursuant to section 171(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 it is recommended to Telecom that the requirement for a new designation for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes at the existing exchange site at 589 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings be confirmed, subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions.

6.2 That pursuant to section 171(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the reasons for the recommendation are as follows:

a) Subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions, the proposed designation is consistent with promoting the purpose and principles of the RMA (sustainable management) in that the future upgrading and reconfiguration of the Three Kings telecommunications exchange site will better enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety, by ensuring the continued provision of modern and reliable telecommunications and radio-communications services for future generations.

b) In terms of section 171(1)(b) of the RMA, adequate consideration has been given by Telecom to alternative methods for providing for future upgrade works at the telecommunications exchange site.

c) In terms of section 171(1)(c) of the RMA, the proposed maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works and


designation are reasonably necessary to allow Telecom to achieve the following objective:

“To operate, maintain and upgrade its exchanges to provide a World Class telecommunications system to Auckland.”

d) The requirement is consistent with, and gives effect to the relevant provisions of policy statements and plans prepared under the RMA.

e) Appropriate conditions attaching to the designation will ensure that any adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed maintenance, upgrade and replacement works are avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

6.3 That the following amendments be made to the Auckland City Council District Plan (Operative Isthmus Section)

a) That District Plan map G08 (No 2 Additional Limitations) be notated to show the designation with a reference number.

b) Amend Appendix A (Schedule) to the Planning Maps by inserting the following:

Map Ref Cat Description Authority

G08-16 A4 “Telecommunication and Radiocommunication and Ancillary Purposes ”

Telecom NZL

c) Amend Appendix B (Additional Limitations, Controls and Diagrams) to the Planning Maps by inserting the following:

6.4 That pursuant to section 171(2)(c) of the RMA it is recommended to Telecom that amendments are made to the restrictions and conditions attaching to the requirement as follows (deletions in strikethrough and additions underlined):

**

Masts and Antennas

1. The height of any mast and antennas (on a mast or a building) shall not exceed 15m above existing ground level (excluding any lightning rod).

2. Any new masts and associated antennas shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road boundary as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as at 1 January 2009. Any mast and associated antennas shall not exceed a diameter of 1m for those parts of the equipment exceeding 8m in height above ground level.

3. The total number of masts on site for use by the Requiring Authority shall not exceed 1.

4. Antennas mounted on the roof of buildings shall not extend more than 3m above the maximum height of the roof provided they comply with Condition (1) One and shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road boundary as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as at 1 January 2009 where antennas are mounted above the roofline (will not apply to antennas mounted against the building fascia and not extending above the roofline).

5. The total number of antennas on buildings for use by the Requiring Authority shall not exceed 8.


6. All antennas and support structures shall be painted or supplied in a recessive colour or supplied in a material that will weather to a dull finish (e.g. galvanised steel brackets and antenna components).

Buildings

7. Any building, excluding masts, exhaust flues, antennas and air conditioning equipment shall be contained within the following building envelope:

a) Height – 8m

b) Front yard – 2.5m

c) Height in relation to boundary – shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries and the road boundary as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as at 1 January 2009.

d) Building Coverage – shall comply with the relevant building coverage controls as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section for the Residential 6a zone.

Except this shall not restrict the maintenance, upgrading and replacement of any existing building where it already infringes this condition provided there is no additional exceedence of the standards within this condition.

For the avoidance of doubt, building height may be measured by either a rolling height method, or average height of the periphery of the building, whichever is the greater.

8. That an Outline Plan of works shall not be required for any internal building works (excluding equipment generating external noise), ‘like for like’ replacement of equipment, the replacement of any antennas with antennas of similar size provided that there is no increase in the overall height of the facility, or boundary fencing otherwise permitted by the District Plan.

9. Any new fencing shall comply with the relevant development controls for the Residential 6a zone as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section.

Noise

10. Any new noise generating equipment (excluding any electricity alternator required for emergency back up power generation) shall not exceed the following noise limits

At the boundary of the adjacent residentially zoned property:

7am – 10pm on any day:

Leq 50 dB(A)

10pm – 7am on any day:

Leq 40 dB(A)

11. Any new noise generating equipment (excluding any electricity alternator required for emergency backup power generation) shall cumulatively in combination with any other noise generating equipment on the site not result in any increase in existing noise levels received at any other property boundary where the noise levels in Condition 10 are


exceeded. A noise assessment shall be submitted as part of any outline plan to confirm the existing noise levels and predicted new noise levels to confirm compliance with this condition.

12. For any changes or additions to the electricity alternators on the site, where the noise from all electricity alternators exceeds the noise limits in Condition 10, an outline plan shall be required which demonstrates how the equipment and any mitigation is the best practicable option (BPO) to ensure that noise levels do not exceed a reasonable level.

13. The testing and routine maintenance of Electricity Alternators on site shall be restricted to the hours between 7am-10pm Monday to Sunday, with no testing or routine maintenance permitted outside these hours.

14. The hours of operation for routine external maintenance and upgrade (excluding emergency and urgent maintenance and upgrade or internal works within the exchange building) shall be between the hours of 7am-10pm Monday to Sunday.

Radiofrequency Fields

15. Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in the current New Zealand Standard as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications FacilitiesNZS2772.1:1999 at any place where the public has reasonable access.

Transport

16. Should any significant change in site layout or any additional building works be proposed a traffic impact assessment which addresses access, carparking and trip generation shall be submitted as part of the outline plan of works process to ensure any potential adverse effects are appropriately mitigated.

Building Line Restriction 17. No new buildings or structures shall be located within the Building Line

Restriction contained in designation G13/16 notated on the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section.

Contaminated Site

18. Should an outline plan of works involve earthworks and/or excavation, the requiring authority (Telecom) shall undertake an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to be submitted with the outline plan of works. The ESA shall be comprised of a desktop study, a walkover of the proposed development area to identify potential contamination and soil sampling within the proposed development area. The results of the ESA shall demonstrate the level of contamination within the area of works and propose mitigation in the event that the contamination is above the regulatory guideline values for the protection of human health in the relevant zone.

If evidence of contamination which has not been previously identified is discovered during works, the Requiring Authority shall immediately cease works and notify the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring, and provide a detailed site contamination report and action plan to the satisfaction of the Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring.

The Requiring Authority shall ensure the excavated materials that require offsite disposal are disposed of in an appropriate landfill and


provide evidence of the disposal to the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring.

Flood Risk

19. The site is subject to potential flood hazards. Any future developments shall be required to provide an assessment of the criteria in Part 5D.6 of the Auckland City Council District Plan as part of the outline plan of works.

Advice Notes:

Hazardous Substances

1. Any new development, maintenance, upgrading or replacement works shall comply with the necessary requirements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

Archaeology

2. It is possible that archaeological sites may be affected by earthworks at the site. Evidence of archaeological sites may include burnt and fire cracked stones, charcoal, rubbish heaps including shell, bone and/or glass and crockery, ditches, banks, pits, old building foundations, artefacts of Maori and European origin or human burials. Archaeological evidence, whether recorded or not, is protected by the Historic Places Act 1993 and an authority is required from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) to modify, damage or destroy an archaeological site. The applicant is advised to contact the NZHPT if the presence of an archaeological site is known or suspected. Work affecting archaeological sites is subject to a consent process under the Historic Places Act 1993. The Historic Places Act 1993 contains penalties for unauthorised site damage.

Building Line Restriction

3. Any new building or permanent structure located within the Building Line Restriction referenced F06-04 will be required to follow the relevant process under the RMA, including obtaining approval from the Council as Requiring Authority for the Building Line Restriction.

Name Title Signature

Kelly Seekup Consultant Planner

Name Title Signature

Finau Rokocoko Planner – Operative Plans (Central)

Name Title Signature Celia Davison Team Leader – Operative

Plans (Central)

U:\1020\129676_15\500 Del\510 Reports\NoR Three KingsV3.doc

APPENDIX 1 Copy of the Notice of Requirement and Noise Report

APPENDIX 2 Aerial Photo and photos of the site

�

��

�

��

�

��

�

�� !�� " ��#$�#$%&'&#�()*&#%*+�

��

�� !�� (,%��(,-��

��

�� (,%��

��

�� ('(��(,%.��

APPENDIX 3 Previous District Scheme designation information

APPENDIX 4 Submission

APPENDIX 5 Copies of Correspondence to/from Requiring Authority

C E L E B R A T I N G E X C E L L E N C E S I N C E 1 8 8 5

Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited

Level 1 71 Great South Road Newmarket

Auckland 1051 New Zealand

P O Box 5760 Wellesley Street

Auckland 1141 New Zealand

P 09 917 5000 F 09 917 5001

E [email protected]

W www.harrisongrierson.com

ISO9001 Quality Assured

20 August 2010 Telecom New Zealand Ltd C/- Incite P O Box 3082 Auckland Attention Chris Horne Dear Chris Resource Management Act 1991 Notice of Requirement for the Designation of the Three Kings Exchange HG Ref: 1020-129676-015 Council Ref: Plan Change 290 Request for Further Information Pursuant to Section 92 As you are aware, Harrison Grierson has been allocated the above notice of requirement (‘NOR’) to assess and process on behalf of Auckland City Council. We have visited the above site, undertaken a preliminary assessment of the above application and have received comments from Council’s specialists. Council acknowledges and, in general, supports the conditions included within the NOR that are intended to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects. However, the quality of the information provided within the notice of requirement and the drafting of the conditions does not enable Council to determine the scale and nature of effects that will result and whether the conditions are sufficient to achieve section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). Accurate information is required in order to present a complete package for public notification and to guide the preparation of the Council’s recommendation under s171 of the Act. Pursuant to Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the following additional information is requested in order to assist with the processing of the application. Council would welcome a meeting with Telecom to discuss how these matters could be addressed.

1.0 Mast Envelope

Council acknowledges and supports the restrictions Telecom have placed on the location of masts at the exchange site through the use of height in relation to boundary controls (HIRB), and the use of an envelope approach to control the size of antennas to be attached to masts. However, the proposed conditions do not provide sufficient control and certainty over what potentially could be constructed on the site. Further information that is required in relation to masts is outlined as follows:

Telecom New Zealand Ltd 20 August 2010 Notice of Requirement Application – Three Kings Exchange HG Ref 1020-129676-15

HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED Page 2

1.1 Mast Numbers There is no restriction in the NOR on the maximum number of masts that may be constructed at the exchange site. Given the significant potential adverse visual effects that multiple masts may generate on the surrounding area, can you please confirm whether Telecom is proposing to limit the number of masts that may be installed? Should no limit be proposed, or should the limit exceed a single mast, what parameters and methodology are Telecom proposing in the NOR to ensure that the potential adverse visual effects of multiple masts can be satisfactorily assessed?

1.2 Mast Location Whilst the NOR states that new masts shall comply with the HIRB controls from adjacent residential boundaries it is noted that there are no controls in place to manage the effects of any new mast on the streetscape (either through a front yard setback or HIRB control from the road). Given this, how is Telecom going to ensure that any new masts will avoid generating more than minor adverse visual effects on streetscape values?

1.3 Mast Height Please provide details of the specific factors of the exchange site and surrounding area that ensures the proposed 15m height for a new mast is appropriate in scale and that the effects of this height will be no more than minor. Little justification has been provided for the proposed 15m height and no detailed assessment of the potential adverse effects created by this height has been provided in the context of the surrounding environment.

1.4 Antennas on New Masts Whilst the proposed envelope will restrict the diameter of antennas to be attached to a new mast (Condition 2), there is no control over the number of antennas proposed to be installed (e.g. whether antennas will be stacked). It is considered that a large number of antennas, despite complying with the proposed diameter control, may generate adverse visual effects on the surrounding environment. As such, how will the visual effects of multiple antennas be addressed? (i.e. will there be a limit to the number of antennas proposed to be attached to a mast)?

2.0 Building Envelope The parameters for buildings put in place by Condition 5 are supported by Council. However, in order to fully consider and assess the potential effects of new buildings, Council requires the following information:

2.1 Bulk and Location The maximum height and HIRB controls for buildings on the exchange site will assist in managing the potential adverse effects on surrounding properties to an extent. However, it is considered that having no control over building coverage, impervious surface area and landscape permeable surface area has the potential to generate adverse effects on surrounding sites. In particular, having no such controls in the NOR could result in an over-developed appearance on the exchange site that will be out of character to the area.



Please provide a methodology and/or propose controls to appropriately manage the potential adverse effects from over-development on the surrounding area. This should include background information on the approximate building, impervious and permeable surface coverage that currently exists on the site (in both m2 and as a percentage).

2.2 Antennas on Buildings It is accepted that a height of 3m above the maximum height of the roof of the existing building is required to provide sufficient vertical clearance from surrounding structures, ensuring the effective operation of antennas. Accordingly, council is supportive of Condition 3. Nonetheless, the following points remain of concern: • The current conditions do not restrict the maximum number of antennas that will

be placed on the roof of the exchange building. No restriction may lead to more than minor adverse visual effects should too many antennas be installed. Please provide information of how Telecom will address the visual effects of multiple antennas.

• The conditions do not require antennas attached to buildings to comply with

relevant HIRB controls of the District Plan. This has the potential to create adverse visual, dominance and shading effects on adjoining properties. Please provide information as to how Telecom will address potential visual dominance and shading effects. Telecom may wish to provide a specific assessment of this potential infringement to demonstrate any potential adverse effects will be no more than minor. Alternatively, Telecom could provide a methodology to control these potential effects within the NOR.

• There is no restriction in the NOR on the diameter/width of antennas that may be

placed on the roof of the exchange building. While panel antennas are slim in nature, the NOR does not provide any control over the size of dish antennas. In this regard, Council are seeking guidance from Telecom as to whether or not the operation of the exchange will require the use of dish antennas. If dish antennas are to be used, what will the maximum diameter of these be and how many may be installed on the roof of the exchange building?

2.3 Temporary Structures

The NOR provides no information on the control and location of temporary structures at the site. Temporary structures have the potential to generate visual clutter, which can lead to adverse visual effects on surrounding sites, particularly if placed close to boundaries and/or having no control over timeframe. Please consider placing limitations on location, size, and timeframes for temporary structures to assist in assessing any potential adverse effects.

3.0 Parking, Access and Vehicle Movements It is noted that there are comments within the NOR explaining how Telecom will consider the parking and access arrangements of the site at Outline Plan stage should a significant change in the site layout be proposed. Council requires further information to ensure the potential effects of parking, access and vehicle movements are adequately addressed at future Outline Plan stages. In particular, for the purposes of the NOR: • What does Telecom consider as a ‘significant change’ in site layout? • What specific considerations will be made regarding parking and access? • How do Telecom propose to address the effects of a potential increase in vehicle

movements on the site should a ‘significant change’ in site layout occur?



4.0 Noise

4.1 Technician Hours

While it would be inappropriate to restrict the hours for technicians to work at the exchange site for emergency works, Council notes that there have been noise complaints for some exchange sites from surrounding properties regarding technician visits. Council therefore requests that Telecom provide parameters around typical hours for technicians to undertaken routine maintenance work (i.e. not emergencies).

4.2 Electricity Alternators Condition 8 of the NOR deals with the potential effects of installing additional Electricity Alternator (EA) on the site, while conditions 6 and 7 include provisions for dealing with noise effects that exclude the consideration of existing EAs. This means that the proposed noise conditions in the NOR provides no control over the noise emissions of existing EAs on the site. It is therefore requested that Telecom provide a methodology to manage the noise emissions of existing EAs to ensure that the best practicable option (BPO) has been adopted and that the existing EAs generate no more than a reasonable level of noise in the context of any scheduled maintenance and emergency operations.

5.0 Boundary Fences It is appreciated that there is a need to provide security to the exchange site through the use of fencing, however large security fences have the potential to create adverse visual effects on the surrounding environment, particularly as the site adjoins residential zoned land. Council are therefore seeking further details from Telecom on what parameters around boundary fencing would be appropriate (such as height and materials). The above information is required to enable an adequate analysis of your proposal, its effect on the environment, and the way in which any adverse effects on the environment may be mitigated, in turn, enabling an accurate assessment of the notice of requirement for the purposes of s171 of the Act. You have 15 working days in which to respond to this letter in writing. If you are unable to provide this information within 15 working days, please reply in writing so that an alternative timeframe can be mutually agreed. If you refuse to provide the information requested, confirm this in writing. Further information may be required during the course of processing your application. Should you have any queries please contact the undersigned on 917 5000.

Telecom New Zealand Ltd 20 August 2010 Notice of Requirement Application – Three Kings Exchange HG Ref 1020-129676-15 Yours faithfully Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited


Poul Israelson Principal Planner

1

Daina Punter

From: Kelly SeekupSent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:16 a.m.To: Daina PunterSubject: FW: all Telecom NORs - Correspondence from Applicant - Appendix 5

From: Chris Horne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:03 p.m. To: Poul Israelson Subject: FW: Telecom NORs Here you go, hopefully this will suffice for your purposes. Regards _____________ Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465 Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467 [email protected] www.incite.co.nz This e‐mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved by Incite.

From: Steven Kerr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 10:02 a.m. To: Chris Horne Subject: RE: Telecom NORs Hi Chris Chorus legal has advised that the notation is very common on Crown, SOE or ex-SOE owned land. Essentially it means if the land is no longer required for telecommunications purposes the Crown has the right to acquire the land to settle [proven/valid] claims. While it provides the right - it is quite unlikely the Crown would - seek to acquire the land to settle a claim if the site is still being used for telecommunications purposes. It would require a rare set of circumstances given the risks and costs to relocate the equipment in the exchange (ie potential disruption to telecommunications). I trust this is useful. Any queries give me a bell. Cheers

Steven Kerr Environmental Compliance and Planning Manager T +64 4 382 5692 (extn 46692) M +64 27 600 9699 F +64 4 472 6982 E [email protected]

2

Level 3, TeRenCo House, 86-96 Victoria Street P O Box 632, Wellington 6011 www.chorus.co.nz

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

From: Chris Horne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 8:50 a.m. To: Steven Kerr Subject: FW: Telecom NORs Hi Steve Can you find out internally what the notation on the tiles relates to please, so I can get back to Poul. Regards _____________ Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465 Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467 [email protected] www.incite.co.nz This e‐mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved by Incite.

1

Daina Punter

From: Kelly SeekupSent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:14 a.m.To: Daina PunterSubject: Telecom NORs - Correspondence relating to diesel storage - for all sites Appendix 5

From: Steven Kerr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 8:09 a.m. To: Poul Israelson Cc: Chris Horne Subject: RE: Telecom NORs

Hi Poul

The average age of diesel tanks in Telecom’s portfolio is 18 years. Our diesel tank replacement strategy is to remove all underground tanks installed by New Zealand Post Office and replace all single skin constructed tanks with double skinned tanks. We are planning the upgrade of the 14 tanks in the Auckland region over the 2010/11 financial year from approved capital funding.

The underground tanks are typically single skin construction in a concrete bund with a sand medium in between. All underground tanks are pressure tested as part of our maintenance routine for Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act stationary container certification. Telecom has been upgrading all its single skin underground and indoor day tanks to modern Supervault double skin above ground tanks and DMS Manufactured double skin day tanks up to 1200 litres since the late 1990’s. These tanks meet all manufacturing standards, are HSNO compliant and are either installed indoors or in a caged area.

Any queries give me a yell.

Cheers

<image001.gif>

Steven Kerr Environmental Compliance and Planning Manager

T +64 4 382 5692 (extn 46692)M +64 27 600 9699 F +64 4 472 6982 E [email protected]

Level 3, TeRenCo House, 86-96 Victoria Street P O Box 632, Wellington 6011 www.chorus.co.nz

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

1

Kelly Seekup

From: Chris Horne [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, 20 December 2010 11:57 a.m.To: Kelly SeekupCc: 'Steven Kerr'Subject: RE: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

Hi Kelly

The intention was only to designate Lot 1 (the front lot) and lot 2 is to be disposed of to the market as surplus. On

reading back over the NOR I agree that that is not clear.

Please accept this e-mail as confirmation that Telecom is only seeking to designate Lot 1 (the front lot) which you can

record in your report.

Regards

_____________

Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465

Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467

[email protected]

www.incite.co.nz

This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved

by Incite.

From: Kelly Seekup [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, 20 December 2010 11:27 a.m.

To: '[email protected]' Subject: FW: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

Hi Chris

I am the Planner dealing with the Three Kings, Mt Roskill, Onehunga and Panmure sites.

One query on the Three Kings site. We note your comments below to the submitter, however as Lot 2 is

still owned by Telecom and the NoR (page 1) includes both Lots 1 and 2 we would need formal

confirmation from you regarding what is to be included in the designation.

If you have any queries please feel free to contact me

Regards

Kelly

2

Kelly Seekup Senior Planner Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited Level 1 Dilworth House 71 Great South Road Newmarket Auckland 1051 P O Box 5760 Wellesley Street Auckland 1141 New Zealand P +64 9 917 5000 F +64 9 917 5001 E [email protected] W www.harrisongrierson.com

C E L E B R A T I N G E X C E L L E N C E S I N C E 1 8 8 5

From: Poul Israelson

Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 2010 8:29 a.m.

To: Kelly Seekup Subject: FW: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

Hi Kelly

Background information that will be important for the Three Kings NoR

Regards

Poul

From: Chris Horne [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, 7 December 2010 4:12 p.m.

To: Poul Israelson Cc: 'Steven Kerr'

Subject: FW: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

FYI Poul

We have exchanged some e-mails with the 3 Kings submitter re the depot at the rear as they were under the

misconception this formed part of the designation due to the way the Council has shown the planning modification on

the maps.

Regards

_____________



Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467

[email protected]

www.incite.co.nz


by Incite.

3

From: Chris Horne [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, 30 November 2010 4:04 p.m. To: 'Craig Turner'

Subject: RE: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

Hi Nicole

I assume that was a marked up planning map that came with the noise report, or else something in the Council’s

notification package, but it is certainly only the intention to designate the front lot. The rear lot was subdivided off a

few years back on the basis it was surplus and Telecom intends to dispose of it to the open market (latest indications

are to put in on the market in the next 6 months), so in the future it is likely to be purchased and developed for

residential purposes.

Regards

_____________



Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467

[email protected]

www.incite.co.nz


by Incite.

From: Craig Turner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 30 November 2010 3:40 p.m.

To: Chris Horne; [email protected]

Subject: Re: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

Hi Chris I had referred to planning map G08 of the NOR which shows the entire site as being subject to the proposed designation.

Can you clarify this please?

Thanks

Nicole

From: Chris Horne <[email protected]> To: Craig Turner <[email protected]>; [email protected]

Sent: Tue, 30 November, 2010 9:34:15 AM

Subject: RE: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange

4

Received thanks. If it assists, the depot at the rear where equipment etc is stored does not form part of the designation proposal. Regards _____________ Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465 Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467 [email protected] www...incite.co.nz This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved by Incite.

From: Craig Turner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 26 November 2010 1:30 p.m. To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Submission on PPM 290 Telecom Three Kings Exchange Hi Susanne and Chris Please find attached our submission in opposition to the above Notice of Requirement. Would you please confirm receipt and acceptance - this afternoon I will be on mobile only. I will put a copy in today's mail to you both. Kind regards Nicole Bremner 0272046210

APPENDIX 6

Specialist Comments

assessment of environmental effects hearing...

Documents