1. business and industrial
2. construction

Report on an application for
resource consent
under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991
TO:
Resource Consent Hearings Commissioners
FROM:
Deanne Rogers – Senior Planner, Campbell Brown Planning Limited
DATE:
26 November 2014
NOTE: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner. This report has yet to
be considered by the Panel of Commissioners delegated by the Council to determine
this application. The recommendation is not the decision on this application. A
decision will only be made after the Commissioners have considered the application
and heard the applicant and any submitters.
1.0
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
1.1
Application and Property Details
Application number(s):
R/JSL/2013/2461(subdivision/landuse)
41924 (Stormwater Discharge)
41925 (Earthworks)
41926 (Streamworks)
41927 (Damming of Surface Water)
Reporting officer:
Deanne Rogers, Consultant Planner
Site address:
Applicant’s name:
949 Old Wairoa Road and 965-973 PapakuraClevedon Road, Ardmore
Cabra Investments Ltd
Lodgement date:
12 July 2013
Notification date:
20 November 2013
Submissions closed date:
18 December 2013
Number of submissions received:
9 submissions
9 are opposed
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 1
1.2
Locality Plan
949 Old Wairoa Road and 965-973 Papakura Clevedon Road
Land Ownership within the Kirikiri Structure Plan Area
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 2
1.3
Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)
The application documents and plans are set out in Attachment 1 to this report.
1.4
Adequacy of Information
It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant largely enables the
consideration of the following matters on an informed basis in relation to proposed
Stages 1-4:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The nature and scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the District Plan.
The extent and scale of adverse effects on the environment.
Persons who may be adversely affected.
The requirements of the relevant legislation.
However, in my view significant information gaps still exist with respect to mana
whenua cultural values in relation to natural resources at the site and local iwi
historical associations with Rings Redoubt and its surrounds. I understand that the
applicant has been consulting with local mana whenua who have an interest in the site
(particularly those who made submissions) and that further information/responses may
be available prior to or at the hearing.
With respect to Stage 6 which contains the historic Rings Redoubt, in my view there is
insufficient information to assess the effects of land use activities for which consent is
sought. This includes proposed earthworks within the vicinity of the archaeological
sensitive area, including an area surrounding the original Redoubt footprint and which
may extend to a more extensive 100 metre zone of interest as described in the
applicant’s 2013 AEE and the archaeological assessment on which it relies.
I also believe that insufficient information has been provided to properly describe in
plan form, the designed landform interface with the Montgomery property to the north
east. Significant earthworks and stream profile changes are proposed within and
along the northern gully which appear to indicate a difference in existing and proposed
levels of up to 8 metres and potentially large differences in levels at the rear of lots
backing onto this stream. While I accept from discussions with the applicant’s
engineer that there would be a design solution to marry existing and proposed levels,
this is not reflected in the October 2014 revised plans.
With respect to future urban form, I am also concerned that there is insufficient
landscape analysis of the southern Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline (including the
area near the Redoubt) to determine potential adverse effects on noted landscape
values at this site. To consider these effects, in particular the subdivision proposal for
Stage 5 I have relied on the expert opinion of Ms Nicola Williams, an urban design
specialist. Ms Williams has raised concerns about this part of the proposal to extent
that she does not support the number of lots and the layout within Stage 5 and, at this
stage, I agree with her. The 2013 AEE as notified has done little to assist me in
forming a view as it relies on the opinion of the applicant’s planner and an urban
design report prepared by David Gibbs, an architect with Construkt Architects. This
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 3
report does not comment on landscape features values at the site but rather focuses
on how the proposal responds to the design criteria set out in the District Plan. With
respect to Design Element 2, Item 5 relating to lot size and variety, the report is silent
and defers to the AEE. Further heritage landscape information was provided from
Clough & Associates, however this was focussed on the Redoubt site and likely
historical views that would have been possible. I note that this information has been
useful when considering the landscape setting of the Redoubt and the appropriateness
of future subdivision and development within its vicinity.
There is also insufficient information in my view to consider the proposal for Stage 6
which includes two subdivision options, earthworks, tree removal and further
archaeological investigation for which resource consent under the PAUP is sought.
The Council has not been provided an actual proposal or methodology for the further
investigation work which would require careful consideration and assurances of
mitigation measures to the Council that the archaeological remains associated with the
Redoubt would be protected. In addition, bulk earthworks are proposed within Stage 6
to establish the eastern part of Road 305 and building platforms indicated on the
scheme plans for Options 1 and 2. These works would be within a 100 metre buffer
area noted by Clough & Associates that may also be of archaeological interest. The
additional Section 92 information supplied by the applicant does not describe changes
to the earthworks methodology or particular staging for the Stage 6 area, nor does it
describe or assess the proposed archaeological investigation works to be undertaken.
Presumably, like subdivision, resource consent for Stage 6 earthworks would be
subject to the outcome of the archaeological investigation although this is not clear
from the application documents. Notwithstanding this, the Council is required to
assess the effects of any proposal and in my opinion there is insufficient information to
do so.
1.5
Report and Assessment Methodology
The application has been prepared incorporating a number of expert assessments. In
recognition of the standard of this application, this report will not unnecessarily repeat
descriptions or assessments made in the application. If the descriptions or
assessments provided on various aspects of the proposal are agreed, the report will
simply confirm agreement with these aspects. If there are differences in opinion or
matters that need more assessment, consideration or discussion in the report or
indeed there are matters that are considered inaccurate, incorrect or that have been
missed or there is disagreement with opinion or approaches, the report will detail
conflicting assessments and opinions (of those of Council experts) where relevant.
Where appropriate extracts from the application material or from the Council expert
reports will be included to enable this report and assessment to flow and be clearly
understood.
The assessment also relies upon reviews and advice from the following experts on
behalf of the Council and specialist Auckland Council officers. These assessments are
provided at Attachment 2 of this report:

Mr Raj Kumar, Development Engineer, Auckland Council
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 4









2.0
Ms Stephanie Benucci, NRSI, Consents and Compliance Advisor, Auckland
Council
Ms Sophie Bell, Auckland Council Parks;
Ms Myfanwy Eaves, Senior Specialist: Archaeology, Cultural Heritage –
Auckland Council
Mr Ken Phillips, Consultant Archaeologist, Archaeology Bay of Plenty
Mr Malcolm Todd, Environmental Engineer, Babbington & Associates
Ms Nicola Williams, Principal Specialist Urban Designer, Auckland Council
Ms Minnie Liang, Principal Consent Specialist, Auckland Transport
Ms Vanessa Wood, Ecologist, Auckland Council
Mr Andrew Gordon, Environmental Health Officer, Auckland Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, Cabra Investments Limited, proposes a subdivision that would create
153 residential lots across six adjoining lots comprising 15.97 hectares at 949 Old
Wairoa Road and 935, 965 and 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road, Ardmore. These sites
are legally described in Section 3 of the applicant’s 2013 AEE.
The proposal would be undertaken in six stages. The proposed sites would all be
vacant lots except Lot 98 which would contain an historic house noted for its former
association with the Nathan Family. The application proposes an initial boundary
adjustment with the adjacent property to the north at 899 Old Wairoa Road (known at
the ‘Montgomery Block’) which would incorporate part of that site within the
development area. Overall subdivision and development of the site would be
managed over six stages.
The application site is within the Kirikiri Structure Plan area which is a sub-area
forming part of the Takanini Structure Plan. The site is zoned for urban residential
purposes and is within the operative Metropolitan Urban Limit (‘MUL’) and the
proposed Rural Urban Boundary (‘RUB’) which forms the site’s south-eastern
boundary at Papakura-Clevedon Road. The application site covers two operative
residential zones (Residential 8A and 8B). The number of lots proposed complies with
the lot size range and minimum lot size required for each zone. Lots within the
Residential 8B zone are also subject to design assessment criteria that provide
guidance on a range sizes appropriate to the landscape environment.
To enable the proposed subdivision, bulk earthworks, a new road network connecting
to Old Wairoa Road and Papakura-Clevedon Road and a permanent stormwater
detention pond in the lower part of the site are proposed. This also requires infilling of
an intermittent stream gully in the southern part of the site, modifications to a northern
permanent watercourse including changes to the stream profile, vegetation removal
and works within the vicinity of an identified heritage site (Rings Redoubt, R11_956).
The application was originally lodged on 12 July 2013. Further information was
requested on the 6 August 2013 with revisions to the proposal with a resubmitted AEE
and plans that the Council received on 13 November 2013. The application has
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 5
remained on hold until October 2014 at which time it was agreed to proceed to a
hearing. The applicant specifically requested that the application be publically notified,
and nine submissions were received. Further information was requested from the
applicant pre and post notification. The final information requested by the Council was
received on 14 October, 2014. This includes a modification to the notified application
with respect to the number of stages, the development works proposed within the
Stage 6 boundary, reserve classification and the destination of stormwater discharged
from the proposed stormwater pond which is to be permanently vested in Auckland
Council. Due to the related nature of the proposed activities, the activity status has
been bundled and requires consideration as a non-complying activity.
The key issues associated with the development include:







Accurately defining the geographical extent of the historic Rings Redoubt and
providing for its future protection and management;
The significance of adverse landscape effects relating to the southern ridgeline
and surrounding the high point surrounding the future Rings Redoubt reserve;
Managing the interface with adjacent rural-residential properties and the
adjoining Montgomery Block;
The acquisition of future reserve areas;
Traffic safety;
Ecological effects associated with proposed streamworks.
Effects on mana whenua cultural values.
In principle, I support the urbanisation of the subject site in line with current zoning
which would deliver much needed housing stock to the Auckland market at an
attractive site that is well connected to surrounding areas. In terms of the current
proposal, I am generally comfortable with the design, layout and effects associated
with Stages 1-4, subject to further information to better understand the interface with
the neighbouring Montgomery Block and the mana whenua values attributable to the
site.
However, due to what I believe are deficiencies in the information that create
uncertainty about the nature and scale of certain potential adverse effects I have been
unable to properly assess the effects of aspects of the proposal relating to Stage 6
particularly the lack of an intrusive investigation of the Rings Redoubt for which there is
no specific proposal and/or assessment and the proposed subdivision, earthworks and
retaining associated with the two Stage 6 scheme plan options that have been
submitted by the applicant. In my view, the subdivision of Stage 5 and 6 as currently
proposed would generate more than minor adverse on the environment that cannot be
avoided, remedied or mitigated as currently proposed. In particular, the adverse
effects on the significant heritage values associated with Rings Redoubt (Stage 6) and
landscape values within Stage 5. I am also of the view that aspects of the proposal if
implemented prematurely would be contrary to Part 2 of the RMA, particularly sections
6(e) and 6(f), and the heritage and landscape objectives and policies of the Regional
Policy Statement and Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section).
Furthermore, the bundled nature of the consent requirements has also raised issues in
terms of jurisdiction to consider the whole application under Section 104(D).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 6
Overall, I have recommended that consent be refused, however notwithstanding the
above, should the deficiencies in the information identified above be addressed at the
hearing, along with further expert evidence to satisfactorily address issues that are in
contention I would not be adverse to amending my recommendation subject to draft
conditions of consent attached at Attachment 5. This would include the retention of
Stages 5 & 6 as balance lots to enable a further redesign incorporating a better design
response to the existing landscape and the delay of subdivision and earthworks within
Stage 6 until such time as results of the intrusive archaeological investigation is known
and the Rings Redoubt boundary confirmed.
3.0
THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION
3.1
Introduction
As the applicant lodged the application requesting public notification, the Council did
not prepare a full assessment of environmental effects prior to notification. It is noted
that since public notification, the proposal has been revised resulting in changes to lot
numbering, subdivision staging plans, earthworks volumes and stormwater and
wastewater drainage. In my view, this has remained within the scope of the
application and has not increased the size of scale of the application. The revised
drawing set should be referred to dated October 2014 (plan dates and revisions are as
noted in the list of application documents attached at Attachment 1). It is also noted
that the November 2013 AEE document and accompanying specialist reports was not
fully updated and may include references to lot numbers from the notified subdivision
plans and stage boundaries.
3.2
Proposal
The applicant seeks subdivision, land use and discharge resource consents for the
creation of 153 residential lots over six stages (Stages 1-6) including roads and
reserve areas, infrastructure services, bulk earthworks including works within the
vicinity of a scheduled archaeological site; stormwater diversion and discharge
including the construction of an online stormwater pond, modifications to permanent
and intermittent streams, removal of generally protected vegetation and remediation of
contaminated land. The proposal is comprehensively described in Section 4 of the
applicant’s AEE (November 2013) and refined in subsequent responses to Section 92
information requests. Copies of the application documents and plans are attached at
Attachment 1. For completeness and clarity, the revised proposal as at 14 October
2014 is summarised below.
Subdivision
The proposal would create 153 residential lots comprised in six stages. All lots would
be vacant lots with the exception of Lot 98 which would contain an old farmhouse that
has an historical association with the former Nathan Family. Stage 1 would include an
initial boundary adjustment with the neighbouring site to the north-east (the
Montgomery Block) as shown on the Woods application plan 60355-00-GE-009.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 7
Implementation of the subdivision consent for the adjoining Montgomery Block also
relies on this boundary adjustment which is a pre-requisite to proceeding with Stages 2
and 3 on that site (refer Condition 27(d) of R/JSL/2013/4216).
The proposed number of lots and staging is set out in a table on the overall plan of
subdivision (Dwg GE-010 Rev 3):
Stages 1-4 comprise the bulk of the residential lots and would be progressively
subdivided and developed commencing with Stage 1. Stage 1 would include two
drainage reserve lots 600 (9,006m2) and 700 (1,285m2) to encompass the proposed
stormwater pond and the modified permanent watercourse that would remain open in
this part of the site. The main connecting road (Road 2) to Papakura-Clevedon Road
and Old Wairoa Road and the lower western end of the site’s connection to the
adjoining Capella-Twin Parks development (Road 3) would also form part of this stage.
Stage 4 would comprise a larger drainage reserve (Lot 701) containing the upper
reaches of the main stream gully. Residential lots within this stage would be located
on the northern side of proposed Road 1 some of which would be adjacent to the
Montgomery Block to the east.
Stages 5 and 6 have been introduced as part of the October 2014 revisions to enable
a pragmatic response to the management and development of land comprising and
adjacent to the historic Rings Redoubt. Stage 5 comprises ten residential lots that
would be served by private Road 11 (Lot 304). Ten lots are included in Stage 5. Lots
to the south at the Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline would have vehicle access from
a proposed JOAL (Lot 304, Road 11). The majority of lots within this stage would be
around 600m2 with the exception of Lot 133 which is 928m2.
The Stage 6 subdivision plan is an indicative scheme that includes two options that
could be implemented depending on the outcome of further archaeological
investigation during the development of interim stages. The applicant has not stated
its preferred option, nor whether it is seeking if one or other or both schemes are
approved subject to conditions. Both schemes show a defined reserve boundary
which would encompass the Redoubt area within an historic reserve (Lot 900) and
establish a recreation reserve buffer along the eastern boundary (Lot 800). The total
reserve area could be up to 7,860m2 depending on which option is implemented.
Option 1 includes 15 residential lots to be accessed via private roads 11 and 12 (Lots
305 and 306) and from Road 1. Option 2 includes 12 residential lots (removes Lots
143-145 shown on Option 1) to the west and east of the reserve lots 800 and 900 that
would have vehicle access via private roads 11 and 12. The configuration and
boundaries of proposed lots within Stage 6 (Option 1 and 2) are indicative only and
potentially subject to change depending on the outcome of the archaeological
investigation.
The boundary of Stage 1 generally follows the boundary of the Residential 8A and 8B
zone. A variety of lot sizes are proposed to reflect the minimum and range of lot sizes
required in the Residential 8A and 8B zones. Within Stage 3, an access lot will
provide vehicle and services access to the neighbouring property at 963 PapakuraClevedon Road. The width of the access lot would be sufficient to enable a future
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 8
complying three lot subdivision of this site. Similarly the boundaries created for Lot 98
would enable compliance with the applicable building bulk and location land use rules
for the Residential 8B zone.
Interim balance lots would be created to encompass future stages which would be
created at the completion of each stage. Subdivision stages would commence with
Stage 1 and include the vesting of Roads and reserves including other site features
including the stormwater pond. The staging order is set out in Table 4.2 of Section
4.1.11 in the 2013 AEE.
Land Modification and Earthworks
The notified application proposes 236,500m3 of cut and 192,500m3 of fill across the
majority of the site to provide the removal of contaminated land, formation of building
platforms, roads, infilling of the southern stream gully, construction of the stormwater
pond and grading of reserve areas (refer Woods Cut and Fill Plan Dwg EW-102). Due
to revisions to the application, the stated volumes have been modified since the
application was notified. These volumes were clarified in an email from Chris Walsh at
Woods to Deanne Rogers dated 10/11/14 (refer Attachment 4). Given that the
proposed cut volumes are now greater than fill volumes it is unclear whether imported
fill will still be required.
Substantial cut and fill works are proposed within the central and eastern parts of the
site, particularly within the upper part of the northern stream gully (up to 8 metres).
These works are required to provide suitable gradients to adjoining residential lots and
across the reserve itself. The existing and final contours plan (EW-102 and EW-103)
and the landform sections plan (EW-110 and EW-113) indicate that at the boundary of
the Montgomery site to the west, there will be a substantial drop (up to 8 metres) RL
48 to the existing stream invert level (RL40) to which no change is currently proposed.
In its January 2014 Section 92 request, the Council queried the design proposal for the
interface between the two properties. An email and verbal explanation at a meeting in
September 2014 indicated that the proposed slopes within the reserve lot 701 would
be battered back up to the east to marry into existing stream invert levels at the
Montgomery site boundary. I note that no further design contour or cross-section
information has been provided to show how this will be achieved.
Earthworks are also proposed within the Old Wairoa Road reserve as part of works
required to upgrade the road along the northern frontage of the site and within the
Stage 6 boundary to the north, west and east of the Lot 800 and 900 reserve
boundaries. Surplus material would remain within the site to achieve a balanced
operation except for 173m3 of contaminated material that would be removed from the
site.
No earthworks are proposed within the area of Rings Redoubt defined as
‘archaeological sensitive area although earthworks would be undertaken around this
area where residential lots are proposed in accordance with Stage 6 subdivision plan,
Option 1 and Option 2 (refer Wood Dwg EW-102 Rev 3).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 9
The application also seeks restricted discretionary resource consent under the PAUP
for an intrusive archaeological investigation which would provide further analysis of an
area previously subject to a geophysical survey (refer October 2014 Section 92
response, p10). No details of the investigation have been provided including a
methodology or proposed mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects.
No
earthworks are proposed within Lot 98 which would encompass the derelict farmhouse
except to construct the retaining wall along the western (road) boundary.
With respect to the Papakura-Clevedon Road reserve, only minimal earthworks are
required to marry the site to the existing berm. This differs from what is shown on the
Woods Dwg EW-102 and the earthworks cross-sections shown in relation to the
frontages of neighbouring properties at 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road and
was clarified in an email from Chris Walsh at Woods to Deanne Rogers dated 24/10/14
which states:
“I have just asked for further clarification on the earthworks shown in the application.
Essentially, the earthworks shown within the road reserve was part of the modelling
exercise to show that the proposal can tie into the future improvements of the
Papakura-Clevedon Road carriageway. In reality, there will be a small amount of
earthworks in the road reserve to achieve tie in between the proposal and the
existing berm. The table drain and edge of seal will not be affected.
As for the earthworks outside of the Vidak and Powell frontage, this simply will not
occur. Sections 6 and 9 are therefore in accurate. Please advise if you would like
these plans amended or if there is another way we can deal with this.” (refer
Attachment 4)
Earthworks would be carried out over the six stages noting that the proposed
investigative and general development earthworks within Stage 6 would be subject to
a Heritage NZ authority to modify the site. The 2013 AEE notes that an authority
would be required for works within a 100 metre radius of the largely known Redoubt
footprint.
Earthworks would be carried out in four stages over three to four consecutive
earthworks seasons. I note that the Stage 4 earthworks area would include the Stage
6 subdivision area that includes the historic Redoubt. The earthworks methodology
and erosion and sediment control measures are set out in sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.4 of
the applicant’s 2013 AEE.
Remediation of Contaminated Land
Areas of contaminated land within 949 Old Wairoa Road and 973 Papakura-Clevedon
Road will be remediated in accordance with the recommendations from Groundwater
& Environmental Services (Appendix 3 to 2013 AEE) as part of the proposed works.
The contaminant present at 949 Old Wairoa Road that exceeds permitted levels
specified in the NES includes an isolated area of arsenic. This material would be
removed along with asbestos sheets stockpiled within 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road.
The total volume of material to be removed from the site is estimated to be 173m3.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 10
Retaining of proposed lots
The majority of proposed lots within the upper central slopes would be retained with
timber retaining walls to achieve level building platforms as shown on Dwg EW-150
Rev 3. These would generally be located along side boundaries with the exception of
Lot 98 which would have a retaining wall up to two metres in height along its frontage
to Road 4. The height of retaining walls along proposed boundaries ranges from 0.5
metres up to 2.5 metres. It is noted that the original notified plans (EW-150 Rev 2)
included a single 3 metre high retaining wall along the north-eastern part of the
neighbouring property at 931 Papakura-Clevedon Road.
Retaining walls up to 2.5 metres are also proposed along the western and eastern
boundaries of 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road. It is noted that the proposed boundary
for lot 97 would sit just inside its eastern boundary creating a sliver of land that would
slope down to the retaining wall from the common boundary. An email explanation
from Wood’s about the off-set location of the retaining wall stated that this was to
minimise the height of the retaining wall to allow for landscaping between the common
site boundary and the retaining wall.
Retaining walls are also proposed adjacent to the road reserve at Lot 98 (Road 4) and
along the rear boundaries of Lots 95 and 96. The 1-2 metre high retaining wall (Type
D) along the Lot 98 frontage would be within the road reserve boundary. The retaining
walls (type not specified) would be adjacent to the rear boundaries. With respect to
these lots it is unclear how the required landscape strip and fencing along the
Papakura-Clevedon Road frontage would be accommodated and differs to what is
shown on the landscape plan (LASF C01), Rev J, 13 Oct 2014).
With respect to the Stage 6 subdivision options, up to one metre high retaining walls
are proposed along the western side boundaries of proposed Lots 139, 140, 141 and
142 and up to two metres along the southern boundaries of Lots 151 and 152.
Typical retaining wall cross-sections and typologies are shown on Dwg EW-154 Rev 3.
Sites would slope up from the road boundary at a maximum gradient of 1:3 to a level
building platform at maximum gradient of 1:40. Planting above and below retaining
walls is proposed.
Roading and Access
The proposed subdivision would establish a local road network throughout the site that
generally aligns with key roads shown on the Kirikiri Structure Plan and designed in
accordance with the PDP ‘Design Element 3’. Proposed Road 2 would connect to
both Old Wairoa Road and Papakura-Clevedon Road. While not shown as an
indicative road on the Kirikiri Structure Plan, a connection to Papakura-Clevedon-Road
is not precluded by the structure plan as indicated by the ‘gap’ in the indicative
landscaped strip denoted by ‘XX’. There would be no direct residential vehicle access
to Papakura-Clevedon Road to which limited access restrictions apply.
The proposed layout also provides for future road connections to the west (Capella
Twins site) and east (Montgomery Block). Road 3 will connect to the future Mill Road
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 11
which is identified as future arterial north-south link through the adjacent site to the
west. Roads 1, 5 and 8 would connect to the Montgomery Block for which subdivision
consent has been granted for Stages 1-3. Road 5 would connect to Montgomery
Block Stage 4 which does not form part of the consented application.
Two private road JOALS (Road 11 and 12) are proposed service lots within Stages 5
and 6. Both of these roads would connect to Road 1. Road 11 would potentially serve
14 lots and Road 12 would serve up to 8 lots. Other smaller JOALS are proposed
within Stages 2 and 3 to provide access to rear lots (Lots 200-202). The applications
states that proposed lots boundaries adjoining both Road 1 and the private Roads 11
and 12 will be subject to requirements for low level fencing and consent notices
restricting vehicle access from Road 1 only. Based on the revised subdivision plan,
this would include proposed lots 104, 129-132, 142 and 151.
With respect to the adjacent road network, the unformed section of Old Wairoa Road
along the north-western frontage of the site would be upgraded to a ‘Residential
Collector Road’ standard (refer Dwg RD-204). While the original application did not
propose upgrading of the unsealed section of Old Wairoa west of the site, email
dialogue between the applicant’s agent and Auckland Transport confirms an
understanding that this would be required as a condition of consent as imposed on the
adjacent Montgomery Block (east) and Cappella Twin Parks (west) subdivision
applications as follows:
“Papakura-Clevedon Road shall be upgraded with kerb and channel, standard berm
and footpath, street lightings and services on the northern side of the road along the
full site frontage. Existing flush median on Papakura-Clevedon Road shall be
extended in order to cater for turning movements in and out of the side roads. Final
detailed design shall be provided as part of Engineering Plan Approval.”
With respect to Papakura-Clevedon Road, the notified 2013 AEE indicated that this
road would be upgraded along its southern frontage including widening of the road
along a strip of land within proposed Lots 500-504. The requirement for widening
appears to have arisen out of an of understanding about Auckland Transport
requirements that are no longer required. Revisions to this aspect of the proposal
were clarified in an email dated 23/10/14 (refer Attachment 4) from the applicant’ agent
Chris Walsh at Woods as follows:
“Cabra intends to undertake the improvements required to create the right turning
bay as per the TPC plans. I note the AEE from November 2013 states upgrade on
both side, however the TPC plan only shows widening on the northern side. In this
case, the TPC plan takes precedence. Beyond that no ‘upgrade works’ are proposed
other than shaping the berm – hence minor earthworks shown in the application.
There is also provision for future formalisation of Papakura-Clevedon Road by
allowing for SW lines and capacity within the system.
Cabra were initially advised that they would have to vest a ‘strip’ to ensure the correct
legal width for an arterial road was provided (Cabra’s share at least) – hence the
‘road to vest strip’. This was the same for the original Montgomery application.
However it appears at some point AT or Council have deemed that is not necessary
and increased the planting buffer zone for the Montgomery development. Cabra is
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 12
yet to receive a directive from Council to remove the strips along Papakura-Clevedon
Road that will be vested as road reserve.” (refer Attachment 4)
Confirmation from Auckland Transport that road widening along the northern side of
Papakura-Clevedon Road would not be required and is set out in the memorandum
from Minnie Liang attached at Attachment 2. However, upgrading of the stormwater
drainage within the Papakura-Clevedon road reserve along the sites southern frontage
is still a requirement to ensure that the existing overland flowpath (south of 931
Papakura-Clevedon Road) and stormwater runoff down the steeper parts of the
Papakura-Clevedon Road are properly managed. Currently there is no proposal to
upgrade Papakura-Clevedon Road other than shaping the berm and future proofing
the site for a future drainage upgrade. It is also noted that the footpath shown on the
LASF plan (C01 Rev J) along the Papakura-Clevedon Road road frontage is not
proposed to be constructed beyond its south-east corner as shown on Woods Dwg RD
202 Rev 3.
The proposal would include the construction of a new priority stop ‘T’ intersection with
a ‘Stop Intersection’ applied to it. The new intersection would incorporate a rightturning bay for east-bound traffic between Road 2 and Papakura-Clevedon Road. The
construction of the intersection would require localised widening on both sides of
Papakura-Clevedon Road as shown on the TPC plan (Appendix 20 to the 2013 AEE).
To maintain sufficient sightlines (a minimum safe distance of 208 metres) to the
intersection the proposal relies on the relocation of the 50km/hour speed zone 150m
eastward and the removal of sightline obstructions including trees and signs. The TPC
report also recommends the removal of existing visibility constraints within the
southern part of the site near the boundary such as vegetation and signage and
limiting the height of the proposed landscape strip to achieve an acceptable sight
distance to the proposed intersection. In the absence of this recommendation, the
achievable sight distance from the east would be 25 metres short of the required
ASTROADS Safe Intersection Sight Distance standard.
A priority ‘T- intersection is also proposed where Road 2 meets Old Wairoa Road.
This would be assigned a give-way control.
1.5 metre wide footpaths would be constructed along both sides of new roads
proposed within the site and along both sides of the section of Old Wairoa Road to be
upgraded. No footpaths would be provided along the Papakura-Clevedon Road
frontage.
Vegetation Removal and Landscaping
The majority of existing vegetation would be removed from the site, with the exception
of four trees (two scheduled) that would be located within the Stage 6 reserve area
and one English oak tree that would straddle the boundary of Lots 81 and 82. I note
that no retaining wall is proposed between these lots in spite of a two metre level
change over Lot 81. Depending on how the building platform is constructed and the
side boundaries stabilised, this may impact on the proposed tree to be retained.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 13
Given the substantial amount of land modification and earthworks required to enable
future urban scale residential development of the site, there is little opportunity to
retain any mature trees or vegetation throughout the site. In terms of the trees to be
removed, this would also include two notable groves of trees (#16 and #38) as shown
on the Arborlab tree survey plan attached as Appendix 6 to the 2013 AEE. Works
within the rootzone of protected trees are also proposed including trees within the
boundaries of 931 and 963 Papakura Clevedon Road. Reasons for removing the trees
are set out in Table 4.3 of Section 4.2 of the 2013 AEE. In respect of trees on
boundaries, I note that no tree methodology has been provided that would manage
works within the rootzone of those trees to ensure their long-term health. This could
however be subject to a condition of consent requiring a management plan from a
suitably qualified arborist.
The applicant proposes to undertake weed control and landscape planting throughout
the site. Proposed planting includes street trees of mixed species, the required
planting strip along the boundary with Papakura-Clevedon Road, retaining wall
planting, riparian planting along the drainage reserves (Lots 700 and 701), reserve
planting for the historic and recreation reserve site within Stage 6 and wetland planting
within and around the proposed stormwater pond. The width of the riparian planting
along the drainage reserve would be 10 metres where possible.
Proposed planting within the historic Redoubt reserve and its recreation reserve buffer
(Lots 800 and 900) would comprise mainly grass along with Pohutukawa and Totara
as well as the existing trees to be retained within the reserve. This is shown on the
LASF plans C04A and C04B for scheme plan options 1 and 2. The plan would also
include a footpath running parallel to the eastern boundary of the reserve that would
connect to a footpath on Papakura-Clevedon Road. However it is noted that there is
no footpath proposed along Papakura-Clevedon Road (except between Road 2 and
western boundary). It is also unclear whether this part of the southern boundary would
be fenced as there is no requirement to extend the landscape strip along the
Papakura-Clevedon Road frontage.
The proposed 3 metre wide landscape strip along the Papakura-Clevedon Road
boundary would be located at the rear of private lots along the southern road frontage
between Lots 22 and 149. Transparent pool style fencing would be located on the
northern side of the planting. The species and heights of plants to be planted are
indicated on the LASF plan C06 (dated 13 October 2014). It is noted that some of the
species selected are slow growing varieties (namely Kauri).
Streamworks
Works within two existing stream gullies are proposed. A detailed description of these
works is described in the 2013 AEE and the memo from Auckland Council specialist
Stephanie Benucci. To summarise, the southern gully contains a 408 metre
intermittent stream that will be reclaimed and contoured to accommodate residential
lots and Road 4. The infilling of this stream gully differs from the Kirikiri Structure Plan
which shows this gully as an indicative recreation reserve incorporating pedestrian and
cycleway linkages. It is noted that due to changes to Council policies on the
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 14
acquisition of reserves and its reluctance to acquire the southern reserve, the original
lodged application was modified to remove it from the proposal.
Works within the northern stream gully are proposed. Within its permanent section
west of the site boundary adjoining Road 6, 57 metres of stream encasement is
proposed to accommodate the two road culverts, raising and altering the 60 metres of
stream profile within Drainage Reserve 700 and damming 61 metres within an online
stormwater pond and reclaiming a further 48 metres. Within the intermittent section of
this stream, west of the Montgomery section, 205 metres will be raised and
reconstructed.
The proposed works will result in the loss or reconstruction of permanent stream
length within the site. Mitigation to compensate for the effects on this stream are
proposed which includes a 265 metre reconstruction of the upper intermittent section
of the northern stream and off-site riparian planting works along 166 metres of the
Ngakaroa stream within the Ngakaroa reserve to the south. The proposed off-site
mitigation planting has been agreed with the Council and is acceptable to local mana
whenua, Ngati Tamaoho.
The streamworks methodology is set out in section 4.4.5 of the 2013 AEE. The
construction of the proposed stormwater pond will occur first, with the upper part of the
northern stream temporarily dammed and diverted to enable the streamworks to be
undertaken. Streamworks would be completed during drier summer months when flow
conditions are low and to enable fish relocation. The temporary dam would remain in
place until all streamworks are completed.
It is noted that a central section of the northern stream is within the adjacent
Montgomery Block. Given that Stage 4 of the Montgomery development is not
currently progressing, the design of the interface with this part of the stream was
queried during the section 92 period and an explanation provided in email from Chris
Walsh stating that the fill area in the upper (intermittent) part of the northern stream
would be battered down to the meet the invert level of the existing stream as it passes
through the Montgomery Block. Similarly the interface with other parts of the
Montgomery site would be adjusted to tie into existing levels. With respect to the
information provided, I note that the explanation provided to myself and Ms Benucci is
not reflected in the earthworks plan and final ground level information within the
updated drawing set dated October 2014. To properly understand this aspect of the
proposal and be assured that the design levels can work, further information would
need to be provided at the hearing.
Stormwater Management
The proposed stormwater management system for the site is described in Section
4.1.7 of the 2013 AEE and the specialist memorandums from Malcolm Todd and
Rajinesh Kumar. Primary stormwater discharge from the residential sites will
discharge to a reticulated system within the proposed roads which will be diverted to a
permanent stormwater pond located in the north-western part of the site (Reserve Lot
600). Secondary overland flowpaths will also be captured within the road network and
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 15
diverted to the pond. I note that provision for overland flow as it enters the site
between 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road and west of 963 Papakura-Clevedon
Road is unclear. The drainage plans (DR-302 and DR-303) show proposed lead lines
between Lots 91 and 92 and between 134 and 135. The applicant’s agent has
indicated in an email that these lines along with the manholes would be constructed to
provide for future connections when the road is upgraded to an urban standard. Three
of the four stormwater catchpits (128-1, 113-1 and 112-1) do not form part of this
application and are indicative only.
Overland flowpath entering the site from Papakura-Clevedon Road (Auckland GIS)
The proposed stormwater pond would provide detention and treatment for stormwater
discharged from the site and has also been sized to accommodate the western part of
the Montgomery Block (Stage 4). The notified proposal includes a temporary outlet to
an existing farm drain on the adjoining site to the west as shown on the Woods Dwg
DR 360 Rev 3. However, the intervening period between lodgement of this application
and October 2014 has seen the development and consenting of a subdivision proposal
for the adjoining Wallace/Cappella Block as well as notification of the Notice of
Requirement for the Takanini Stormwater Conveyance Channel. The development
would remove the existing farm drain and would include a stormwater pond that has
been designed to receive stormwater discharge from the Cabra pond at predevelopment levels. For this reason, the application has been modified to remove the
temporary and future Cabra stormwater management pond outlets that would
discharge to the existing farm drain and discharge it to an inlet at the northern end and
be reticulated along the southern side of Old Wairoa Road. I note that as a
contingency, a condition of consent for the adjacent Twin Parks development requires
that the existing farm drain is retained until the stormwater pond (Stage 1 works) is
completed. It is not clear to me if the Cabra proposal also provides for the southern
farm drain connection contingency should construction of the Capella pond be delayed
as the memorandum from Woods to Auckland Council dated 3/10/14 (refer Appendix 5
of 2014 Section 92 response) states that the temporary and future Cabra stormwater
management pond outlets have been removed.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 16
Wastewater Servicing
Wastewater services would be provided to private lots and reticulated within the
proposed roads. The reticulated system would discharge to a proposed wastewater
pumping station within the adjoining Wallace/Capella development to the west. This
differs from the notified proposal which was to discharge to a temporary pump station
on the site and then to a rising main and discharge point in Elsie Morton Place.
I understand based on a memorandum from Steve Cutfield to Auckland Council
(3/10/14) (refer Appendix 5, 10 October 2014 updated section 92 response) that the
revised proposal has been agreed to, based on recommendations from Veolia which
would construct and operate the pumping station that would service the three
development sites comprising Area 2B).
Other services
Reticulated water supply, gas, telecommunications and electrical services will be
provided to the site.
Demolition Works
The proposal would include that the removal of three existing houses on the site
located at 949 Old Wairoa Road and 935 and 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road. The
existing historic villa on 935 Papakura-Clevedon Road would be retained.
3.3
Site, Locality, Catchment and Environs Description
The subject site is located in the south-eastern part of the Takanini Structure Plan area
and comprises several rural landholdings. These are legally described in Section 3 of
the Woods 2013 AEE.
I have visited the site on three occasions, once
unaccompanied involving a walk over the entire site and subsequently with the
Council’s specialist urban designer which focussed on the Papakura-Clevedon Road
ridgeline and views to the site from the surrounding area. A third visit was undertaken
recently in early September 2014 with the applicant’s planner and archaeologist(s) and
representatives from the Council’s Heritage Unit.
Section 3 of the Woods AEE comprehensively describes the site and I generally
concur with that description. Below is a summary with additional features noted where
relevant:

A large north-west facing rural site predominantly used for agricultural grazing
and small-scale industrial type activity associated with the storage of kauri
roots. The highest point on the site is the south-east plateau encompassing
the historic Rings Redoubt and the east-west, southern ridgeline that has
frontage to Papakura-Clevedon Road

Topographically, the lower western part of the site is relatively flat, and slopes
up to steeper land differentiated by steeply incised stream gullies that extend
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 17
westward. More moderately sloping plateau areas exist between the gullies
and form minor ridgeline areas within the site.

Geotechnically varied including a mix of alluvial and Waitemata Group soils
and the inactive Drury faultline which runs along the inside of the western
boundary.

Two stream gullies and tributaries of the Hays Stream to the south, the
southern being intermittent; the northern being permanent east of the site’s
boundary with the Montgomery Block. The applicant’s ecologist notes that the
stream gullies have been poorly managed and are sparsely vegetated in their
lower reaches although there is a proliferation of weed species including
contaminant pest plants such as gorse and woolly nighshade. Neither gully is
fenced which allows stock access within the riparian areas.

The receiving environment from streams within the site is currently an open
farm drain within the adjacent Wallace property. From there runoff discharges
via piped networks to the Artillery Drive/McLennan stormwater ponds and the
Gills Ave pond and ultimately the Pahurehure Inlet which forms part of the
Manukau Harbour.

Contained within the Old Wairoa Road sub-catchment of the Central Papakura
catchment to which a network discharge consent applies (Ref 25205)

Scattered mature trees throughout the site with notable groves of mixed native
trees located in the upper part of the southern and northern stream gullies.

An area of known contamination exceeding NES human health guidelines for
arsenic along with stockpiled area of asbestos including lead contamination
within the site at 949 Old Wairoa Road and 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road.

Four existing houses and associated outbuildings located at 949 Old Wairoa
Road, 935 and 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road including an historic villa dating
back to the 1880’s associated with the Nathan Family

Vehicle access to existing dwellings at 949 Old Wairoa Road and 935, 963 and
975 Papakura-Clevedon Road. Where there is site frontage, PapakuraClevedon Road and Old Wairoa Road are rural roads. Old Wairoa Road, east
of Brightwell Street is currently unsealed. An open road speed zone exists
along the Papakura-Clevedon Road frontage with little in the way of drainage
other than an open swale type drain. Auckland Transport has constructed
temporary kerb and channel drainage west of 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road to
address runoff issues from the road.

An historic archaeological site known as Rings Redoubt (R11/956) located at
the upper south-east end of the site adjacent to the property at 931 PapakuraClevedon and potentially extending with its former external features outwards
over a 100 metre radius area. This site is associated with the NZ Wars
(Waikato Campaign) of the early 1860s and was one a series of military
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 18
Redoubt’s constructed along the Great South Road and eastward to the
Wairoa River. The Council’s heritage unit’s submission to the PAUP seeks to
include the scheduled area as shown on the figure below:
Extent of Rings Redoubt – 0700

A possible historical association with Maori settlement (Te Aparangi village) on
the Kirikiri Stream somewhere two miles east of the Papakura under the chief
Ihaka Takaanini and his people Te Akitai and Te Uri-a-Tapa (hapu of Ngati
Tamoho) and the ‘Moses’encampment somewhere below the Redoubt site.

Land adjoining the site to the west and east is urban greenfield land that is
currently being used for rural agricultural purposes. Land to the north, while
formerly identified as future urban land under the Takanini Structure Plan is
proposed to be outside the RUB boundary and would be zoned ‘Mixed Rural’.
The proposed RUB boundary will run along the southern side of Old Wairoa
Road and up the western side of Cosgrove Road and along the site’s southern
frontage at the northern side of Papakura-Clevedon Road.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 19
3.4

Two other smaller rural lifestyle properties are located in the southern part of
the site at 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road. The property at 963 has
substantial mature trees located along its northern and southern boundaries
and has vehicle access from Papakura-Clevedon Road. The house at 931
Papakura-Clevedon Road occupies the high point adjacent to the site and also
contains a number of mature trees near boundaries. The site is also thought to
encompass the western part of Rings Redoubt.

To the north-east beyond the Old Wairoa Road ridgeline is Ardmore Airport.
To the south opposite the site are rural-residential properties. Beyond the
eastern ridgeline is the rural township of Clevedon.
Background
Urban rezoning and the Kirikiri Structure Plan
Urbanisation of the subject site and the wider Takanini Structure Plan area for
residential purposes arose out of land use zoning changes promulgated by the
Auckland Regional Growth Strategy and the Southern Sector Agreement (2001). This
led to private plan change initiatives adopted by the former Papakura District Council.
Section 2 (pages 4-5) of the applicant’s 2013 AEE comprehensively sets out the
history to the urban rezoning of the subject site (Area 2B) and the wider Takanini
Structure Plan area to the north-west. This background is also described in the
Council’s 7 July 2009 decision on private plan changes 4 (Cosgrove Grove Structure
Plan) and adopted plan change 11 (Kirikiri Structure Plan).
The Takanini Structure Plan area is divided into sub-areas identified as Area 2A, 2B,
2C (refer Figure on p8, 2013 AEE). Area 2B known as the ‘Kirikiri Structure Plan’ area
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 20
encompasses the subject site as well as the adjoining Montgomery Block to the east
and the Wallace/Capella Developments property to the west. The Kirikiri Structure
Plan area provides for the comprehensive development of Area 2B which is zoned
Residential 8A and 8B in the operative District Plan (Papakura Section). The Plan
includes indicative locations for network of roads, reserves, pedestrian and cycleway
linkages, landscaping and a protected area encompassing the historic Rings Redoubt.
Of particular relevance to this application is the Council’s decision on submissions
relating to the allocation and location of reserve areas, the protection of Rings Redoubt
and the indicative roading layout. With respect to the general road layout and
connections to existing roads, these were to be confirmed at the time of subdivision
including whether there should be a connection to Papakura-Clevedon Road which
was not precluded by the Council’s decision on the structure plan. Furthermore,
transportation assessments undertaken for the plan change areas had assessed the
potential effects of new growth areas on the local road network and concluded that any
effects would be minimal. The Council also gave consideration to broader integrated
transportation issues, particularly the connectivity of future cycleways and pedestrian
linkages through recreational reserve areas.
With respect to determining the location and reserve boundary that would encompass
Rings Redoubt and a suitable recreation reserve buffer, the Council’s decision was to
defer the decision to subdivision stage. This was contrary to expert evidence from the
Peri Buckley, ARC’s principal heritage specialist who recommended that it be done at
the plan change stage.
With respect to reserves, it is my understanding that the reserves shown on the Kirikiri
Structure Plan were identified based on the Papakura District Council policy at the time
which did not require confirmation that funding would be available to purchase and
maintain them as a Council asset. This is not an unusual approach when developing
plan changes as features on a structure plan are indicative and may be subject to
change depending on Council policy and availability of funding. The intervening period
between confirming the structure plan (July 2009) and initial lodgement of this
application in January 2013 has seen the amalgamation of Auckland Council
incorporating the former Papakura District Council and significant changes to Council
Parks acquisition policies and funding availability.
It is my understanding that the majority of the reserves shown on the original
application that was lodged in July 2012 did not meet the Parks Department criteria for
funded public reserves and so the application was revised accordingly to remove the
southern stream gully reserve. Further debates in relation to Council acquisition of the
northern gully recreation reserve and a smaller ‘pocket park’ type reserve near the
stormwater pond also led to agreements being made to vest both reserves for local
drainage purposes. The Council has maintained that its focus area of reserves
acquisition at the site is the area surrounding Rings Redoubt. With respect to the
current proposal, a final decision on Redoubt reserve will not be made until a further
archaeological investigation is complete and the boundaries between what would be
historic and recreation reserve are agreed. This would be subject to a separate
Council approval process by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 21
Background to the consent application
Cabra Investments Ltd lodged their initial application for subdivision and associated
regional and land use consents for the subject site in January 2013. I understand that
the applicant has owned the property since May 2007 and that considerable time was
spent prior to lodgement addressing matters relating to a future stormwater discharge
from the site. The initial application was rejected on the grounds that it was incomplete
and required relevant information detailed in the 17 January 2013 Section 88 letter
from the Council. A copy of the letter and email dialogue is appended to the 2013 AEE
(refer Appendix 17).
The application was re-lodged on the 12 July 2013 for a subdivision proposal involving
146 lots and a request that all of the reserve lots be vested with the Council. This was
not preceded by any pre-lodgement meeting. The information submitted with the
application included the majority of the requested information with the exception of the
Cultural Impact Assessment which was refused. The applicant sought public
notification.
A substantial section 92 request was sent to the applicant on the 6 August 2013. At
the same time, confirmation from Auckland Council Parks was sought in respect of
whether the proposed reserve lots within the development could be vested with
Auckland Council. At officer level, the Council indicated to the applicant that it would
not recommend the acquisition of proposed reserves within the site other than a
reserve area around the historic Rings Redoubt. This resulted in a revision to the
subdivision plan which removed the southern gully reserve and increased the number
of lots sought to 153.
The application was publicly notified on the 20 November 2013. This was done at
Cabra’s request and in advance of a full Section 92 response. The submission period
closed on 18 December 2013. Nine submissions were received. Post-submissions, a
further Section 92 information request was issued to the applicant. There was also
correspondence exchanged between the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Russell Bartlett and
Auckland Council’s senior solicitor, Shaun McCauley regarding Council’s legal
obligations to acquire the proposed reserve land within the site. Mr McCauley’s legal
opinion was that the Council is under no obligation to acquire the reserves regardless
of whether they are shown on a structure plan map forming part of the District Plan
(refer Attachment 4).
The applicant provided a partial pre and post-notification Section 92 response on 27
March 2013. In terms of outstanding matters, the response indicated that consultation
with adjoining neighbours who had made submissions was ongoing and that a
geophysical survey of the Rings Redoubt area was to be undertaken to determine a
course of action to define its boundaries. A heritage landscape assessment would
also be provided.
The heritage landscape assessment was provided on 25 May 2014 and geophysical
survey information in June 2014. This information was provided to Council’s Cultural
Heritage Implementation Team for consideration. During this time, further discussions
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 22
with the Council’s stormwater unit also confirmed that the proposed stormwater pond
could become a permanent feature of the site and vested with the Council. In addition,
the applicant investigated options for off-site mitigation for the proposed streamworks
which resulted in the Council’s Parks team agreeing to a stream site within the
Ngakaroa Reserve south of the site.
The additional archaeological information and further discussions and meetings in
August 2014 with the applicant’s planner and archaeologist concluded that further
work to properly investigate the anomalies revealed by the geophysical survey and to
define the boundary of the Redoubt would further delay the application. It was agreed
that a revised staging plan could isolate an agreed area within which further
archaeological investigation could take place and be subject to conditions of consent
that would enable other stages to proceed.
Special Housing Area
Within the past twelve months, the subject site has also been included as Special
Housing Area under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (2013) and
is within the ’Takanini Strategic Area’. This area encompasses all of the Takanini
Structure Plan area including the subject site. Qualifying developments within SHA’s
can be considered under the PAUP provisions as if they were operative. I understand
that the applicant has investigated an application under the HAASHA provisions but
has decided to pursue the current notified application.
Subdivision consents for adjoining sites
Subdivision and land use consents have been granted for the adjoining Montgomery
(R/JSL/2013/4216) and Wallace/Capella properties to the east and west respectively.
Development at the adjacent Montgomery Block would provide 83 lots along with new
roads and a stormwater treatment and detention pond that would discharge into the
Papakura Stream catchment and a substantial balance area adjoining the Cabra land.
Of notable interest to this application is the larger lot sizes along the PapakuraClevedon Road frontage (greater than 800m2) including 5 metre wide landscape strips
adjoining Papakura-Clevedon Road and consent notices restricting future dwellings to
single storey (maximum 5.5m).
The Wallace/Cappella Block has recently been granted subdivision and land use
consent as a Special Housing Area and would provide 154 vacant lots. A stormwater
detention pond would be established in the north-western part of the site and a
community reserve area (5,027m2) in the south-west with frontage to PapakuraClevedon Road and two other internal roads. A wastewater pumping station designed
to service the Cabra and Montgomery development would also be established on the
site. The main north-south road through the western part of the site would form part of
the future Mill Road extension and provides for future road widening to cater for
increased demand over the next 5-10 years. I understand that this will also include
signalising its intersection with Papakura-Clevedon Road at some point.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 23
4.0
REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
Resource consent is required under the provisions of the following Plans for the
following reasons:
4.1
Resource Consent Requirements
Land use consents (s9) – LUC and SUB
Auckland Council District Plan: Operative Papakura Section - 1999
Section Three, Part 16 – Takanini Structure Plan Area
 Subdivision that does not comply with the standards of Rule 16.2.3.5 is a
Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule 16.2.3.4. With respect to the northern and
southern streams shown on the Kirikiri Structure Plan, the proposed development
does not provide for the required 10 metre wide riparian margin required by Rule
16.2.3.5.(3) The southern stream would be reclaimed and parts of the northern
stream will be piped or form part of an online pond.
Section Three, Part 2 – Protection of the Urban Environment
 Earthworks greater than 50m3 require Controlled Activity Consent pursuant to
Rule 2.10.1.1.
 Earthworks undertaken on land that has a gradient steeper than 1:5 and is within
10m of a natural watercourse (northern and southern and permanent intermittent
stream) requires Discretionary Activity Consent under to Rule 2.10.1.2.
Note: The Papakura section of the operative District Plan defines a Natural Water
Course as “any part of a natural drainage system including rivers, lakes, streams.” It
does not differentiate between permanent or intermittent streams.
 Removal of 11 individual trees and two groves of mixed native trees of species
listed in Schedule 3E of Section Three, Part 3 – Heritage Protection and
Management, require Discretionary Activity Consent under to Rule 3.8.6.
Note: The subject site is greater than 4,000m2 and is not considered to be part of
the ‘Urban Environment’ as defined by S.76(4)(c) of the RMA.
Section Three, Part 11 – Network Utilities, Transport and Roading
 The construction of new roads and associated facilities require Controlled Activity
consent pursuant to Rule 11.8.2(4).
 The construction of a stormwater pond (Network Utility) not otherwise provided for
requires Discretionary Activity consent under to Rule 11.8.3(3).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 24
Section 3, Part 3 – Heritage Protection and Management

Works within the vicinity of any scheduled item which endangers or is likely to
endanger, damage or destroy that item or detract from the feature or features
requires Discretionary Activity consent under Rule 3.8.6. Earthworks are
proposed within the vicinity of the scheduled (R11-956 Rings Redoubt)
archaeological site at 965 Papakura-Clevedon Road.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Heritage Overlay Rules
 General earthworks greater than 1000m2 or 1000m3 within a historic heritage
overlay area would require resource consent for a Non-Complying Activity under
Rule 4.2.1.2.

The application proposes subdivision of land within Stage 6 (Options 1 and 2)
which contains the scheduled Rings/Kirikiri Redoubt (R11-956) site. Resource
consent for a Non-Complying activity is required under Rule J.2.1.

The application proposes to undertake an archaeological investigation of the
scheduled Rings Redoubt site not otherwise provided for as a permitted activity
would require resource consent for a Restricted Discretionary Activity under
Rule J.2.1.

Removal of trees greater than 3m in height or greater than 300mm girth where
archaeological controls apply would require resource consent for a Discretionary
Activity under Rule J.2.1. Three non-protected trees greater than 3 metres in
height would be removed within the vicinity of Rings Redoubt.
Note: The historic Rings Redoubt archaeological site is scheduled 00700 in the PAUP
and its verified location is listed as 935 Papakura-Clevedon Road and 931 PapakuraClevedon Road.
Mana Whenua Overlay Rules
The Rings /Kirikiri Redoubt R11_956 Redoubt site is a scheduled historic heritage
place described 935 Papakura-Clevedon Road, Ardmore and 931 PapakuraClevedon Road, Ardmore.

The application proposes to construct infrastructure including stormwater,
wastewater and drainage and water, gas and telecommunications at the site.
Construction, replacement or upgrading of network utility services, on or within
50m of a scheduled site or place of significance to Mana Whenua, where identified
as a site exception in the schedule to the overlay requires resource consent as a
restricted discretionary activity under Rule J.5.1.1 (Activity Table).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 25

The application proposes to construct a local roading network throughout the site
as well as the upgrading of Old Wairoa Road along its north-western frontage.
Roading or footpath construction or replacement on or within 50m of a scheduled
site or place of significance to Mana Whenua, where identified as a site exception
in the schedule to the overlay requires resource consent for a Restricted
Discretionary Activity under Rule J.5.1.1 (Activity Table).

The application proposes new retaining walls (defined in the PAUP as buildings)
within 50 metres of the Redoubt site as defined in the PAUP. New buildings,
alterations and additions to buildings on or within 50m of a scheduled site or place
of significance to Mana Whenua requires resource consent for a Discretionary
Activity under Rule J.5.1.1 (Activity Table).

The application proposes earthworks within 50 metres of the scheduled Rings
Redoubt site. Earthworks on or within 50m of a scheduled site or place of
significance to Mana Whenua requires resource consent for a Discretionary
Activity under Rule J.5.1.1 (Activity Table).

The application proposes a change of use of the scheduled site from its existing
pastoral activities to urban residential and historic/recreation reserve activities.
Any change of use within a scheduled site or place of significance to Mana
Whenua requires resource consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity under
Rule J.5.1.1 (Activity Table).

The application proposes earthworks at the site that may result in the total or
substantial destruction of the identified mana whenua values associated with
Rings Redoubt. Earthworks on or within 50m of a scheduled site or place of
significance to Mana Whenua that will result in the total or substantial destruction
of the identified values associated with the site or place requires resource consent
as a Non-Complying Activity under Rule J.5.1.1 (Activity Table).

The application proposes subdivision of the site including within Stage 6 which
includes Rings Redoubt (R11_956). Subdivison of a site that contains a
scheduled site or place of significance to Mana Whenua requires resource
consent as a Discretionary Activity.
Note: As the Rings Redoubt heritage site has not been formally defined, the basis
for the above rules is the 935 Papakura-Clevedon Road in its entirety. Auckland
Council’s Cultural Heritage Implementation Team has confirmed that the Council
has made a submission to the PAUP seeking the Rings/Kirikiri Redoubt R11_956
be defined in terms of the extent of place area shown in Section 3.3 above (0700).
In terms of mana whenua values, the application does not include CIA information
from local iwi that confirms the extent of mana whenua interest in the Rings
Redoubt heritage place or other parts of the site that may have been associated
with Maori encampment or settlement.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 26
Vegetation Management

The proposed development will involve the removal of vegetation within 10 metres
of an urban stream. Consent for a Restricted Discretionary Activity is required
under Rule 4.3.1.1.1
Flooding
Buildings or structures (including retaining walls) within or over an overland
flowpath requires resource consent for a Discretionary activity under Rule
H.4.12.1.
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control
 The development will involve bulk earthworks over an area of 15.25 hectares, a
portion of which will occur within a Sediment Control Protection Area and on land
with a slope greater than 150. Consent for a Restricted Discretionary Activity is
required under to Rule 5.4.3.1.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
 In residential zones general earthworks greater than 2,500m2 and 2,500m3 require
resource consent for a Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule H.4
Natural Resources 4.2(1).
 General earthworks within riparian yards (defined as any land adjacent to a
permanent or intermittent stream) exceeding 1000m2 and 1000m3 requires
resource consent for a Non-Complying Activity under RuleH.4.2.1.2.
 General earthworks within the 100 ARI floodplain identified along the southern
and northern stream gullies greater than 1000m2 and 1000m3 requires resource
consent for a Restricted Discretionary activity under Rule H.4.2.1.2.
 General earthworks within a riparian yard and within the 100 ARI floodplain up to
2500m2 or 2500m3 required construct the proposed stormwater treatment and
detention pond requires resource consent for a Restricted-Discretionary
Activity under Rule H.4.2.1.2.
Streamworks Consents (ss 13 & 14) – R/REG
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water
 The development involves the placement of two pipes within the permanent lower
section of the northern stream totalling 57metres. Resource consent for a
Restricted Discretionary Activity is required under Rule 7.5.9.
 The development involves the raising and altering of the profile of 60 metres of
northern permanent stream, associated be disturbance and diversion of water and
incidental temporary damming of water. Resource consent for a Discretionary
Activity is required under rule 7.5.2.1.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 27
 The development will create an online stormwater treatment and detention pond
over 109 metres of the lower end of the permanent northern stream. Resource
consent for a Discretionary Activity is required under Rule 7.5.12.
 The development will create a permanent ‘online’ stormwater treatment and
detention pond. Resource consent is required for a non-complying activity
under Rule 6.5.66
Note: Section 7.1.2.1 “Definition of Bed of a Lake or River” permits activities such
as the disturbance of exotic and indigenous vegetation and plant and animal
habitats, the introduction or planting of plants, deposition and reclamation within
Intermittent streams, subject to controls on how the work is undertaken to address
sedimentation and flooding effects. Therefore resource consent is not required for
the filling of the southern stream gully and the upper intermittent section (205m) of
the northern stream within the site.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
 The deposition of fill within a permanent stream requires resource consent
(altering the profile of northern stream) for a Discretionary activity under Rule
H.4.13.1.
 The proposed development will involve the deposition of fill and reclamation within
the southern intermittent stream. Resource consent for a Non-complying Activity
is required under to Rule H.4.13(1).

The proposed online stormwater pond within Lot 600 will involve the damming of
water which will require consent for a Discretionary Activity under to Rule H.4
Natural Resources 4.17.1.
Note: The definition of 'river or stream' in the Unitary Plan includes permanent and
intermittent reaches, but excludes ephemeral reaches. The northern stream on the
site has been assessed as an ‘intermittent’ stream and is not within a Natural
Stream Management Area, Natural Lake Management Area, Urban Lake
Management Area, Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Wetland Management
Area.
Discharge Permits (s15) –R/Reg
Auckland Regional Plan:ALW

The development will result in the creation of new impermeable surface area
greater than 10,000m2. The proposed impermeable surface area is 11.91 ha.
Resource consent for a Discretionary Activity for the diversion and discharge
of stormwater from the site is required pursuant to Rule 5.5.4.
Note:
The total impervious area figure is stated in the 2013 AEE. The total drainage area
stated includes a portion of the adjacent Montgomery Block (19.7ha).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 28
The proposed stormwater pond is to be vested in Auckland Council, therefore the
application can be considered as a discretionary activity.
The ACRP: ALW definition of ‘dam’ includes stormwater treatment and detention
ponds.
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
 The proposed development will involve the diversion and discharge of stormwater
from impervious areas not otherwise authorised by stormwater discharge and
diversion rules. Consent is required for a Discretionary Activity under Rule
H.4.141.1.
4.2
Information requirements
The PAUP specifies information requirements that may be required in accordance with
G.2.7 to be provided with applications under the following rules including:

Cultural Impact Assessment in relation to all activities requiring resource
consent within Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua or where a
proposal may have an impact on mana whenua values. For this application the
following activities would trigger this requirement:
- Discharges to water
- Diversion, taking or using of surface water
- Damming of water and associated damming structures
- Structures affecting river beds
- Disturbance to river beds
- Reclamations
- Removal of outstanding species of native vegetation


Heritage Impact Assessment
Heritage Policy Document potentially including a Conservation Plan/Policy
4.3
National Environmental Standard for Assessing
Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (‘NES’)

and
Managing
Resource consent for a Restricted Discretionary Activity is required for the
remediation of contaminated soil and stockpiled material within 949 Old Wairoa
Road and 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road.
Status of the Application
Overall, the application is considered to be a Non-complying Activity.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 29
5.0
NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS
5.1
Notification
The application was publicly notified on 20 November 2013 following a request from
the applicant that the application be publically notified in accordance with s95A(2)(b) of
the RMA 1991.
5.2
Submissions
A total of nine (9) submissions have been received. Full copies of all submissions are
attached at Attachment 3.
All of the submissions opposed the application. No late submissions were received.
Submitters who are located adjacent to the site are indicated on the plan in the figure
below:
Location of neighbouring submitters
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 30
No.
Submitter
1.
Physical
Address
Relief
Decision
Sought
Wish to be
heard
Mark & Dawn 963 PapakuraVidak
Clevedon Road,
Ardmore
c,d,e,f
Yes
2.
David & Carmel 931 PapakuraPowell
Clevedon Road,
Ardmore
(I, j, k, l)
Yes
3.
Ngati Te
Waiohua
Oppose (g)
Yes
4.
Ngati Tamaoho
Decline (g, h)
Yes
5.
Papakura
Districts
Historical
Society
209 Great South
Road, Papakura
(a ,b)
Yes (with
others)
6.
Papakura
Museum
209 Great South
Road, Papakura
(a ,b)
Yes (with
others)
7.
Michelle
Smith
Ann 24 Lauren Grove
(a, b)
Yes
8.
Clive Dixon
47 Cowan Road, (a, j, k)
Hunua
Yes (with
others)
9.
David John
Robertson (3rd
Auckland
(Countess of
Ranfurly’s Own)
and Northland
Regimental
Association Inc)
1888C Ponga
Road, RD4,
Papakura
Yes
Ata
(j, k)
The main issues raised have been summarised as follows:

Potential impacts on the historic Rings/Kirikiri Redoubt

Potential adverse effects on mana whenua cultural heritage values arising from
the proximity of works to a recorded archaeological site, removal of native trees,
altering the stream profile and the construction of an online stormwater pond
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 31

Lack of consultation with adjoining neighbours;

potential adverse effects on adjoining properties including the lack of future
service connections and vehicle access from within the Cabra development,
retaining walls and tree removal
To summarise, decisions are sought in relation to:
a) the future protection of the Redoubt site including restricting or monitoring
earthworks within a 100m area, undertaking an independent (of up to 200m
radius);geophysical survey, establishing a reserve on the Redoubt and
maintaining sightlines to other Redoubt sites, provision of historic
signage/carvings by iwi;
b) appropriate protection and restoration of the historic Nathan villa;
c) the provision of infrastructure services connections and vehicle access to
properties that adjoin the subject site;
d) clarifying the effects of proposed retaining walls and changes in ground levels
relative to adjoining properties;
e) clarifying the effects of site preparation works including tree removal/works
within the rootzone of boundary trees, weed spraying, and the management of
construction dust;
f)
clarifying earthworks and ground level changes along the frontage of
neighbouring properties at 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road.
g) Provision of a CIA and further consultation with iwi;
h) provision for cultural heritage values, impacts to the ecology and environment
and stormwater;
i)
minimising earthworks adjacent to neighbouring boundaries to eliminate need
for retaining walls;
j)
historic site is fully surveyed using techniques including ground penetration
radar to identify the full extent of Redoubt site;
k) acquisition of adequate reserve area to protect Rings Redoubt site, its
surrounds including the provision of safe and direct access.
l)
Implement measures to mitigate construction effects.
A full set of submissions is attached at Attachment 3 to this report. The matters raised
have been addressed in the AEE section of this report below, and section 6.9.1 below.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 32
5.3
Written Approvals
No written approvals have been provided with this application.
6.0
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION
6.1
Introduction
The application can be viewed as both simple and complex. It is simple insofar as its
purpose is clear in seeking to undertake subdivision of residential urban zoned land,
but is complex to the extent that the elements of the overall proposal require
consideration against a number of different objectives, policies and rules and the
application raises issues that touch on a number of specialist disciplines.
The approach taken in this report, in assessing the application, is to avoid
unnecessary analysis and maintain a focus on the application as a whole rather than
the individual elements. That means that the assessment concentrates primarily on
the key objectives and policies and may not discuss every plan provision that might be
of some relevance. It is hoped that this approach will result in greater clarity in the
assessment.
6.2
Statutory Considerations
When considering an application for a controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary
or non-complying activity the consent authority must have regard to Part 2 of the RMA
(“Purposes and Principles” – sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104B, 104C, 104D,
and where relevant sections 106 and 108, of the RMA.
Subject to Part 2 of the RMA, when considering an application for resource consent
and any submissions received a council must, in accordance with s104(1) of the RMA
have regard to:



any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;
any relevant provisions of a NES, other regulations, national policy statement,
a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement; a Regional Policy Statement or
Proposed Regional Policy Statement; a plan or proposed plan; and
any other matter a council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to
determine the application.
Section 104(2) allows any effects that may arise from permitted activities set out in a
NES or a plan to be excluded from the assessment of effects related to the resource
consent. This is known as the permitted baseline test. The ‘baseline’ constitutes the
existing environment (excluding existing use rights) against which a proposed activity’s
degree of adverse effect is assessed. Generally it is only the adverse effects over and
above those forming the baseline that are relevant when considering whether the
effects are minor.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 33
It is at the Council’s discretion whether to apply the assessment of the permitted
baseline to any proposal. Essentially, the consent authority may disregard an adverse
effect of any activity on the environment if the operative plan permits an activity with
that effect.
When considering an application for resource consent, the consent authority must not
have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition (s104(3)(a)(i)).
Under s104B a consent authority may grant or refuse consent for a discretionary
activity or non-complying activity and, if it grants the application, may impose
conditions under s108 of the RMA.
Section 104D sets out the ‘threshold test’ for non-complying activities. A consent
authority may only grant consent to a non-complying activity if it is satisfied that the
adverse effects on the environment are minor, or the activity will not be contrary to the
objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan. If either of the limbs of
the test has been passed then the application is able to be considered for approval
subject to consideration under s104 of the RMA.
Section 106 sets out the circumstances under which a consent authority may grant or
refuse to grant a subdivision consent.
Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and sets out the
kind of conditions that may be imposed.
All considerations are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out the purpose and
principles that guide this legislation. This means the matters in Part 2 prevail over
other provisions of the RMA or provisions in planning instruments (e.g. regional plans)
in the event of a conflict. Section 5 states the purpose of the RMA and Sections 6, 7
and 8 are principles intended to provide additional guidance as to the way in which the
purpose is to be achieved.
The application of Section 5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a
proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
The RMA’s use of the terms “use, development and protection” are a general
indication that all resources are to be managed in a sustainable way, or at a rate which
enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural
wellbeing, and for their health and safety, while sustaining the potential of natural and
physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations,
safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, and
avoiding, remedying and mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment. The enabling and management functions found in Section 5(2) should be
considered of equal importance and taken as a whole.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA provide further context and guidance to the constraints
found in Section 5(2)(a),(b) and (c). The commencing words to these sections differ,
thereby laying down the relative weight to be given to each section.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 34
Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance which need to be
recognised and provided for. Section 6 includes, among other things and in no order of
priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes; the protection of
areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna;
and, the protection of historic heritage. The protection of historic heritage (Rings
Redoubt) and associated mana whenua values are considered to be relevant to the
present proposal.
Section 7 of the RMA requires the consent authority to give particular regard to those
matters listed in the section. Section 7 matters are not expressly ranked in order of
priority. Therefore, all aspects of this section are to be considered equally. In the case
of this particular proposal the following matters are considered relevant:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems;

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment;
Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report.
Section 8 of the RMA requires the consent authority to take into account the principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi. This section of the RMA recognises the relationship of
Tangata Whenua with natural and physical resources and encourages active
participation and consultation with Tangata Whenua. Any relevant matters are
considered in the evaluation section of this report.
6.3
Section 104(1)(a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment
6.3.1 Effects that must be disregarded
The following effects must be disregarded:
A. Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application
No person has provided their written approval to this application
B. Trade competition
There are no matters or effects related to trade competition.
6.3.2 Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted Baseline assessment
The permitted baseline refers to permitted activities on the subject site. In this case,
the District Plan allows up to 50m³ of earthworks as a permitted activity (and the PAUP
allows up to 250m³ single house zone outside the heritage overlay area). Therefore,
any effects up to these thresholds must be disregarded.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 35
It is noted that there are no subdivision activities listed in the District Plan as being
Permitted Activities.
6.3.3 Assessment of Effects
Having regard to the above, and after analysis of the application (including any
proposed mitigation measures), undertaking site visit(s), reviewing Council records,
reviewing the submissions received and taking advice from appropriate experts, the
following effects that require specific consideration in respect to this application have
been identified. Given the significance of some of the potential effects, I have
generally discussed in the order of acceptability and/or their ability to be satisfactorily
mitigated through conditions of consent.
Positive Effects
The positive effects of the proposal are set out in section 7.1 of the 2013 AEE. I
consider the positive effects arising from the proposal to potentially include:

The efficient use of urban residential land and the provision of additional
housing to the Auckland housing market. The site would be well connected to
the adjacent Wallace/Capella and Montgomery sites and in close proximity to
the amenities at the Papakura town centre;

The implementation of the Kirikiri Structure Plan that would protect natural and
heritage features within proposed public reserve areas including the northern
stream gully and Rings Redoubt;

The restoration of 166m of the Ngakaroa stream within the Ngakaroa reserve
as compensation off-site mitigation for the loss of, and modifications to
permanent sections of the northern stream gully.
Soil Contamination Effects
The proposal involves the remediation of 173m3 of contaminated soil at 949 Old
Wairoa Road and 973 Papakura-Clevedon Road. Arsenic contamination that exceeds
NES human health standards is located at the southwest and southeast of a former
shade house near the stock yards at 973 Papakura- Clevedon Road along with some
copper and lead. The contaminated soil along with asbestos cement sheets and
cladding would also be removed to a secure landfill or managed fill that is licensed to
accept chemical contamination at the levels observed. This work would be undertaken
in accordance with a Remedial Action Plan provided with the application and occur
prior to the main bulk earthworks activities.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer, Mr Andrew Gordon has assessed the
remediation proposal and concluded that if the proposed earthworks are undertaken
with the Remedial Action Plan and a Site Validation Report that would be required as a
condition of consent, then the piece of land would be suitable for residential activity.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 36
Based on this assessment, I consider that any adverse effects arising from
contamination found at the site would less than minor subject to the Council being
satisfied that the site has been remediated in accordance with the Remedial Action
Plan and recommended conditions.
Earthworks and Erosion & Sediment Control
This application proposes to undertake a balanced bulk earthworks operation of
236,500m³ of cut and 192,500m³ of fill across approximately 15.25 hectares. The
earthworks area would include parts of Old Wairoa Road and works within the vicinity
of Rings Redoubt. In addition, 173m3 contaminated material will be removed from the
site.
The proposed works include significant cut and fill areas to establish a suitable road
network, building platforms with complying gradients, establish reserve areas and
drainage infrastructure to divert and discharge storm water from the site. Of particular
note are proposed fill heights of up to 8 metres within the upper part of the northern
gully (Reserve Lot 701).
Given the sloping nature of the majority of the site and the incised nature of the
existing stream gullies, the scale of works is deemed necessary to give effect to an
intensity of residential development enabled by the District Plan. In terms of the
resultant final landform, I concur with the statement in the applicant’s 2013 AEE (p34)
that:
“The proposed cut and fill depths provide an indication as to the extent of modification
proposed. Whilst this might seem quite substantial in some areas it is noted that the
overall landform pattern will be retained. This includes the ‘high-point’ within the site
(near the redoubt), the spur running in a south-west direction down from the redoubt,
the two gully features and the lower-lying area of land along the western boundary.
These main landform features will still be evident and legible at the completion of the
earthworks albeit with a more ‘evened out’ appearance.”
Overall, in terms of the final proposed levels, the general landform appearance of the
subject site will be retained. Future potential effects on landscape character resulting
from the proposed subdivision density and layout are addressed in sections below.
Earthworks at the site have the potential to generate significant volumes of sediment
runoff that, if left uncontrolled, could generate significant adverse effects. The
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) calculation undertaken by the applicant indicates
a potential and mitigated sediment yield which is provided in Appendix 12 to the 2013
AEE.
Sedimentation and erosion control techniques are proposed to be applied to the site to
reduce the rate of erosion and sediment generation, as well as to reduce the amount
of sediment leaving the site. These would be in accordance with Auckland Council’s
Technical Publication TP90 – Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land
Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region. Specifically the measures proposed by
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 37
the applicant to mitigate effects from the earthworks include (and outlined in section
4.3.2 and 4.3.4 of the AEE):

Stage 1 – use of three sediment retention ponds and earth bunds along the
western site perimeter and either side of the stream channels, runoff diversion
channels and temporary clean water diversion to divert overland flowpaths;

Stage 2 – use of one sediment retention ponds and a decanting earth bund,
contour drains and clean water diversion.

Stage 3 & 4 – use of two sediment retention ponds in the lower parts of these
stages, contour drains and clean water diversion
All erosion and sediment control measures have been designed (and will be
implemented) in general accordance with the Auckland Council Technical Publication
Number 90, Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in
the Auckland Region (TP90).
Effects associated with the earthworks have been reviewed by Ms Stephanie Benucci,
Consents and Compliance Advisor. A copy of her report is attached at Attachment 2.
Ms Benicia’s assessment finds that:
”It is considered that the applicant’s assessment adequately identifies the potential
effects resulting from the proposal and that there are no additional effects that may be
generated. Furthermore, the erosion and sediment controls proposed are considered
to be in line with best practice and are in accordance with TP90.
For the earthworks, provided the erosion and sediment controls are installed and
constructed in accordance with the application report, supporting documentation and
any additional requirements as may be required by the guidance outlined in TP90, it is
considered the resulting effects on the environment from sediment discharges will be
less than minor.”
I accept Ms Benicia’s conclusion and am of the view that subject to appropriate
conditions being imposed on any consent granted the proposal would not generate
more than minor adverse effects in relation sediment discharges from the site.
Site Stability and Retaining Walls
Coffey Geotechnics Ltd has undertaken a geotechnical investigation of the site which
is deemed suitable for residential development. Works to stabilise the site for
residential purposes would include earthworks to ease slopes and retaining of private
lots. The Coffey report states:
“…we currently have no significant concerns regarding global instability of the land and
consider that future development works should serve to enhance equilibrium
conditions and provide for greater factors of safety
Council’s Development Engineer, Mr Rajinesh Kumar has reviewed the design, and is
generally satisfied that the site would be stable for residential and associated roading
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 38
and infrastructure purposes subject to conditions. His report and a subsequent
addendum are attached at Attachment 2. In terms of the interface with the
Montgomery property to the east however, particularly with the Reserve Lot 701, I
asked Mr Kumar to consider the design levels proposed. Despite reassurances from
the applicant’s engineer I am particularly concerned about the difference between
proposed levels and existing levels that would remain within the northern stream gully
as it passes through the Montgomery property. I am also concerned about the
interface with the rear of Lots 49-56 and Lots 59-65 and 117-122. The resubmitted
plans do not appear to show how the stream reserve will be battered to the east to tie
in with existing stream levels. I consider that this needs to be addressed in order for
the Council to have confidence that the site will be stable and the stream gully
accommodated in a suitable manner. In this regard, Mr Kumar has requested further
design information from the applicant as detailed in his email to me dated 13/11/14
which forms an addendum to his specialist report.
Retaining walls required to bench residential sites have not raised any particular
issues from a visual perspective, although I note that clarification is needed about the
height and effect of retaining walls adjoining submitter properties at 931 and 963
Papakura Clevedon Road. I also note that in respect to Mr David Powell’s property,
the development proposal has been revised to show the Redoubt reserve (Lot 900)
surrounding his property and generally tying in with existing ground levels. At Mr
Vidak’s property (963 Papakura-Clevedon Road), proposed retaining walls up to 2.5
metres will run along the western and eastern side boundaries, although these walls
will be partly stepped back from the western boundary to avoid the rootzone of trees
located near the boundary. I note that one metre high retaining walls will extend north
from the north-west and north-east corners of Mr Vidak’s property along the side
boundaries of proposed Lots 102 and Lot 103. Proposed ground levels will tie into
existing levels on the rear boundary of Mr Vidak’s property where a proposed access
lot is provided for.
In terms of the overall stability of the site I am satisfied that subject to satisfactory
further design information being provided in relation to the site’s interface with the
Montgomery Block, any adverse stability effects can be avoided
Stormwater & Overland Flow Effects
The proposal includes the diversion and discharge of stormwater runoff via a
reticulated stormwater system that would discharge stormwater utilising overland flow
and piped network to a proposed stormwater pond located in the north-west corner of
the site. The piped network would convey flows up to a 10 year ARI event with the
overland flow area (Drainage Reserve 701 and roads) designed to accommodate
greater flows up to a 100 year event. The proposed stormwater pond would be
located on a permanent stream and has been designed based on a catchment area of
21.85 hectares.
Mr Malcolm Todd, Consultant Stormwater Engineer for Auckland Council has
assessed the stormwater effects associated with the proposal. The proposal for
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 39
stormwater drainage at the site including the management of overland flow has also
been considered by the Council’s development engineer Mr Rajinesh Kumar.
Copies of Mr Todd’s and Mr Kumar specialist reports are attached at Attachment 2.
Mr Todd acknowledges the reasons for the private discharge consent that differ from
the requirements of the existing network discharge consent (34887) due to delays in
the delivery of public stormwater infrastructure. The establishment of a pond on the
Cabra site has been agreed with Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit and would be
vested as public stormwater infrastructure.
Mr Todd’s report comprehensively considers aspects of the proposal relating to water
quality, water quantity and flooding, aquatic habitat protection, outfall erosion, dam
failure, fish passage, ownership, operation and maintenance and overland flowpaths.
In respect of these matters, Mr Todd’s summary states that:
“The applicant concludes that there would be less than minor effects to the
environment as a result of the proposed development with respect to both the
diversion and discharge of stormwater and damming related activities. The applicant’s
assessment adequately identifies and addresses the above potential effects resulting
from the proposal.”
As a further point, Mr Todd refers to likely groundwater levels within the pond and
despite the proposed impermeable clay liner other problems may be encountered
including the potential for flocculation. Mr Todd recommends specific conditions that
reference the Coffey Geotechnics Ltd recommendation for a specific design. Overall
Mr Todd is satisfied that any adverse effects arising from the proposed diversion and
discharge of stormwater from the site would be less minor.
I generally concur with Mr Todd as an expert on this matter. However I am still unclear
as to whether the revised Cabra proposal provides for a contingency to discharge to
the existing farm drain on the Wallace/Capella property in the event that the
construction timeframe of the neighbouring pond is delayed.
Regarding the management of overland flowpaths, Mr Kumar is generally satisfied with
the design for overland flow within proposed roads and within the drainage reserve,
however he does refer to the overland flowpath(s) from Papakura-Clevedon Road that
currently enter the site in two locations just west of 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon
Road. In this regard, Mr Kumar is concerned that the absence of road side drainage
will lead to adverse stormwater effects at the Papakura-Clevedon Road intersection
with Road 2 during heavy rainfall events. I would also add that the location of the
overland flowpath may also affect private lots proposed at 22-23, 90-96 and 133-138.
In order to mitigate this effect, Mr Kumar has recommended a condition requiring the
upgrading of road side drainage on the northern side of Papakura-Clevedon Road
between the south-west corner of the site up to proposed Lot 140 and drain to scruffy
dome manholes at SWMH 121-1 and 121-2 in the locations shown on the Woods
drainage plan DR-302.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 40
Based on the assessments of Mr Todd and Mr Kumar and providing the recommended
conditions are included in the consent, I am satisfied that any adverse stormwater or
overland flowpath effects would be less than minor.
Infrastructure Effects
Infrastructure
services
including
reticulated
wastewater,
water
supply,
telecommunications, electrical and gas would be provided to residential lots within the
site. This now also includes the adjacent neighbouring property at 963 PapakuraClevedon Road owned by submitters Mark and Dawn Vidak. Wastewater would drain
to a proposed Veolia pumping station to be located on the Wallace/Capella property.
This has been sized to receive wastewater from the subject site and the Montgomery
property to the east.
The Council’s development engineer Mr Rajinesh Kumar has reviewed the
infrastructure proposal for this site and concludes that the proposed infrastructure is
within the serviceable area and can service the development. A copy of his report is
attached at Attachment 2. I note that further confirmation and approvals are required
from the relevant authorities including power, telecom in terms of network capacity and
approval from Veolia for wastewater and water supply extensions.
Overall, I consider that any adverse effects arising from infrastructure will be less than
minor and that suitable connections can be provided to the neighbouring site at 963
Papakura-Clevedon Road.
Effects on traffic movement & the local road network
New local roads are proposed within the development that would connect to PapakuraClevedon Road and Old Wairoa Road. Proposed local roads have been designed in
accordance with the Council’s Engineering Design Standards and with reference to the
relevant Design Element 1 which applies to subdivision in the Residential 8A and 8B
zones.
Ms Minnie Liang, Auckland Transport Principal Consent Specialist, South has
assessed the internal road layout and its connections to Papakura-Clevedon Road and
Old Wairoa Road. A copy of her assessment is attached at Attachment 2. In terms of
proposed new roads within the site, Ms Liang has not raised any particular concerns
with the layout or design of these roads. Brief comments have been in regards to road
markings at Roads 11 and 12 and a proposed retaining wall along the front boundary
of Lot 98 that would encroach into the road reserve. These are minor design matters
that can be addressed through conditions of consent and at engineering design
approval stage. Similarly Ms Liang is satisfied that suitable vehicle access can be
provided to the rear of 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road which would provide for future
vehicle and services access to this neighbouring site.
With respect to effects on the wider road network, Ms Liang has raised concerns about
visibility at the intersection of Papakura-Clevedon Road and Road 2, particularly
vehicles travelling westward down Papakura-Clevedon Road which currently has an
open road (100km/hr) speed zone.
Ms Liang has advised that road speed
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 41
adjustments are authorised by NZTA not Auckland Transport and that the slowest
speed likely to be contemplated on this semi-rural arterial road would be 70 km/hr.
Based on an assumed 85km/hr operating speed, Ms Liang notes from the applicant’s
TIA that there would be a 23 metre shortfall in the required Safe Intersection Sight
Distance based on an 85 km which would not be sufficient to ensure a safe approach
to the proposed intersection. Furthermore, Ms Liang notes the potential interference
with future sightlines that could arise from buildings and landscaping established along
the southern boundary the sight, particularly at the lower western end.
In order to avoid significant adverse effects traffic safety at this intersection, Ms Liang
recommends that a visibility splay be created incorporating the area shown on the
diagram attached to her report. This would require a design adjustment to the
boundaries of Lots 22, 90, 91 and 92 and the splay area to be vested with Auckland
Transport. In addition, Ms Liang recommends that there be no landscape strip along
the southern frontage of these sites to further protect sight lines to this intersection.
I understand the concerns expressed by Ms Liang that is also supported by
recommendations in the applicant’s TIA. In this instance, I am of the view that effects
relating traffic safety outweigh landscape effects in this lower part of the site which is
likely to become busier road environment that is further complicated by the Mill Road
extension 160m to the west. This would however require further urban design
consideration of the Papakura-Clevedon frontage along the southern boundaries of
these sites to ensure privacy and the maintenance of visual amenity to soften and
screen the urban edge in this part of the development. This issue has also been
raised in the assessment by Council’s urban design specialist, Ms Nicola Williams
discussed below.
In my view, conditions requiring a visibility splay and restricting landscaping along the
aforementioned lots are appropriate and would mitigate any potential adverse traffic
safety effects. However, a more bespoke consideration of the visual landscape
interface at the rear of proposed Lots 22, 90, 91 and 92 facing Papakura-Clevedon
Road is required to screen these lots from the road and ensure privacy. This should
also include an assessment of the likely developable area within these lots where Lots
90, 91, 92 would be considered as ‘through lots’ to which a 5 metre front yard on each
road frontage would apply.
In respect of Old Wairoa Road, I also accept that this road would need to be upgraded
to an urban standard and that any consent should include a condition requiring this. I
note that similar conditions have been imposed on the adjoining Wallace/Capella and
Montgomery developments.
Effects on streams
The proposal includes works that would alter and remove permanent and intermittent
streams at the site. This includes the removal (reclamation) of the southern
intermittent stream gully. Within the permanent northern stream gully a variety of
works are proposed including raising and altering parts of the current stream profile,
culverting to provide for new roads and the construction of an online dam. I note that
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 42
the upper section of this stream (205m) is considered intermittent. The removal or
modification of intermittent streams is a permitted activity under the ACRP:ALW but
requires resource consent as a non-complying activity under the PAUP.
Council’s Specialist Advisor on Earthworks and Streamworks, Ms Stephanie Benucci
has assessed the application in terms of the potential effects on the two streams. Her
report is attached at Attachment 2. Ms Benucci outlines her understanding of the
proposal and the rationale for the proposed works. I note that this includes proposed
earthworks that would batter the eastern intermittent section of the upper part of
stream to tie in with existing levels on the Montgomery Block. I have queried the
design for this aspect of the proposal and would require further information to ensure
the design levels are achievable and avoid adverse stability effects on the
neighbouring property and proposed lots along the southern side of the stream gully.
In terms of the streamworks methodology, Ms Benucci comments on the proposed
temporary damming or use of cleanwater diversion channels in the upper headwaters
of the northern stream. Due to the fact that this is a headwater stream, there would be
no incoming flow apart from runoff during rainfall events. For this reason she
considers the above measures to be unnecessary and would only require the
construction of diversion bunds upstream to prevent clean water entering the channel.
The proposed removal of permanent sections (totaling 226 metres) within the northern
stream gully requires mitigation of what are considered to be more than minor adverse
effects arising from the complete removal of the existing stream and its reconstruction
(in part) at an altered profile. The policy approach within the ACRP:ALW is to assess
the value of the existing stream and also its potential value after restoration which
would not be realised in the current proposal. The Stream Ecological Valuation (SEV)
methodology is used as well as the Ecological Compensation Ration (ECR) to
calculate appropriate mitigation for the loss of the stream. The proposed mitigation
stream length for the loss of 226 metres of permanent stream would be 431 metres
which includes 265 metres of reconstructed stream within the upper intermittent
reaches and within the lower drainage reserve (Lot 700) and 166 metres of off-site
mitigation restoration works proposed along the margins of the Ngakaroa Stream
within the Ngakaroa Reserve to the south. While this stream is not entirely ‘like for
like’ being near a tidal zone and wider than the impact stream, it has been accepted by
the Council, including Auckland Council Parks. I also understand that the mitigation
works within the Ngakaroa stream has the support of local mana whenua Ngati
Tamaoho but that they remain opposed to the proposed streamworks within the site
itself.
In terms of the proposed streamworks, including works in relation to permanent and
intermittent streams, I am satisfied that potential adverse effects as assessed in terms
of the policy framework provided by the ARP:ALW can be satisfactorily mitigated
through the conditions of consent requiring stream restoration works within the site and
that any shortfall can be compensated for within the Ngakaroa Stream reserve. I do
however note that Ngati Tamaoho remain opposed to the proposed stream works
within the site and have sought to be heard in terms of the potential impact on cultural
values.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 43
Effects on terrestrial ecology
Terrestrial ecology within the site includes existing flora and fauna including vegetation
and trees, reptiles (lizard species), birds and insects. These features at the site are
described in a report from Bioresearches, (dated June 2012) and attached as
Appendix 5 to the 2013 AEE. An inventory of significant vegetation (trees) at the site
is also provided in a report from Arborlab Services Ltd which is attached at Appendix 6
to the 2013 AEE.
The proposal would involve the removal of almost all of the existing vegetation and
trees (approximated at 329 including 119 native) at the site to accommodate the
residential subdivision of the site. This is largely due to the extensive land modification
required, particularly within the gully areas to alter the profile and establish a more
suitable building landform. Retained trees would include two scheduled Rimu and
Totara located within the area to be set aside as the Rings Redoubt. A Magnolia (6m)
and an English Oak (9m) would also be retained within the Rings Redoubt Reserve
along with a second English Oak that straddles the boundary between Lots 80 and 81
(notified as Lots 148 and 149). The rationale for retaining the latter Oak tree is not
clear from the AEE and as previously noted, works to construct the proposed levels at
Lot 81 and stabilise the side boundary may impact on the health of the tree.
Ms Vanessa Wood, Auckland Council’s Ecologist has assessed the effects on
terrestrial ecology at the site. A copy of her report is attached at Attachment 2. She
notes its current pastoral use, the presence of the two stream gullies which are
sparsely vegetated aside from what she refers to as two main areas of remnant forest
and scrub. Ms Wood agrees with the Bioresearches assessment that the overall
ecological values at the site are low although she notes that there are some mature
native trees present with what she considers to be significant habitat value. Ms Wood
notes that bird species such as pukeko, swamp harrier and welcome swallow were
observed during a site visit. There is also habitat for lizards and skinks at the site
about which she notes a concern about its’ removal that would result from the
subdivision.
Ms Wood notes that the AEE does not provide any information regarding the actual
ecological effects of removing the trees and is especially concerned that the retention
of two groves of native trees (#16 and #38) has not been properly considered. Ms
Wood contends that the native trees at #16 would not have been planted but are part
of a fully forest remnant. This view is based on the size and approximate age of the
species present, including Puriri trees. Her view is that as trees common to gully
habitat and as a natural feature of this environment they should be retained and that
the infilling of the southern stream watercourse represents a significant loss of
ecological value and she believes that the removal of 119 native trees has not been
mitigated in any way.
Ms Wood provides comment on the proposed landscaping plan and suggests
additional species that would benefit the natural ecology of the area, particularly along
the stream margins which would provide better shading opportunities. She has also
suggested changes to the Reserve Plan and Stormwater Pond Planting Plan which
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 44
could continue the mixed planting proposed for the stream edge. She also comments
in relation to the required landscaping strip along Papakura-Clevedon Road, that some
species (e.g. Kauri) would be inappropriate for best practice reasons and that the
proximity to the boundary and location of fences would make it difficult to maintain
plantings. Pest control has also not been addressed.
In terms of street tree planting and planting within Council reserves that would be
maintained by Council Parks, Mr Adrian Lamont, Aboricultural and Landscape Advisor,
Local & Sports Parks (South) has provided advice to Ms Sophie Bell, Parks and Open
Space Specialists Manager about the appropriateness of plant choices within the
reserve areas and regarding street trees. To address this, Ms Bell has recommended
a condition requiring a landscape plan for the streetscape be provided for approval
prior to the commencement of the landscape works.
In terms of the potential adverse effects on terrestrial ecology at the site, I have
considered the opinion of Ms Wood and agree that the removal of a large number of
trees, including native trees would be significant and is regrettable in terms of the
existing environment. However the ecological value of the existing vegetation,
particularly the remnant trees is in contention as to whether they were planted and or
are significant specimens for their species type to warrant their retention. I note that
significant earthworks and land modification are required at the site to establish a
suitable landform for urban residential development. I also note that infilling of the
southern stream did not form part of the applicant’s original proposal which would have
retained the gully as a recreation reserve. While I accept that the adverse effects of
vegetation removal (particularly those noted in Ms Woods report) at the site would not
be fully mitigated, on balance I consider that the positive effects of the development
would outweigh these effects including the provision of additional housing to the
Auckland housing market, the protection of an archaeological site of national
significance and additional planting proposed within the site including the northern
stream gully and the landscape strip along Papakura-Clevedon Road.
With respect to recommendations for conditions on planting plans, pest management
plans, lizard management plan etc, these are accepted and are included as
recommended conditions of consent.
Effects from temporary construction activities
The subject site is located in a rural area with few residential neighbours nearby
except those at 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road. Potential construction effects
such as noise, heavy traffic movements and dust would be temporary and can all be
minimised through the implementation of best practices identified in a Construction
Management Plan and Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.
With respect to traffic related to the earthworks activities it is noted that vehicle
movements associated with the proposed excavation works will be limited and
temporary in nature. It is anticipated that heavy vehicle movements during the
excavation phase will primarily comprise the transportation of machinery required to
undertake the proposed works, and that the machinery necessary to carry out the
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 45
excavation works will remain on site during the earthworks phase, reducing the need
to transport heavy machinery on/off site on a regular basis.
Page 24 of the AEE states that the applicant would expect a standard Auckland
Council condition requiring a construction management plan to be submitted prior to
works commencing. This would address compliance with the construction noise
standards and ensuring that dust nuisance or tracking of mud onto adjacent roads
does not occur beyond the boundary.
The site works would include one point of entry off Old Wairoa Road. The applicant
comments that this road has low traffic volumes however given the consented
development on the Montgomery Block to the east and the Wallace/Capella Block to
the west, heavy traffic volumes are likely to be quite high. This should be
acknowledged and reflected in any construction management plan. Overall, I am
satisfied that any potential adverse construction effects would be temporary and can
be satisfactorily avoided, or mitigated through conditions of consent.
Effects on adjacent neighbours
Properties adjoining site and their owners include:




979 Papakura-Clevedon Road (Wallace/Capella)
963 Papakura-Clevedon Road (Mark and Dawn Vidak)
931 Papakura-Clevedon Road (David and Carmel Powell)
899 Papakura-Clevedon Road (Allan Montgomery with a developer interest
from Carhart Investments Limited and Darley Investments Limited)
Neither owners of 979 or 899 Papakura-Clevedon Road made submissions on this
application however I have briefly considered potential effects on these properties as
the owners of land adjacent to the site. The Wallace/Capella site is west and
downstream of the subject site. Proposed roads from the Cabra site would connect to
this property and an existing farm drain would remain open as a contingency discharge
point for the proposed stormwater pond. No specific issues or concerns have been
raised by Council specialists in terms of adverse effects on this property. I note that a
condition of consent requiring the upgrading of the unsealed section of Old Wairoa
Road has been imposed on this site and the Montgomery site to the east.
The Montgomery site to the east has resource consent to subdivide the site into 83
residential lots over three stages. This includes the construction and vesting of a
stormwater pond and a local road network that will connect to Old Wairoa Road. The
design for the Montgomery site was designed in conjunction with the Cabra property
and is intended to be integrated in terms of land contours and road connections. Many
of the specialist reports provided with this application also form the basis of the
Montgomery development proposal.
In terms of potential effects, these primarily relate to integration at the common
boundary of these sites which is to be adjusted as part of this application. In particular
I note that the northern stream gully forms part of both properties, and proposed Road
8 would traverse both properties. In terms of landform integration, I have previously
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 46
raised issues about the interface between existing levels on the Montgomery property
which I now understand are to remain unchanged through the northern stream gully,
and the proposed design levels on the Cabra site. In my view, the difference in levels
shown on the earthworks plans are substantial and could potentially lead to instability
issues and an inability to establish private lots along the northern stream edge without
some form of retaining. Discussions with the applicant’s engineer have indicated that
appropriate design can be achieved and that the northern stream gully, east of the
Montgomery section would be battered back to tie in with existing levels. I accept this,
however the revised plans submitted in October do not appear to reflect what was
discussed at the 03/09/14 meeting. Further information, including cross-sections and
levels at the boundary would assist in understanding how this will be achieved.
931 Papakura- Clevedon Road is a 1,500m2 site located adjacent to the upper part of
the site in the eastern. Part of Rings Redoubt is also located on this property. This site
forms part of the Kirikiri Structure Plan and its owner was a financial member of the
Kirikiri Structure Plan landowners group who first promulgated the private plan change
to rezone the site. Setting aside the issues relating to the Redoubt which are
discussed below, the submission from the owner of this site has raised concerns about
effects from earthworks and proposed retaining walls along the northern boundary and
changes to ground levels along the southern frontage (driveway vehicle entry). The
submitter also seeks services connections and options for alternative vehicle access
from within the Cabra development. I note that in terms of earthworks and retaining,
the submitter’s site now adjoins Stage 6 which proposes a modified lot and reserve
layout. Lot 900 (historic reserve) would adjoin all common boundaries and proposed
levels tied into the submitters site. Based on the revised plans, no retaining is
proposed along any common boundary. I note that the historic reserve area is within
the ‘archaeological sensitive area’ where further investigation of Rings Redoubt is
proposed. No bulk earthworks activities are proposed within this area and would be
limited to works approximately 20 metres from the western and northern boundaries.
Works would be managed in accordance with a construction management plan to
control hours of operation, truck movement and dust etc. In respect of ground level
changes along the Papakura-Clevedon Road, I understand that no changes are
proposed and the existing driveway levels would remain. While this advice conflicts
with the cross-section plan information provided in the October 2014 revised plan set
(refer Dwg EW-110 & EW-115) advice from the applicant’s planner to myself (dated
24/10/14) states:
“I have just asked for further clarification on the earthworks shown in the application.
Essentially, the earthworks shown within the road reserve was part of the modelling
exercise to show that the proposal can tie into the future improvements of the
Papakura-Clevedon Road carriageway. In reality, there will be a small amount of
earthworks in the road reserve to achieve tie in between the proposal and the
existing berm. The table drain and edge of seal will not be affected.
As for the earthworks outside of the Vidak and Powell frontage, this simply will not
occur. Sections 6 and 9 are therefore in accurate. Please advise if you would like
these plans amended or if there is another way we can deal with this.” (refer
Attachment 4)
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 47
No further changes to the plans were requested at that time as the revised set has just
been made available to submitters via the Council website. Amended plans provided
at the hearing would however be helpful in understanding the effects along the
frontage of Mr Powell’s and Mr Vidak’s property.
963 Papakura-Clevedon Road is a 2,000m2 site located adjacent to the southern side
of the subject site and with frontage and vehicle access to Papakura-Clevedon Road.
The site forms part of the Kirikiri Structure Plan area and is zoned Residential 8B.
Potentially this site could be subdivided into three lots. The owners of the site Mark
and Dawn Vidak have lodged a submission and raised concerns in relation to
infrastructure services connections and vehicle access through the Cabra site which
would future proof opportunities for development of this property in accordance with
the Kirkiri Structure Plan, the proposed removal of protected trees within this site,
changes to the driveway entry levels, changing ground levels including retaining walls
along common boundaries and construction effects. The Council also sought further
information from the applicant to address these issues in its post-submissions section
92 letter sent in January 2014.
I understand that Cabra has consulted with Mr Vidak and agreements have been
reached to provide infrastructure services and future vehicle access connections via a
proposed access lot between Lots 102 and 103. This has been included in the
October 2014 revised plan set. Utility and water supply services would be provided
within a common trench along the southern side of proposed Road 1 as well as
stormwater and wastewater drainage. The cost of extending those services along the
access lot to 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road would be Mr Vidak’s responsibility at the
time he chose to subdivide his property. The Council’s development engineer Mr
Rajinesh Kumar has reviewed the revised proposal and is satisfied that it now caters
for future development of Mr Vidak’s site.
In terms of protected trees proposed to be removed on this site (#76, #78 and #79),
the applicant’s planner has advised that these trees will not be removed, although no
further assessment or arborist methodology regarding likely works within the rootzone
of these trees.
In terms of retaining walls, walls of up to 2.5 metres (only Type B specified) are
proposed along the western and eastern boundaries to establish the sites at proposed
Lot 97, 98 and 133. I note that the retaining wall along the common boundary with Lot
97 would be set back to avoid the rootzone of trees and hedging along Mr Vidak’s
western boundary. No retaining is proposed along the northern boundary as design
levels would tie in with existing levels on Mr Vidak’s property although retaining
requirements along the western side of the access lot adjacent to Lot 103 would
appear to be necessary to accommodate the steeper gradients shown on the final
slope analysis plan (refer Dwg EW-104). With respect to construction activity, the
development will generate temporary construction effects including noise, vibration
and dust. While these will create a disturbance to neighbours, works in close proximity
to this site will be temporary and can be controlled via an approved construction
management plan.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 48
In terms of potential adverse effects on adjoining neighbours, I am generally satisfied
that any effects that are more than minor can be avoided or mitigated subject to
additional information being provided at the hearing to better understand the interface
with the Montgomery site and details around retaining along Mr Vidak’s boundary. In
terms of providing for future development of 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road, this has
been provided for and I understand that Mr Vidak and Cabra have been in consultation
to consider future subdivision opportunities for this property. With respect to the
property at 931 Papakura-Clevedon Road, given its proximity to Rings Redoubt, it is
unlikely that further subdivision will be possible and therefore alternative access to
services and roading could not be justified. The existing access arrangement would
need to remain along with on-site water supply and wastewater services. The existing
driveway levels at 963 and 931 Papakura-Clevedon Road would not change.
Effects on cultural heritage mana whenua values
The subject site is of cultural interest to local mana whenua in terms of an historical
association with the 1860’s NZ (Waikato campaign) Land Wars and a more general
interest and concern about the management of native vegetation, fauna and streams.
The historical interest that iwi may have in the site is described in the archaeological
reports prepared by Clough & Associates (and also Ken Phillips), which includes the
Te Aparangi village which was located two miles east of Papakura on the Kirikiri
Stream and the ‘Moses’ encampment below the Rings Redoubt.
The applicant has attempted to consult with local mana whenua in relation to this
proposal including:

Te Ara Rangatu o Te iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua;

Ngati Tamaoho Trust;

Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust;

Te Akitai o Waiohua Trust;

Ngati Paoa Trust.
I understand that prior to lodgement of the original application, Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati
Te Ata, Te Akitai and Ngai Tai ki Tamaki expressed an interest in the proposal and site
visits were held with those parties in November 2012 and January 2013. The
application was subsequently lodged without a CIA or further comment from interested
iwi about the cultural effects of the proposal. Previous public processes associated
with the notified Plan Change 11 where mana whenua issues could have been raised
via submissions on the publicly notified application and costs were cited as reasons for
the applicant choosing not providing a CIA. Until recently this view has been
maintained. However, the applicant has since reconsidered its position and agreed to
engage with those iwi who made submissions on the application including
representatives of Ngati Tamoho Trust and Ngati Te Ata – Waiohua. I understand that
the applicant will provide further information on consultation outcomes with these iwi
prior to or at the hearing.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 49
The notified PAUP includes requirements for the provision of CIA to assess potential
effects on mana whenua values. The various triggers for providing a CIA are set out in
section 4.3 above. The information is also required to assess the proposal against
relevant objectives and policies in the ARPS and the District Plan. Both of the iwi
submissions received oppose the application and seek further consultation and the
completion of a CIA to further assess iwi and cultural issues particularly relation to
Rings Redoubt, vegetation removal and streamworks, and the construction of an
online pond.
While I can only speculate based on brief submissions as to the likely interest local
mana whenua may have about aspects of the proposal, it would not be appropriate to
base any assessment of effects on this view. In the absence of this information, I do
not believe it is possible to conclude that any adverse effects from the proposal on
mana whenua would be less than minor or to comment on any appropriate mitigation
measures. I also have not been able to form a view as to whether the proposal is
contrary to objectives and policies or Part 2, Section 6(e) of the RMA ‘Matters of
National Importance’ which the Council must recognise and provide for. Further
assessment information should be provided at the hearing to address effects on mana
whenua cultural values. This view is also reflected in feedback from Ms Keita Kohere,
Auckland Council’s Principal Heritage Advisor, Cultural Heritage Implementation Team
who states:
“For the Cultural Heritage Implementation Team to provide meaningful feedback we
would recommend Cultural Impact Assessments and/or a Memorandum of
Understanding with all four iwi (either individually or collectively) completed by iwi to
be provided for our further comment. We would be looking for evidence of
meaningful consideration of mana whenua values, in this case (in no particular order)
Ngati Te Ata, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Tamaoho and Te Akitai Waiohua.
In the absence of formal feedback from affected iwi and/or a CIA, the ability to
determine the extent of cultural impacts arising from this proposal is limited,
particularly given the significance of the historic Redoubt site and other activities of
cultural interest such as vegetation removal and streamworks. For this reason I am
of the view that there is currently insufficient information to assess the cultural impact
of this proposal on mana whenua values and the Council’s statutory obligations that
would give effect to Section 6(e) of the RMA.”
A copy of Ms Kohere’s report is attached at Attachment 2.
Effects on landscape character, urban design and amenity values
Development of the site for urban residential purposes has the potential to impact on
identified landscape character and amenity values at the site. Existing values include
the general landform appearance of the site, the two stream gullies, existing vegetation
including mature trees scattered throughout the site and the prominent ridgeline areas
along the southern Papakura-Clevedon Road boundary and the historical association
with the NZ Land Wars, particularly Rings Redoubt. All of these features are captured
within structural elements indicated on the Kirikiri Structure Plan including the two
stream gullies (intended as reserves), a roading layout that follows the east-west
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 50
spurs, the differential urban zoning that provides for more intensive Residential 8A
zone in the lower western part of the site and Residential 8B higher up, the south-east
Rings Redoubt area.
The Kirikiri Structure Plan provides for an overall pattern of development which
includes more intensive development on flatter western parts comprising the Wallace
property and lower density of mixed site sizes on higher sloping land within the site
and on land at and beyond the eastern ridgeline comprising the Montgomery Block
and a residual triangle of land in the north-east corner.
Determining the
appropriateness of lot sizes within Residential 8B land requires regard being had to the
minimum 600m2 site sizes specified in the District Plan and also design guidelines that
enable an appropriate response to the identified landscape values. This is because
the proposed vacant lot subdivision will enable the development of residential buildings
within proposed sites that will be subject to permitted building controls that specify
height, height in relation to boundary, building coverage and yards. Consideration of
future development potential is therefore relevant and important.
The potential landscape character and urban design effects arising from the proposal
have been considered by Council’s Principal Urban Design Specialist Ms Nicola
Williams. A copy of the specialist report prepared by Ms Williams is attached at
Attachment 2. Ms Williams has reviewed the application including the applicant’s
AEE, Construkt urban design report and the LASF landscape proposal.
Having regard to the site’s location at the eastern edge of urban Papakura beyond
which also marks the transition to Auckland’s rural urban boundary (RUB), Ms Williams
has considered the potential effects of the proposal on existing landscape values,
particularly what she considers to be the important south-eastern plateau (Redoubt
site) and the east-west southern ridgeline along Papakura-Clevedon Road. As the
basis for her assessment, Ms Williams has referred to the relevant objectives and
policies and design assessment criteria within the District Plan. This includes a
detailed assessment of potential views from various approaches to the site and from
within the site itself. Ms Williams has also considered the impact of future residential
buildings on the integrity of Rings Redoubt and practical matters relating to proposed
landscaping along Papakura-Clevedon Road.
With respect to the application proposal, Ms Williams concludes that development
within the lower level Stages 1-4 would be acceptable and that they do not present any
major urban design issues. This view would be subject to the achievement of suitable
building footprints and rear yard qualities that might be affected by altered design
requirements arising from mitigation measures relating to traffic safety discussed
below. I have also inferred from her assessment against the relevant design criteria
that the general landform changes across the site are acceptable.
Ms Williams does however have significant concerns about residential development
within proposed Stages 5-6 which she does not support. Ten north facing lots are
proposed within Stage 5 of fairly uniform (600m2) site sizes. These are relatively
narrow sites (approximately 18 metres) and would generally be retained along their
side boundaries. A required 3 metre landscaping strip is proposed (and required)
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 51
along the rear boundary of six lots adjacent to Papakura-Clevedon Road which would
further constrain developable areas within each site. Twelve to fifteen lots are
proposed within Stage 6 (Options 1 and 2). Six of these lots backing onto PapakuraClevedon Road would require the 3 metre wide landscape strip.
Ms Williams concerns primarily relate to potential impacts on the southern PapakuraClevedon Road ridgeline as viewed from surrounding areas primarily to the west and
the curtilage area around the Redoubt site. In this regard Ms Williams states:
“The site is located along the north side of the ridgeline of Papakura-Clevedon Road
which crests at the Rings (Kirikiri) Redoubt and then slopes downhill to the plateau of
the Clevedon village area to the east. The significance of the landscape as it is
experienced both from the lower-lying area to the north up to the ridgeline, as well as
the cultural and heritage significance of the Rings/Kirikiri Redoubt includes the finding
that:
1. The Rings (Kirikiri) Redoubt area marks the crest of the only hill between
urban Papakura and Rural Clevedon to the east. The Rings (Kirikiri)
Redoubt is a significant heritage and landscape asset for the area.
Objective and policies 5B.2.2.4.2 and 5B.2.2.4.3 respectively of the
Takanini Structure Plan requires “Subdivision and development be
designed to as to avoid, remedy or mitigate significant adverse effects on
significant heritage values.” The Rings (Kirikiri) Redoubt area at the crest of
the hill also creates a strong (and only) transition point between urban
Papakura to the west and the rural setting to the east. It is therefore
significant not only in terms of its heritage significance of ‘place’ but also in
its physical and experienced (viewed) landmark for defining the transition
over the hill between the end of the urban growth area and the rural
countryside to the east and south.
2. Additionally the site is located along the edge of the Rural Urban Boundary.
The RUB in relation to the eastern end of this site is located along a
significant ridgeline and high point at the foothills of the Hunua Ranges. An
open spacious built form character her is even more critical to local
landscape significance given also the contrasting Rural Lifestyle zone
(PAUP) opposite the site on the southern side of Papakura-Clevedon Road.
In light of the above, the narrower 18-metre wide lots, combined with notable areas of
battering and retaining walls (some on all four sides of sites), limit the building platform
area and the ability to secure sufficient space for mature landscape opportunities
between dwellings without compromising daylight access.”
Following on from the above, Ms Williams goes on to conclude that there are likely to
be significant adverse physical and experience landscape effects arising from the
currently proposed Stages 5 and 6. While the proposed lots comply within the
minimum 600m2 size, in her opinion they represent an absence of variety in lots sizes
sought by the District Plan in response to local landscape character, an inability to
achieve mature trees around between dwellings (other than the rear landscape strip)
that would provide a transition to rural areas to the south. In her view:
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 52
“…future dwellings are likely to create a solid form around the Rings (Kirikiri)
Redoubt, as well as form a solid edge along the experienced journey past the site
along Papakura-Clevedon Road.
In achieving this, the more spacious and
contextually responsive 22-25 wide lots in the approved Montgomery Block to the
east are where the adjacent 10 x lots in Stage 5 and 12 lots (excluding Option 1) in
Stage 6 need to match.”
I have considered Ms Williams assessment and am particularly concerned about the
potential landscape effects arising from the proposal which could result in a solid wall
of housing westward down the Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline as viewed from the
north-west and from vehicles travelling along this road. While this view would be
mitigated to some extent by the proposed landscape strip, it is unlikely to be that
effective in terms of views up from the north-west given that the maximum permitted
height of buildings in the Residential 8B zone is nine metres.
For the reasons Ms Williams has given and also having considered the building bulk
and location controls for the Residential 8B zone, in my opinion it is very likely that
future houses on the Stage 5 lots would be two storey, (permitted up to 9 metres),
particularly given the narrower sites that would constrain a single level footprint and to
take advantage of commanding views to the north-west. Due to legal access by a
private access way the proposed lots within Stage 5 that have frontage to PapakuraClevedon Road would be considered as ‘rear sites’ with a requirement for a front yard
adjoining Papakura-Clevedon Road. The following yard requirements would apply:

Front Yard (Papakura Clevedon Road) = 5 metres

Rear Yards (from all other boundaries) = 3 metres
The maximum permitted building coverage area within the Residential 8B zone would
be 35%.
Smaller site size would also sharply contrast with larger lot sizes on the Montgomery
Block where housing is restricted to single storey (5.5 metres) and includes a more
generous 5 metre wide landscape strip. Within Stage 6, the proposed lot layout,
particularly Option 1 would surround the Redoubt and provide little opportunity for
views into or out of the reserve area other than from adjacent residential properties. In
spite of conclusions reached by Clough & Associates about historic views not being to
the north, Option 2 would enable a more open, spacious view of the reserve and
maintain its integrity as a potential civic heart to the development and a place of
historic value. Option 2 is also supported by Ms Sophie Bell, Parks and Open Space
Specialists Manager who has commented on the establishment and acquisition of
reserves within the development. A copy of Ms Bell’s report is attached at
Attachment 2 in which she states:
“The final boundaries of the historic reserve (once agreed) will directly influence the
boundaries of the recreation reserve which means the options presented might
require modification. Based on the reserve and urban design principles, option 2
(drawing 60355-00-GE-017) provides the more appropriate framework to work from
and is supported in principle. The reasons for this are as follows:
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 53





It provides a wide open frontage along Road 1 which assists in the legibility of
the recreation and historic reserves from within the development.
Maximising the road frontage also provides passive surveillance opportunities
from the road and activities on the opposite side of the road, and is in
alignment with CPTED principles. The inclusion of 3 residential lots (option 1)
could raise safety concerns with a hidden area behind the lots which are likely
to be fenced.
It aligns with the principles of the Parks and Open Space Interim Provision
Guidelines (2014 which seek to establish neighbourhood parks around
3000m2 in size within a 600 metre walking distance of residents.
It provides more useable space for informal recreational activities (e.g kick
around area and play opportunities) than option 2, and is of relatively equal
proportions making it easier to orientate oneself and providing clear
boundaries.
It provides a landscape transition between the urban and rural areas and an
unobstructed link between Road 1 and Papakura-Clevedon Road.
I note that the applicant’s planner has also commented on potential landscape effects
in an email to myself and Ms Williams dated 10 September 2014 (refer Appendix 6 in
the October 2014 Section 92 response). In that email, Mr Chris Walsh refers to an
appropriate transition at the RUB interface being achieved through a variety of zoning
in the wider landscape and other controls such as landscaping and fencing typologies.
In his view, the variety of lot sizes sought by the District Plan Design Criteria are met
and are further complemented by larger sites at 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon
Road of which only 963 could be further subdivided. Mr Walsh also refers to the Keri
Vista development to the south and the lack of transitional elements at the RUB
interface where sites adjoin rural-residential are around 450m2.
While I agree that the Keri Vista development to the south forms part of the existing
environment and represents a poor outcome in terms of a rural-urban transition,
particularly given its high visibility, I do not think that any direct comparison can be
made given that a different urban zoning and policy objective that would apply to this
area. Consideration of any landscape impacts arising from this proposal requires an
assessment of landscape values within the local catchment and the policies that apply
to the Kirikiri Structure Plan and the wider Takanini Structure Plan area. I do however
accept that the larger neighbouring sites particularly 931 Papakura-Clevedon Road
(which is unlikely to be further subdivided) would assist in maintaining the open,
spacious character near the Redoubt site and that the adoption of Option 2 would
provide the most appropriate outcome in terms of maintaining public views into and out
of reserve area.
In order to mitigate potentially significant adverse landscape effects arising from
Stages 5 and 6, Ms Williams has recommended a modest reduction in the number of
proposed lots. In her opinion a reduction of five lots within Stages 5 and 6 would
enable larger and wider site sizes (closer to 800m2) which would enable a better
transition between the site and rural land to the south, more spacious areas for
planting and its opportunity for its longevity and more opportunity for single level
development. I note that the removal of five lots to a total of 148 lots would still result
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 54
in an overall net gain at the site when compared to the 146 lots that formed the basis
of the application lodged in July 2012. Ms Williams has also recommended that legal
mechanisms to achieve a maximum one and half storey future building height and a
review of the landscape strip design, particularly access for maintenance and the
extent of landscaping where visibility is required at the intersection with Road 2.
Having had regard to the specialist comments provided by Ms Williams and Ms Bell
and the applicant’s responses, I have concluded that the potential adverse effects on
the significant landscape values at the site would be more than minor but that these
effects could be mitigated through the reduction of lot numbers within Stages 5 and 6
to increase their overall size, and through a review of the proposed landscape strip
design and landscaping within the proposed Redoubt reserve. I agree with these
recommendations, although I am concerned that the recommendation on the height of
building storeys may not be fully justified and that the differential effects between one
and half and two storeys may hard to quantify. I would be more comfortable with
recommending a maximum single storey height for buildings within Stage 5 which
would be consistent with the condition of consent granted for the Montgomery
development along the Papakura-Clevedon Road frontage (consented maximum up to
5.5 metres). It would also provide an opportunity for planting heights be mature above
the height of rooflines to establish a backdrop to the ridgeline and soften boundaries
between lots.
In terms of scheme plan options for Stage 6, I also support Option 2 for the reasons
stated by Ms Williams and Ms Bell and the assessment by Ms Eaves in relation to
heritage matters. In my view maximising the reserve road frontage would support the
integrity of the Rings Redoubt as a significant historic site and a sobering reminder of
the NZ Land Wars between Maori and European settlers. While I understand the
applicant’s desire that the Council approve one or other of the proposed schemes, I
am not convinced that there is sufficient information to assess the scheme plan given
that it relies on other land use consent requirements and the level of public historical
interest in the Redoubt site. It may be possible to include a condition of consent to
approve the scheme plan subject to satisfactorily addressing other matters, including
any potential effects on the archaeological site and determining the extent of the
Redoubt boundary which is very likely to affect the proposed reserve boundaries and
possibly also the residential lots.
Effects on Heritage Values
The subject site contains a scheduled archaeological site known as Kirikiri/Rings
Redoubt (R11_956) that has national significance in terms of its European and Maori
historical association with the NZ (Waikato) Land Wars of the early 1860s. The
national importance of this site is agreed by all parties and reflected in the comments
by Clough & Shakles (p39, 2012):
“The area is historically and archaeologically significant because of its connection
with the Waikato War and the presence of Ring’s Redoubt, and historically significant
because of its connection with the prominent Nathan Family.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 55
The Waikato campaign was part of the wider New Zealand Wars, whose importance,
historically, in shaping New Zealand and in Pakeha-Maori relationships cannot be
underestimated. It without doubt, one of the most significant events in the history of
New Zealand…
The Rings Redoubt site is significant both as an individual archaeological site, and as
part of an interrelated group of sites that make up a heritage landscape relating to the
Waikato Campaign.”
With this in mind, my approach to the assessment of effects in relation to this important
archaeological site has been precautionary while attempting to maintain a balanced
view that also considers positive effects arising from future development of the site for
residential activity. I am mindful of the Council’s obligations under section 6 of the
RMA to recognise and provide for Matters of National Importance including ‘the
relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands, water,
sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga (s6(e)) and ‘the protection of historic heritage from
inappropriate subdivision, use and development’ (s6(f). In this regard, I have relied on
the cultural heritage specialist assessments of:

Ms Myfanwy Eaves (in relation to Stages 1-5) – Senior Specialist
Archaeology, Cultural Heritage Implementation Team, Heritage Unit,
Environmental Strategy and Policy

Mr Ken Phillips (in relation to Stage 6 – Redoubt site) – Consultant
Archaeologist, Archaeology BOP

Ms Keita Kohere (mana whenua cultural heritage issues) – Principal Heritage
Adviser, Cultural Heritage Implementation Team, Heritage Unit,
Environmental Strategy and Policy
I have also read the assessment reports from Clough & Associates, experienced
archaeologists well known throughout Auckland. Copies of specialist reports prepared
by Mr Phillips and Ms Eaves are attached at Attachment 2.
The fascinating history of Rings Redoubt and its role in the NZ land Wars is well
documented in archaeological reports prepared by Clough & Shakles (2012) in support
of the original application and further assessment reports on the heritage landscape
(including likely historical views from the Redoubt site) and an interpretation of the
geophysical survey. The assessment reports are also further elaborated in the
specialist report and archaeological assessment from Council’s consultant
archaeologist Ken Phillips.
I note also that there are heritage values associated with the former Nathan villa at 965
Papakura-Clevedon Road proposed to be located at Lot 98 and potentially Maori
occupation and settlement along the Kirikiri Stream. Apart from information provided
in the Clough & Shakles and Phillips assessments, no information about Maori
historical associations with the site has been provided with this application. The
Matthews & Mathews Architects Ltd report attached as Appendix 8 to the 2013 AEE
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 56
provides an assessment of the historic villa which the report confirms dates back to the
early 1880’s and late 1890’s.
As I experienced during my first site visit, to the untrained eye there are no obvious
above ground features at the Redoubt site except ground features associated with the
eastern ditch that extends north-south back to the Papakura-Clevedon Road frontage.
In spite of this, detailed historical information does provide relatively detailed
descriptions about the location of the Redoubt and the later Hibbard house that was
constructed on the Redoubt footprint (refer Figure 5 in the 2012 Clough & Shakles
report). These are documented in the specialist reports provided with the application
and the review by Ken Phillips. A geophysical survey commissioned by the applicant
in June 2014 has highlighted various anomalies within the vicinity of the Redoubt some
of which may date back to military activities associated with the 1860’s Waikato
campaign. This has led to an agreement to further investigate an area within and
around the Redoubt site to determine the origin of the anomalies and further inform the
location of the Redoubt boundary.
The District Plan and PAUP reference for the location of the archaeological site is 965
and 931 Papakura-Clevedon Road in their entirety however the Redoubt footprint is
generally thought to be located in an area that straddles these two sites along with
external features (such as former barracks, rubbish pits, latrines etc) that may be
within a 100 metre radius (as suggested in the Clough & Shakles 2012 report). In this
regard the 2012 report states:
“While the site of the redoubt itself is outside the area proposed for development and
would be placed in reserve, it should be noted that there is a high probability that
features associated with the occupation of the redoubt by the soldiers of the 18th
Regiment could be located for some distance around it to the north, east and west.
These features could include latrines, refuse pits, and a well and artefacts associated
with the military encampment…(p40)
The potential archaeological values in Area 2 are therefore high, but this potential
could not be confirmed without archaeological investigation or surface stripping.”
When discussing the effects of the proposal, the report goes on to say that:
“However, it is likely that archaeological remains associated with the military
encampment around the redoubt have survived within proposed residential
lots or access ways. Probing to the north-east of the redoubt identified the
presence of possible pits/features up to a distance of about 100m.”(p41)
And further in relation to section 6(f) of the RMA:
“It is likely that subsurface remains of the military encampment outside the redoubt
are present within the subdivision area, within a c. 100m radius of the redoubt.
However, the presence and extent of any remains cannot be confirmed without
excavation. It is considered that any adverse effects would be suitably mitigated by
the protection of the redoubt itself, and by the recovery of information through
archaeological investigation under the Historic Places Act.”
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 57
The Council has lodged a submission seeking the inclusion of a plan showing the
extent of the Redoubt as shown in Section 3.3 above. It is fair to say that the extent of
the Redoubt site including its external features is a main area of contention between
the Council and the applicant, although all parties have agreed that further
archaeological investigation of the site to determine its boundaries (which would in turn
inform the reserve lot boundaries) is required and that the subdivision of Stage 6
should not be confirmed until that information becomes available. I note that the
October 2014 section 92 response includes further reasons for consent under the
PAUP to undertake intrusive investigation of the site. The response did not include
any proposal or methodology for the investigation or any additional assessment of
effects. I am also not aware of any agreements reached with Auckland Council’s
Cultural Heritage Team about the proposed investigation methodology or any progress
that has been made to obtain an authority to investigate the site (s18, Historic Places
Act) or modify the site (s11 or s12 of the Historic Places Act).
As notified, the proposal includes subdivision of the area encompassing Rings
Redoubt. The notified application included an historic and recreation reserve area
(Lots 703 and 704) surrounded by residential lots that are within an area potentially
thought to include the Redoubt and its external features. In response to further
surface archaeological investigation requested under section 92 and an agreement
with the Council to undertake further intrusive investigation, the subdivision proposal
was revised to include two additional stages (5 & 6) of which Stage 6 would
encompass the Redoubt and a wider buffer area (although less than the suggested
100 metres radius of potential interest). Two scheme plan options are included with
the revised application along with the location of an historic and recreation reserve.
Earthworks and retaining walls on some sites are also proposed within Stage 6.
Mr Phillips has the reviewed proposal in terms of potential effects on the Redoubt
heritage features within the Stage 6 boundary. Mr Phillips has also commented in the
Clough & Shakles assessment (2102 and 2014). In respect of the sufficiency of the
information provided Mr Phillips states that:
“Aspects of the archaeological resource not fully assessed by the Shakles & Clough
2012 report and the subsequent geophysical survey include the identification of the
full extent of archaeological site R11/956 / CHI 9441 to enable appropriate
recommendations for the mitigation of effects on those high archaeological values to
be made. In particular, the location and significance of the Barracks building has not
been adequately addressed.”
Mr Phillips has also formed a different view about the extent of archaeological
features that require mitigation and protection. He states:
“The recommendations provided by Shakles & Clough for the mitigation of
effects on R11/956 / CHI 9441 appear to be based on the assumption that the
only component of R11/956 CHI 9441 worth saving is the redoubt proper despite
stating that external features would have considerable archaeological
significance. The Heritage Unit are of the opinion that the redoubt footprint is but
a component of R11/956 / CHI 9441 that likely includes many significant external
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 58
features equally integral to the site and worthy of preservation. Furthermore the
objectives and rules of the RMA and the PAUP that require protection and
preservation of significant heritage sites are not considered in the mitigation
strategy proposed by Shakles & Clough.”
In his report, Mr Phillips goes on to comment on the historic research and the
archaeological features of the Redoubt, particularly where he differs from the view
expressed by the applicant’s archaeologist. In terms of Stage 6, Mr Phillips is
concerned that the both scheme plan options show little or no consideration for the
preservation of archaeological features associated with the Redoubt including the
location of reserve boundaries and lots within an area possibly associated with rifle pits
based on the geophysical. In terms of recommendations, Mr Phillips seeks, amongst
other things that the 100m radius surrounding the redoubt proper be used to define the
redoubt boundary and that any reduction in that boundary be supported by conclusive
archival information and archaeological evidence.
It is my understanding that the applicant intends to undertake further archaeological
investigation within Stage 6 boundary shown as ‘archaeological sensitive area’ (an
area agreed with the Council). The outcome of this investigation would be used to
define the redoubt boundary and confirm the appropriateness of the one or other of the
scheme plans proposed for Stage 6. This may be less than the 100 metres
recommended by Mr Phillips but would be an agreed boundary that protects the
Redoubt site and any notable external features within an historic reserve. This would
be implemented by way of a condition of consent although the applicant has not
provided any suggested wording or any further assessment relating other works such
as earthworks or retaining with the Stage 6 boundary or in relation to the further
archaeological investigation. In regards to activities other than subdivision, I have
assumed the applicant would also accept conditions of consent that restricted any
works within the Stage 6 boundary until the outcome of the archaeological
investigation was known. While this approach has not been documented in the
applicant’s section 92 response it has been discussed in conversations with the
applicant’s planner.
In terms of the proper identification of the Redoubt and achieving and enabling its
future protection, I agree with Mr Phillip’s that a conservative boundary should be
maintained until further information is obtained. Ultimately this may or may not include
all of the external features associated with the Redoubt but would enable a process to
reach a final agreement with the Council Heritage Unit. In my view, while I support the
establishment of Stage 6 area as a balance lot, the approval of scheme plans for this
stage along with earthworks and retaining is premature and cannot be properly
assessed in the absence of vital archaeological information.
In terms of the broader heritage value of the site, this has been assessed by Ms
Eaves. A copy of her report is attached at Attachment 2. She notes the historic
association of the wider site with Rings Redoubt and the use of Old Wairoa Road and
is concerned about ‘an imminent threat of loss to the sense of place.’ In her view,
Stages 1-4 and the lower part of Stage 5 propose activities that can be mitigated as
part of the development process but that the upper part of Stage 5 and Stage 6 require
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 59
further discussion in terms of boundaries and also protecting historic view shafts from
the Redoubt. In respect of the former Nathan villa, she notes that this would be
retained as part of proposed Lot 98. To mitigate potential adverse effects associated
with the development of the wider site (primarily Stages 1-4), Ms Eaves has
recommended conditions of consent that are set out in her specialist report.
Overall Effects Conclusion
Overall, based on the information submitted with the application and the additional
information provided pre and post notification, and taking into consideration a balanced
approach to assessing the effects, I conclude that aspects of the proposal would have
actual or potential adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor.
These are primarily related to landscape effects within Stage 5 (and Stage 6 in part)
and heritage effects within Stage 6 and not to Stages 1-4 for which effects could in my
view be successfully mitigated. This conclusion has resulted in part from a lack of
information and assessment on some issues and/or specialist assessments that have
caused me to conclude that some effects are potentially unacceptable and/or could not
be satisfactorily mitigated by the current proposal.
Notwithstanding the above, I acknowledge the applicant’s intention to commit
resources to further investigation of the Redoubt site that would better inform the
understanding of potential effects arising from subdivision and development within
Stage 6 and that any development works within the stage boundary would be delayed
until the outcome of the archaeological investigation was known.
If the Commissioners were minded to grant consent, I would support the establishment
of a balance lot comprising Stages 5 and 6 but I do not support granting consent to
either of the proposed scheme plans for Stage 6, or the earthworks and retaining
proposal until the further archaeological information is known and the boundary of the
Redoubt has been agreed. This is not because of any philosophical objection to
subdivision within this part of the site, but because of the potential risk to a heritage
site of national significance and the need to adopt a precautionary approach,
particularly in response to section 6(f) of the RMA. Similarly, with respect to Stage 5, I
would support a balance lot being consented as part of the current proposal to enable
reconsideration of a lot layout that better responds to the Papakura-Clevedon Road
ridgeline and avoid to any design conflicts at the interface with Stage 6 which may
require a redesign depending on the outcome of the archaeological investigation.
6.4
Section 104(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Relevant Provisions of National Environmental
Standards and Other Regulations
There are NES or other regulations in effect that apply to this application. Previously
discussed earthworks effects have taken into consideration the requirements of the
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to
Protect Human Health (“NES”).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 60
6.5
Section 104(1)(b)(iii) Relevant Provisions of National Policy Statements
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
The NZCPS is not applicable to this application
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Water Management (2014)
The relevant objectives and policies of the NPSFWM (2014) seek to safeguard the life
supporting capacity ecosystem processes and indigenous species of fresh water
resources. The proposed stream works will result in the removal of an existing
intermittent stream and the reconstruction, damming and encasement of parts of a
permanent stream. The assessment undertaken by the applicant and the Council’s
specialist recognises that significant adverse effects on the in-stream ecology of the
permanent watercourse would result in effects that are more than minor however the
proposed reconstruction of the northern stream combined with the off-site mitigation
will act to sufficiently mitigate these effects. I note that no information regarding mana
whenua values in respect of freshwater streams has been provided.
6.6
Section 104(1)(b)(v) Relevant Provisions of the Auckland Council Regional
Policy Statement
The Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement ("ACRPS") is a strategic document
which sets out the direction of managing the use, development and protection of the
natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. This document became
operative in 1999.
The strategic objectives and policies of the ACRPS provide a framework to achieve the
integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the Region’s resources. Under
the ACRPS, matters related to environmental protection, such as the coastal
environment, water quality, water conservation and allocation and air quality have
specific objectives, policies and methods to achieve sustainable and integrated
management of major natural and physical resources in the Region.
The ACRPS provides the overall direction and general strategy for management of
resources in the Auckland region.
Key issues for the region identified within the ACRPS include the need to
accommodate continued population growth in the foreseeable future in a manner
“…that directs urban, rural and coastal settlement development and countryside living
to areas in a form which is efficient in terms of travel patterns and energy use,
supports infrastructure investment and avoid, remedies, or mitigates adverse effects
on the Region’s natural and physical resources…” (Refer 2.6 The Strategic Direction of
the ACRPS.)
In summary, the ACRPS promotes the containment of urban growth within defined
Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) and existing settlements. The subject site is located
within the MUL/RUB boundary, and comprises land that is zoned for urban residential
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 61
development.
containment.
It is therefore consistent with the general RPS principles of
Where the proposal potentially departs from objectives sought by the ACRPS is
relation to:
Matters of significance to iwi (Chapter 3, Objective 3.3)
The objectives of the ‘Matters of Significance to Iwi’ Chapter of the ACRPS seek to
provide for the cultural wellbeing of Maori, and the relationship of Tangata Whenua
with their ancestral taonga. Involving Tangata Whenua in the resource management
process is also specifically addressed. The policy relevant to this application seeks to
identify, recognise, provide for, and appropriately protect waahi tapu and ancestral
taonga of special value to Tangata Whenua.
As a site of cultural interest to mana whenua it is necessary to determine through this
application the extent to which the relationship of iwi with the ancestral taonga and
their historical relationship with this site would be provided for. In the absence of
cultural information from iwi, this can only be speculative and is not an appropriate
basis for reaching any conclusions in respect of these policies. It is understood that
the applicant will be presenting further evidence of consultation and the hearing and
this may well address these issues.
Transportation (Chapter 4, Objective 4.3)
The objective and policies relating to transportation seek to provide a safe, efficient
and accessible transportation network that provides for highly connected communities
and reduces the need for private vehicles. Particular preference is given to methods of
transportation that avoid adverse effects on the environment.
It is considered that the proposal provides for a connected residential community with
both pedestrian and vehicle connections provided throughout the Cabra subdivision
and connections to the west (Capella Twin Parks) and east to the Montgomery
development. Furthermore it is considered that any traffic safety issues arising from a
proposed intersection at Papakura-Clevedon Road can be mitigated through
conditions of consent.
Overall it is considered that the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives and policies
of the ‘Transportation’ Chapter of the ACRPS.
Heritage (Chapter 6, Objective 6.3
The objectives and policies relating to heritage seek to preserve and protect a diverse
range and representative range of the Auckland region’s heritage resource, to maintain
and enhance public access and provide for integrated management of heritage
resources to ensure their contributing value is protected and enhanced.
The proposal seeks to protect the Rings Redoubt as a nationally significant
archaeological site associated with the NZ Land Wars. The proposed public reserve
would enable public access to what is currently private property and include
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 62
interpretive signage to enhance public knowledge of the site. However, as the full
extent of the archaeological site is still unknown subdivision in accordance with the
Stage 6 scheme plan proposals would be premature and should be delayed until
further archaeological investigations are complete. This information will better inform
an assessment of effects on this significant site and enable more conclusive decisions
to be made about future development within its vicinity.
Water Quality (Chapter 8, Objective 8.3)
Overall, the objective and relevant policies of the ‘Water Quality’ Chapter of the
ACRPS seeks to maintain and enhance the quality of water in water bodies, where
appropriate, and control sediment and stormwater discharges to water bodies to avoid
or mitigate the adverse effects of runoff on aquatic receiving environments.
The earthworks proposed, and associated sediment discharge can be adequately
mitigated through the adoption of appropriate construction methodologies and erosion
and sediment controls (designed in accordance with TP90) that can be required under
conditions of consent.
Natural Hazards (Chapter 11, Objective 11.3)
The objective of the “Natural Hazards’ Chapter of the ACRPS seeks to avoid, remedy
or mitigate the adverse effects of natural hazards on people and property. The relevant
policies seek to ensure that natural hazards, and measures to avoid, remedy or
mitigate natural hazards, are identified before development or redevelopment of land is
allowed.
The proposed subdivision and development of the site is considered to satisfy the
objective and relevant policies of the ‘Natural Hazards’ chapter of the ACRPS. Based
on geotechnical assessments forming part of the application, it appears that the site
can be suitably stabilised for residential activity. However, this conclusion is subject to
further information confirming that the design levels adjacent to the Montgomery site
are achievable. It is also noted that a significant amount of retaining is required.
Summary
Taking into account the relevant objectives and policies of the ACRPS assessed
above, I consider that the proposal in its current form and without further interpretative
archaeological information would be contrary to the matters of significance to iwi and
the heritage provisions of the ACRPS. Limiting the proposal to subdivision in
accordance with Stages1-4 and the establishment of the Stage 6 (and parts of Stage)
balance lot(s) would however enable an informed approach to be taken with respect to
subdivision and development within the vicinity of Rings Redoubt and the achievement
of satisfactory landform integration with the adjacent Montgomery Block to the east.
With respect to Stage 5, in my view the landscape issues in contention are local issues
that would not be considered contrary to the ACRPS. In this regard, I note that Ms
Eaves has raised concerns about development within the upper eastern part of Stage
5 which may impact on the heritage site’s ‘sense of place’ and its historical landscape
context (Policy 6.3.3 (iii), bullet point 7).
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 63
6.7
Part 1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – s104 (1)(b)(v)
Chapter B, Part 1 of the PAUP sets the strategic RMA framework for the eight
identified issues of regional significance and also links to the identified priorities and
strategic direction sought by the Auckland Plan. Of relevance to this application are
issues relating to enabling quality urban growth (1.1), protecting historic heritage (1.3),
addressing issues of significance to mana whenua (1.4), and sustainably managing
natural resources (1.5).
Chapter B, Part 2 sets out the objectives and policies that address these issues and
are similar to those in Part 2 of the ACRPS. Of particular note are the objectives that
seek quality urban growth within a contained rural/urban boundary (2.1, 2.2, 2.6),
protecting historic heritage by identifying and protecting Auckland’s significant places
(4.1), and recognising the role of mana whenua in the sustainable management of
natural and physical resources (5.2) and protecting mana whenua culture and heritage
(5.4).
The proposed subdivision would provide for additional housing opportunities within the
rural urban boundary at Papakura which is a positive effect arising from this proposal.
The development would connect to other adjacent land currently being developed for
urban residential activities which together will give effect to the Kirikiri Structure Plan
(or PAUP Takanini sub-precinct E). With respect to the protection of significant
heritage, the application is complicated by the location of a nationally recognised
historic redoubt on the site that has both European and mana whenua heritage value.
As under the ACRPS, the regional objectives proposed in the PAUP require a
precautionary approach to development and an expectation that this historic site will
be protected. Similarly, mana whenua values associated with the site and affected by
the proposal must be recognised, protected and enhanced. While the subdivision and
development proposal within Stages 1-4 is relatively straight forward, it does involve
significant landform, stream and vegetation changes that are of interest and concern to
mana whenua. These must be taken into consideration and can only be properly
expressed by iwi themselves. With respect to Stage 6 and parts of Stage 5 located
near the redoubt, in my view the regional policies of the PAUP would require a more
informed assessment about potential adverse effects on this important heritage
resource before subdivision and development in this part of the site was undertaken.
6.8
Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Relevant Provisions of the Regional Plan(s) Objectives,
Policies and Rules
6.8.1 Relevant Objectives and Policies
A) Operative Auckland District Plan – Papakura Section
The following sections objectives and policies of the operative District Plan are
considered relevant:



Section One – Part 5 Resource Management Strategy
Section Three – Part 2 – Protection of the Urban Environment
Section Three – Part 3 – Heritage Protection
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 64


Section Three – Part 9 – Subdivision
Section three – Part 11 – Network Utilities
Section One – Part 5A – Resource Management Strategy
The opening statement of this section (5A.1) states that:
“the resource management strategy for Papakura District places priority upon
the conservation and enhancement of the natural and physical resources of
the District and the enablement of its community”
The elements of the strategy as outlined suggests a balancing approach that must be
taken towards the management of the urban areas such that the rural/urban nature of
the District is retained while encouraging urban intensification and mixed use
development through the use of urban zoning and performance standards. This
approach is reflected in the adoption of the Residential 8A and 8B zoning along with
design standards to guide the shape and form of development within the Area 2B
part of the Takanini Structure Plan area.
Of relevance to this application are key objectives and policies that underpin the
approach to sustainable management of Auckland’s Papakura district which in
summary seek to:












conserve, protect and enhance the natural environment of the District (1.1),
protect the District’s resources from any adverse effects of activities and
development (1.3)
protect, preserve and enhance significant habitats and flora (1.4)
conserve significant landscape features (1.7)
to protect the natural environment through the promotion of a compact,
integrated and quality urban form (1.9);
retain and enhance the amenity of the District and protecting and conserving
significant items of cultural heritage (2.1 & 2.2)
improve the quality of the built environment while providing for further growth
in activities and maximise the use of the existing built environment (2.4 & 2.5)
give particular recognition to taonga (2.6)
provide a range of residential and mixed zonings in the District to enhance
variety and support intensification (2.7)
supports efficient transportation including a reduction in vehicle trip and the
use of a variety of modes (2.8)
achieve a healthy and safe living environment for the community (4.1) and a
range of residential neighbourhoods and environments (4.3)
improve levels of infrastructure to meet the needs of the community (6.1) and
enable activities which recognise servicing constraints (6.2) and undertaking
services in accordance with the principles of environmental protection and
enhancement
Aspects of urban form that are expected in the Residential 8 & 8A zone (5B.2.2.9(i))
include:
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 65









Higher intensity development centered on coherent nodes based around
significant transport routes and interchanges;
Nodes comprising accessible, walkable, and convenient community
facilities, commercial activities and mixed used developments.
Highest densities of housing in close proximity to public transport routes and
interchanges.
A highly connected street network, providing footpaths, cycle routes and
vehicular access to, and infrastructure for, passenger transport.
Complementary, consistent and legible landscaping themes within the road
reserve and open spaces throughout the Growth Area.
Quality public open spaces in locations that provide opportunities for passive
surveillance (e.g. adjacent to streets rather than backing onto residential
sections).
Attractive ponds or wetland areas for stormwater treatment and detention
that also provide reserve and amenity opportunities.
Development that addresses and engages the street and public realm
through quality urban design at the interface
Absence of new activities with potentially significant objectionable, noxious
or dangerous effects.
Additional aspects of urban form that are expected in the Residential 8B zone
(5B.2.2.9(j)) include:

Residential development that maintains the appearance of a high quality area
with a spacious character.

Provision of public access to any heritage areas with quality reserves which
recognise the prevailing amenity and landscape character and values.
Comment:
At a strategic resource management level, the proposal would give effect to desired
outcomes for the Papakura district by implementing an urban zoning provided for
within the Area 2B (Kirikiri Structure Plan). While significant changes to the existing
landform and stream features are proposed, the general landscape elements within
the site would be retained including the central ridgelines, the northern stream gully
and an intention to retain the open spacious nature of the area around Rings Redoubt
which is best expressed in scheme plan Option 2. This reserve area around the
Redoubt would protect a recognised and valued archaeological heritage site and
establish a civic focus for the development that would enjoy commanding views toward
urban Papakura and the Manukau Harbour. Roading would be established in
accordance with the structure plan with an additional access point onto PapakuraClevedon Road that would improve connectivity to the site subject to traffic safety
issues being adequately addressed. Infrastructure would enable suitable services to
residential lots and ensure that any downstream effects on water quality and quantity
(flooding) were appropriately managed.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 66
Notwithstanding my comments above, and as previously discussed, I retain some
concerns about the current subdivision layout, particularly within Stage 5 and the
potential adverse visual effects on the Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline and within
the Stage 6 area containing Rings Redoubt. It is my view that the proposal in its
current form would be contrary to policies that seek to protect the district’s resource
from adverse effects, conserve significant landscape features (identified in their local
context), protect and conserve significant items of cultural heritage, and give particular
recognition to taonga (natural resources valued by iwi). While I have no philosophical
opposition to residential use of land around the proposed Redoubt reserve, I do not
believe that there is enough information to confirm a subdivision proposal for this part
of the site and the associated development works that are proposed. Further
information provided at the hearing, including feedback on consultation with mana
whenua may assist to provide greater reassurance about mitigation measures that
avoid potential adverse effects and a satisfactory planning mechanism for
implementing Stages 5 & 6 in a manner that addresses the Council’s concerns.
Section One – Part 5B – Resource Management Strategy (Structure Plan Areas)
This section of the plan sets out the provisions for urban growth within structure plan
areas.
The Takanini Structure Plan (which includes Area 2B) represents a
comprehensive approach to planning for urban growth in greenfields land in Papakura
and an extension of the urban boundary which was granted in 2010. At a sub-regional
level, the Takanini Structure Plan area has been confirmed as a suitable location for
the expansion of urban activity, the release of which is controlled via a number of
smaller structure plans.
The Takanini Part Area 2B is described as:
“…an irregularly shaped block of land on the eastern edge of urban Papakura. It is
bounded by Papakura-Clevedon Road to the south and east, by an unformed
extension of Old Wairoa Road to the north and by existing residential housing to the
west. The site has two distinct areas. The higher (eastern) portion comprises
undulating to rolling terrain and has several gully features. The intervening broad
crested ridgelines together with the entire low lying (western) portion of the site are in
pasture and used for grazing. Current land use in Area 2B is predominantly pastoral
farming, although there are several rural lifestyle blocks and two smaller residential
lots. Houses are generally scattered over the eastern half of the site. The whole
block is approximately 43 hectares. The Rotowaro-East Tamaki gas pipeline
operated by Natural Gas Corporation bisects the low lying terrain at the base of the
foothills.”
Notable objectives and policies that are relevant to this application include resource
scarcity (5B.2.2.1.2), transportation (5B.2.2.2), environmental constraints (5B.2.2.3),
heritage values (5B.2.2.4), urban amenity values (5B.2.2.5), and effects of previous
land uses (5B.2.2.8). These are discussed as follows:
Objective 5B.2.2.1.2 – Resource Scarcity
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 67
To achieve the efficient subdivision and development of the Takanini Structure Plan
Area in a way which:
a) accommodates its share of projected population and business growth; and
b) makes provision for a choice of living environments, commercial, social and
community facilities and employment opportunities and the health and safety
of the people and their communities; and
c) does not undermine the potential for urban development nor result in
uncoordinated or inefficient provision of infrastructure.”
Comment
The efficient use of urban land is a critical issue for the Auckland region as
population and demand for housing grows. The recent identification of the Takanini
Structure Plan area as a Strategic Special Housing Area has also emphasised its
importance as a significant contributor to the Auckland housing market. The HASHA
legislation provides the ability to fast track the consenting of residential housing
proposals under the PAUP as if it were operative providing greater opportunity to
deliver much needed housing to the Auckland housing market. The subject site is
within the urban boundary (RUB) boundary and is zoned for residential activity.
Matters relating to its development should be carefully weighed against relevant
policies that seek to maximise the efficient use of urban land. In this regard, the
proposal seeks to subdivide and develop the site in accordance with the operative
urban zoning provisions that currently apply and would therefore support assist in the
achievement of this objective.
Objective 5B.2.2.2.2. –Transportation
To achieve forms of development which are supportive of pedestrian, cycle and
public transport, and reduce reliance on the private motor vehicle.
Comment:
Objective 5B.2.2.2.2 and its attendant policies seek to establish a form of
development that supports a variety of transport modes including walking, cycling
and public transport thereby reducing reliance on private motor vehicles. This
objective is inherent in the Kirikiri Structure Plan in terms of the indicative road layout
and the intended pedestrian and cycleway connections. The proposed local road
network has been designed in general accordance with the structure plan which
provides for linkages to the surrounding road network via the existing Old Wairoa
Road, the adjacent Capella Twin Parks development and Papakura-Clevedon Road.
While the latter connection is not specifically shown on the Kirikiri Structure Plan
map, it is not precluded by the structure plan (indicated by the absence of ‘XX’ at the
intersection of proposed Road 2 with Papakura-Clevedon Road) and can be
accommodated providing traffic safety issues can be addressed.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 68
A variation within the development proposal would not give effect to the indicative
cycleway linkages and walking opportunities shown on the structure plan map, due to
the removal of recreation reserves in the lower part of the site however this
connectivity would still be achieved along proposed roads. While the intentions for
recreation reserves are expressed on the structure plan map, this has not translated
into an agreement from Council Parks to acquire these reserves due to policy
changes and severe funding restrictions for the acquisition of public open space.
In spite of changes to these linkages, in my view overall support for modes of
transport other than private vehicles would be achieved and give effect to this
objective.
Objective 5B.2.2.3.2 – Environmental Constraints
To achieve development which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on the
natural environment, particularly in relation to water quality and in relation to the
area’s geotechnical and hydrological constraints.
Comment
The explanation to the policy notes that while the broader Takanini structure plan
area is relatively unconstrained in environmental terms, much of it is subject to
geotechnical and stormwater constraints. Geotechnically, the lower western part of
Area 2B (Capella Twin Peaks site) is underlain by peat soils which can generate
stability issues. The Drury faultline also runs just inside the western boundary of the
subject site. With respect to the subject site, the Drury faultline is deemed inactive.
The applicant’s engineer (Coffey) has stated that the faultline would be
‘inconsequential’ to this development. Furthermore, the Council development
engineer has not raised any particular concerns about the presence of the faultline.
With respect to the presence of peat soils on the site, some evidence of organic
material was found near the western boundary of the site but these were not
considered to have an effect on the suitability of the site as proposed. Further up the
site, the applicant’s geotech engineer notes the sloping ridgelines would be
significantly eased and gullies filled which would reduce the risk of any instability.
With respect to the hydrological regime, the existing overland flow toward the west
would be maintained through the northern gully (reserve 701) and a piped an open
channel network discharging to the proposed pond. The pond would discharge to a
reticulated connection to the stormwater pond on the Capella Twin Parks
development which has been sized to accommodate pre-development flow levels
from the subject site and the Montgomery Block (Stage 4) to the east. While the
diversion discharge of stormwater to the proposed pond represents a departure for
the network discharge consent conditions, the Council has agreed to this approach
and to its acquisition as a stormwater asset within the catchment.
In terms of this objective, I consider that the proposal will avoid significant adverse
effects with respect to the catchment’s hydrological regime and would not be
constrained in terms the presence of peat soil conditions which are generally found in
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 69
lower, flatter land to the north and west. I maintain a concern about the existing and
proposed ground level interface at the boundary of the Montgomery site, particularly
whether the likely difference in levels along the reserve (701) boundary and the
boundary of residential lots backing onto the reserve has been thoroughly
considered. Further design information in plan form provided at the hearing would
assist to confirm that the proposed design is achievable along this common boundary
and within the stream gully.
Objectives 5B.2.2.4 – Heritage Values
To achieve subdivision and development which does not create significant adverse
effects on significant heritage values.
The site contains a significant archaeological site within a plateau area at its upper
eastern end known as Rings Redoubt (R11/956). It is recorded with the NZ
Archaeological Association and is scheduled for protection in the operative Papakura
District Plan and the PAUP. The site is also recorded as being of a ‘Site of
Significance’ to local mana whenua.
The significance of the site and its future protection has been thoroughly assessed and
considered in the assessments from the applicant’s archaeologist and the Council’s
heritage unit. In my view there is insufficient information to be fully confident that the
proposed subdivision and development works proposed for Stage 6 would not have
significant adverse effects on the identified heritage values at the site and that any
works should be delayed until further investigation of the site is complete and the
boundaries confirmed. In regards to the current proposal, I could support the
establishment of a Stage 6 balance lot that would enable further investigation of the
site and Stages 1-4 to proceed independently.
Once the outcome of the
archaeological investigation is known, the Redoubt reserve boundaries can be
confirmed and further consideration given to appropriate residential development
opportunities nearby.
Objective 5B.2.2.5.2 – Urban Amenity Values
To achieve subdivision and development which provides a high standard of amenity
and pedestrian safety and convenience and contributes to the creation of a positive
sense of place and identify.
The policy explanation specifies particular outcomes for the Residential 8A and 8B
zones. Setting aside issues relating to adverse effects on the higher PapakuraClevedon Road landscape and the Ring’s Redoubt heritage site, the development
proposal would provide a high standard of amenity, pedestrian safety and convenience
for residents within Stages 1-4 and potentially within Stages 5 and 6. This includes a
well-designed road network with pedestrian footpaths on both sides of all roads that
will ultimately connect to the adjacent Capella/Twin Parks development and the
Montgomery site, planting within road reserves, the northern stream gully and along
the southern Papakura-Clevedon Road frontage, and the establishment of historic and
recreation reserve within the high point on the site. All of these features would provide
identity to the development and contribute to a positive sense of place that is linked to
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 70
its historic past.
As a general principle, I am of the view that the proposed development of the subject
site is in general accordance with the Kirikiri Structure Plan and the intention to
establish a public reserve encompassing Ring’s Redoubt would achieve the policy
outcomes sought for the Residential 8A and 8B zone. This is subject to satisfactorily
resolving issues around heritage protection and landscape effects within Stages 5 and
6.
Objective 5B.2.2.8.2 – Effects of Previous Land Uses
To ensure that the risk to human health associated with concentrations of residues of
agricultural or horticultural chemicals is minimised.
The protection of human health from contaminants in soil is managed via the National
Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect
Human Health (NES). As required by the NES he applicant has undertaken a PSI and
DSI investigation at the site. A soil investigation to verify the presence of contaminants
is also a requirement of the Papakura District Plan (Rule 5B.2.4). The investigation
undertaken for the applicant by Groundwater and Environmental Services Ltd
identified areas of arsenic contaminated material asbestos sheeting soil contamination
in the lower part of the site that would triggers consent requirements and the removal
of this material prior to use of the site for residential purposes. The proposal would
remove 173m3 of contaminated material from the site to an approved landfill. The
Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed this aspect of the proposal and is
satisfied with reporting from Groundwater and Environmental Services. Proposed
conditions would ensure the appropriate control and monitoring of soil remediation at
the site.
Overall, I am satisfied that subject to the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan,
any risks to the health of future residents at the site would be avoided.
Section Three – Part 2 – Protection of the Urban Environment
This section of the District Plan is concerned with the management of the environment
and resources within the urban environment, particularly landforms, vegetation, the air,
general amenity and related matters. The relevant objectives and their attendant
policies are discussed as follows:
Objective 2.8.1
To permit the widest range of activities within the District while maintaining
environmental quality and not adversely affecting amenity values.
While there is no hierarchy of policies specified in this section of the Plan, this
objective provides the overarching direction for the urban environment which would
enable a wide range of activities while maintaining environmental quality and avoiding
adverse effects on amenity values. Development of the subject site is for urban
residential activity including the necessary roading, stormwater management
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 71
infrastructure and public open space. Residential land use of the site is provided for
and anticipated by the Plan along with the necessary landform modification that would
be required to enable an urban density of development. The environmental quality of
the site would generally be maintained in the character of the overall landform that
slopes toward the east, although almost all existing vegetation would be removed.
While the existing southern stream gully would be removed the applicant’s original
intentions to retain this gully are acknowledged and the reasons for its removal are
understood and accepted.
Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal would achieve this objective.
Objective 2.8.5
To conserve those features of the physical landscape which contribute significantly to
the character and amenity value of the District.
Comment
The attendant policies to this objective refer to the protection of native and exotic trees
as specified in Schedule 3E, retaining significant areas of bush in the District and
retaining established land contours where practicable in any zone and limiting
earthworks to the scale specified in the Plan. The permitted earthworks standards in
the District Plan are quite small (50m3) and do not reflect the larger scale earthworks
required to establish urban scale residential developments.
The development of the site which is currently undulating, and in some places steeply
incised (>1:5) greenfield land necessitates larger scale earthworks, the removal of
existing vegetation and modification of existing stream gullies to establish its suitability
for higher density urban residential activity. This includes the establishment of roads,
suitable building platforms within proposed sites, areas of public open space and
infrastructure services including the proposed stormwater pond. In order to achieve
level building platforms on the sloping parts of the site, extensive retaining walls are
required and would be battered back from their road frontages.
While significant, the proposed modifications to landform at the site would retain its
general landform appearance including the central west sloping ridgelines and the
northern gully feature. The southern gully feature would be removed along with most
of the mature vegetation on the site. I note that Ms Vanessa Wood, Auckland
Council’s terrestrial ecologist has expressed concern about the lack of justification and
alternatives considered, particularly with respect to the removal of two established
groves of mixed native vegetation. As previously stated, in my opinion these groves of
trees are not afforded scheduled protection (other than general tree protection due to
the size of the site) and cannot be practically retained. In my view, any adverse effects
arising from their removal would be outweighed by the positive effects associated with
additional residential housing and proposed planting throughout the site including
street planting, planting within the northern gully and along Papakura-Clevedon Road.
Overall, I am satisfied that the physical landform modification of the site and the
removal of vegetation would not significantly affect any physical landscape features
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 72
that are significant to the character and amenity of the wider District and would achieve
this objective.
Section Three – Part 3 – Heritage Protection and Management
The identification and recognition of heritage features that significantly contributes to
the character of the District, community identity and sense of place, protection for
community benefit and enjoyment and protecting property rights for reasonable use of
private land resources are all key resource management issues in the Papakura
District. The District Plan to these issues is to schedule significant items and control
activities which may adversely affect any special qualities. The outcome sought is
conservation, protection and enhancement of the District’s heritage areas.
Key objectives are discussed as follows:
Objective 3.6.3 - To protect significant archaeological sites
The Rings Redoubt site (R11_956) is a scheduled archaeological site that has local,
regional and national significance due to its historic association with the New Zealand
land wars. I note that the principle intention within this development proposal is to
protect the Redoubt site and encompass it within a Council reserve that would enable
public access that is not currently available. The issue in contention is the extent of
the Redoubt site and the prematurity of development proposals indicated on scheme
plan options for Stage 6. Providing further information can be provided to confidently
define the extent of the Redoubt and any other noteworthy external features, I am of
the view that further consideration could be given to residential subdivision and
development works within the vicinity of the Redoubt. The establishment of the Stage
6 balance lot would achieve this and enable other parts of the development to proceed
while further investigation of the Redoubt site was carried out.
Objective 3.6.4 - To protect waahi tapu as being central to the spiritual and cultural
heritage of tangata whenua of Papakura District.
The protection of waahi tapu within the Papakura District relies on information from
local iwi who can provide guidance on the location of such sites that may currently be
unknown. This is the primary purpose of a CIA which identifies the historical
association mana whenua have with an area, cultural heritage values and how those
values may be affected by a particular proposal. With respect to this proposal, very
little is known about the cultural values local iwi associate with the subject site or its
historical association with the NZ Wars (other than what is described in the Clough &
Shakles 2012 report). In my view, it is not currently possible to determine whether any
waahi tapu exist at the site or whether spiritual or cultural heritage values will be
affected. For this reason, the application as proposed may be contrary to this
objective. I understand that applicant is proposing to provide additional information at
the hearing which may address this issue.
Objective 3.6.5 - To prohibit or control the alteration or destruction of any scheduled
item without the Council’s consent and to establish a procedure for seeking its
consent.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 73
The alteration or destruction of any scheduled item without Council consent is not
provided in the Plan. In this regard, any works within the vicinity of a scheduled item
requires resource consent for a discretionary activity. The Redoubt site R11_956 is
included in District Plan’s Schedule 3C ‘Archaeological Sites to be Protected’ and
geographically referenced as 931 Papakura-Clevedon Road. I note that while the
schedule does not extend the reference to the adjacent subject site at 965 PapakuraClevedon Road, the proposed works would potentially be on or within the vicinity of the
former Redoubt site and are subject to the controls and consent procedures this
objective has established.
Section Three – Part 9 – Subdivision
This section contains objectives and policies that apply generally to subdivision
throughout urban Papakura. Objectives and policies that are relevant to this proposal
seek to retain high levels of local amenity (9.6.1), facilitate the efficient subdivision of
land (9.6.2) and integrate subdivision and development of undeveloped land with
existing subdivision and development (9.6.3).
As a general outcome, the proposed subdivision would establish high levels of amenity
sought in the design elements for the Kirikiri Structure Plan.
Section 3, Part 11 – Network Utilities, Transport & Roading
This section contains objectives and policies relating to the provision of a wide range
of network utilities and infrastructure. Objective 11.6.3 seeks to establish an efficient,
safe and convenient road network which relates to the distribution of activities
throughout the District and which retains and enhances existing levels of amenity. I
am satisfied that proposed roads within the development would be a positive addition
to the existing road network in terms of the design which accords with specified design
criteria and the connection to development on adjacent sites.
Section Three – Part 16 – Takanini Structure Plan Area
Additional objectives and policies apply to the development of land within the
Residential 8A and 8B zone.
In respect of Residential 8A these include:
16.2.1.1 Objective 1A - Density
1. To achieve forms of medium density residential development which are supportive
of pedestrian, cycle and public transport and which take advantage of the zone’s
proximity to public transport routes, proposed mixed use nodes and/or Bruce
Pulman Park.
2. To ensure that the establishment of medium density residential development
(referred to in 1. Above) is not precluded by the establishment of low intensity
residential uses.
16.2.1.1 Objective 2A – Amenity Values
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 74
To achieve a high standard of amenity, pedestrian safety, convenience and a positive
sense of place and local identity.
Comment
Two urban residential zones apply to the subject site which is split across the western
part of the site as defined in Rule 16.2.2.1. The lower western part of the site is zoned
Residential 8A and ties in with higher intensity development intentions that also extend
across the adjacent Wallace/Capella property to the west. The intended outcome for
this zone is medium density residential development where a permitted range of site
sizes between 400m2 – 525m2 would enable a single house development. A high
standard of amenity and pedestrian safety is anticipated along with the establishment
of a positive sense of place and identity.
In my view the lower parts of the site within the Residential 8A would achieve a
conventional form of subdivision consistent with Design Element 2. The sites are well
laid out relative to proposed roads and would be well connected to the adjacent
Wallace/Capella property including the proposed recreation reserve in the southeastern part of this site. The development proposal in this part of the site is not in
contention and would achieve the objectives anticipated in the Residential 8A zone.
In respect of Residential 8B located to the north and south of the Takanini Structure
Plan area the District Plan provisions seek to maintain certain key elements of the
rolling and more elevated countryside which have distinctive rural/residential amenity
values and character. The key objective 16.2.1.2.1B seeks:
To achieve subdivision and development which maintains significant elements of
existing amenity values and character
And Policy 16.2.1.2.1C which requires that:
Subdivision and development shall be designed and located so as to maintain
significant elements of existing amenity values and character.
It is expected that elements of an open spacious character will be maintained
throughout the zone and a transition provided between urban development and the
surrounding rural areas.
Achievement of this policy requires an analysis of the existing landscape and amenity
values with the Residential 8B zone area and having regard to its rolling and more
elevated location above the Takanini plains and the extreme eastern end of the rural
urban boundary. The natural structural elements of the existing countryside are
reflected in the Kirikiri Structure Plan including the two stream gullies, the position of
roads down central ridgelines, the landscape protection of the Papakura-Clevedon
Road ridgeline and rural/urban boundary and the location of a reserve on the site’s
high point encompassing Rings Redoubt. These features are generally maintained
throughout the development with the exception of the removal of the southern
intermittent stream gully.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 75
The contentious area of the site relates to the Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline west
and east of the Redoubt reserve site where the potential intensity of residential
buildings would be inconsistent with the zone objectives that seek to maintain a more
open and spacious character and an appropriate transition to the rural areas to the
south. I note that the size and narrow widths of lots proposed along the ridgeline
would inevitably encourage higher value, two storey dwellings to take advantage of
extensive views to the north and north-west. The side yard and building coverage
controls enable up to 35% of the net site area and buildings within one metre of side
yards. The five metre front yard requirement and three metre wide landscape strip at
the rear would further constrain the developable area of these sites providing little
opportunity for a larger single storey footprint or planting between houses to soften the
appearance of the building bulk as viewed from afar and roofline views along
Papakura-Clevedon Road. Furthermore, the proposed landscape strip along the
southern side of these sites would do little to screen the roofline of buildings that could
be constructed up to a permitted height of nine metres.
As discussed in section 6.3 above, urban design specialist Ms Nicola Williams has
assessed the effects of the proposal on what she has identified as one of the key
landscape features of the site. In her opinion, despite compliance with the minimum
600m2 lot sizes the proposed lots are considered too small to maintain the open
spacious character of the Residential 8B zone and are an inappropriate transition to
the rural lifestyle zones on the southern side of Papakura-Clevedon Road. I concur
with Ms Williams and am concerned that future residential buildings on sites within
Stages 5 and 6 will dominate the ridgeline and the area around the Redoubt reserve
and achieve little in terms of maintaining a more spacious and open character which is
an expected environmental outcome for this zone. The intensity of residential
development would also impact on the open spacious character enjoyed by
neighbouring properties at 931 and 963 Papakura-Clevedon Road which are currently
larger life-style properties (although I acknowledge that subdivision of 963 is
contemplated). In my view, the proposed size of lots along the Papakura-Clevedon
Road ridgeline would be contrary to the objective and policy for the Residential 8B
zone
6.8.2 Relevant Assessment Matters
Matters to be considered – Heritage (3.8.7)
The proposal requires discretionary activity resource consent for works within a
scheduled archaeological site. This would include works associated with further
intrusive investigation of the site and peripheral earthworks associated with Stage 6.
The District Plan lists matters that will be taken into account. In terms of those listed I
note that item (c) requires consideration of the ‘nature, form and extent of the
proposed development, alteration or change and its effect on the feature’. I note the
application does not include a detailed proposal for the proposed intrusive
investigation that would occur within the area shown on Woods Dwg EW-100 as
‘archaeological sensitive area’ and potentially peripheral areas of interest. Nor is any
assessment of effects provided. I am aware that the applicant intends to delay works
within the Stage 6 boundary, other than the investigation works, however I note that
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 76
they do still form part of the current proposal and require an assessment. Based on
the current proposal and assessment of effects the nature, form and extent of the
proposed works is unclear and would need to be clarified at the hearing.
Matters over which the Council has reserved its control - Earthworks (Rule
2.10.1.1)
With respect to earthworks, the Council may have regard to a variety of matters
including the disturbance of landforms, vegetation, instability or any adverse effects on
habitats, watercourses, wetlands, estuaries or coastal waters as well as reinstatement
measures of cut and fill areas and any alternatives.
The necessity for undertaking bulk earthworks at the site is described in the 2013 AEE.
This includes the need to stabilise and establish suitable building platforms for urban
residential activities. The reason for these works is understood including the removal
of existing vegetation and the southern stream gully. The proposed works have been
assessed by the Council’s development engineer who has not raised any particular
concerns except for a request for further design information to better understand the
proposed ground levels at the interface with the Montgomery property to the east.
Assessment criteria for the removal of trees (Rule 2.10.2.2)
Native and exotic trees that are afforded protection under the general tree protection
rules would be removed from the site. These trees have been assessed in terms of
their ecological value which is deemed to be low and/or with limited amenity value as
remnant rural gully trees. Existing scheduled trees in the southern part of the site
would be retained and protected.
Section 11.3 of the applicant’s 2013 AEE comprehensively addresses the applicable
assessment criteria for the removal of trees at the site. I concur with this assessment
and also reiterate that development of the site in accordance with the urban zoning of
the site necessitates significant earthworks and changes to ground levels that would
not provide for the retention of a larger of trees on currently on the site. While the
retention of protected trees where possible is an important consideration, this must be
balanced against policies that seek to provide for the efficient use of urban land. I am
satisfied that the proposed works are necessary and that landscaping throughout the
site along roads, within the northern stream gully, Redoubt reserve and the southern
landscape strip will mitigate the loss of existing trees.
Subdivision design assessment criteria (Residential 8A & 8B)
Rule 16.2.3.6.4 requires that the design and layout of subdivisions be assessed
against the Subdivision Design Criteria in Appendix 16B, which relates to the following
matters:
1. Road, Reserve and Access Networks
2. Block Size and Lot Type
3. Design of Roads and Access to Routes
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 77
4. Design of Reserves and Landscape Strip
5. Design of Margins – (Residential 8B only)
I note that the Residential 8B criteria have been comprehensively assessed in Ms
William’s specialist urban design assessment. I concur with that assessment and the
conclusions she has reached in respect of those parts of the proposal within the
Residential 8B. I make comment relation to both zones as follows:







The subdivision would establish a connected street network that would be
generally aligned (subject to the specified road layout on the Kirkiri Structure
Plan which requires benching of sites) to maximise solar access for good solar
access to proposed lots;
Most of the existing trees would be removed, however replacement planting
would be established within road reserves, the stream gully, stormwater pond
reserve and along the required landscape strip;
Proposed lots generally front onto legal roads with approximately 13%
accessed off JOALS;
The range of site sizes is relatively unvaried and particularly unresponsive
along the Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline which is prominent and visible
part of the site which suggests a range of 600-1000m2 sites as being
appropriate. In this regard Design Element 2: Block Size and Lot Type for the
Residential 8B zone states: “a variety of lot sizes should be provided both to
avoid monotony and reflect particular topographical and visual context issues.
In some areas this might result in a requirement for lots considerably larger
than the 600m2 minimum vacant lot size in order to, for example, provide a
transition to long-term rural areas at the edge of the zone, help maintain a more
spacious semi-rural character for roads along this edge (for example PapakuraClevedon Road), or retain large mature trees within lots”. In my view the
proposal does not reflect this design element at the Papakura-Clevedon Road
edge;
Roads design generally reflects Design Element 3 – Design of Roads and
Access Routes
Reserves would be located adjacent to roads, although the only remaining
public recreation/historic reserve would be at the Rings Redoubt site. No other
recreation reserves are proposed within the site;
Riparian margins within the northern stream gully and around the proposed
pond would generally be landscaped and planted with native planting
appropriate to the site and its context. The southern gully would be removed
and not included as a recreation reserve as shown on the Kirikiri Structure
Plan.
In general terms, the design elements would be achieved at the site. Where in my
view, the proposal departs from these criteria to the extent that significant adverse
effects would be generated is in relation the design response of lot design and layout
along the highly visible Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline which is a transitional area
to rural land to the south, and also around Rings Redoubt.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 78
B) Operative Auckland Regional Plan(s): Sediment Control and Air, Land and
Water
Regional Plan: Sediment Control Objectives and Policies
The relevant objectives and policies have been assessed by Ms Benucci, who finds
that based on earthworks methodology, staging, time of year and the erosion and
sediment control measures proposed during the operation which are in accordance
with TP90 recommendations, the proposed works would not be inconsistent with the
objectives and policies of the Regional Plan; Sediment Control. I concur with this
assessment and note that the proposal would achieve the following relevant objectives
and policies 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1 and, 5.2.2.
Regional Plan: Sediment Control Matters for Discretion (Rule 5.4.3.2)
Techniques used to restrict or control sediment being transported from the site and the
effects or impacts of sediment on water quality from the techniques chosen, have been
outlined in the previous section (Proposal) of this report and within the AEE.
The total earthworks area is 15.25 hectares which would be managed over four stages
and subsequent earthworks seasons.
Consents and Compliance Advisor, Ms Stephanie Benucci, has reviewed the
application and comments as follows:
“For the earthworks, provided the erosion and sediment controls are installed and
constructed in accordance with the application report, supporting documentation and
any additional requirements as may be required by the guidance outlined in TP90, it is
considered the resulting effects on the environment from sediment discharges will be
less than minor.”
Specialist Advisor – Earthworks and Streamworks, Ms Stephanie Benucci has
recommended a suite conditions that would mitigate effects arising from sediment
runoff at the site.
Regional Plan: Air Land and Water Objectives and Policies
The relevant objectives and policies relating to streamworks have also been assessed
by Ms Benucci in Section 5 of her report.
In respect of streamworks, Ms Benucci concludes that:
“Based on the streamworks methodology, including erosion and sediment control
measures proposed during the operation which are in alliance with TP90
recommendations, it is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the
relevant objectives and policies of the ACRP:ALW. This conclusion is based on the
applicant having attempted to avoid unnecessary piping and reclamation of the onsite
streams, and having sufficiently mitigated for the unavoidable adverse effects
associated with the streamworks activities”.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 79
I concur with Ms Benucci’s conclusions and note that the infilling and reclamation of
the southern gully has arisen out of inability to vest this gully with Auckland Council as
recreation reserve due to changes in Parks and Reserves Acquisition policy. In my
view, the application as proposed would achieve the following objectives and policies
of the ACRP: ALW, Objectives 7.3.1, 7.3.3 and Policies 7.4.1, 7.4.3, 7.4.7, 7.4.9,
7.4.14. 7.4.15, 7.4.16.
In respect of the proposed diversion and discharge of stormwater, consultant
stormwater engineer Mr Malcolm Todd has assessed the proposal against the relevant
ACRP:ALW. He concurs with the applicant’s assessment set out in the 2013 AEE. He
notes the online pond’s altered activity status to Discretionary Activity as this
infrastructure will not be vested with Auckland Council.
Overall, based on Mr Todd’s technical assessment, I am satisfied that the proposal will
achieve the ACRP:ALW policies relating to Chapter 5, Discharges to Land, Water and
Land Management (Objectives 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.8, Policy 5.4.4, 5.4.4B), and Water
Allocation – Damming of Streams (Objective 6.3.2, 6.3.5, 6.3.6, 6.3.7, 6.4.1, 6.4.2,
6.4.41, 6.4.44, 6.4.45).
C) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 (PAUP)
(i)
Objectives and Policies
The objectives and policies in relation single house zone, the Takanini Sub-Precinct E,
earthworks, vegetation management, mana whenua and historic heritage are relevant
considerations when assessing this application. I note that subdivision and land use
rules relating to the Takanini Structure Plan do not currently have legal effect.
Takanini Precinct Plan
The site is identified within the Takanini sub-precinct E. I note that the operative Area
2B that forms part of the Takanini Structure Plan area has been split along the
Residential 8A and 8B boundary. A separately identified sub-precinct D area applies
to the western (Residential 8A zoned part of the site) and the Wallace/Cappella
property to the west and along with other land comprising a total land area of 214
hectares. The sub-precinct E area applies to the subject site and to the former
Papakura Military Camp site previously occupied by the NZ army.
Proposed policy outcomes sought for the sub-precinct E area are similar to the
operative District Plan. Development at a low density is encouraged to assist in
maintaining the elements of amenity and open space character. Rules include
development controls in response to known geotechnical limitations and providing for a
landscape buffer between development along Papakura-Clevedon Road and the
adjacent rural zone. Along with general objectives that apply across the Takanini
Precinct Plan (Part 2, Chapter F 6.1 and 6.2) those specific to sub-precinct E are:
‘subdivision and development is designed so that it maintains significant elements of
existing amenity values and character, and implements any approved framework.’
(Part 2, F.6.11)
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 80
This policy objective generally aligns with the policy objectives in the District Plan for
the Residential 8B zone.
Earthworks
The relevant PAUP objectives and policies relating to earthworks are set out in
Chapter C 5.2.2. These objectives and policies seek to ensure that earthworks are
undertaken in a manner that protects peoples and the environment, does not
exacerbate natural hazards, manages cultural impact on mana whenua cultural
heritage and minimises sediment generation which are policy objectives that generally
align with the ACRP: Sediment Control. Ms Benucci has assessed the proposal
against the relevant PAUP objectives and policies and concluded that it would be in
general accordance with the outcomes sought by the PAUP. I concur with that
assessment and that the proposal would be consistent with objectives C.5.1.1, C.5.1.2,
and C.5.1.3.
Streamworks
The streamworks proposed at the site are described above in the proposal section and
in the specialist report prepared by Ms Benucci. The objectives and policies of the
PAUP contained in C.5.14 generally align with the ALW:ARCP except in relation to the
modification of intermittent streams where the reclamation and drainage of the bed of a
lake, river, stream and wetland are to be avoided (C.5.14.6). The proposal would
include the infilling (reclamation) of the intermittent stream gully (408m) which is not
supported by this policy. However, as pointed out by Ms Benucci, given the weighting
of the PAUP, the lack of mitigation for the intermittent stream is not considered reason
enough to recommend declining the application. The proposal would however include
both on-site and off-site mitigations measures to compensate for the loss of permanent
sections within the northern stream gully.
Stormwater Diversion & Discharge
The relevant PAUP objectives and policies that relate to the diversion and discharge of
stormwater are contained in C.5.14 and C.5.15. These are comprehensively in the
2013 AEE p91-92. The proposed PAUP policies in relation to stormwater discharge
and diversion and the damming of surface water do not represent any significant
departure from those in the ACRP:ALW. In my view, the proposal would be consistent
with these policies if implemented in accordance with the application proposal and the
suite of conditions Mr Todd has recommended along with Council’s development
engineer Mr Raj Kumar.
Historic Heritage
The historic heritage provisions of the PAUP currently have legal effect including all
rules, objectives and policies. These are comprehensively set out in the specialist
report prepared by consultant archaeologist Mr Ken Phillips. The Rings Redoubt site
is scheduled in the PAUP 00700 (Category B) place that is also a place of interest or
significance to Maori. The geographical extent of place is not included in the PAUP
but the address reference has been amended to include the subject site at 965
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 81
Papakura-Clevedon Road. I understand that Auckland Council has lodged a
submission seeking that the area shown in section 3.3 above be included to show
where rules and assessment criteria would apply. In respect of mana whenua interest
in this historic site, Ngati Tamaoho has briefly indicated an interest in its submission
but no other information has been provided to indicate whether or not cultural heritage
values in relation to this site would be impacted by the proposal.
Under the PAUP, general earthworks of the scale proposed around the periphery of
the Redoubt (within Stage 6) would require resource consent as a non-complying
activity. An intrusive investigation of the site is a restricted discretionary activity. In the
absence of information that would formerly define the ‘extent of place’ at Rings
Redoubt, PAUP rules would apply across the subject site. In my view the proposed
earthworks within the Stage 6 boundary would be contrary to the historic heritage
overlay objectives and policies of the PAUP which seek to protect scheduled historic
heritage places from inappropriate demolition or destruction and the adverse effects of
development and/or subdivision (Part 2, E.2.1). This potential adverse effect would be
addressed through further investigation of the site as proposed to determine the extent
of place to be protected ensuring that subdivision and development activities were
located outside of this area.
6.8.3 Weighting of the PAUP
The RMA requires that before a Proposed Plan Change becomes operative, any
Resource Consent application is considered in terms of the provisions of both the
Operative Plan and the proposed Plan Change. The matters for which resource
consent is required, in terms of the Operative District Plan and the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan (PAUP), have been outlined in section 4 of this report.
With regard to the assessment of an application for resource consent and the decision
making process, where an application is being assessed under both the Operative
Regional/District Plan and the proposed Plan Change, it is standard practice to
establish a weighting of the Plans.
Based on case law, more weight should be placed on the provisions of the Operative
District Plan until such time as the PAUP has made sufficient advances through the
public notification and hearing process that a governing degree of weight can be
placed on its controls.
The Council notified the PAUP on 30th September 2013 and the closing date for
submissions was 28th February 2014. While hearings are underway to consider
submissions on the PAUP, at this stage it is considered that more weighting should be
afforded to the Operative Plan(s).
6.9
Section 104(1)(c): Any Other Matters Considered Relevant and Reasonably
Necessary to Determine the Application
Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers
relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this
case, the following matters are considered relevant.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 82
1.
The Auckland Plan
The Auckland Plan seeks to guide the development of Auckland over the next 30
years. Issues addressed by the Auckland Plan include: transportation and housing,
protection of the environment, and social issues and development.
The Auckland Plan sets out the priority of increasing the supply of housing, while
increasing housing choice to meet the diverse preferences of the market. Subject to
resolving matters relating to landscape effects associated with lot sizes within Stage 5
and the protection of historic heritage within Stage 6, the proposal represents suitable
development of residential zoned land. Furthermore, the proposal provides a diversity
of choice of housing typologies, providing for the diverse range of preferences and
needs of prospective residents in Takanini.
I note that Ms Nicola Williams in her urban design specialist assessment has referred
to the urban principles set out in the Auckland which are relevant ‘other matters’ to be
considered when determining this proposal.
2.
The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy
Although superseded by the Auckland Plan, the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy
(ARGS) is considered relevant as the ARGS provided guidance and a framework for
all planning in the region including the current Auckland Council Regional Policy
Strategy and the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).
The purpose of the ARGS is to ensure a consistent approach to managing the social,
economic and environmental effects of future growth across the Auckland region
looking ahead to 2050.
As part of the ARGS, the Regional Growth Forum developed a Growth Concept which
set out a possible future growth scenario for the region based on the principle of an
urban limit. One of the features of the Growth Concept is that development outside
current urban limits should occur only where environmental, accessibility and
community principles can be met.
As the proposal is located within an existing urban zone (which has been subject to
structure planning to facilitate and guide growth), the proposal is consistent with the
Auckland Regional Growth Strategy.
6.9.1 Submissions
All of the submissions received by Council in the processing of this application have
been reviewed and considered in the overall assessment of effects in this report.
Council’s specialists have also reviewed the submissions relevant to their areas of
expertise and incorporated comments into their assessment accordingly.
Many of the submissions raised similar issues (as outlined in section 5.2 of this report
above) and have been dealt with generically in the body of this report. Those that have
raised specific resource management matters and points of clarification have been
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 83
specifically addressed in the assessment of actual and potential effects contained in
section 6.3 above of this report and/or in the specialist reports.
6.9.2 Local Government Act 2002 – Development Contributions
Under the Local Government Act 2002, Councils are permitted to take development
contributions towards the costs that capital growth imposes on the community. The
financial contribution policy of the Council’s Long Term Plan incorporates a
development contribution based on the capital expenditure for infrastructure and
community facilities for that ten year period. It is noted that the development
contribution is not decided through this Resource Management Act decision making
process and the hearing commissioners will not be making a decision on the amount
of the development contribution.
6.10 Section 106 Consent authority may refuse subdivision consent in certain
circumstances.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the RMA, resource consent could be granted to the
subdivision application as:

The land and structures on the land will not be subject to material damage by
erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage or inundation from any source;

Any subsequent use that is likely to be made of the land is not likely to
accelerate, worsen, or result in material damage to the land, other land, or
structure by erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage, or inundation from any
source;

Sufficient provision has been made for legal and physical access to each
allotment created by the subdivision; and

Conditions of consent and further design information relating to the site’s
interface with the Montgomery property boundary can ensure that the effects
referred to above are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
6.11 Section 104D Particular restrictions for Non-Complying Activities
Under s104D of the RMA if a proposal is a Non-Complying Activity then it must pass at
least one of the tests of either s104D(1)(a) or s104D(1)(b) before an application can be
assessed to make a decision under s104B of the RMA. If the application fails both
tests of s104D then the application must be declined.
It is considered that the current proposal does not satisfy the threshold test of s104D
because as demonstrated in Section 6.2.3 of this report the adverse effects on
significant cultural heritage and landscape values within proposed States 5 and 6
would be more than minor, and the proposal will be contrary to some of the objectives
and policies of the District Plan, as concluded in Section 6.8 of this report. From the
above s104(D) assessment it can be concluded that the application does not meet the
tests of s104(D) of the RMA.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 84
Notwithstanding and as set out in this report above, the areas where the proposal does
not meet the tests of section 104D are relatively narrow in the context of the
application as a whole. I am generally satisfied that stages 1-4 of the proposed
subdivision would meet the tests of s104(D) of the RMA (subject to clarification of the
stream interface issue). My principal concerns relate to Stages 5 and 6 in relation to
discrete matters involving heritage and landscape issues. The applicant may be able
to provide additional information or design changes at the hearing that would
overcome these concerns to the extent that the tests for s104(D) could be met.
6.12 Section 108 Conditions of Resource Consents
Section 108 provides for the imposition of conditions on resource consents. While the
recommendations in this report are to refuse consent to this application, if the
Commissioners are minded to grant consent, draft conditions in relation to Stages 1-4
and retaining Stages 5 and 6 as balance lots are provided and attached at
Attachment 5.
6.13 Section 125 Lapse Date
Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within
five years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it
automatically lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension.
6.14 Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA
1.
Section 5 - Purpose
The purpose of the RMA under Section 5 is the sustainable management of natural
and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical
resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social,
cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future
generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding,
remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.
The proposed subdivision will enable people and communities to provide for the
wellbeing by providing additional housing opportunities within what will be a welldesigned and well connected urban residential development. Reserves proposed
within the site will ultimately protect historic heritage at the site and provide a civic
focus for the residents within this new neighbourhood. Subject to careful development
of the land in close proximity to the Redoubt site and further consideration to the
design of lots within Stages 5 and, in my view potential adverse effects could be
avoided or mitigated to the extent that they would be no more than minor.
2.
Section 6 – Matters of National Significance
Section 6 of the RMA sets out a number of matters of national importance. Of
particular relevance to this application are including:
e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 85
f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development.
With respect to these two matters I am of the view that there is insufficient information
to determine whether the relationship of Maori with this site will be maintained or
adversely affected by works required to implement the proposed subdivision. This is
particularly relevant when considering subdivision and development activities in
proximity to Rings Redoubt and other parts of the site that may have an historic
association with previous Maori settlement or activity during the NZ Land Wars.
Furthermore, it is understood that Ngati Tamaoho have expressed more general
cultural heritage concerns in respect to the values held in relation to the existing
streams and vegetation on the site.
Regarding, the protection of historic heritage, the primary concern is ensuring that the
value and location of the Rings Redoubt site not undermined or destroyed by
inappropriate subdivision and use, and development. Subdivision and works proposed
within Stage 6 and the upper parts of Stage 5 have the potential to adversely impact
this site and should be avoided until such time as the boundary of this historic site has
been accurately confirmed and the effects assessed. I understand that this is the
applicant’s intention however it is not clear from the application documents how
development of the site is to progress and the planning mechanisms that would
achieve this. As a conservative approach, I would support the creation of a balance lot
encompassing Stage 6 rather than confirming a scheme plan option that may not
represent an appropriate subdivision response to the site. This would also include
confirmation of reserve boundaries between the historic and recreation reserve
components.
3.
Section 7 – Other Matters
Section 7 identifies a number of "other matters" to be given particular regard to, of the
matters outlined in section 7, with respect to the present application, the following
matters listed under Part 7 are considered to be particularly relevant:
b)
The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
c)
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
d)
Intrinsic values of ecosystems:
f)
Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
g)
Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:
In my opinion, the subdivision proposal represents the efficient use of the site to
provide for future residential activity as provided for by the District Plan. However
there are some discrete aspects of the subdivision layout that I believe will not
maintain or enhance existing amenity values. This includes the local landscape
character amenity values associated with the Papakura-Clevedon Road ridgeline and
the adverse visual effects of future residential buildings that in my view would
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 86
dominate this part of the site. With respect to proposed sites within Stage 5 and 6, I
would recommend that there be reduction in the number of lots as recommended by
Ms Williams to enable more spacious sites be created and greater flexibility for
residential buildings on this site. This may include restrictions on the height of
buildings within these stage(s).
4.
Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi
Section 8 requires all persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA to ‘take
into account’ the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There are no known Treaty
issues related to the subject site. Other than the co-management principles embedded
in the strategic management policies of the PAUP, I am not aware of any matters at
the site that would affect any matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi.
5.
Overall
Accordingly, the application is considered to be in general accordance with section 5 of
the RMA but would in its current form be contrary to s6 (e) and (f) and s7(c) which
seek to provide for the relationship of Maori with their ancestral land, water, sites,
waahi tapu and other taonga, protect historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision,
use and development and maintain and enhance existing amenity values.
6.15 Conclusion
Cabra Investments Ltd seek are seeking resource consent to subdivide and
development its site at 949 Old Wairoa Road, 965-973 Papakura-Clevedon Road,
Ardmore. The subdivision would establish 152 vacant lots and one lot comprising an
historic villa. An historic and recreation reserve area would encompass the historic
Rings Redoubt and drainage reserves would be established along the northern stream
gully and around the proposed stormwater pond.
The proposal also includes
streamworks that would reclaim an intermittent stream gully, modify sections of a
permanent stream, remove vegetation, bulk earthworks and retaining and the
establishment of infrastructure services.
The site is zoned for urban residential activities, although the Residential 8B zone
which applies to the majority of the site is a less intensive residential zoning, where a
more open and spacious character is anticipated, particularly at the interface with rural
zones. This policy objective is also reflected in the proposed PAUP to which the
provisions of the Takanini sub-precinct E apply.
I am generally satisfied that stages 1-4 of the proposed subdivision would meet the
tests of s104(D) of the RMA (subject to clarification of the stream interface issue and
effects on mana whenua cultural heritage). My principal concerns relate to Stages 5
and 6 where discrete matters relating to heritage and landscape protection are at
issue. The applicant may be able to provide additional information or design changes
at the hearing that would overcome these concerns to the extent that the tests for
Section s104(D) could be met. In my view these concerns could be addressed
through the creation of a balance lot for Stages 5 and 6 and deferring the subdivision
design for Stage 6 pending the mapping of Rings Redoubt. For stage 5, the
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 87
subdivision could be suitable if the number of lots is reduced in line with the
recommendations of the urban design specialist.
Overall, the site would be suitable for residential development, but in considering the
application in its current form, it is my view that the proposal as a whole does not meet
the tests of Section 104D of the RMA.
7.0
RECOMMENDATION
7.1
Recommendation
Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is
recommended that under sections 104, 104A, 104B, 104C, 104D, 106 of the RMA,
consent is refused to the non-complying activity application by Cabra Investments
Limited for subdivision to create 153 vacant residential lots.
The reasons for this decision are as follows:
a)
In terms of Section 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is
considered that the subdivision proposal for Stages 1-4 would result in adverse
effects that are no more than minor and/or could be avoided, remedied or
mitigated through conditions of consent. This would be subject to successfully
avoiding or mitigating adverse effects on mana whenua values associated with
the site and avoiding adverse stability effects on the adjacent Montgomery site at
899 Papakura-Clevedon Road, Ardmore.
b)
In terms of Section 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is
considered that the subdivision proposal for Stage 5 would enable an intensity of
residential building activities that would adversely affect the landscape character
values of the Papakura Clevedon Road ridgeline that would not be mitigated by
the proposed landscape strip. Due to the smaller, narrow nature of the proposed
sites, the need for retaining walls along side boundaries, the 3 metre wide
landscape strip and the 5 metre wide front yard requirement in the Residential
8B zone, residential development within Stage 5 is likely to result in a ‘wall’ of
buildings along the ridgeline that would not reflect the open spacious character
envisaged by the District Plan and an appropriate transition to rural areas south
of the site
c)
In terms of Section 104(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is
considered that in the absence of further intrusive archaeological information, the
subdivision and development proposal for Stage 6 (Options 1 or 2) could
potentially affect the scheduled archaeological site known as Rings/Kirikiri
(R11_956) resulting in its partial destruction and the loss of values associated
with its historical landscape setting including views from the site.
d)
In terms of Section 104(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is
considered that aspects of the proposal would be contrary to objectives and
policies of the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ACRP), the
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 88
operative Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) (PDP) and the
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) relating to the protection and
enhancement of amenity values, heritage and mana whenua cultural values.
e)
In terms of section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991, aspects of the
proposed subdivision and land development works proposed within the Stage 6
boundary and possibly extending the balance areas of the site would impact on
the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions, with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and any other taonga that are currently unknown.
f)
In terms of section 6(f) of the Resource Management Act 1991, and in the
absence of more detailed archaeological information, the proposed subdivision
and land development works proposed within the Stage 6 boundary would not
provide for the protection of heritage from potentially inappropriate subdivision,
use and development.
Report prepared by:
Deanne Rogers
Senior Planner,
Campbell Brown Planning
Ltd
Signed:
Date:
25 November 2014
Report reviewed and
approved for release by:
Marian Whitehead
Team Leader Resource
Consents (South)
Signed:
Date:
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 89
Definitions
COUNCIL:
means The Auckland Council
DISTRICT PLAN:
means any operative or proposed plan administered by any of the
following former Territorial Authorities prior to 1 November 2010:
Rodney District Council
North Shore City Council
Waitakere City Council
Auckland City Council
Manukau City Council
Papakura District Council
Franklin District Council
and now forming the relevant section of the Auckland Council
District Plan
REGIONAL PLAN:
means any regional plan administered by the former Auckland
Regional Council prior to 1 November 2010, now known as:
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (operative in
part)
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Farm Dairy Discharges
Transitional Auckland Council Regional Plan
ACRPS:
means Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement
HGMPA:
means Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act
LGAAA:
means Local Government Amendment Act 2004
Manager:
NZCPS:
means an Auckland Council Manager or nominated Auckland
Council staff acting on the Manager’s behalf
means New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010
RMA:
means Resource Management Act 1991 and all amendments
Application No: R/JSL/2013/2461 and Permits 41924, 41925, 41926 and 41927
Page 90