Report on an
resource consent
application
for
Under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991
TO:
Resource Consent Hearings Commissioners
FROM:
Ian Jefferis, Senior Planner
DATE:
29 August 2013
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
The applicant proposes to widen 240.0 metres of the Hillcrest Stream to improve the storm water
flow throughout the catchment. The sections of works within the Hillcrest Stream includes the
eastern entrance to the Stancich Reserve at 14 Hillcrest Avenue to the rear of the properties at
1/11 and 2/11 Ocean View Road in Hillcrest and the rear of the properties at 32, 38 & 40 Evelyn
Place and 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 1/16 and 2/16 Hillcrest Avenue.
The stream widening works will include the following:
•
Constructing new retaining walls and a new channel base to minimise potential erosion.
•
Constructing a new box culvert under the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge.
•
Installing a temporary low flow storm water diversion around the works site to assist with
fish passage.
•
Construct some shallow pools in the new and widened stream base.
•
The clearance of vegetation from the embankment on private properties adjoining the
stream and the removal of trees from the Stancich Reserve and the proposed replacement
planning.
•
Undertake new landscaping along the stream embankment.
The applicant also proposes to upgrade the Stancich Reserve. This upgrade includes:
•
Widening an existing footpath to 2.5 metres.
•
Install new removal and lockable bollards at the entrance.
•
Install two new Macrocarpa form benches near the reserve entrance.
•
Attach a viewing platform to the western side of the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge.
Application: LT-2133515 Hillcrest Stream Upgrade
Page 1
1.1
Application and Property Details
Consent Application Numbers:
LT-2133515 & 39289
Reporting Planner:
Ian Jefferis
Site Address:
From the Stancich Reserve at 14 Hillcrest Avenue to
between the rear of the properties at 32, 38 & 40 Evelyn
Place and 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 1/16 and 2/16 Hillcrest
Avenue and 1/11 and 2/11 Ocean View Road in Hillcrest.
Applicant's Name:
Infrastructure Environment Services, Auckland Council
Agent’s Details:
Sinclair Environmental Ltd
Recreation 1
Zone:
Auckland Council District Plan (North Residential 2B
Shore section)
Residential 4A
Road Reserve
Auckland Regional Plan
Air, Land & Water
Designations:
SMA 4 (Storm Water Management Area)
Collector Road (Hillcrest Avenue)
Lodgement Date:
6 April 2011
Notification date:
7 August 2012
Submissions closed date:
3 September 2012
Number of submissions received:
One in support.
One neutral.
21 opposing.
7 March 2013 (Nine submitters in attendance)
Pre Hearing Meeting
1.2
Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)
Reports
Dated
Prepared by
Ref
AEE
10/05/2012
Sinclair Env & Search Consulting
270111
Arboricultural Review
23/12/2010
Treecare Consultancy
Stream Bank Stabilisation
12/11/2012
KGA Geo-Technical
6952-2
Geo-tech Eng
31/03/2010
KGA Geotechnical
5589-3
Engineering Calculations
12/2011
Search Consulting Ltd
00539
Preliminary Design Report
01/2013
Search Consulting Ltd
Revision A
Ecological Effects
07/2013
Wildlands
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 2
Application Documents
Reports
Dated
Prepared by
Ref
AEE
10/05/2012
Sinclair Env & Search Consulting
270111
Ecological Assessment
02/2011
Scott Speed
Arboricultural Review
23/12/2010
Treecare Consultancy
Effects on Cultural Heritage 16/06/2011
Charlotte Judge
22429
Geo-tech Eng
31/03/2010
KGA Geotechnical
5589-3
Geo-Technical Eng
12/11/2012
KGA Geotechnical
6952-2
Erosion & Sediment Control
CIRTEX
Engineering Calculations
12/2011
Search Consulting Ltd
00539
Preliminary Design Report
01/2013
Search Consulting Ltd
Rev A
Potential Ecological Effects
07/2013
Wildlands Consultants Ltd
3203
Plans:
Drawn by:
Reference:
Flood Plain if No Works Taken
Search Consulting
P101 REV B
New Culvert Only
Search Consulting
P103 REV B
Full Upstream & Downstream Works
Search Consulting
P105 REV B
Channel & Cantilever Retaining
Search Consulting
P110 REV A
Plan of Works
Search Consulting
P111 REV A
Longitudinal Sections
Search Consulting
P114 REV C
Properties Where Works are Proposed
Search Consulting
P115 REV A
Cross Sections – 1 of 5
Search Consulting
P118
Cross Sections 2 of 5
Search Consulting
P119
Cross Sections 3 of 5
Search Consulting
P120
Cross Sections 4 of 5
Search Consulting
P121
Cross Sections 5 of 5
Search Consulting
P122
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
Search Consulting
P123 REV C
Possible Works Staging
Search Consulting
P124
Culvert & Cantilever Deck Details
Search Consulting
P125 REV A
Erosion & Sediment Control Details
Search Consulting
P126
Layout by Hillcrest Ave Culvert Inlet
Search Consulting
P127
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 3
Plan of Downstream Bank Protection
Search Consulting
P140
Details of Flood Wall
Search Consulting
P141
Hillcrest Watercourse Cross-sections
Search Consulting
P150
Turf Matt Proposal
Cirtex
Sheets 1 - 24
Tree Plan 1/5
Treecare
Tree Plan 2/5
Treecare
Tree Plan 3/5
Treecare
Tree Plan 4/5
Treecare
Tree Plan 5/5
Treecare
Hillcrest Creek Remediation
Stancich Reserve Stream Widening
Sheets 1 to 4
Katsura
A copy of the application is available in Attachment 1.
1.3
Adequacy of Information
It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant is sufficiently comprehensive to
enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
1.4
The nature and scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the Regional and District Plans.
The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment.
Persons who may be adversely affected.
The requirements of the relevant legislation.
A request for further information under s92 of the RMA was made on 15 April 2011, 27
February 2012 and 19 September 2012. The applicant provided all of the information
requested on 10 July 2012, 15 October 2012, 2 May 2013, 13 May 2013 and 16 July 2013.
Report and Assessment Methodology
The application has been prepared to an adequate standard 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. A separate and independent
assessment of the proposal has been undertaken and independent experts have been engaged
on behalf of the Auckland Council to review technical aspects as required.
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.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 4
The information has been reviewed and assessed by the following persons on behalf of Council:
Ken Schmidt
Peter Anderson
Leon Saxon
Jack Turner
Claudine Osborne
•
•
•
•
•
- Senior Development Engineer
- Ecologist
- Arborist
- Engineer (Natural Resources Team
- Consultant Planner (Natural Resources Team)
A copy of the comments from Council’s specialists is available in Attachment 2.
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to undertake a storm water upgrade of the Hillcrest Storm water
catchment area by widening the Hillcrest Stream. The works are necessary to address the storm
water spill over that is occurring in the Northcote area. Besides the obvious issues that stem from
the inadequate system, this has also hindered future development including Housing New Zealand
from undertaking further development including their proposal for a mixed housing development in
the northern area of Tonar Street.
The stream widening works proposal includes constructing two retaining walls on the south side of
the stream, benching the stream bank, upgrading and realigning the existing footpath in the
Stancich Reserve, installing a new culvert under the Hillcrest Avenue bridge, attaching a viewing
platform to the Hillcrest Avenue bridge, inserting turf mats into the stream embankment and
remove and replace vegetation from the Stancich Reserve and from the rear of some adjoining
private properties.
The key issues of this application are:
•
•
•
•
Land Stability and erosion
Flood levels
Stream Habitat
Vegetation removal
The findings of this report were:
•
•
•
•
The major concern of the submitters was the potential increase in erosion from a higher
increase in water flow velocities as a result of the stream works. Other concerns raised
were vegetation removal and property development restrictions.
The proposed timber retaining wall option has the potential for chemicals to leach into the
stream. Specific care will be required during the construction period for ecological focus.
The subject stream area serves more as a migratory passage for the biota than a breeding
area or a resting habitat. The removal of the vegetation will be offset by the proposed
mitigation.
The works will improve the flood levels of a large majority of properties within the Hillcrest
Storm Water Catchment Area.
The new viewing platform and the widening of the footpath will improve the recreational
features of the Stancich Reserve.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 5
3.0
THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION
3.1
Proposal
The applicant proposes to widen the Hillcrest Stream in the area between the Stancich Reserve
and Ocean View Road in a combination of public and private land. The purpose of the works is to
improve the storm water flow throughout the catchment and relieve flooding in the area. The works
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The construction of two retaining walls on the south side of the stream. One retaining wall
will be 185 metres long and located next to the Stancich Reserve on the western side of
the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge. The other retaining wall will be 240 metres long and located
between the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge and the rear boundary of No. 5A Ocean View Road.
The applicant also proposes to install ‘turf mats’ with percussion anchors on embankment
on both sides of the stream between 1 Ocean View Road and 5A Ocean View Road.
Construct a 3.0 metre wide and 200mm deep channel base. A low flow rip rap lined to
assist with the fish passage channel will be formed in this base
Benching the stream bank and upgrading and realigning the existing footpath in the
Stancich Reserve.
Installing a 4.0 metre diameter culvert under the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge.
Attach a viewing platform to the western side of the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge.
Remove and replace vegetation from the Stancich Reserve and from the rear of private
properties.
The works will be undertaken over three stages.
Stage 1 will include 140 metres of downstream widening of the stream channel from the southeastern side of the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge to the rear boundaries of the properties at 32 Evelyn
Place and 5A Ocean View Road.
Stage 2 will include the installation of a new culvert under Hillcrest Avenue Bridge .
Stage 3 will be for the widening of the channel upstream of Hillcrest Avenue adjacent to the
eastern end of the Stancich Reserve.
The proposed widening between the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge and the bridge that separates Ocean
View Road and Northcote Road will occur on steep banks which are currently unstable. The new
timber retaining walls will be up to 2.8 metres in height with timber rails and steel wire fencing
powder-coated in a Karaka green colour and supported by steel posts at 1.5 metre intervals. The
wall and a new channel base will be constructed in segments to minimise potential erosion.
The new box culvert under Hillcrest Avenue will be constructed in two halves to maintain traffic
movement. A temporary low flow storm water diversion will be installed around the works site to
assist with fish passage. Some shallow pools will be constructed in the new and widened stream
base. A number of trees located on private properties will need to be removed and some works
will be undertaken within the drip lines of other trees on private properties.
The proposed works will require the water, telecom and gas services in the Hillcrest Avenue berm
to be raised over the existing and new culvert inlets. The carriageway in Hillcrest Avenue will be
reinstated in accordance with Auckland Transport requirements.
Access to the works will mostly be from the new channel. Where access through private land is
necessary, the affected properties will be reinstated to a condition similar to before construction
and in accordance with any property owner requirements that are requested under the Land
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 6
Owner Consent to the Works. There are also relevant provisions in the Local Government Act that
relate to this consent.
3.2
Site, Locality, Catchment and Environs Description
The proposed works will take place on the outer edges of the existing southern side of the
concrete lined watercourse between the Stancich Reserve to the west and at the rear of the
properties at 5A Ocean View Road and 32 Evelyn Place to the east. In the Reserve, the works will
be on a grassed embankment before they enter under the bridge that supports Hillcrest Avenue.
As the works continue eastward to the rear of the properties at 7 to 13 Hillcrest Avenue, 32 and 38
Evelyn Place and 11 Ocean View Road, this section the water course is currently only about 1.5
metres wide. The embankments of the private properties tend to be overgrown in some areas,
which have created a very shady area along this section of the watercourse.
From a wider regional perspective, the Hillcrest Stream passes through the centre of the Shoal
Bay catchment in easterly and south-easterly direction before it enters into the Waitemata Harbour
at Little Shoal Bay. Hillcrest Avenue is located toward the bottom of this catchment and the stream
passes underneath this road through a 4.0m wide and 2.5m high box culvert. This stream
continues in an easterly direction through a number of other crossings and finally passing beneath
State Highway 1 before its confluence with the Shoal Bay coastal environment.
The upstream area of the catchment above the Hillcrest Avenue culvert is roughly bounded by
Ocean View and Pupuke Roads to the south, Glenfield Road to the west, the Linley Reserve to
the north-west and Coronation Road to the north, and comprises an area of approximately 188
hectares. The section of the Hillcrest Stream that is subject to this application receives storm
water runoff from a localised sub-catchment that is approximately 2.0 hectares in area. A larger
adjacent sub-catchment of approximately 28 hectares to the north gravitates to Evelyn Place, and
is then estimated to cross Northcote Road before entering the watercourse downstream of the
shops by the Auckland North Shore Motels and Holiday Park site located at 52 Northcote Road.
3.3
Background
A major problem has been identified with the storm water overland flow path in this general area
with storm water spilling out of the Hillcrest Avenue culvert, flowing towards the south-east and
into the Hillcrest Stream near Tonar Street. This has created storm water attenuation problems in
the area and resulted in Council, due to surface flooding refusing to support a land use consent
application for the New Zealand Housing Corporation development in nearby Tonar Street. During
the course of this application, the Resource Management Act was amended and the general tree
protection rules were removed.
3.4
Other Consents
No other consents are necessary for this application.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 7
3.5
Locality Plan
3.6
Hillcrest Storm Water Catchment
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 8
4.0
REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
Resource consent is required under the provisions of the following Auckland Council District Plan
(North Shore Section).
4.1
District Plans
4.1.1 Operative District Plan
1.
The proposal includes the disturbance of soil, natural ground cover and vegetation located
within 5.0 metres of the centre line of a stream. This is a Discretionary activity under Rule
8.4.2.1 i) of the Operative District Plan.
2.
The proposal requires works to trees located within a reserve. This is a Limited
Discretionary activity under Rule 8.4.6.3 a) i) of the Operative District Plan.
3.
The proposal requires the removal of trees located in a reserve. This is a Discretionary
activity under Rule 8.4.6.3 b) i) of the Operative District Plan.
4.
The proposal requires works to and removal of native trees which are protected under
Designation 331 (Stancich Reserve). This is a Discretionary activity under Rule 8.4.6.2 of
the Operative District Plan.
5.
The proposed viewing structure that will be constructed on the Stancich Reserve and over
the Hillcrest Stream are Controlled Activities under Rule 19.5.1 and Table 19.1 of the
District Plan.
6.
The proposal will exceed the maximum 300m2 of site works permitted under Rule 9.4.1.3
g) of the District Plan (2245m2 proposed). This is a Limited Discretionary activity.
7.
The proposal required the erection of a structure within a 1% AEP Flood Plain. This is a
Discretionary activity under Rule 8.4.9.1.2A of the Operative District Plan.
8.
The proposal requires site works on land with a gradient steeper than 1:4. This must be
considered as a Discretionary activity under Rule 9.4.1.4 m) of the Operative District Plan.
9.
The proposed works will require the disturbance of soil and vegetation of a riparian margin
which is not provided for as a permitted, Controlled or Limited Discretionary activity. This
must be considered as a Discretionary activity under Rule 8.4.2.4 a) of the District Plan.
10.
The proposed works will modify a waterway which is not provided for as a Controlled or
Limited Discretionary activity. This must be considered as a Discretionary activity under
Rule 8.4.2.4 b) of the District Plan.
4.2
Regional Plans
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water)
1.
The proposed extension of the existing culvert and stream bed channel will increase the
existing flood levels at 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 1/3, 2/3 and 5A Ocean View Road, 1-10/28 Evelyn
Place and 1/59 and 2/59 Northcote Road. Under Chapter 7 (Structures and the Diversion
of Surface Water) of the Air, Land and Water Plan, this must be considered as a
Discretionary activity under Rules 7.5.12 of the Regional Plan (Structures and the
Diversion of Surface WaterAir, Land and Water).
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 9
2.
The proposed works will widen the stream channel for more than 30.0 metres on adjacent
properties. This must be considered as a Restricted Discretionary activity under Rules
7.5.9 of the Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water).
3.
The proposed works will require the erection of a structure in a stream. This must be
considered as a Discretionary activity under Rules 7.5.12 of the Regional Plan (Air, Land
and Water).
Note:
The temporary damming of water associated with the proposed construction methodologies is
provided for as a permitted activity under Rule 6.5.54 of the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air,
Land and Water).
4.3
Application Activity Status
Overall (under both the North Shore Section and the Auckland Regional section of the Auckland
Council District Plans) the application is considered as a Discretionary Activity.
4.4
National Environmental Standard (“NES”)
N/A
4.5
Bundling of Applications
Bundling of applications is good practice and consistent with an integrated resource management
approach. Bundling should be considered on a case by case basis. Generally applications should
be bundled except where:
•
•
•
Separate but concurrent applications have been made and one of the consents involves a
controlled or restricted discretionary activity; and
The Council’s discretion is limited; and
The effects of exercising the two or more consents would not overlap.
In this instance it is considered appropriate to bundle the matters requiring resource consents
under both the District Plan and Regional Plan and consider the proposal collectively.
4.6
Notification
On 29 July 2012, it was determined by an independent commissioner that the application should
proceed on a limited notified basis. The application Notice of the application was served on 7
August 2012 on those persons identified as being adversely affected by the proposal in
accordance with s95E of the RMA.
All matters required to be assessed in terms of sections 95 to 95F, of the RMA have been
addressed in the notification determination report.
4.7
Submissions
At the close of the submission period, total of 23 submissions were received and no submissions
were received after the close of submissions.
One submission supported the application, 21 opposed the application and one submission was
neutral. A number of the submitters included photographs with their submissions. Submissions
were also received from three properties outside of those identified as being affected by the
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 10
proposal. A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought by the
submitters is set out as follows:
Please note that this table is only a summary of the key issues raised in submissions. Please refer
to the full set of submissions as required.
The following summary identifies:
•
The key issues raised in the submissions
•
Details of any relief sought by the submitter
•
Whether the submitter wishes to be heard at the hearing
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 relevant submissions as required and incorporated comments into their
assessments accordingly. Many of these submissions raised similar issues 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 specifically addressed in the assessment of actual
and potential effects contained in this report.
4.8
Summary of Submissions
Submissions Table:
The following table summarises the submissions received.
No. Name
Issues Raised
Relief Sought
Effects on water
flows, Flooding,
land
stability,
engineering
Erosion,
flooding
Reinforcement
of the stream
bank
2
Kerry
Shirley F2 & F10 at 28 Evelyn
Place,
Armstrong
(Chairwomen
of
the bodycorp)
Shirley Ayers
28 Evelyn Place
3
K. Blue
1/28 Evelyn Place
Erosion
4
R. Cameron
2/28 Evelyn Place
Erosion
5
T, R & Y Chiang
38 Evelyn Place
Walkway
Kauri tree,
6
J. Earlly
7/28 Evelyn Place
Erosion,
Flooding
7
Z Jabawi
Antagi
O 32A Evelyn Place
Flooding,
Removal
trees
Erosion
1
8
J & S Hanna
Physical Address
&
8/28 Evelyn Place
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Review of the
application
and adequate
protection of
the property
Reinforcement
of the stream
bank
Reinforcement
of the stream
bank
and Protection of
walkway,
trees, stream
bank
Reinforcement
of the stream
bank
Wish to be
heard?
Yes
Yes
No
Unsure
No
Unsure
Yes
of
Reinforcement
of the bank
No
Page 11
9
G & A Jones
9/28 Evelyn Place
10
S Julich
1A Ocean View Road
11
B. Isaacs
2/11
Road
12
N Raybould & M 13 Hillcrest Avenue
Hamilton
(Joint
submission)
13
W. Young
4/28 Evelyn Place
14
J. Walker
1C Ocean View Road
15
L. Wu
3/28 Evelyn Place
16
J. West
6/28 Evelyn Place
17
G. Waworis
5/28 Evelyn Place
18
S.L Ng
59B Northcote Road
19
P & C Abrahall
1/16 Hillcrest Avenue
20
P & L Quinnell
1/28 Evelyn Place
21
22
Dr R. Whiting (on 28 Evelyn Place
behalf of the family
trust)
G. Edgington
23
J. Ng
Ocean
View Erosion
1B Ocean View Road
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Erosion,
Flooding
Erosion
Unsure
Reinforcement No
of the stream
bank
Reinforcement Unsure
of the stream
bank
Yes
land,
Loss of
privacy,
inadequate
screening, loss
of
bamboo
screening.
Erosion
Reinforcement
of
embankment
Erosion
Reinforcement
of
embankment.
Erosion
Reinforcement
of
embankment
Erosion
Reinforcement
of
embankment
Erosion
Reinforcement
of
the
embankment
Erosion,
Reinforcement
Flooding
of
the
embankment
Health
and Enclose
safety, loss of culvert
reserve, risk to
water quality
Flooding,
Reinforcement
Erosion
of
the
embankment,
Control water
flows
Erosion, Loss of Reinforcement
vegetation
of
the
embankment
Flooding
Reinforcement
of
the
embankment
Erosion,
Comprehensiv
Flooding,
e
research,
financial
assistance,
contingency
plans,
reinforcement
of
the
embankment
Unsure
Unsure
No
No
No
Unsure
Unsure
Unsure
Unsure
No
Yes
Page 12
A copy of the submissions is available in Attachment 3.
4.9
Issues Raised
The issues raised by the submitters included erosion and flooding, land stability, vegetation,
privacy, health and safety, effects on water quality and health and safety.
The submission from Kerry Armstrong, the owner of Flat 2/28 Evelyn Place and Chairwomen of
that body corp commented on the exposure to flooding and the rate of erosion to the rear of the
property over the last six to seven years and more recently since July in 2012. She perceives this
has caused a loss of useable land with evidence of further subsidence into this property. Ms
Armstrong is particularly concerned that the proposed stream widening will increase the water
flows which will further exacerbate this problem and undermine the building itself.
Ms Armstrong mentioned earlier in 2012 the Council removed a tree that hanged over the stream
and supplied native plants to prevent subsidence and further erosion. But these were washed
away by floods in July of this year. As remediation, Ms Armstrong has advised the Body Corp for
the apartment block want the land stabilised with a retaining wall and/or heightening of the walls of
the stream. Ms Armstrong opposes the application unless the property at 28 Evelyn Place is
protected from further erosion by the construction of a retaining wall or with concrete
reinforcement.
Shirley Ayers who is the owner of 3/28 Evelyn Place has commented in her submission that she
is concerned the proposal has the potential to have an adverse effect on the stream bank at 28
Evelyn Place. Ms Ayers noted the stream bank has been subject to considerable erosion and
efforts to contain the bank have been partially swept away by flooding. Ms Ayers is concerned the
proposal will have the potential for strong water flows outside of this property and is sceptical
about the accuracy of any test modelling. Ms Ayers opposes the application unless the property at
28 Evelyn Place is protected from further erosion by the construction of a retaining wall or with
concrete reinforcement.
Kendall Blue of 1/28 Evelyn Place opposes the application as the works may cause erosion
during periods of high water flows. Ms Blue noted there is evidence of erosion of the bank from the
storm water flows and widening the upstream bank may increase the water flows and the rate of
erosion. Ms Blue would like to see the bank outside of 28 Evelyn Place strengthened.
Reuben Cameron of 2/28 Evelyn Place is concerned the proposed works will increase the
erosion rate of the stream banks on both sides and would like to see the stream bank outside of
this property reinforced.
Mr and Mrs Chiang of 38 Evelyn Place would like to see the existing walkway outside of their
property to Hillcrest Road and the Kauri tree retained and an environmentally friendly retaining
wall constructed on both sides. They questioned the land disappearing.
John Earlly of 7/28 Evelyn Place has commented the stream is not coping at present, erosion
and flooding is very evident and the stability of the land is threatened. Mr Earlly would like to have
the rear of the property at 28 Evelyn Place reinforced.
Zineb Jabawi and Oday Antagi of 32A Evelyn Place are concerned the proposed works will
present flood risks to their property and cause the destruction of the existing vegetable garden and
other vegetation. They have concerns over the use of land to widen the stream.
Mr and Mrs Hanna of 8/28 Evelyn Place are concerned the increased water flow will cause
further erosion of the banks on both sides of the stream and noted the stream is unable to cope at
present.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 13
Mr and Mrs Jones whom are the owners of 9/28 Evelyn Place are concerned the proposal will
cause serious flooding and erosion downstream, particularly on the bend.
Shirley Julich who is the owner of 1A Ocean View Road is concerned the widening of the stream
will increase the water flow from behind and alongside her property. She would like to see a
regular assessment of the stream outside of her property to determine if the works have increased
the erosion.
Beryl Isaacs of 32B Evelyn Place has commented the stream is not coping now with erosion and
subsidence on both sides of the bank. She is concerned with the increase in water flow and would
like reinforcement and retaining walls for her property.
Wendy Young of 4/28 Evelyn Place has commented there will be insufficient carrying capacity for
the increase in the water flow which will create a bottle neck of water flowing into the narrow
creek. Ms Young has provided photographs showing the effects the erosion has had on 28 Evelyn
place with the loss of vegetation and top soil. She would like to see this part of the stream bank
reinforced with a concrete retaining wall and planting.
Michelle Hamilton and Nicholas Raybould of 13 Hillcrest Avenue have raised a number of
concerns. One is the proposed works will result in a loss of their land which will have monetary
implications. They have noted two trees will need to be removed which they consider is an
indication that some of their land is required for the works. They consider further information is
required to determine the exact amount of land that will be required for the works.
They are also concerned about the removal of a bamboo hedge. This hedge provides privacy from
a two storey dwelling that has been constructed on the adjoining property. This hedge also
provides security for their pets and family members in relation to the water. They have concerns
about the nature and construction of the works, the amount of land that will be damaged,
compensation for the loss of land, the duration of the works, proposals for safety and long term
restoration plans. They consider the proposed replacement fence will not be sufficient to address
their safety concerns.
Julie Walker of 1C Ocean View Road has commented the existing banks need to be reinforced
as the stream is not coping. She is concerned the stream widening will increase the water volume
at 28 Evelyn Place. She would like to see higher walls retaining walls constructed on the existing
bank.
Lucy Wu of 3/28 Evelyn Place has commented the existing banks need to be reinforced as the
stream is not coping. She is concerned the stream widening will increase the water volume at 28
Evelyn Plan. She would like to see higher walls retaining walls constructed on the existing bank.
Jennifer West of 6/28 Evelyn Place has commented the existing banks need to be reinforced as
the stream is not coping. She is concerned the stream widening will increase the water volume at
28 Evelyn Plan. She would like to see higher walls retaining walls constructed on the existing
bank.
Gail Waroris of 5/28 Evelyn Place is concerned the proposed stream widening will dramatically
increase the flow of water through this stream. She has commented over the last six years erosion
has caused the loss of once useable land on both sides of the stream. She considers this was
further exacerbated by floods in July of 2012. Ms Waroris considers of the proposed works go
ahead, and then appropriate reinforcement measures are necessary on the stream embankment
outside 28 Evelyn Place.
Dr Roger Whiting who is the owner of 6/28 Evelyn Place has commented on the varying levels of
water flows through the stream and has noted the gradual erosion of the stream bank. Dr Whiting
has commented during heavy rainfalls the stream regularly overflows the stone work channel and
washes away at the bank. According to Dr Whiting in 2012 the water levels rose 4.0 metres and
destroyed a significant amount of vegetation and a clothes line in this area has slumped. For these
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 14
reasons Dr Whiting is very concerned about any increase in water flows and the effects it will have
on 28 Evelyn Place and believes if the stream is to be widened then reinforcement of the stream
bank outside 28 Evelyn Place will be necessary.
Gordon Edgington who is the owner of 15A Hillcrest Avenue supports the proposal in principle
but wants the Council to ensure the stream banks will not be destabilised by the works. Mr
Edgington has commented there are water supply lines and metres and power supply lines for 15
and 15A Hillcrest road which may need to be relocated.
Mr and Mrs Quinnell who are the owners of Unit 1, 28 Evelyn Place do not support the proposed
works. They are concerned that no work is proposed on the stream bank outside of 28 Evelyn
Place and this will exacerbate the potential flooding and the erosion that is already occurring at
that point. Mr and Mrs Quinnell advise they would conditionally support the proposal if the works
include erosion protection on the stream bank outside 28 Evelyn Place and there would be no
damming further down stream and at the culvert under Northcote Road.
Mr and Mrs Abrahall who are the owners of 1/16 Hillcrest Avenue are concerned about the path
next to the culvert on Hillcrest Avenue, the possible loss of reserve area and the risk of stagnant
water and subsequent bacteria and its effects on public health. They appreciate the necessity for
the works but consider the adverse impacts raised above can be minimised by enclosing the
culvert and re-grassing the area above.
Siew Ling Ng and Lynnette Roddick are the owners of 59 and 59B Northcote Road respectively.
They are concerned about the rise in water levels from heavy rainfalls and requests monitoring of
the stream above the Northcote Road Bridge. They are also concerned about erosion outside the
bank at 1 Ocean View Road and requests the banks be re-constructed.
Jason Ng who is the owner of 1B Ocean View Road have expressed concern the increase in
water flows may cause further erosion and degradation to the stream bank. Mr Ng noted heavy
rainfall and rising water levels in September 2011 caused some erosion. Mr Ng advise he does
support the proposal provided Council can guarantee his property will be sustained by the works,
Council has procedures, contingency plans and offers financial assistance to address erosion and
land degradation and considers building a retaining wall and fence at 1 Ocean View Road and 59
and 59A Ocean View Road.
4.10
Overview of Relief Sought sought by the submitters
Most of the submitters were concerned the works will increase the water flow and exacerbate the
current levels of erosion along the stream banks. There were also concerns about stagnant water
and possible bacteria, the effects on infrastructure, pet security, monetary implications and the
loss of vegetation. Many have requested the stream banks become stabilised with new retaining
walls, the works be subject to regular assessments, enclosing the culvert on Hillcrest Avenue and
financial assistance.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 15
4.11
Location Plan of Submissions
4.12
Amendments to the Application following Notification
Following the submission process, the consent authority sought further information in relation to a
number of matters which have been provided. All submitters were given written or electronic
notice that the information is available at the Council office on 11 December 2012 and was
considered to be within the scope of the original application and therefore re-notification of the
application was not required. The applicant has also received storm water modelling and
ecological reports. A copy of these reports is available in Attachment 1.
5.0
Written Approvals
The applicant has obtained the written approval of the following persons.
Name
Auckland Council Parks Department – Northern
In accordance with s104(3)(a)(ii), the following s104 assessment in Section 6.0 of this report will
disregard and not address any effect on the above persons from whom written approval has been
obtained.
A copy of the written approval is available in Attachment 4.
6.0
Pre-hearing Meetings
A pre-hearing meeting was held at the Council Chambers in Takapuna on 7 March 2013 where it
was chaired by Commissioner Harry Bhana. In attendance the Council’s Senior Planner and
Senior Development Engineer, the applicant and representatives and the following submitters:
S A Ayers
T & R C Y Chang
G O & S A Jones
J I H Ng
8A Raeben Avenue
38 Evelyn Place
36A King Richard Place
MBE T322 Private Bag 93512
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Hillcrest
Hillcrest
Browns Bay
Takapuna
Page 16
S L Ng & L K Roddick
N Raybould & M
Hamilton
R Whiting
59 Northcote Road
Hillcrest
13 Hillcrest Avenue
17 Atherton Road
Northcote
Epsom
The issues raised at this meeting were those that affected the following properties:
•
28 Evelyn Place;
•
13 Hillcrest Avenue;
•
59 Northcote Road; and,
•
38 Evelyn Place.
A copy of the minutes can be found in Attachment 5
Issues for 28 Evelyn Place
The affected landowners were concerned about the ongoing effects of erosion of the stream bank
that borders the property and considered that increasing the capacity of the stream would result in
increased problems with erosion. They were concerned that because flooding and erosion issues
had not been addressed in the past they would not be addressed in the future.
They had no confidence that predictions by the storm water engineers about the effects of the
proposed works would be accurate. The applicant offered to accept conditions regarding
monitoring and reinstatement although as noted later the exact form of those proposed conditions
was not able to be presented to the submitters or agreed by them.
Issues for 13 Hillcrest Avenue
The concerns for this property were concerned that the widening of the stream would result in the
removal of a substantial thicket of bamboo which bordered the stream bank and which provided a
safe barrier for his young family and which also provided a visual screen between his house and
the new two-storey dwelling on the opposite side of the stream. He was concerned that the
proposed landscaping and fencing would not provide the same level of amenity in terms of safety
and privacy that the existing bamboo thicket currently provided.
The applicant offered to consider specific measures to address Mr Raybould’s concerns but these
were not able to be presented or agreement confirmed at the meeting. Mr Raybould said that he
also represented the owner (a family member) of number 7 Hillcrest Avenue and requested
information regarding the effects on that property. He was advised that most of the stream
widening would take place on Mr Chiang’s property of 38 Evelyn Place.
Issues for 59 Northcote Road
The concerns here were similar to the concerns for 28 Evelyn Place regarding past effects of
erosion but she was also concerned about the need to remove an area of bamboo on the stream
bank and the consequent loss of safety for small children who often visited her property. The
applicant explained the nature of resurfacing of the bank adjacent to her property and explained
that at this stage there was no intention of providing a fence.
Issues for 38 Evelyn Place
The owner for this property advised that he was totally opposed to the removal of trees on his
property in order to accommodate the stream widening. He said he would not agree to the
removal of the trees and that if the trees were removed he would move away from the area. Mr
Palmer explained that the applicant had looked at the possibility of moving the widening to the
northern side of the stream to avoid the trees but explained that was not a practicable option.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 17
Issues outstanding
At the close of the meeting, none of the above issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of
the submitters but significant progress appeared to be made and the applicant proposed to
continue the discussion and endeavour to have specific conditions addressing the submitters
concerns formulated and presented to them for agreement.
Outcome of Further Discussions
As indicated above the applicant and submitters agreed to discuss further the options for
overcoming the submitters concerns. On 25 March 2013, the Commissioner received advice from
Council’s Democracy Adviser – Hearings those following further discussions, the applicant had
formulated conditions which it proposed to put forward at the hearing of the application. Council
has not been informed of any discussions between the applicant and the submitters.
7.0
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, 104C, and where relevant section 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. 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 a NES or an
operative plan (or an operative rule in a proposed plan) permits an activity with that effect.
When considering an application for resource consent, the consent authority must not have regard
to trade competition or the effects of trade competition [s104 (3) (a) (i)] or any effect on a person
who has given their written approval to the application [s104 (3) (a) (ii)].
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 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. S5 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.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 18
The application of s5 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.
They must also sustain the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably
foreseeable needs of future generations, to safe guard the life-supporting capacity of air, water,
soil and ecosystems and to avoid, remedy and mitigate any adverse effects of activities on the
environment. The enabling and management functions found in s5 (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 s5
(2) (a), (b) and (c). The commencing words to these sections differ, thereby laying down the
relative weight to be given to each section.
Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance which need to be recognised
and provided for and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of
outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous
vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage. Any
relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report.
Section 7 of the RMA requires the consent authority to give particular regard to those matters
listed in the section. Section 7 matters are not expressly ranked in order of priority. Therefore, all
aspects of this section are to be considered equally. Any 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 Tanagra When 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.
7.1
Section 104(1) (a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment
Section 104(1) (a) of the RMA requires that a council have regard to any actual and potential
effects on the environment of allowing the activity.
Under s104 (2), when forming an opinion for the purposes of s104 (1) (a) a council may disregard
an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the plan or a NES permits an activity with
that effect (i.e. a council may consider the “permitted baseline”). The use of the “permitted
baseline” in relation to notification was discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the notification report and it
was considered that the type and complexity associated with the activity are such that the
permitted baseline does not apply to this proposal. This discussion and conclusion is also
considered relevant for the purposes of the assessment under s104 (1) (a).
Under s 104(3)(a), when forming an opinion for the purposes of s 104(1)(a) a council must not
have regard to any effect on a person who has given written approval to the proposal, nor any
trade competition or effects of trade competition. The written approval has been obtained from
Auckland Council Parks Department (Northern Area).
Effects on Land Stability
The proposed works will ensure the future stability of the stream embankment and having
appropriate sediment controls will prevent further erosion from occurring and the entry of sediment
into the stream. Appropriate controls will also ensure no damage will be done to the existing public
waste water line that traverses the stream between 32 Evelyn Place and 3 Ocean View Road.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 19
Some vegetation clearance will be necessary but the applicant has proposed replacement planting
which will adequately mitigate what will be removed.
An archaeological assessment found the area has not been systematically surveyed and there
were no recorded cultural heritage sites in the vicinity of the proposed activity. Given the extensive
modification to the stream from residential development, it is unlikely the proposed works will
impact on a significant historic place. However, a condition will be recommended requiring works
to halt and the appropriate authorities contacted should any archaeological features be unearthed.
Overall, I consider the effects will be less than minor.
Effects on Flooding
The proposed works have been designed to reduce flood hazards within the Hillcrest catchment
area. The new flood levels will have the required storage and safe conveyance of flood waters
during any extreme rainfall events and any cumulative effects will be avoided. The new retaining
structures will also serve to prevent any scouring of the landform. Overall, I consider the effects
will be minor.
Effects on Ecological Values
The stabilisation of the embankments and the new planting will be a significant improvement on
the existing environment which will enhance the habitat and bio-diversity by enriching the food
source and by providing new shading and climbing options for the biota to travel upstream to a
more suitable habitat by the Linley Reserve. Overall, I consider the effects will be less than minor.
Effects on Vegetation
The proposed landscaping will serve two functions. One is to provide mitigation from the loss of
vegetation and the other is a stabilisation measure of the stream embankment. The proposed
landscaping will be both qualitative and quantitative as it includes a diverse range of plant species and
sizes and it will also be intensive and it will be an important factor in the stabilisation of the stream
banks. This new landscaping will provide a greater contribution to the amenity, landscape and
ecological values in the area and it will not detract from the existing vegetative features of the reserve.
Overall, I consider the effects will be less than minor.
Effects on the Stancich Reserve
The built form, scale of the viewing platform will allow it to merge in with the existing bridge and
into the embankment on both sides of the stream. This will ensure the proposed structures will
compliment and enhance the open space and natural landscape features of the Reserve. It will
also enhance the Reserve’s scenic and recreational values by providing safe public viewing areas
of the mature vegetation and other landscape features of the Reserve. The widening of the access
into the Reserve from Hillcrest Avenue will improve the access to this viewing area for both able
bodied people and for mobility users. Overall, I consider the effects will be less than minor.
The assessment of adverse effects in the notification assessment concluded that adverse effects
were expected to be minor.
Positive Effects
There will be some positive effects that will derive from this proposal. They are the proposed works
will reduce the overall flooding within the Hillcrest Catchment area which will improve the development
potential of a number of properties. This includes the north Tonar Street area where Housing New
Zealand have applied to undertake a comprehensive development. The proposal will also prevent
further erosion and stabilise the existing stream embankment at the rear of the properties located
between the Hillcrest Avenue bridge and Ocean View Road and it will improve the ecological features
and habitat for the stream biota.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 20
7.2
Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application
The written approval has been obtained from Auckland Council Parks Department (Northern
Area).
8.0
8.0
NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS & AUCKLAND REGIONAL PLAN ASSESSMENT
National Environmental Standards (NES) and Auckland Regional Council Plan (Air,
Land and Water) Assessment
Consultant Engineer Jack Turner and Consultant Planner Claudine Osbourne have on behalf of
Auckland Council’s Natural Resources Specialist Input team (NRSI) have reviewed the proposal
and provided comment on the proposal against the National Policy Statements and Auckland
Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) Objectives and Policies.
8.1
Section 104(1) (b) (i) and (ii) Relevant Provisions of National Environmental
Standards and Other Regulations
There are no NES or other regulations in effect that apply to this application.
8.2
Section 104(1) (b) (iii) Relevant Provisions of National Policy Statements
The National Policy on Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM)
The National policy on Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM) is of relevance to this application.
The NPSFM sets out objectives and policies that direct local government to manage water in an
integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and
quality limits.
The Auckland Council has not yet amended the existing provisions of Regional plans and policies.
The transitional provisions of the NPSFM requires any more than minor potential adverse effects
of activities, in relation to water takes, use, damming and diverting, as well as discharges, be
thoroughly considered and actively managed. Therefore, the assessment of any consent required
under Chapter 7 of the Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) should have regard to the NPSFM,
and in particular the water quality and water quantity related policies.
Water quantity and quality limits have been considered through the development of draft
construction methodologies and through long-term design for the Hillcrest Stream project. It is
considered that the proposal will safeguard:
(i) the life supporting capacity of freshwater (through the improved provision of fish passage
within the proposed low-flow channel);
(ii) fresh-water ecosystem processes (by incorporating an improved overall ecological system
relative to the existing channel), and
(iii) fresh water indigenous species (as above, by providing greater levels of fish passage along
the Hillcrest Stream).
For these reasons, it is concluded that the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and
policies of the NPSFM.
I concur with these findings as the proposed rock rap will provide a climbing mechanism for the
stream biota. This will improve the fish passage and the new riparian landscaping will improve the
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 21
life supporting capacity of the ecosystem by providing a greater food source and it will introduce
some new shading.
8.3
Section 104(1) (b) (iv) Relevant Provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy
Statement (NZCPS) including the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA)
Explanation
The purpose of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is to manage activities in the coastal
environment that will prevent the loss of natural character and landscape values along extensive
areas of the coast. In particular, this policy statement seeks to ensure subdivision and land use
development does not lead to a vegetation loss and sedimentation in estuaries and the coastal
marine area that results in poor water quality and a decline in species, habitats and ecosystems in
the coastal environment.
Comment:
Mr Jack Turner and Mrs Claudine Osbourne on behalf of Auckland Council’s Natural Resources
Specialist Input unit have assessed the proposal and are satisfied it will be consistent with both
the NZCPS and the Hauraki Gulf Coastal Marine Park Act. The reasons being the proposed
construction methodologies and long-term design of the realigned stream channel will avoid,
remedy and/or mitigate the actual and potential adverse effects on the downstream coastal
environments to a degree that they are likely to be no more than minor.
I concur with these findings, the proposal will stabilise the stream embankment which will prevent
further erosion and sediment run off. This will improve the water quality of the stream and
ultimately into the receiving coastal environment.
8.4
Section 104(1) (b) (v) Relevant Provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy
Statement
The strategic objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement provide a framework to
achieve the integrated consistent and co-ordinated management of the Regions resources. This
framework is based upon not compromising the strategic direction of containment and
intensification and the avoidance of adverse effects on the environment.
Under the Regional Policy Statement, 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 relevant objectives and policies within the Regional Policy Statement that are considered to
be of particular relevance to the proposal are Chapter 8 – Water Quality, Objective 8.3, and
Policies 8.4.1(1) and 8.4.7(3) and Chapter 11 – Natural Hazards, Objective 11.3, and Policies
11.4.1(4), 11.4.1(5), 11.4.1(7), 11.4.1(8) and 11.4.1(12).
The purpose is to prevent development where it is likely to accelerate, worsen or result in
inundation of other property, unless it can be demonstrated that the adverse effects can be
avoided or mitigated. Any construction of mitigation works shall be encouraged only where people,
property and the environment are subject to unacceptable risk from flood hazards. When carrying
out flood mitigation works, existing vegetation shall be retained, where appropriate, to aid stability
and maintain environmental quality. However, the planting of vegetation, which may restrict water
flow and exacerbate the flooding hazard, shall be avoided. A precautionary approach shall be
used in avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the adverse effects on development, of earthquake,
volcanic activity, sea level rise and global climatic change.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 22
NRSI Comment:
Mr Turner and Mrs Osbourne are satisfied the proposed works to the Hillcrest Stream will
significantly improve existing inundation problems within the wider catchment area. Up to 117
properties are expected to have lower flood levels while only 17 properties are expected to
experience a slight increase in flood levels during a 100 year ARI event as a result of the
proposed works.
Of the 17 properties that are expected to experience an increase in flood levels, only the property
at 28 Evelyn Place is likely to have less than 500mm clearance between the finished floor level
and the expected 100 year flood level (500mm being the recommended minimum clearance in
Council’s Infrastructure Design Standards) between the finished floor level and the expected 100
year flood level. For this property, the expected clearance will be 470mm which is not expected to
create any adverse effects on this property. For this reason, this application is considered to be
consistent with the policy requiring avoidance or mitigation of inundation.
The proposed flood mitigation works are encouraged due to the existing risk of flood hazards on
people, property and the environment within the lower portions of the Hillcrest Stream catchment,
particularly in the Northcote area. The existing native vegetation along the Hillcrest Stream
alignment will be retained as much is possible. All replanting will be with appropriate native
species with input to their selection from the directly affected private landowners. The replacement
planting will be appropriately undertaken to ensure there is no obstruction to the passage of flood
flows through the area.
The applicant has taken account of a potential increase in rainfall depths as a consequence of
climate change. As such, the proposal is considered to be a precautionary approach for modelling
the passage of flood flows throughout the Hillcrest Stream catchment and consistent with this
policy.
Comment:
I concur with comments made by Council’s NRSI specialists. Although there will be an increase in
flood levels for some properties, the effects on those properties will be negligible and the overall
effect will be a significantly larger area of reduced flood levels. With the stabilising of the stream
embankment, this will improve the water quality that will flow into the receiving coastal
environment. The applicant has also been precautionary by taking into account potentially higher
rainfall levels due to climate change.
9.0
Section 104(1) (b) (vi) Relevant provisions of the objectives, policies and rules of the
Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water)
The Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) provides for the integrated
management of air, land and water resources within the Auckland region.
Chapter 3
(Management Areas) and Chapter 7 (Beds of Lakes and Rivers and Diversion of Surface Water)
are considered to be of particular relevance to the proposal.
Chapter 3 of the Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) sets out the management approaches for
freshwater environments, including streams within urban areas, and adopts a categorisation
system with guidelines relative to a management approach for these streams. The Plan
recognises that the majority of these rivers and streams have a key role in protecting public safety
by conveying storm water away from Urban Areas and reducing flooding. However, many have
been substantially altered by development, including land use development (buildings and roads),
vegetation clearance, the creation of impervious areas and roads generating greater runoff,
discharges (storm water, wastewater, sediment and contaminants); structural alteration of natural
channels (channelisation, piping, culverting and concrete lining); and modification of the floodplain
for development and to facilitate drainage and conveyance of flood waters.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 23
The broad management approach of the Plan is to manage urban rivers and streams at both a
catchment and reach scale based on the categorisation, giving greater priority to more detailed
categorisations or assessments.
The following objectives and policies within Chapter 3 of the Regional Plan are considered to be of
particular relevance to the proposal:
Objective 3.6.3.1 & Policies 3.6.4.4, 3.6.4.5 and 3.6.4.7
The common provisions within these objectives and policies which are of particular relevance are
the need to recognise the important role that streams provide for the conveyance of storm water
as well as the need to maintain or enhance fish passage where appropriate. In this regard, Mr
Turner and Mrs Osbourne considers the applicant has satisfactorily addressed these and other
relevant matters within the objectives and policies within Chapter 3, in particular by enhancing
both the passage of storm water within the Hillcrest Stream as well as the passage of fish along its
alignment.
Chapter 7 of the Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) contains provisions relating to the Auckland
Council’s management of streams in the Auckland region with regards to Section 13 of the RMA
and the diversion of surface water from these bodies under Section 14. The provisions
considered to be of particular relevance to the proposal are identified below:
Objectives 7.3.2 & 7.3.3 & Policies 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.5, 7.4.7, 7.4.9, 7.4.11 and 7.4.15
Mr Turner and Mrs Osbourne have noted the applicant has provided a brief analysis of the
relevant provisions within sections 3.5 and 3.7 of their AEE and concluded that the proposal was
consistent within the Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water). This position is considered to be valid,
and reinforced by the fact that the proposal forms part of a package of recommended works within
the Hillcrest Stream catchment management plan, which itself forms part of the wider North Shore
Integrated Catchment Management Plan.
Although these management plans have not yet been subject to formal approval as a result of a
relevant statutory process (specifically, via an approved network discharge consent issued under
Chapter 5 of the Plan), Mr Turner and Mrs Osbourne consider the plans have been developed to a
stage at which significant weight should be attributed to them.
Chapter 7 also incorporates rules that govern activities in, on under or over the beds of streams
within the Auckland region. Mr Turner and Mrs Osbourne are satisfied the applicant has
addressed those matters of relevance within the rules to this proposal, and it was concluded that
the adverse effects associated with the works were likely to be no more than minor.
Overall, Mr Turner and Mrs Osbourne are satisfied the proposal is consistent with the Regional
Plan (Air, Land and Water), primarily because the short and long term adverse effects relative to
those matters that are addressed by the Plan and associated with the proposal can be avoided,
remedied and/or mitigated such that they are likely to be no more than minor.
I concur with the findings of the report. The proposed works will protect public safety by reducing
flooding through improving the conveyance of storm water through the Hillcrest Stream. The
proposal will also enhance the fish passage through the installation of rip rap rocks.
10
Section 104(1) (b) (vi) Relevant Provisions of the District Plan Objectives, Policies
and Rules
Objectives and Policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section)
8.3.2
Ecosystems
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 24
8.3.4
Tree Management
8.3.5
Storm Water Catchment Management
8.3.7.1
Floodplains
8.3.7.2
Overland Flow Paths
9.3.1
Protection of the Environment
19.4.1
Recreation 1 (Conservation) Zone
Assessment Criteria
8.4.2.7
Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities (Riparian Margins)
8.4.2.8
Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities (Riparian Margins)
8.4.2.9
Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities (Riparian Margins)
8.4.6.6.1
General Assessment Criteria (Trees)
8.4.6.6.4
Works to Trees in Roads and Reserves
8.4.9.9
Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities (Flood Plains)
8.4.9.10
Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities (Flood Plains)
8.4.9.11
Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities (Flood Plains)
9.7.1.1
The Design and Implementation of Site Works
Summary
The relevant objectives and policies and Assessment Criteria under the Auckland Council District
Plan (North Shore section) that apply to this proposal sets out to ensure any development that
requires site works within a watercourse protects the natural character, landscape and aesthetic
values including its ecological and recreational values. This is to be achieved by ensuring the
works will not undermine soil stability and either create, or exacerbate erosion. All sediment must
be controlled to prevent any discharge into the water course and the disturbance or clearance of
vegetation must be minimised. Any development must ensure any existing drainage will not be
affected and any overland flow paths must not be altered, re-directed or obstructed.
10.1
Assessment
The assessment of the objectives, policies and assessment criteria identified above can be
undertaken under the following five broad headings:
•
•
•
•
•
Land Stability, Archaeological and Construction
Flood Plain Levels and Overland Flow Paths
Maintaining and Enhancing Ecological Values and the Natural Environment of the Hillcrest
Stream
Protection and Enhancement of Vegetation
Reserve Amenity
10.1.1 Land Stability
(Refer to Objective & Policy 9.3.1 & Assessment Criteria 9.7.1.1)
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 25
Erosion is the major concern raised by the submitters in their submissions and also by those who
attended the Pre-hearing meeting on 7 March 2013. Many of the submitters are concerned the
proposed widening and an increase in the velocity of the water flow will exacerbate this situation
further, particularly where the stream flow approaches the bend at the rear of No 28 Evelyn Place
and at 59 Ocean View Road.
Jacqui McCord, a geologist specialist, also of Keith Gillespie & Associated Ltd, has prepared a
geo-technical investigation report on the likely effects the stream widening will have on the stream
bend at the rear of No. 28 Evelyn Place and 59 Ocean View Road. Five bore-hole tests were
undertaken in this area and the tests revealed the sub surface soil comprises of fill, clayey and silt
alluvium and ground water. Ms McCord commented this works area is unstable with evidence of
slumping which will be made worse with undercutting and the removal of vegetation.
To ensure the proposed works will not exacerbate the erosion problem at this bend in the stream,
the applicant proposes to insert turf mats into the stream embankment. These turf mats are a form
of grass mats that are locked into the landform by earth percussion anchors which are cone
shaped springs that are locked deep into the soil. This will be followed by planting a matrix of low
growing plants over the works area. Ms McCord considers this method of stabilising this part of
the stream embankment will be satisfactory provided the anchoring systems are installed within
the alluvial soils and not the fill.
On the south side of the stream bank area between the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge and No. 5A
Ocean View Road, the proposed 240 metre long timber rail retaining wall supported by
cantilevered steel columns at 1.5 metre intervals. These columns will be galvanised and painted
with a high-build epoxy coating to prevent corrosion. An 18.0 metre long retaining wall will be
constructed next to the footpath on the Stancich Reserve west of the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge. This
viewing platform will be at ground level and will not create any visual dominance effects.
Fencing 1.1 metres in height will be constructed on top of those retaining walls where they exceed
1.0 metre in height, (as required under the New Zealand Building Code). The fencing around
private properties will be either a 1.8 metre high timber fence or a 1.1 metre high ‘pool’ type fence.
The new fencing at the edge of the widened channel will have a planted strip up to 1.0 metre in
width to soften the appearance.
The applicant’s geologist, Richard Simonds of Keith Gilliespie & Associates Ltd has prepared a
geo-technical investigation report assessed the ground stability of the proposed works area and
provided an assessment on the retaining wall options. Mr Simonds advised borehole tests were
taken within the works area at 30 metre intervals. The tests revealed in some places the soil
contained concrete and other hard core materials and the drilling had to be abandoned. In other
places, the soils comprise of stiff clayey silt, coarse sand, fine to medium gravel and alluvial
deposits.
This report noted the existing banks along this section of the watercourse slope at 250 to 300
angles and there is the potential for scouring during heavy rainfall events. For the construction
period, the applicant proposes to prevent further erosion by installing bio-degradable erosion
protection mats and limit unsupported excavations to gradients no more than 1 vertical to 2
horizontal.
Mr Simonds recommends where possible, retaining walls should be installed as they can be
designed using a bulk unit weight with back fill. In some places this is not possible due to
impenetrable substances beneath the surface such as concrete fill. Mr Simonds considers the
ground conditions where the new culvert will replace the existing culvert are poor and
recommends a de-watering of the excavation area by using sump pumps (Refer Attachment 1).
Council’s Senior Development Engineer Ken Schmidt has reviewed the proposed stream widening
and the recommended retaining and turf mat mechanisms to stabilise the embankment. He is
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 26
satisfied these practices will be sufficient in preventing further erosion. He is also satisfied that
having appropriate sediment controls will effectively contain all of the sediment during the
construction period.
A 225mm diameter public waste water line extends from the rear of No. 32 Evelyn Place across
the stream to the rear of No. 3 Ocean View Road. Mr Schmidt is satisfied the proposed new
retaining wall can be positioned and constructed away from this waste water line. However, he
has recommended a condition requiring the consent holder and contractor to undertake due care
when working around this waste water line.
With these stabilised mechanisms in place, the proposed works will arrest the existing erosion that
is occurring on the stream embankment between Hillcrest Avenue and Ocean View Road. It will
also provide the structural support for the stream embankment widening that will be necessary to
withstand the increase in water flows and velocities.
An archaeological assessment of the proposed works was undertaken by Charlotte Judge, a
consultant archaeologist for the Department of Cultural and Built Heritage, Landscape and
Archaeology. The assessment found the area has not been systematically surveyed and there
were no recorded cultural heritage sites in the vicinity of the proposed activity. Given the extensive
modification to the stream from residential development, the Report considers it is unlikely the
proposed works will impact on a significant historic place. Should any archaeological features be
unearthed during the construction period, a condition will be recommended to requiring works to
halt and the appropriate authorities contacted. Therefore no issues are expected to arise during
the construction phase which would impact on land stability.
Comment
The stream area between the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge and Ocean View Road has been subject to
erosion and flooding and the works are considered necessary to eliminate the surface flooding
that is occurring in the eastern parts of the Hillcrest Storm Water Catchment. Care must be taken
to ensure that the subsequent increase in the water flow and velocity from the widening of this
area of the stream and the removal of debris does not exacerbate the erosion situation. The
sediment that will be generated from the proposed works must be captured and contained to
ensure there is no spill over into the watercourse and out into the receiving marine environment.
I am satisfied the proposal will be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies in the District
Plan. The proposed works will ensure the future stability of the stream embankment and the
effects on the existing land form will be relatively minor. Having appropriate sediment controls will
prevent further erosion from occurring and the entry of sediment into the stream. Appropriate
controls will also ensure no damage will be done to the existing public waste water line that
traverses the stream between 32 Evelyn Place and 3 Ocean View Road.
Some vegetation clearance will be necessary but the applicant has proposed to vegetate the area
with 10,000 low growing plants which will adequately mitigate what will be removed. Although the
site has no recorded archaeological heritage, a condition will be recommended requiring works to
halt and the appropriate authorities contacted should any archaeological features be unearthed.
10.1.2 Maintaining and Enhancing Ecological Values and the Natural Environment of the Hillcrest
Stream
(Refer to Objectives, Policies 8.3.2, 8.3.5 and Assessment Criteria 8.4.2.7, 8.4.2.8 & 8.4.2.9)
The proposed modifications to the subject area of the Hillcrest Stream include widening the
stream from 2.5 metres to 3.0 metres, removing debris from the stream bed, replacing a rock
retaining wall with a timber retaining wall, removing vegetation and introducing new vegetation.
These modifications will have a significant impact on the ability of the biota to use the stream as a
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 27
habitat as they will change the water flow velocities, change the food source and shading and
create a risk of construction material leaching out into the water.
An ecological assessment provided with the application considers the widening of the stream to
3.0 metres will be more in line with a natural width of a watercourse. The base-flow stream
channel design along the length of the proposed works incorporates features that are in
accordance with relevant guidelines for fish passage. It will also provide a better average water
depth and flow variation and with riparian planting some resting retreats and habitat for the fish
species. The existing concrete and scoria block that lines this water course provides very little
ecological value. The stream channel is broad and flat, which is not ideal for allowing fish passage
and only two fish species were discovered within this water course area.
The report considers any fish communities likely to be present will be transitory due to the shallow
water depth. The applicant has prepared a fish rescues and management plan to safely relocate
any fish that are present within the subject works area. This management plan includes removing
the fish from prior to the commencement of the works before relocating them downstream.
Two ecological assessments were provided with this application. The first assessment was from
Scott Speed who described the subject stream area as having a low Stream Ecological Valuation
(SEV). Mr Speed believes any enhancement of this stream area is further constrained by geotechnical issues and the advent of the surrounding development which has consumed most of the
green space. Mr Speed observed just two fish species but did note a fish passage and
commented this stream area is more likely to be a transition passage, as it is too shallow to
provide a habitat for most species.
Mr Speed commented the stream works area is located relatively low down the Hillcrest
catchment and a large proportion of potential aquatic habitat remains above the development.
According to Mr Speed, it is important for aquatic habitat to be able to relocate themselves to the
upper reaches of the Stream. To achieve this, Mr Speed recommends rip rap and small boulders
be embedded into the surface of the newly excavated channel. This will provide shading,
substrates for invertebrates and algae and refuges for fish. It will also increase the degree of
roughness of the surface which will help capture debris and leaf litter.
The applicant has provided a second ecological assessment from Nick Goldwater of Wildland
Consultants Ltd. Mr Goldwater noted the natural flood plain catchment area has been subject to a
high intensity of development and more than 50% of the channel bed has been constructed of
artificial material. This has restricted the ability to undertake a full riparian restoration of this
stream. Mr Goldwater noted the Hillcrest Stream is considered to be one of the most modified
streams surveyed on the North Shore and concurs with Mr Speed’s low SEV rating.
Mr Goldwater believes the overall aim of enhancing fish passage within the study site should be to
assist upstream fish passage to the optimal habitat in the Linley Reserve. Therefore enhancing the
fish passage is preferable to enhancing the fish habitat. This is more likely to yield the best
outcome for fish moving upstream along the widened section of Hillcrest Creek. Fish passage
within the proposed works footprint will be facilitated through the creation of deeper pools as part
of the works. There is an opportunity to construct a low-flow channel within the newly excavated
channel with a riffle/run/pool sequence into the excavated channel. This would support greater
water depth and a more diverse hydrological regime better suited to the movement of aquatic
organisms through the reach. Mr Goldwater recommends installing stainless steel baffles into the
new culvert to provide resting places for fish.
Mr Goldwater commented an inspection of aerial photography indicates that, upstream of the
Hillcrest Avenue culvert, the stream becomes an open, uniform, straightened channel for
approximately 600 metres before being piped near Eban Avenue. At approximately 400 metres
further upstream from the works area, 460 metres of a tributary is piped into the Linley Reserve
which is located to the north-west of the Stancich Reserve. At the Linley Reserve, this tributary
becomes an open, natural channel and it receives good buffering and shading by the mature
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 28
vegetation in Linley Reserve. Mr Goldwater considers this area as the most likely to provide the
best habitat for indigenous fish and invertebrates upstream of the study site. Mr Goldwater noted a
wooden fish ladder has been installed at the outlet where the tributary which will greatly assist fish
attempting to reach upstream habitat within the reserve.
Mr Goldwater noted only three species of indigenous fish have been recorded from Hillcrest
Stream, they are the short fin eel, inanga, and banded kōkopu. According to Mr Goldwater, this
limited in-stream habitat in the upper catchment means that indigenous fish are only likely to be
present in low numbers.
Mr Goldwater has raised concerns about the potential effects the timber retaining wall will have on
the in-stream habitat. Leachate from the construction materials can damage fish gills, leading to
permanent damage and/or mortality. The pouring of wet cement to construct the new stream
channel carries the highest risk associated with the proposed works.
The tanalised timber contains three metals used as preservatives: chromium, copper, and arsenic.
Each of these metals are known to be toxic to aquatic biota which is of concern as the leaching of
these toxicants can accumulate in biota that live on the wood, and the contaminants in these
organisms may be transferred up the food chain, with deleterious effects. Metals leached from
treated wood can also be adsorbed onto fine sediment particles, from which they can be
accumulated by benthic organisms. For these reasons, Mr Goldwater considers concreting the
new channel base will be a high risk activity, however, he is satisfied the applicant’s proposal to
(weather permitting) undertake the works during a four-hour period of dry weather will be
appropriate.
Mr Goldwater recommends establishing a designated wash-down area on an unsealed or grassed
area, which should be used for washing all tools and equipment on-site provided the wastewater
does not run into a gutter or drain. Mr Goldwater recommends a wet vacuum on-site to suck up
wastewater and/or any accidental spills. The wastewater from the wet vacuum can then be
pumped into a tank for re-use, pumped to an unsealed soakage area (well away from storm water
drains and protected trees), or pumped into a trade waste truck (sucker truck) and delivered to an
approved disposal facility. Sealed made from polythene sheets, sand bags, and lengths of wood
should be used to collect all wastewater and sediment, thus diverting it from the stream channel.
Mr Goldwater noted an alternative to pouring concrete on-site is to use pre-cast concrete panels.
However, given the constraints of using cranes and other heavy machinery to transport the panels
within a residential area, this option has been ruled out by Auckland Council. Mr Goldwater
believes leaching decreases markedly with time, therefore the wood used for the retaining walls
should be dried over a period of weeks prior to construction.
Mr Goldwater believes the restoration of rearing habitat may be of little value in the case of
migratory species and any in stream structures will need to be part of a comprehensive watershed
restoration programme. This is to restore both the habitat and the ecological processes and
functions that create and maintain habitat in the long-term.
Mr Goldwater considers Mr Speed’s recommended rip rap and small boulders measures will
provide limited habitat and resting sites for indigenous fish such as eels and banded kōkopu. The
natural waterfall downstream of the study site will always be an obstacle to fish - even for good
climbers such as banded kōkopu and eels, therefore the fish numbers are likely to be consistently
low. With the stream already highly modified, the abundance and diversity of aquatic invertebrates
will also be low and there is no habitat suitable for spawning in the gently-sloping stream banks
and floodplains that are covered with grasses and sedges.
Mr Goldwater noted as the Hillcrest Stream drains a large catchment covered by impervious
surfaces, the stream will always be subjected to variable flow velocities. High velocities restrict fish
passage and the uniform channel shape also removes the features that fish and aquatic
organisms need for shelter, such as pools, undercut banks, in-stream debris, and bends. High
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 29
velocities will make it very challenging for invertebrates to colonise any substrates within the
channel. Furthermore, the installation of artificial refugia could potentially compromise the
effectiveness of the proposed creek widening, i.e. by resisting the water flows.
Ecologist’s Comment
Council’s Ecologist Peter Anderson has reviewed the proposal and noted the existing water
course has been highly modified due to the original construction of a concrete channel and this
has created a scarcity of retreats and micro habitat. However, Mr Anderson has observed some
short-fin eels but only where retreats have formed. Mr Anderson considers the concrete channeled
waterway provides an important migratory passage for the upstream migration of “climbing” native
fish, for breeding adult eels and for the banded kokopu larvae to migrate downstream to the sea
between April and June. Mr Anderson noted how the down stream waterfall impedes upstream
passages for “non-climbing” fish such as inanga and bullies.
Mr Anderson considers the preferred cantilevered and timber rail option along the southern side
will result in the loss of the existing rock wall (which is ecologically and aesthetically better).
However, the proposed in stream channel widening will improve habitat quality for in stream
aquatic biota. The rip-rap rough surface will provide a number of pools and ripples.
Mr Anderson acknowledges the applicant’s preference for steel and timber retaining wall will limit
the land area required and be cheaper and easier to construct. Mr Anderson’s preference is for a
battered stone wall bank will be more acceptable ecological and aesthetically. But he accepts this
option will require more land area and take much longer to construct. However, the applicant’s
preference does include planting native sedge, shrub and tree plantings, within a narrow one
metre width of the riparian margin. Mr Anderson considers the proposed design will enhance the
new stream channel by, where possible replicating a natural stream with out compromising the
required flooding mitigation objectives which will enhance the in-stream ecological values.
Generally, any potential adverse effects are likely to be minor or avoided subject to some strict
conditions of consent being imposed on the application i.e. to avoid or mitigate leach ate of toxic
wet cement and tanalised preservatives. While there will be a short term loss of riparian vegetation
and permanent loss of the basalt and scoria block along the southern stream bank wall, there will
however be a notable improvement of in stream aquatic biota habitat and this would be enhanced
further if fish refugia (for migratory nocturnal species such as eels and banded kokopu), can be
built into the design to complement the proposed embedded boulders, pools and ripples and
riprap stream bed. A fish rescue management plan has been identified to rescue any native fish
during alteration of water flow.
Overall the proposed realignment of the stream is likely to result in positive effects relative to the
existing levels of fish passage within the Hillcrest Stream. The proposed ecological mitigation
enhancement options will in time increase the SEV score for this reach of stream. The additional
riparian plantings from down stream of the proposed channel widening works end to the Ocean
View Road culvert bridge will also be an additional environmental compensation measure.
Comment:
The area of the Hillcrest Stream between Hillcrest Avenue and Ocean View Road has been
subject to dramatic modification caused by the depositing of debris into the stream, the
construction of a block wall, the concrete lining of the channel and by erosion. This has severely
undermined the capacity of this stream area to support any habitat and observations by both the
Council’s ecologist and the applicant’s two ecologists could identify no more than three individual
species. All three of the ecologists agree that this area of the stream is more suitable as a
migratory passage area rather than as a resting or breeding area. This type of function may be a
result of the deterioration this stream area has endured rather than what its original natural order
would have supported.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 30
Although Mr Anderson’s preference for a battered stone wall bank is the most ecologically
sensitive option, the applicant’s proposal for timber retaining walls and turf mats are considered
suitable. These types of structures will provide the necessary structural support to prevent further
erosion of the embankments and the proposed turf mats landscaping will provide a new food
source, resting environment and shading for the habitats.
But there are also inherent risks involved in the retaining wall option. There is a danger chemicals
may leach from the tanalised timber into the stream and also a possibility of chemical spillage
during the construction period. Particular care will be required during the construction period to
ensure all contaminants are contained within the works area and are prevented from entering the
watercourse. Although the widening of the stream and removal of debris will increase the velocity
of the water, this is not expected to adversely impact on the existing habitat as it is already in a
parlous state.
Overall I am satisfied the proposed works will be consistent with the relevant objectives, policies
and assessment criteria and it will result in an improvement in its ecological, aesthetic, amenity or
recreational values. The stabilisation of the embankments and the new planting will be a
significant improvement on the existing environment which will enhance the habitat and biodiversity by enriching the food source and by providing new shading and climbing options for the
biota to travel upstream to a more suitable habitat by the Linley Reserve.
10.1.3 Protection and Enhancement of Vegetation
(Refer to Objective and Policy 8.3.4 and Assessment Criteria 8.4.6.6.1).
The applicant also proposes to remove a number of trees located on the Stancich Reserve and
Hillcrest Avenue. The majority of the vegetation is relatively minor being no more than 3.0 metres
in height. The exceptions are a 5.0 metre Mapou tree and some Willow trees. Their removal is not
expected to have a noticeable visual effect due to the quality and quantity of the surrounding
vegetation. It is noted the applicant has retained the written consent from Council’s Parks
Manager for the Northern Area.
The applicant also proposes to remove a number of trees from the rear of private properties at 7,
11, 13, and 15 Hillcrest Avenue, 38 Evelyn Place and at 3, 11A & 11B Ocean View Road. The
applicant considers the majority of this vegetation on private properties that is subject to removal,
is relatively minor in size and does not make a significant contribution to the overall amenity of the
area. The applicant believes they are not readily viewed from public places, so their removal will
not detract from the overall amenity of the wider environment.
In the submissions, Dr Whiting of 28 Evelyn Place commented in 2012 the water levels rose 4.0
metres and destroyed a significant amount of vegetation and a clothes line in this area has
slumped. Mr and Mrs Chiang of 38 Evelyn Place would like to see the Kauri tree retained and
Michelle Hamilton and Nicholas Raybould of 13 Hillcrest Avenue are concerned two trees and a
bamboo hedge will need to be removed. They consider this hedge provides privacy from a two
storey dwelling that has been constructed on the adjoining property and security for their pets and
family members in relation to the water.
To mitigate the loss of this vegetation, the applicant proposes to undertake new planting along the
stream edges in the area between the bridge on Hillcrest Avenue and Ocean View Road. The new
landscaping includes native and exotic tree species, fruit trees and ground covers. The new
planting edge matrix planting that comprises of 8,600 Carex Virgata plants and 1,300 Flaxes.
Some specimen tree planting is proposed comprising of 45 Cabbage trees in clusters of five, 15
Toetoe trees, three Titoki trees, three Lancewood trees, eight Totara trees, two Kowhai trees, ten
Karaka trees and three fruit trees (two apple and one pear).
The rational behind this landscape plan is to provide planting that will thrive in a warm lowland
ecosystem. The applicant considers the ground cover plants Carex Virgata as the most suitable
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 31
grass types for stabilising stream banks as they are tolerant of both wet and dry conditions. These
plants are also flexible which will allow them to bend with the water flow when they become
submerged.
The Flaxes will be planted higher up the stream banks so their stiff leaves do not obstruct the
water flow or catch material floating downstream. They will aid screening and provide food for
nectar feeding birds. The Cabbage, Karaka, Toetoe, Totara and Titoki trees were selected as they
will be effective in providing screening. Of these trees, the Totara are proposed to replace the
Bamboo at the rear of No. 28 Evelyn Avenue and the Toetoe has been selected because their
giant tussock will provide intense screening and an impenetrable thicket around the area beside
13 Hillcrest Avenue.
Aborist Comment:
Council’s Consultant Arborist, Leon Saxon, has reviewed this application and noted there will be a
variety of native and indigenous vegetation growing within the riparian margins of the stream that
will be affected by the proposal. Mr Saxon considers the most significant trees that will require
removal are the two Kauri trees and one English Oak tree, all of which are located at 38 Evelyn
Place.
The two Kauri trees are maturing and appear to be on the verge of developing beyond the ‘ricker’
stage. One of these Kauri trees is located in close proximity to the edge of the bank and it appears
that much of the soil both upstream and downstream of the tree has been ‘lost’ to erosion. Mr
Saxon believes this erosion is caused by the construction of an un-engineered timber retaining
wall around root system. While these trees are not unstable at present, Mr Saxon is concerned if
nothing is done, the erosion is likely to continue and the tree will become unstable at some stage
in the future.
Mr Saxon considers the proposed landscaping plans prepared by Chris Hinton (Katsura Ltd) are
entirely appropriate for its purpose. The recommended ground cover planting will help to stabilise
the banks during high flows without restricting the flow of water and the recommended native
species will improve the ecological values of the area.
Mr Saxon accepts that after the vegetation has been removed there will be some loss of amenity
to the occupants of the properties where the trees are located and to the adjoining properties. But
these effects will be mitigated in the longer term by the proposed re-planting which includes a
range of native species being Totara, Cabbage, Karaka, Titoki and Kowhai trees.
Comment:
The proposed tree works and removals are necessary for the upgrade and the existing vegetation is
not of high quality and collectively does not provide a significant level of amenity to the neighbourhood.
According to Mr Saxon, the Kauri tree referred to by Mr and Mrs Chiang is in declining health. Mr
Raybould and Ms Hamilton have expressed their concerns about the likely loss of vegetation from their
property and the purpose this vegetation serves in providing an effective barrier from the stream for
children and pets. As stated in Section 3.1 – Proposal, where access through private land is
necessary, the affected properties will be reinstated to a condition similar to before construction and in
accordance with any property owner requirements that are requested under the Land Owner Consent
to the Works. This will apply to the removal of any vegetation on private property.
The proposed landscaping will serve a number of functions. One is to provide mitigation from the
loss of vegetation and the other is a stabilisation measure of the stream embankment. The
proposed landscaping will be both qualitative and quantitative as it includes a diverse range of
plant species and sizes and it will also be intensive. The proposed landscaping will be an
important factor in the stabilisation of the stream banks and require the removal of some noxious
plants.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 32
This new landscaping will be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies as it will provide a
greater contribution to the amenity, landscape and ecological values in the area and it will not
detract from the existing vegetative features of the reserve.
10.1.4 Flood Plain Levels and Overland Flow Paths
(Refer to Objectives and Policies 8.3.7.1 & 8.3.7.2 and Assessment Criteria 8.4.9.9, 8.4.9.10 &
8.4.9.11)
This part of the Hillcrest Storm Water Catchment Area is relatively level in contours and based on
the Flood Plain Report by Search Consulting Ltd, up to 117 properties are currently located within
a 100 year storm event flood plain. These properties either adjoin the part of the stream
embankment that is subject to this application or are located to the north-west of the Stancich
Reserve, south of the Stancich Reserve and beyond Ocean View Road.
The proposed stream widening will increase the water flow and velocity through this area of the
Hillcrest Stream. According to Search Consulting Ltd, the number of properties that will become
subject to a 100 year storm event flood plain will be reduced from 117 to 17.
Senior Development Engineer’s Comment
Council’s Senior Development Engineer Ken Schmidt has reviewed the application. Mr Schmidt is
satisfied the proposed realignment of the water course will improve the flow capacity of the
watercourse and most properties within the Hillcrest Catchment will benefit from the proposed
works by reducing the risk of flooding and the likelihood of future developments not become
subject to a s73 notification under the Building Act.
Comment
Although the proposed stream widening will reduce the flood plain levels for a far greater number
of properties than it will increase the levels, in weighing the overall benefits, consideration will
need to be given to the extent of the effects this will have on those seventeen properties that will
be adversely affected. Of these properties, just the one property at 28 Evelyn Place will be
subject to flood levels less than the 500mm clearance from the habitual floor area that is
considered to be safe. The expected flood levels for No. 28 Evelyn Place is expected to be
470mm which is only a very marginal infringement and the effects on the property owners are
expected to be negligible.
Another potential effect on the 17 properties that will be subject to higher flood levels is the
likelihood of any future development within these properties creating obstructions to future flow
paths. Under the District Plan, any structures within a flood plain will require a Discretionary
activity land use consent. For most of the 17 properties that will be subject to increased flood
levels, this will have very little difference on the existing situation as these flood levels will be
located within the riparian margin where any works will also require a Discretionary activity land
use consent and storm water management is included in the assessment criteria.
The exception is the property at 28 Evelyn Place where the flood levels are expected to extend
towards the eastern boundary with No. 26 Evelyn Place. Although this is not ideal for the owners
of that property, the effects are not expected to be significant. The reason being the site contains
a number of dwellings within one building, therefore any future development within this area will
have to be non-habitual and will not be subject to the same finished floor level requirements.
For these reasons, I am satisfied the proposed works will be consistent with the relevant
objectives and policies in the District Plan. The proposed works have been designed to reduce
flood hazards within the Hillcrest catchment area. The new flood levels will have the required
storage and safe conveyance of flood waters during any extreme rainfall events and any
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 33
cumulative effects will be avoided. The new retaining structures will also serve to prevent any
scouring of the landform.
10.1.5 Reserve Amenity
(Refer to Objective 19.4.1)
The applicant proposes to construct a viewing platform over the Hillcrest Stream from the Hillcrest
Avenue road reserve at the western side of the bridge which is located between No’s 12 and 16
Hillcrest Avenue into the Stancich Reserve. This viewing platform will be constructed of tanalised
timber and will expand from the south side of the stream 9.0 metres into the Stancich Reserve and
10 metres across to the north side of the stream. A part of this bridge will be cantilevered by
800mm over the south side of the stream and by 800mm where it will reach out from the Hillcrest
Avenue road reserve.
This partly cantilevered design was requested by Auckland Council’s Parks Department to ensure
the visual appearance of the park, particularly from Hillcrest Avenue will remain an inviting and
open walkway. They have provided their written approval in support of the application.
The applicant also proposes to widen the existing concrete path that leads from the Hillcrest
Avenue Bridge and on the south side of the Hillcrest Stream into the Stancich Reserve from
approximately 1.0 metre to 2.5 metres in width and over a length of 70 metres. Six square timber
bollards are to be installed at the road reserve entrance to this walkway and two macrocarpa
benches will be constructed at the Reserve entrance and at 45 metres into the Reserve.
The built form, scale of the viewing platform will allow it to merge in with the existing bridge and
into the embankment on both sides of the stream. This will ensure the proposed structures will
compliment and enhance the open space and natural landscape features of the Reserve. It will
also enhance the Reserve’s scenic and recreational values by providing safe public viewing areas
of the mature vegetation and other landscape features of the Reserve. This structure will be at
ground level, therefore will not create any visual privacy concerns on the residents of the adjoining
property at No. 16 Hillcrest Avenue. The widening of the access into the Reserve from Hillcrest
Avenue will improve the access to this viewing area for both able bodied people and for mobility
users.
Summary
The proposed stream widening includes an area of the Hillcrest Stream that has been subject to the
depositing of hard fill and erosion and the adjoining landform, particularly on the northern side has
become decidedly unstable. The proposal attracted a number of submissions from residents whose
properties adjoined the stream embankments. Nearly all of them expressed concern about the
potential for further erosion and flooding. They were concerned that by widening this stream and
subsequently the velocity and spatial area of the water flow, will exacerbate and expedite this
erosion process, particularly where the highest levels of erosion is occurring which is at the rear of
the properties. There were also concerns about stagnant water and possible bacteria, the effects
on infrastructure, pet security, monetary implications and the loss of vegetation. Many have
requested the stream banks become stabilised with new retaining walls, the works be subject to
regular assessments, enclosing the culvert on Hillcrest Avenue and financial assistance.
I am satisfied the applicant’s has proposed land stabilisation measures that will provide the
necessary support to the stream embankments. But it won’t be without risks. With the proposed
timber retaining wall option, there is a possibility that chemicals from the timber may leach out into
the stream which will cause a further reduction in the stream’s SEV (Stream Ecological Value)
which is already very low. The applicant has proposed measures to address these concerns, but
the instalment of these wooden retaining walls and the other works which include installing a new
culvert under the Hillcrest Avenue Bridge, installing turf mats, removing vegetation and building a
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 34
viewing platform for the reserve will have to be very carefully monitored during the construction
period.
According to three ecologists, the subject stream area is more suitable as a migratory passage for
the biota rather that a breeding or resting habitat. This is based on the condition of this stream
area as it currently exists. But I have to query if this is a result of foreign items being deposited
within this stream area and the degradation it has caused. Some of the existing vegetation at the
rear of private properties is in a reasonable condition and they do contribute to the existing
amenity. However, the proposed new landscaping will be intensive in quantity and diverse in
species types and sizes and with the removal of noxious plants, the overall effect will be a
significant improvement overall.
The proposed stream widening is expected to achieve its intended purpose of improving its
ephemeral functioning which will reduce the number of properties that will be affected by being
subject to a flood plain to just 17. Of these 17 properties, only one is expected to have flood levels
within the 100 year flood level and that infringement will be very minimal (just 30mm).
On balance, the proposed works will provide a number of positive effects being the reduced flood
levels for a large majority of properties, new vegetation which will improve the amenity and
ecological features, the stabilisation of the stream embankments and improved recreational
features for the public to enjoy at the Stancich Reserve. But care will be required during the
construction period to ensure no undue effects result from chemical spillage or leaching. For these
reasons, I am satisfied the proposed works will be consistent with the relevant objectives and
polices of the Auckland Council District and Regional Plans.
11.0
Section 104(1)(c): Any Other Matters Considered Relevant and Reasonably
Necessary to Determine the Application
In this case there are no other matters that are considered necessary to determine the application.
12.0
Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA
Section 5 in Part 2 identifies the purpose of the RMA as being the sustainable management of
natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in
a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting
capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the
environment.
Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be
recognised and provided for, and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the
protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant
indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic
heritage.
Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council in the
consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use of natural
and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. Section 8
requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The proposal is
considered to be:
The application is considered to meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as the proposal
achieves the purpose of the RMA being sustainable management of natural and physical
resources. The proposed works will reduce the existing flood levels of a large majority of
properties, stabilise an area that is already prone to erosion, improve the natural environmental
and ecological features and will improve the recreational features of the Stancich Reserve. This
will serve to improve the social, cultural and economic well-being of the nearby residents. There
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 35
are no outstanding landscape features and with appropriate construction practices, any unknown
archaeological or heritage features that are discovered will be protected.
13.0
Duration of Consent
The applicant has explained that the construction works are budgeted for and are anticipated to be
completed in the upcoming 2013-2014 summer earthworks season. However, the applicant has
not requested a duration for the consent. Given the type of works and long-term nature of the
proposal particularly with respect to the diversion of water component of the stream works, it is
considered for the Air, Land and Water Consent (No 39288) it is appropriate to recommend a
consent duration of 35 years.
14.0
Conclusion
Overall, it is considered that the effects of the proposal on the environment will be minor and it will
be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore
section) and the Auckland Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water section). Any adverse effects
arising from the proposal can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through the imposition of
conditions.
15.0
15.1
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONDITIONS
Recommendation
Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended that
pursuant to sections 104, 104B and 108 of the RMA, consent is granted to the Discretionary
activity application by Infrastructure Environment Services, Auckland Council to widen the Hillcrest
Steam from the Stancich Reserve at 14 Hillcrest Avenue to between the rear of the properties at
32, 38 & 40 Evelyn Place and 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 1/16 and 2/16 Hillcrest Avenue and 1/11 and 2/11
Ocean View Road in Hillcrest Consent Applications LT-2133515 & 39289.
The reasons for this decision are the proposal will generate actual and potential effects on the
environment that are acceptable and are considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives
and policies of:
A)
The Auckland Regional Plan’s Chapter 8 – Water Quality, Objective 8.3, and Policies
8.4.1(1) and 8.4.7(3), Chapter 11 – Natural Hazards, Objective 11.3, and Policies
11.4.1(4), 11.4.1(5), 11.4.1(7), 11.4.1(8) and 11.4.1(12), The Air, Land and Water Plan’s
Objective 3.6.3.1, and policies 3.6.4.4, 3.6.4.5 and 3.6.4.7.
B)
The Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section) Objectives and Policies at 8.3.2
– Ecosystems, 8.3.4 - Tree Management, 8.3.5 - Storm Water Catchment Management 8.3.7.1 – Floodplains, 8.3.7.2 - Overland Flow Paths and 9.3.1 - Protection of the
Environment and the relevant assessment criteria at 8.4.2.7 - Assessment Criteria for
Controlled Activities (Riparian Margins), 8.4.2.8 - Assessment Criteria for Limited
Discretionary Activities (Riparian Margins), 8.4.2.9 - Assessment Criteria for Discretionary
Activities (Riparian Margins), 8.4.6.6.1 - General Assessment Criteria (Trees), 8.4.6.6.4 Works to Trees in Roads and Reserves, 8.4.9.9 - Assessment Criteria for Controlled
Activities (Flood Plains), 8.4.9.10 - Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities
(Flood Plains), 8.4.9.11 - Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities (Flood Plains),
9.7.1.1 - The Design and Implementation of Site Works and 19.4.1 – Recreation 1
(Conservation) Zone.
C)
The National Policy on Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM)
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 36
D)
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.
E)
The New Zealand Coastal policy Statement 2010
for the following reasons:
1.
Although there will be an increase in flood levels for some properties, the effects will be
negligible and the overall effect will be a significantly larger area of reduced flood levels.
The proposed works will improve the conveyance of storm water through the Hillcrest
Stream, the proposed rock rap will provide a climbing mechanism for the stream biota
which will improve the fish passage and the new riparian landscaping will improve the life
supporting capacity of the ecosystem by providing a greater food source and it will
introduce some new shading. These features will improve the water quality that will flow
into the receiving coastal environment and any effects can be avoided, remedied and/or
mitigated with appropriate conditions.
2.
Council’s Senior Development Engineer is satisfied the proposed stream widening and the
recommended retaining and turf mat mechanisms will stabilise the stream embankments
and prevent further erosion. He is also satisfied that having appropriate sediment controls
will effectively contain all of the sediment during the construction period.
3.
With these stabilised mechanisms in place, the proposed works will ensure the future
stability of the stream embankment and provide the necessary structural support to
withstand the increase in water flows and velocities. Having appropriate sediment controls
will prevent further erosion from occurring and the entry of sediment into the stream.
Appropriate controls will also ensure no damage will be done to the existing public waste
water line that traverses the stream between 32 Evelyn Place and 3 Ocean View Road.
4.
The proposed works will be consistent with the relevant objectives, policies and
assessment criteria and it will result in an improvement in its ecological, aesthetic, amenity
or recreational values. The stabilisation of the embankments and the new planting will be a
significant improvement on the existing environment. The proposed turf mats landscaping
will provide a new food source, resting environment and shading for the habitats. This will
enhance the habitat and bio-diversity by enriching the food source and there will be new
climbing options for the biota to travel upstream to a more suitable habitat by the Linley
Reserve. The widening of the stream and removal of debris will increase the velocity of the
water is not expected to adversely impact on the existing habitat as it is already in a
parlous state.
5.
With appropriate construction methodology conditions, all chemicals associated within the
tanilised retaining walls and construction materials can be prevented from leaching into the
stream and eventually the receiving coastal marine environment and retained to within the
works area.
6.
The proposed tree works and removals are necessary for the upgrade and with the
exception of two Kauri trees and one English Oak tree, the existing vegetation is not of
high quality and collectively does not provide a significant level of amenity to the
neighbourhood. The new landscaping will be both qualitative and quantitative as it includes
a diverse range of plant species and sizes and intensive. This will provide a greater
contribution to the amenity, landscape and ecological values in the area and will not
detract from the existing vegetative features of the reserve. It will also contribute to the
stabilisation of the stream embankment.
7.
The proposed works have been designed to reduce flood hazards within the Hillcrest
catchment area. The new flood levels will have the required storage and safe conveyance
of flood waters during any extreme rainfall events and any cumulative effects will be
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 37
avoided. The new retaining structures will also serve to prevent any scouring of the
landform.
8.
The proposed stream widening will reduce the flood plain levels for a far greater number
of properties than it will increase the levels. The effects have on those properties that will
be adversely affected are expected to be negligible. One property is expected to have a
flood level at 30mm below the required 500mm clearance from the habitual floor area, but
this is a very minor reduction from the required clearance and is considered to be safe.
9.
The proposed viewing platform that will be attached to the Hillcrest Avenue bridge will have
a scale and form and materials that will allow it to merge in with the existing bridge and into
the embankment on both sides of the stream. This will ensure the proposed structures will
compliment and enhance the open space and natural landscape features of the Reserve. It
will also enhance the Reserve’s scenic and recreational values by providing safe public
viewing areas of the mature vegetation and other landscape features of the Reserve. The
widening of the access into the Reserve from Hillcrest Avenue will improve the access to
this viewing area for both able bodied people and for mobility users.
11.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with Part 2 of the RMA as it will achieve its
purpose being the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The
proposed works will reduce the existing flood levels of a large majority of properties,
stabilise an area that is already prone to erosion, improve the natural environmental and
ecological features and will improve the recreational features of the Stancich Reserve. This
will serve to improve the social, cultural and economic well-being of the nearby residents.
There are no outstanding landscape features and with appropriate construction practices,
any unknown archaeological or heritage features that are discovered will be protected.
12.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
and its emphasis on the sustainable use of the coastal environment and the protection of
sustainable historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua.
The proposed construction methodologies and long-term design of the realigned stream
channel will avoid, remedy and/or mitigate the actual and potential adverse effects on the
downstream coastal environments to where they will be no more than minor. Stabilising the
stream embankment will prevent further erosion and sediment run off which will improve
the water quality of the stream and ultimately into the receiving coastal environment and
any adverse effects the ecological, cultural and historical features of this marine
environment will be minimal.
13.
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy
Statement 2010. The applicant’s proposed methodologies and mechanisms for the control
of sediment will ensure all sediment is retained within the works area and outside of the
Vaughans Stream riparian margin. This will provide protection to the coastal environment
and prevent a reduction in water quality and any loss of its species, habitats and
ecosystems.
(c)
In terms of section 104(1) (c) of the RMA, other relevant matters, including monitoring have
been considered in the determination of the application.
16.2
Conditions
Pursuant to section 108 of the RMA, this consent is subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions
1.
The proposed widening of the Hillcrest Stream shall be carried out in accordance with the
plans and all information submitted with the application, being:
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 38
Reports
Dated
Prepared by
Ref
AEE
10/05/2012
Sinclair Env & Search Consulting
270111
Arboricultural Review
23/12/2010
Treecare Consultancy
Stream Bank Stabilisation
12/11/2012
KGA Geo-Technical
6952-2
Geo-tech Eng
31/03/2010
KGA Geotechnical
5589-3
Engineering Calculations
12/2011
Search Consulting Ltd
00539
Preliminary Design Report
01/2013
Search Consulting Ltd
Revision A
Ecological Effects
07/2013
Wildlands
Plans:
Drawn by:
Reference:
Flood Plain if No Works Taken
Search Consulting
P101 REV B
New Culvert Only
Search Consulting
P103 REV B
Full Upstream & Downstream Works
Search Consulting
P105 REV B
Channel & Cantilever Retaining
Search Consulting
P110 REV A
Plan of Works
Search Consulting
P111 REV A
Longitudinal Sections
Search Consulting
P114 REV C
Properties Where Works are Proposed
Search Consulting
P115 REV A
Cross Sections – 1 of 5
Search Consulting
P118
Cross Sections 2 of 5
Search Consulting
P119
Cross Sections 3 of 5
Search Consulting
P120
Cross Sections 4 of 5
Search Consulting
P121
Cross Sections 5 of 5
Search Consulting
P122
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
Search Consulting
P123 REV C
Possible Works Staging
Search Consulting
P124
Culvert & Cantilever Deck Details
Search Consulting
P125 REV A
Erosion & Sediment Control Details
Search Consulting
P126
Layout by Hillcrest Ave Culvert Inlet
Search Consulting
P127
Plan of Downstream Bank Protection
Search Consulting
P140
Details of Flood Wall
Search Consulting
P141
Cross Sections
Search Consulting
P150
Hillcrest Stream Project Erosion Control
Cirtex
Sheets 1 to 24
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 39
Tree Plan 1/5
Treecare
P111
Tree Plan 2/5
Treecare
P111
Tree Plan 3/5
Treecare
P111
Tree Plan 4/5
Treecare
P111
Tree Plan 5/5
Treecare
P111
Hillcrest Creek Remediation Landscape
Chris Hinton
Sheets 1 to 8
Charges
2.
That pursuant to section 36 of the RMA, this consent (or any part thereof) shall not be
exercised until such time as all charges in relation to the receiving, processing and granting
of this resource consent are paid in full.
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
3.
Servants or agents of Auckland Council shall be permitted to have access to relevant parts
of the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys,
investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.
Land Use Consent LT-2133515
Pre-Start Meeting
4. Prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity, the consent holder shall hold a pre-start
meeting that:
a) is located on the subject site
b) is scheduled not less than 5 days before the anticipated commencement of earthworks
c) includes the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and
Specialist Input, Auckland Council
d) includes representation from the contractors who will undertake earthworks and project
engineering management and any engineer or consultant required to provide completion
documentation under this conditions of consent or associated building consent.
Advice Note:
To arrange the pre-start meeting required by Condition 4, please contact the Team Leader
Compliance
Monitoring
Takapuna
to
arrange
this
meeting
[email protected] and/or 09 484 8041. The conditions of
consent should be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council
should be provided 2 days prior to the meeting.
Sediment and Erosion Control in Accordance with Approved Plan
5. The Consent holder shall ensure there is a suitably qualified Site Manager responsible to
establish and maintain and amend to suit site contingencies and decommission all erosion and
sediment controls.
6. Prior to the commencement of stream-works activity, all required erosion and sediment control
measures on the subject site shall be constructed and carried out in accordance with the
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 40
approved Erosion and Sediment Control Management Plans P123 Rev A and P126 or as may
have been varied with documentation submitted to and not objected to in writing from the
Consent Holder appointed Engineer. The Engineer appointed by Council shall retain records
of any variations, and if requested, forward copies to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring,
Takapuna.
Corridor Access Request / Vehicle Crossing Application
7. The contractor acting for the consent holder shall seek and complete Corridor Access Request
formalities on line at web address www.beforeudig.co.nz and obtain confirmation of
authorisation and the approval conditions from Auckland Transport before commencing work
within the public road berm or carriageway. The Consent holder or his contractor shall meet
all associated costs.
Vegetation
8. All works affecting the potential vegetation shall be carried out in accordance with the
arboricultural report prepared by Gerald Collett of Treescape Ltd (Dated: 23 December 2010)
and the Hillcrest Creek Remediation – Landscape Planting Proposal (Sheets 1 – 8) prepared
by Chris Hinton of Katsura Ltd.
9. An arborist must be appointed for the supervision of all works within the root zones of the
retained protected trees at the consent holder’s expense. The consent holder shall supply the
details of the arborist they wish to use for the supervision of this project to the Environmental
Services Arborist for approval, specific to this consent. Upon approval, in terms of this consent
the arborist shall herein be referred to as the Appointed Arborist. Details of the arborist are to
be forwarded to the Environmental Services Arborist a minimum of 5 working days prior to the
placement of the tree protection fencing.
10. Prior to the commencement of any construction work on this site, (including site earth works)
tree protection fencing shall be erected in accordance with the supporting arboricultural report.
The fences are to be adjusted where necessary only under the direction of the appointed
arborist.
Advice Note
The purpose of the fences is to protect trees from the effects of earthworks including
demolition/soil scrape/excavation/fill and construction works on the site. The area inside the
protective fencing is sacrosanct and no work shall be carried out within the protected areas. No
building or fill materials shall be stored or placed within the protected areas, either on a
temporary or permanent basis.
Ecology
11. Prior to commencement of stream works, a pre-construction site meeting between Auckland
Council and all relevant parties, including the primary contractor shall be arranged. The
meeting shall discuss the detail of the methodology and shall ensure all relevant parties are
aware of and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent.
12.
The following information shall be provided at the pre-construction meeting:
(i)
A detailed staged and progressive construction methodology for the stream works,
including erosion and sediment control measures prescribed in accordance with TP90;
(ii)
A site specific fish relocation methodology;
(iii)
Expected timeframe for key stages of the works authorised under this consent;
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 41
(iv)
Operation and maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls during construction
activities;
(v)
Contact details of the site contractor, site engineer and consultant; and
(vi)
Any resulting amendments to the environmental protection and erosion and sediment
control methodology may be further reviewed by Auckland Council during the preconstruction meeting specified above and shall be approved in accordance with conditions
below.
13. The fish rescue plan identified under s6.1 Fish rescue and relocation - Wildlands – Draft
report (Potential Ecological Effects of Widening of Hillcrest Creek and Opportunities For Fish
Habitat -20130), shall be implemented prior to any works commencing within the stream bed.
14. Any stream water that is to be diverted during stream works shall only be gravity feed
downstream and not conveyed by a motorised pump. This is to avoid any harm or deaths to
native fish species.
15. For the concreting of the new channel base, the following mitigation measures will be
employed:
i)
A four hour period of dry weather and satisfactory low-flow bypass will be required after the
pouring of concrete.
ii) A two hour period of dry weather will be required when the concrete blinding is placed on
the excavated base for stabilisation purposes (estimated to be in 10 – 20m lengths).
iii) Any designated “on-site” wash-down facility (for washing of tools and equipment), is to be
established outside of the stream channel or impervious areas or drains that lead into the
channel and a wet vacuum or similar apparatus, will be on site to suck up any wastewater
or accidental spillage. Any wastewater collected shall be pumped to an unsealed soakage
area or pumped into a trade waste truck and delivered to an approved disposal facility.
iv) In addition to the above, sealed bunds made from polythene sheets, sand bags and
lengths of wood can be used to collect all wastewater and sediment to divert this from
entering the stream channel or from pervious surfaces draining into the stream channel.
v) The treated tanalised timber that will be used for the timber retaining walls shall be dried
for at least one month prior to installation of the retaining wall to prevent toxic metals
leaching into the channel.
16.
Where it is feasible to do so, stainless steel baffles or other agreed artificial refugia e.g.
concrete or pvc piping; shall be installed into suitable sites i.e. in the new culverts and in
the leeward (downstream) side of the cemented boulders, to provide retreats and cover for
the mostly nocturnal native fish species e.g. eels and banded kokopu.
Air, Land & Water Consent (No. 39288)
17.
If work on site is abandoned, adequate preventative and remedial measures shall be taken
to control sediment discharge and shall thereafter be maintained for so long as necessary
to prevent sediment discharge from the site. All such measures shall be of a type and to a
standard which are to the satisfaction of the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated
Land, Natural Resources & Specialist Input unit.
18.
All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of and have access to the contents
of this consent document and the associated erosion and sediment plan and methodology.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 42
19.
Any amendments to the erosion and sediment control methodology shall be approved by
the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated Land in writing prior to any amendment
being implemented.
20.
Prior to any works associated with the stream bank stabilisation measures between 32
Evelyn Place and 1 Ocean View Road commencing, an Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan specific to these works must be developed and submitted to the Team Leader Earthworks and Contaminated Land for written approval. The Plan must incorporate
measures that are in general accordance with TP90 and any amendments to this
document.
21.
Works associated with the stream bank stabilisation measures between 32 Evelyn Place
and 1 Ocean View Road must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, as required by Condition 20 above.
22.
Erosion and sediment control measures must be constructed and maintained in
accordance with TP90 and any amendments to this document, except where a higher
standard is detailed in the documents referred to in conditions above, in which case the
higher standard shall apply.
23.
All practical measures must be undertaken to remove and relocate fish from any sections
of stream to be disturbed. Appropriate relocation sites and effects on resident fish
populations are to be assessed and agreed-to during the pre-construction meeting as
required by Condition 6 of this consent, and prior to works commencing.
24.
Fish passage must be provided for within the culvert systems and stream channel
modifications, and must be designed and implemented in accordance with TP131 to ensure
effective and safe passage of fish through the system for the duration of this consent.
DEVELOPMENT IN PROGRESS CONDITIONS
Wastewater
25.
The consent holder shall ensure that methodology statements from the contractor are
obtained to ensure that no construction plant operates or disturbs the soil within 5m of
foundations of the 225mm concrete lined steel wastewater sewer bridge within 34 Evelyn
Place.
26.
For the period of activity when the floor of the stream may be trafficked by construction
vehicles a protective alert barrier shall be suspended over the stream so that vehicles would
strike the barrier if the vertical clearance was likely to be less than 500mm.
27.
Should there be a requirement to work within 5m of the bridge or pass beneath it with less
than 500mm clearance, proposals shall be discussed with and proceed after written or other
suitable confirmation of concurrence to the proposed activity is notified by Watercare Service
Ltd to the consent holder.
28.
The Consent Holder or agent of the consent holder shall meet any costs of Council
Controlled Organisation Watercare Services Ltd (WSL) in respect to the protection of the
wastewater pipe bridge over the stream.
Storm Water: Appointment of Project Engineer
29.
The Hillcrest Avenue culvert and watercourse upgrade and all the works approved under this
consent shall be constructed under the observation and direction of a suitably experienced
CPEng qualified engineer appointed by the Consent holder.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 43
Water Reticulation
30.
31.
The consent holder shall provide for and protect the assets of Water Care Services Ltd
during the construction of the works in Hillcrest Avenue.
The Consent Holder or agent of the consent holder shall meet any costs of Council
Controlled Organisation Watercare Services Ltd (WSL) in respect to the proposed works.
32.
A building consent application shall be made for any retaining wall supporting any private or
public carriageway or as required by the Building Act for walls subject to surcharge or having
an effective retained height exceeding 1.5 metres. Retaining walls shall have a design
service life not less than 100 years. The consent holder shall be responsible for the
enduring maintenance of the structure
33.
Retaining walls alongside property boundaries or within a distance less than the effective
retained height shall be designed for any existing surcharges from adjacent land and for a
minimum surcharge of 12kPa.
34.
A barrier shall be provided at the top of every retaining wall where fall heights exceed 1m
unless specifically excluded by another condition in this consent. The minimum barrier
height shall be 1.1m. Barriers shall meet or exceed design parameters set out in the New
Zealand Building Code F4 (Acceptable Solution F4/AS1).
Noise Control
35.
Construction activity shall occur on the site in accordance with the following noise limits:
Weekdays:
6.30am - 7.30am
7.30am - 6pm
6pm - 8pm
less than an L10 level of 60 dBA
less than an L10 level of 75 dBA
less than an L10 level of 70 dBA
Saturdays:
7.30am - 6pm
less than an L10 level of 75 dBA
Sunday, Public Holidays and all other times:
No noise permitted on site above the normal background level, i.e. no heavy machinery or
noise producing equipment (where the L10 is a noise level which is equalled or exceeded
for 10% of any 15-minute measurement period).
Maintain Access to Site
36.
There shall be no obstruction of access to public footpaths, berms, private properties, public
services/utilities, or public reserves resulting from the earthworks activity.
Prevent Damage to Assets or Property
37.
There shall be no damage to public roads, footpaths, berms, kerbs, drains, reserves or other
public asset as a result of the stream-works activity. In the event that such damage does
occur, the Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring Takapuna will be notified within 24 hours of
its discovery. The costs of rectifying such damage and restoring the asset to its original
condition will be met by the consent holder.
38.
The stream bank protection works and retaining wall founding conditions shall be observed
and directed by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer acquainted with the KGA
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 44
Geotechnical reports reference 5589-3 dated 31 March 2010 and reference 6952 – 2 dated
12 November 2012. That engineer shall ensure construction and the completed works take
full account of those reports so that the design intent to protect the stream banks is fully met.
Stability of the Site/Neighbouring Sites
39.
Works shall be managed to ensure that they do not lead to any uncontrolled instability or
collapse affecting either the site or adversely affecting any neighbouring properties. In the
event that such collapse or instability does occur, it shall immediately be rectified.
Erosion and Sediment Control
40.
The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures
specifically required as a condition of resource consent or by the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan P123 rev A and P126 shall be maintained throughout the each stage of streamworks activity, or until the site is permanently stabilised against erosion.
Archaeological Features
41.
Where the earthworks result in archaeological features being uncovered, all works on the subject
site shall cease unless in the opinion of the Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring Takapuna, the
works can continue subject to restrictions on works within a 10 metre radius of the archaeological
find. A suitable temporary barrier and signage restricting access shall be erected immediately,
and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust shall be contacted immediately so that appropriate
action can be taken.
Advice Notes:
i)
Archaeological features’ may in practice include shell middens, hangi or ovens, pit depressions,
defensive ditches, artefacts, or koiwi tangata (human skeletal remains). In the event any of these
features are uncovered during the course of the earthworks please contact the Compliance
Inspector, Takapuna
ii) All archaeological sites are protected under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993
(HPA). It is an offence under this Act to destroy, damage or modify any archaeological site,
whether or not the site is entered on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)
Register of historic places, historic areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas.
iii) Under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, applications must be made to the NZHPT for an
authority to destroy, damage or modify an archaeological site(s) where avoidance of effect is
not practicable. It is the responsibility of the applicant (consent holder) to consult with the
NZHPT about the requirements of the HPA and to obtain the necessary Authorities under the
HPA should these become necessary as a result of any activity associated with the
proposed development.
Air, Land & Water Consent (No. 39288)
42.
All ‘clean water’ runoff from stabilised surfaces including catchment areas above the site
must be diverted away from disturbed areas via a stabilised system, so as to prevent surface
erosion.
43.
All perimeter controls in each discrete stage must be operational before works commence.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 45
44.
Notice shall be given to the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated Land prior to any
erosion and sediment control measures being removed and upon completion of the
operation.
45.
All machinery shall be operated in a way that ensures that spillages of fuel, oil and similar
contaminants are prevented, particularly during refuelling and machinery servicing and
maintenance. Refuelling and lubrication activities shall be carried out away from the Hillcrest
Stream such that any spillage can be contained so it does not enter the watercourse.
46.
Sediment losses to natural water arising from the exercise of this resource consent shall be
minimised during the construction works and during the term of this consent. Appropriate
erosion and sediment control practices must be undertaken which are in general accordance
with the documents submitted with the application and the principles outlined in the
document TP90.
47.
Any excavated sediment that requires drying prior to removal must not be stockpiled within
the flood plain and erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed in
accordance with TP90 around the perimeter of any such stockpiles.
48.
Stream works must only be carried out during periods when all flows can be diverted around
the area of works.
49.
A forecast dry weather period of 1 day must be identified before any cast in-situ concrete
works are undertaken.
50.
If the watercourse is to be temporarily dammed, sufficient flow shall be maintained at all
times below the site of works so as not to adversely affect in-stream biota.
51.
All bare areas exposed as a result of the works within the watercourse, including the bed of
the watercourse, must be stabilised at the end of each construction day. This stabilisation
shall be operated and maintained until vegetation is established to such an extent that it
prevents erosion and retains sediment from entering the watercourse.
POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
Landscape Plan
52.
A copy of the proposed planting and batter vegetation approved by the engineer acting for
the Consent holder shall be placed on each affected property file.
53.
The approved landscape plan shall be implemented prior to the end of the planting season
(May to September) immediately following completion of construction works associated with
this consent. All newly planted trees and/or shrubs that die or decline, to a point that in the
opinion of the Council’s Monitoring Officer they are of no value, at any time over the following
three years following the initial planting, must be replaced. The replacement trees and/or
shrubs must be of the same grade and size and planted no later than the following planting
season (May to September).
Geotechnical Certification of Stream Bank Protection Works
54.
Within 20 working days following the completion of steam bank protection works, the suitably
qualified engineering geotechnical professional responsible for observing and directing the
protection works under condition 38 shall provide to the Team Leader, Compliance
Monitoring Takapuna one pdf copy of a geotechnical completion report appropriate to the
scope of works and certifying that the full design intent in respect to all geotechnical and
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 46
potential scour issues relating to the has been met and full account taken of the two KGA
Geotechnical reports referred to in condition 38.
55.
Within 20 working days of the completion of the works the suitably qualified engineering
professional responsible appointed by the Consent holder for observing and directing the
civil works and retaining wall construction and culvert duplication shall provide to the Team
Leader, Compliance Monitoring Takapuna a certificate of practical completion certifying that
all the works relating to the approved plans under this consent were inspected and have
been generally constructed in accordance with sound and accepted engineering principles
and in accordance with the drawings approved under this consent (or approved
amendments) and in accordance with the requirements of the legacy North Shore City
Council Infrastructure Design Standards Issue 10 January 2009 for the construction of these
works and /or the standards of Council.
Maintenance of Vegetation on Protected Stream Bank Batters
56. The consent holder shall implement suitable maintenance strategies to maintain and establish
vegetation on protected stream bank batters for a period of two years and with a regular
inspection protocol not less than four times per year so that the vegetation is maintained and
die off replaced. After two years from completion of planting, the vegetation on protected
stream bank batters shall then be inspected at appropriate intervals to ensure that a suitable
protective vegetative cover is always maintained.
As-Built Drawings
57. Accurate as-built plans shall be submitted to the Council for all created assets including
retaining walls, culvert duplication and geo-textile armouring, and including for any completed
vegetation works which protect the stream bank batters.
Lapsing of Consent
58. This resource consent will lapse five years after the date of Council’s decision unless:
a) It is given effect to before the end of that period. To give effect to this consent, the activity
allowed by this consent must be established and the conditions contained in the consent
complied with. Please note that there must be compliance with all of the consent conditions
once the land use has been established, or
b) An application is made and granted prior to the expiry of that period for a time extension.
The statutory considerations that apply to extensions are set out in section 125 of the
RMA. (Delete and re-number accordingly if lapse date is specified in clause 10 under
Conditions section above)
N.B – all charges owing at the time council’s decision is notified must be paid before a consent
can commence.
Air, Land & Water Consent (No. 39288)
59. For storm water flows in excess of the capacity of the primary drainage systems, a stabilised
overland flow path must be provided and maintained to allow surplus storm water from critical
storms (up to the 100 year ARI event) to discharge with the minimum of nuisance and
damage.
60. A certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced engineer to certify that the
structures within the watercourse have been constructed in accordance with the conditions of
consent as specified above must be forwarded to Council within 30 days of completion of the
works. Information supplied shall include:
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 47
(i)
All critical dimensions, including the stream channel up and downstream of Hillcrest
Avenue as well as the duplicate culvert system;
(ii)
Fish passage in accordance with TP131;
(iii)
General structural stability; and,
(iv)
Erosion protection measures.
Monitoring
61. A Monitoring Report shall be provided to the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated
Land on request. The Monitoring Report shall include but not be limited to the following:
(i)
Details of any inspections and maintenance undertaken during the preceding twelve
months; and,
(ii)
Specific investigations on the performance of the base flow stream channel with respect to
areas of potential stagnation as well as the provision of fish passage.
(iii)
Specific investigations on the stability of the downstream channel alignment and the
performance of the concrete block flood barrier located between the extent of streamwidening works and the Northcote Road bridge culvert.
Seasonal Restriction
62. No stream works authorised by this consent are to be undertaken between 30 April and 1
October in any year, without the written approval of the Team Leader - Earthworks and
Contaminated Land.
Advice Note:
Due to the potential overall construction timeframes for the project, estimated at between 4
and 5 months, it is recommended that the works should commence early in the summer
construction season.
63. Full stabilisation is to be completed by 30 April in the year that works are undertaken, unless a
later date is approved in writing by the Team Leader - Earthworks and Contaminated Land at
least two weeks before 30 April.
Lapsing of Consent
64. This consent shall expire on 30 April 2048 unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been
cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991.
Review Conditions
65. That the conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Team Leader - Earthworks and
Contaminated Land pursuant to Section 128 of the RMA (with the cost of the review process
being borne by the Consent Holder), by the giving of notice pursuant to Section 129 of the Act,
in June of 2014, 2015 or 2016, and/or at five yearly intervals after either the date of that review
(if such review occurs) or after June 2016 whichever is the earlier. The purpose of the review
shall be:
i)
To deal with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the
consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage, or
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 48
ii) To require a consent holder to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce any
adverse effect on the environment, or
iii) To deal with any other adverse effect on the environment on which the exercise of the Consent
may have an influence.
Advice Notes
1. Please read the conditions of this resource consent carefully and make sure that you
understand all the conditions that have been imposed before commencing the development.
2. The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those
under the Building Act 2004, and the Historic Places Trust Act 1993. This consent does not
remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act
2007), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law.
3. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building
consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the approval of this resource
consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously issued building
consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be required.
4. A copy of this consent should be held on site at all times during the establishment and
construction phase of the activity. The consent holder is requested to notify Council, in writing,
of their intention to begin works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencement. Such
notification should be sent to the ? and include the following details:
•
•
•
•
name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner;
site address to which the consent relates;
activity to which the consent relates; and
expected duration of works.
5. The granting of this resource consent does not in any way allow the applicant to enter and
construct drainage within neighbouring properties, without first obtaining the agreement of all
owners and occupiers of said land to undertake the proposed works. Any negotiation or
agreement is the full responsibility of the applicant, and is a private agreement that does not
involve Council.
6. Should any disputes arise between the private parties, these are civil matters which can be
taken to independent mediation or disputes tribunal for resolution. It is recommended that the
private agreement be legally documented to avoid disputes arising. To obtain sign-off for the
resource consent, the services described by the conditions above are required to be in place
to the satisfaction of Council.
7. Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by Council in accordance with
section 35(d) of the Resource Management Act. This will typically include site visits to verify
compliance (or non compliance) and documentation (site notes and photographs) of the
activity established under the Resource Consent.
8. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the
base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. Only after all
conditions of the Resource Consent have been met, will Council on request of the consent
holder issue a letter confirming this fact.
9. That the date of the commencement of this consent will be as determined by Section 116 of
the RMA, unless a later date is stated as a condition of consent.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 49
10. The Consent Holder is referred to Section 124 of the RMA, which provides for the exercising of
a consent while applying for a new consent for the same activity. Please note that the approval
of this resource consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously
issued building consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be
required.
11. If not all resource consents have been applied for and Council has not required these consents
be sought as part of the consent applications for this proposal, it remains the responsibility of
the consent holder to obtain any and all necessary resource consents required under the
relevant requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991
12. Any administrative charge fixed in accordance with Section 36(1) of the RMA, or any additional
charge required pursuant to Section 36(3) of the RMA in respect of this consent, shall be paid
to the Auckland Council.
13. The Auckland Council shall be paid any compliance and monitoring cost on an ‘actual and
reasonable’ basis in accordance with Section 36 of the Resource Management Action 1991.
14. Pursuant to Section 125 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this resource consent lapses
on the expiry of five years after the date of commencement of this consent unless the consent
is given effect to or other criteria contained within Section 125 are met.
15. Pursuant to Section 126 of the Resource Management Act 1991, if this resource consent has
been exercised, but is not subsequently exercised for a continuous period of five years, the
consent may be cancelled by AC unless other criteria contained within Section 126 are met.
16. Section 127 of the RMA provides for the application, at any time, for changes to or cancellation
of conditions of consent other than duration, and the provisions therein for making application
to do so.
17. Section 138 RMA details the conditions relating to surrender of a resource consent. A consent
authority may refuse to accept the surrender of part of a resource consent where that may:
(2)(b) affect the ability of the Consent Holder to meet other conditions of the consent; or (2)(c)
lead to an adverse effect on the environment.
18. There also remains some liability to the person surrendering the resource consent under (3)(a)
and (b) of this section. This liability relates to breaches of conditions of consent occurring
before surrender and to the completion of work required to give effect to the consent.
19. When using concrete retarders, hardeners or accelerators near watercourses care is required
to ensure only the minimum amount of chemical is used to achieve the result required and
excess chemical is not flushed to the receiving environment.
20. That, in the event of archaeological site evidence (e.g. shells, middens, hangi or ovens, pit
depressions, defensive ditches, artifactual material or human bones) being uncovered during
construction, the consent holder shall ensure that operations shall cease in the vicinity of the
discovery and that the archaeologist, Auckland Council, is contacted so that the appropriate
action can be taken before any work may recommence there.
Report prepared by:
Ian Jefferis
Senior Planner
Signed:
Date:
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 50
Report
reviewed,
and Fiona Garrett
approved for release by:
Team Leader
Signed:
Date:
Report
reviewed,
and
approved for release by:
Bonnie Lees
Resource
Manager
Consents
Team
Signed
Date:
6.0
DEFINITIONS
AC:
means Auckland Council.
AEE:
means Assessment of Environmental Effects.
AEP:
means Annual Exceedance Probability. A 1% AEP Flood Event is
defined by the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement as a
flood event that has an estimated probability of occurrence of 1% in
any one year.
ARI:
means Average Recurrence Interval, being defined by the Auckland
Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) as the average time
period between rainfall or flow events which equal or exceed a given
magnitude. It is noted that a 100 year ARI event is loosely
equivalent to a 1% AEP event.
Commencement of Works:
means the time when the earthworks or stream works that are the
subject of these consents are about to commence.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 51
Council:
means the Auckland Council
Environmental Protection
Measures:
means environmental protection measures outlined in the consent
application such as erosion and sediment control measures
methodologies.
I&ES:
means Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department of
Auckland Council.
MPD:
means Maximum Probable Development.
Stabilised:
means an area inherently resistant to erosion such as rock
(excluding Sedimentary Rocks), or rendered resistant by the
application of aggregate, geotextile, vegetation or mulch. Where
vegetation is to be used on a surface that is not otherwise resistant
to erosion, the surface is considered stabilised once an 80%
vegetation cover has been established
RMA:
means Resource Management Act 1991 and further amendments
Site:
means the land that is the subject of the proposed works and this
consent as defined by the plans associated with this consent
application.
Stream works:
means any works in, on, over or under the bed of a permanent
stream, as defined by the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land
and Water) and the Resource Management Act 1991.
TP90:
means Auckland Council’s Technical Publication No. 90 Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the
Auckland Region, March 1999 including updates dated December
2007.
TP108:
means AC Technical Publication No. 108, Guidelines for Storm
water Runoff Modelling in the Auckland Region, April 1999.
TP131:
means AC Technical Publication No. 131, Fish Passage Guidelines
for the Auckland Region, June 2000.
Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Application
Attachment 2:
Comments from specialists
Attachment 3:
Submissions
Attachment 4:
Parks consent
Attachment 5:
Minutes from pre-hearing meeting
Objectives and Policies
Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section)
9.3.1
Protection of the Environment
Objective
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 52
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of subdivision and development on the
environment, including the physical environment, biota, amenity values and landscape.
Policies
5.
By ensuring that subdivision and development is designed and located such that it does
not cause or contribute to, and/or be significantly affected by, natural hazards such as
flooding, subsidence and erosion.
7.
By minimising site works on slopes with a gradient exceeding 1:4, and land subject to
instability to reduce adverse effects of sediment generation, instability, and erosion.
8.
By managing earthworks in relation to their scale, location and timing so as to minimise
risks associated with sediment generation, including the risks associated with multiple
earth working areas occurring in the same catchment at the same time.
Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities (Site Works)
a)
The nature and extent of the proposed development and the degree to which it may disturb
natural landforms or vegetation, or create soil instability, or lead to adverse ecological
effects to natural habitats, waterway, wetlands, estuaries or coastal waters.
b)
The extent to which the proposed site works / earthworks are necessary and any alternative
proposals or methods which may be available.
The Design and Implementation of Site Works
The extent to which site works, their design, location and execution:
a)
Employ adequate and effective techniques or measures to capture and retain any
sediment generated through site works and/or associated earthworks and prevent the
passage of sediment over land, and/or entry of sediment into water systems, whether
naturally occurring or otherwise.
b)
Appropriately minimise site disturbance and vegetation clearance.
h)
May adversely affect land stability.
i)
May adversely affect drainage.
8.3.2
Ecosystems
Objective
To protect and enhance significant habitats of native fauna and flora to maintain biodiversity, and
for their intrinsic, educational and recreational values.
Policies - Protection
6.
By avoiding earthworks and vegetation removal affecting ecosystems and habitats.
7.
By requiring maximum on-site absorption and vegetation filters to protect receiving waters
from adverse effects of storm water flows affecting ecosystems and habitats.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 53
14.
By identifying opportunities for the rehabilitation of habitat areas or the creation or
enhancement of new ones.
8.4.2.7 Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities
a)
How the adverse effects of rehabilitation and enhancement works are to be avoided or
mitigated through the application of appropriate design, technologies and management
practices.
b)
The extent to which suitable plant species can be used to enhance the natural functions of
the riparian margin with reference to the Auckland Regional Council Riparian Zone
Management Planting Guide: Technical Publication 148 (June 2001).
c)
The design and extent of any works affecting the stream bank and riparian margins so as
to improve the natural functioning and a more natural character of the riparian area and
stream bank.
d)
Details of proposed reinstatement of any areas of cut and fill through appropriate
landscaping, re-vegetation and drainage, or other stabilising measures where these are
necessary. Conditions may be included on any consent requiring payment of a bond to
ensure that reinstatement and re-vegetation is carried out to a satisfactory standard.
e)
The extent of weed removal and re-vegetation of the undeveloped portion of the riparian
margin to help off-set the adverse affects of development within the margin.
8.4.2.8 Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities
b)
The nature and extent of the proposed site works/earthworks or development within the
riparian margin and the degree to which it may disturb vegetation, create soil instability, or
lead to other adverse effects on the resilience, biodiversity and integrity of the riparian
margin, including connectivity with riparian margins upstream and downstream of the site
and the cumulative effects on the values (in-stream and amenity) of the associated stream
network.
d)
Whether vegetation clearance is minimised and existing mature vegetation (including
exotics) is retained within riparian margins. Where vegetation clearance is required in the
riparian margin, demonstration of how enhancement planting of the balance of the riparian
margin can offset the effects of this by providing a net increase in the natural functioning of
the riparian margin.
e)
Whether the development within the riparian margin will provide opportunities for
rehabilitation and enhancement of the riparian margin through removal or reduction of
existing structures and impervious areas, the stabilisation of existing areas of erosion and
the creation of a continuous riparian area.
g)
The extent of impact on the hydrological functioning of the wider stream network within the
catchment.
h)
The extent to which ecological, aesthetic, amenity or recreational values will be affected.
8.4.2.9 Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities for Riparian Margins and Diversion and
Modification of Waterways
For site works / earthworks and all development within a riparian margin or the modification or
diversion of a stream:
a)
The assessment criteria for Controlled and Limited Discretionary Activities.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 54
b)
The extent to which the proposed site works/earthworks and development can be
relocated and/or redesigned so as to avoid the riparian margin.
c)
The extent to which the proposed site works/earthworks and development can be
relocated and/or redesigned so as to not modify or divert the stream.
d)
Whether modification or diversion of the waterway will exacerbate or contribute to
degradation of the natural functioning, quality and character of a stream, including its instream values, and the cumulative effects on the health of the wider stream network.
e)
The extent to which a diverted/modified waterway and associated riparian margin can be
provided that sustains in-stream habitat, including fish passage downstream and actual or
potential fish spawning habitat.
8.3.4
Tree Management
Objectives
To retain trees that contributes to the amenity, landscape and ecological values in the urban area.
Policies
1.
By protecting areas of native bush which contribute significantly to the landscape and are
important for their ecological values.
8.4.6.6.1
General Assessment Criteria (Trees)
a)
Necessity for carrying out the activity.
e)
Alternatives to the proposed activity, including relocation of the tree(s) or the relocation or
reconfiguration of the network utility infrastructure.
g)
Mitigation measure, such as the provision of replacement tree or trees.
h)
Re-vegetation and rehabilitation of areas of native bush.
b)
The extent of the trimming and maintenance of the tree(s), and the method to be 5.
d)
Any alternative methods which may be available to the applicant in the achievement of
his/her objectives including consideration of an application for flexibility in respect of any
development control where this would encourage retention and enhancement of existing
large trees on the site.
f)
Whether or not the proposed activities within the root zone are, in the opinion of the
Council, likely to damage the tree(s) or endanger its (their) health.
g)
The extent to which the tree(s) or area of bush contributes to the amenity of the
neighbourhood, both visually and physically, including as a habitat for birds and other
animals.
i)
Whether proposed landscaping or re-vegetation can compensate for any loss envisaged.
8.4.6.6.4
a)
Works to Trees in Roads and Reserves
In addition to the general assessment criteria above, the Council will also assess
applications relating to trees in roads and reserves in accordance with the following criteria
and methodology:
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 55
i)
The extent to which the proposed works to trees are necessary for the safe and efficient
provision of the network utility service (including consideration of network utility regulations,
legislation and safety regulations).
iv)
Whether appropriate steps will be taken to protect a tree(s) against damage during
construction work in the vicinity.
v)
Whether or not the proposed activities are, in the opinion of the Council, likely to damage
the tree(s) or endanger its (their) health.
i)
Any cumulative effects of the works to trees on the amenity, landscape and ecology values
of the neighbourhood or city.
8.3.5
Storm Water Catchment Management
Objective: Stream Protection
To protect and enhance the natural character and ecological amenity and recreational value of
streams and other natural bodies of water.
Policies
1.
By protecting and enhancing natural open waterways as habitats for fish, plant and other
aquatic species, particularly in sensitive catchments with high ecological values.
2.
By maintaining and enhancing the aesthetic, landscape and natural character values of
waterways.
7.
By retaining natural open waterway systems, including intermittent streams, for storm
water run-off, unless this is impracticable due to a threat to life or property affecting
existing development.
9.
By avoiding modification to the structure and form of natural waterways including the use
of culverts, the infilling and piping of streams (including intermittent streams), and hard
engineering solutions for stabilisation of stream banks (such as concrete channelling,
wooden or gabion retaining walls), unless it can be demonstrated that these are the most
appropriate solution.
12.
By avoiding development, including impermeable surfaces, earthworks and cantilevered
structures, within 5 metres of the edge of all waterways.
13.
By encouraging re-vegetation of riparian margins with predominantly native species to
achieve an overall improvement in riparian margin ecological functioning and amenity
values, in association with any development which encroaches on the riparian margin.
8.3.7.1 Objectives: Flood Plains
1. To enable the 1% AEP floodplain to provide for the storage and safe conveyance of floodwaters
during extreme rainfall events.
3. Cumulative adverse effects on properties and the natural environment from new buildings and
structures being placed in the floodplain are avoided.
Policies
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 56
1. By identifying the 1% AEP floodplain during subdivision and development.
2. By, in the first instance, avoiding the placement of new buildings or structures in the 1% AEP
floodplain: Buildings and structures will only be considered for location within the 1% AEP
floodplain if it can be demonstrated that:
•
they cannot practicably be located elsewhere due to operational or site configuration
reasons; and
•
they will not obstruct the natural flow of waters, or divert flows onto neighbouring properties
or exacerbate upstream or downstream flooding potential; and
•
•
the storage capacity of the floodplain is maintained or improved; and
the capacity of any riparian margin to assist in mitigating the effects of the natural flow of
storm water (arising from extreme events) through the floodplain will not be compromised;
and
•
finished floor levels are protected from the 1% AEP flood event.
3.
By retaining vegetation cover and introducing new vegetation cover where this enhances
the functioning of the 1% AEP floodplain, while providing for the removal of existing
vegetation where this is necessary to ensure the safe functioning of the 1% AEP
floodplain.
8.3.7.2 Objective: Overland Flow Paths
To ensure that overland flow paths are provided for and retained to convey surface water runoff
safely into the reticulated storm water network, waterways or to the coast.
Policies
1.
By identifying overland flow paths during subdivision or development and ensuring they
retain the capacity to convey storm water flows from a 1% AEP rainfall event safely without
causing damage to any property.
8.4.9.9 Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities
c) Whether the location, scale, building coverage and design of development exacerbates or
contributes to flooding, extending the flood plain onto downstream or upstream sites or reduces
flood plain storage.
d) Whether flood protection works in the 1% AEP flood plain will affect the extent of the flood plain,
affect neighbouring sites, increase the flow velocity and/or any adverse effects of erosion or scour,
are necessary to ensure the safety of existing development, and whether any other design options
are available.
8.4.9.10 Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities
d) For buildings and structures (including retaining walls but excluding fences and network utilities)
located within or over an overland flow path that do not form an obstruction to any part of an
overland flow path, the extent to which;
i) the overland flow path is likely to be obstructed in the future
ii) other alternatives exist for the location of the building or structure
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 57
iii) it is preferable for the overland flow path to be diverted or altered around the building or
structure
e) Whether a secondary overland flow path is provided.
8.4.9.11 Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities
a) Whether redevelopment of existing buildings and structures can be undertaken in a way that
reduces flood hazards for the site, as well as downstream or upstream sites, using techniques
such as reducing building coverage and increasing on-site flood storage space.
d) Whether the retention of vegetation or addition of new vegetation or any other proposed works
or features of the development will;
ii) benefit the ecology of the flood plain, or any streams and their margins and their capacity to
mitigate adverse flooding effects in extreme rainfall events
19.4.1
Recreation 1 (Conservation) Zone
Objective
To conserve those areas and features of open space which are of a high natural environmental
value.
Policies
1.
By recognising the land in this zone as a recreational resource in which priority is given to
the conservation and protection of natural areas and landscape features of scenic,
botanical, ecological, habitat, archaeological or other environmental value.
2.
By restricting the range of activities and associated development to a type and nature
which, while allowing enjoyment of the qualities of the open space, has least impact on its
environmental values.
Auckland Regional Policy Statement (Air, Land & Water)
Chapter 8 – Water Quality, Objective 8.3, and Policies 8.4.1(1) and 8.4.7(3).
Chapter 11 – Natural Hazards, Objective 11.3, and Policies 11.4.1(4), 11.4.1(5), 11.4.1(7),
11.4.1(8) and 11.4.1(12).
Policy 11.4.1(5) – Development shall not be permitted if it is likely to accelerate, worsen or result
in inundation of other property, unless it can be demonstrated that the adverse effects can be
avoided or mitigated.
Policy 11.4.1(7) – Construction of mitigation works shall be encouraged only where people,
property and the environment are subject to unacceptable risk from flood hazards.
Policy 11.4.1(8) – When carrying out flood mitigation works, existing vegetation shall be retained,
where appropriate, to aid stability and maintain environmental quality. However, the planting of
vegetation, which may, because of growth habit etc., restrict water flow and exacerbate the
flooding hazard, shall be avoided.
Policy 11.4.1(12) – A precautionary approach shall be used in avoiding, remedying, or mitigating
the adverse effects on development, of earthquake, volcanic activity, sea level rise and global
climatic change.
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 58
LT-2133515 – Hillcrest Storm Water Upgrade
Page 59