BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA

ENV-2018-AKL-000078

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management

Act 1991 (RMA)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the direct referral of

applications for resource

consent for the necessary

infrastructure and related

activities associated with holding the America's Cup in

Auckland

BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENTAUCKLAND

Applicant

AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Regulatory Authority

EVIDENCE OF VIJAY NAGEN LALA AND KARL PETER COOK ON BEHALF OF PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND

(PLANNING) 7 AUGUST 2018

1060

1

1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Vijay Lala

1.1 My full name is Vijay Nagen Lala.

1.2 I have a Bachelor of Planning degree from the University of Auckland. I have 23

years’ professional experience in resource management. During my professional

career I have been involved in policy formulation (district plans, plan changes,

variations), resource consents (land use, subdivision and coastal consents),

designations, project management and training aspects of resource management. I

have held various planning roles, within both local government and private

consultancies. I have previously held the position of Central Area Planning

Manager within the former Auckland City Council and was responsible for policy

formulation and resource consents in that role.

1.3 I have been a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since 1996 and

latterly have been a member of the interview panel for new applications for full

membership to the Institute. In addition, I have been involved in a number of

training seminars for planners relating to major projects and the planning process

therein.

1.4 I have prepared resource consent applications, attended hearings and prepared

planning evidence for a wide variety of land based and coastal resouce conent

applications and events. These have included the following:

a) The Viaduct Events Centre;

b) The Wynyard Crossing Bridge;

c) The Volvo Ocean Race Event 2012, 2015, 2018 (3 separate applications);

d) The Laneway Music Festival (2015 – 2018);

e) Wynyard Quarter Festival of Lights event;

f) Unitary Plan Submissions, Further Submissions, Preparation of Evidence,

Presentation of Evidence at Hearing;

g) 52 level Seascape Tower – Customs Street;

1061

2

h) Resource consents and a plan change for the Britomart Precinct

redevelopment; and

i) Westhaven Marina occupation, discharge, building and promenade.

Karl Cook

1.5 My full name is Karl Peter Cook.

1.6 I hold the Degrees of Master and Bachelor of Planning from the University of

Auckland and have been a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since

1995. Like Mr Lala, I am member of the interview panel for new applications for full

membership to the Institute. During my career I have worked for Auckland City

Council and North Shore City Council before joining multi-disciplinary consultancy

Connell Wagner in 1994 which included a one-year period in the firm’s Melbourne office. I joined Barker & Associates ("B&A") in 2001, and became a Director in

2002.

1.7 I have significant experience in commercial, residential, infrastructure, transport and

public facility planning involving the preparation and lodgement of resource consent

applications, strategic plan and policy assessment, notices of requirements and

outline plans of work. My key relevant experience includes the following:

a) Auckland Art Gallery and Aotea Square redevelopments;

b) Monte Cecilia Park/Pah Homestead plan change and resource consents;

c) The Westpac Charter House and Westpac/EY/Takutai Square

developments in Britomart;

d) The Downtown Shopping Centre/Commercial Bay development and

Queen Elizabeth Square plan change;

e) The ASB, Datacom, Fonterra head office projects and residential

apartment developments in Wynyard Quarter; and

f) The New Zealand International Convention Centre resource consent.

1.8 I was involved with the preparation of Plan Change 1 which introduced the Victoria

Quarter section of the plan in 2005 and Plan Change 2, also in 2005, which

introduced urban design controls to the majority of the Auckland central area. I was

1062

3

involved for the University of Auckland with Plan Change 36 which introduced the

Learning Quarter to the District Plan in 2010.

1.9 We have both prepared this brief of planning evidence to address the resource

consent application by Panuku for the America’s Cup.

2. BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION PROCESS

2.1 Unio Environmental has been engaged by Panuku Development Auckland Ltd ("Panuku") to provide expert planning services in relation to the proposed

America’s Cup syndicate bases and event resource consent. Our involvement in

the project has included the following:

a) We have been involved providing initial planning advice on various base

layout and location options;

b) We are part of the team that prepared the first Wynyard Basin and Ferry

and Fishing Industry Relocation (FFIRF) applications for resource consent and co-authored the Assessment of Effects on the Environment ("AEE")

and draft conditions, which describes the actual and potential effects on

the environment resulting from the proposal and assesses the proposal

against the relevant planning provisions including the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part (“AUP”), New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

(“NZCPS”) and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (“HGMPA”);

c) We are also part of the team coordinating the technical specialist inputs

required for the AEE. This included reviewing reports and ensuring all

relevant matters were considered. We are in agreement with the

conclusions of the AEE and supporting technical reports/documents,

except where subsequent evidence supersedes the conclusions of the

AEE;

d) We are also part of the team coordinating responses to Auckland Council's request under section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA")

for further information. We have also reviewed the submissions lodged to

the application;

e) Since the lodgement of the Wynyard Basin application, the Ministry of

Business, Innovation and Events became actively involved and sought

advice on a variety of syndicate base layout and location options. We

1063

4

were involved in attending meetings, reviewing options and providing

planning advice on the different design, location and layout options that

were explored;

f) Once it was decided to progress the Wynyard Hobson option, we were part

of the team that prepared the AEE and draft conditions for this application

and were involved in the tasks set out in sub paragraphs 2.1(b) to (d)

above for the Wynyard Hobson application. The Wynyard Basin

application has since been withdrawn while the FFIRF application remains

on hold;

g) Following the close of submissions for the Wynyard Hobson application we

have provided further information to the Council and provided on-going

planning advice to Panuku and the Council;

h) We have also subsequently met with a number of submitters and s274

parties and attending mediation and expert conferencing; and

i) We have read the statements of evidence of Panuku's witnesses. We

have also read all of the submissions received and the Council Officer's

section 87F report, the mediation statements and the Joint Witness

Statements.

2.2 We advise that we have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained

in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and have complied with it in

preparing this evidence. We confirm that the issues addressed in this evidence are

within my area of expertise and I have not omitted material facts known to us that

might alter or detract from my evidence.

3. PURPOSE, FORMAT AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

3.1 As there has been a significant level of detailed information provided within the

application and briefs of evidence from other witnesses, our evidence focuses on

the outcomes of the planning process since the close of submissions, the issues

that have arisen, measures proposed to resolve issues and an evaluation of the

remaining outstanding issues.

3.2 As the mediation and expert witness conferencing has been focussed on issues

between the parties, our evidence also follows that approach, whilst ensuring that

the substantive statutory considerations are also addressed. However this

1064

5

assessment has been undertaken primarily under topic headings of outstanding

issues.

3.3 Our evidence is set out under the following headings.

a) Summary of evidence;

b) Proposal;

c) Site & Surrounding Locality – Planning Framework;

d) Statutory & Planning Framework; and

e) Evaluation.

4. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

4.1 The non-complying elements of the application relate to development of bases on

Wynyard Point (an outcome supported by many parties in preference to a wharf

extension to Halsey Wharf within the CMA). The non-complying consent matters

include: building within proposed lanes (that align to future development, as it was

intended at the time the AUP was prepared), the America’s Cup event and the

entertainment activities within the syndicate bases in close proximity to the bulk

liquids storage facilities, and public amenities, landscaping and kiosk within sub-

precinct F (Wynyard Point).

4.2 Following the focussed mediation and joint witness expert conferencing sessions, a

number of outstanding issues were resolved, leaving a specific list of ‘matters not

agreed’ or unresolved between the parties. Our evidence focuses on the

unresolved matters. However, as this is a first instance hearing (through the Direct

Referral process), all ‘matters agreed’ between the parties have also been addressed - in a table summary analysis (included as Attachment B – Analysis of

Matters Agreed to our evidence).

4.3 The matters not agreed between the parties are listed in section 9.4 of our evidence

and are assessed in section 9.6 onwards. Significant effort has been made by all

parties to resolve the outstanding matters as much as possible. In our view, all

outstanding matters are addressed by the proposal, proposed conditions and draft

management plans (originally submitted with the application, with the latest versions

1065

6

attached to the evidence of Panuku witnesses as set out in paragraph 5.6). A

summary of our evaluation of the application is provided below.

4.4 Construction-related effects: Construction effects relating to noise and vibration,

transport, and lighting (including general amenity) have been considered. We

consider the effects on people within the vicinity of the application area are

mitigated by the measures required by the proposed detailed conditions and

management plans. These documents include specific objectives and matters to be

included, in order to ensure effects on parties such as land owners, residents,

businesses, waterspace users and organisations are appropriately addressed and

mitigated. Proposed measures include the best practicable option (BPO) for

construction noise and vibration, limitation on types of construction methodologies

(such as impact piling in the CMA), restrictions on heavy traffic movements and

construction lighting location, direction and brightness/glare.

4.5 CMA Structures: Effects relating to character, amenity, visual/landscape, coastal

processes and ecology have been considered. We consider that the effects are

mitigated by the proposed design and location of such structures and the proposed

detailed conditions and management plans. The location for the proposed

structures falls within the City Centre waterfront precincts, which is a highly modified

environment where no areas of outstanding or high natural character, landscapes or

features are affected by the proposal. The relevant AUP precinct provisions

anticipate events within this locality in recognition of their regional socio economic

benefits. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the RMA, NZCPS and

HGMPA provisions relating to character amenity, coastal processes and the life

supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf and coastal environment.

4.6 Public Access: Access to the event venue will be open and free of charge. Public

access is to be provided throughout the event area, except where restriction is

required for safety or security reasons. Therefore restrictions on access will be in

place over Halsey Wharf and Hobson Wharf during construction. Additionally, the

syndicate base hardstand areas will need to be fenced while the bases are

operating and launching/extracting boats, meaning public access to the water’s

edge will be available over all of the CMA structures and land, except parts of

Hobson Wharf, Halsey Wharf and the parts of Brigham Street proposed to be

closed when used by syndicate bases. Outside of these times, public access will

be provided. As a result, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the RMA,

NZCPS and AUP provisions relating to public access.

1066

7

4.7 Syndicate Base Building Design: During mediation and the expert witness

conferencing process, changes to the design approach for syndicate base buildings

were proposed. This involved re-writing the Design Guidelines into Design

Requirements and amending the conditions so that base building designs were

required to achieve the Design Requirements. Our view is that flexibility needs to

be provided for the parts of the Requirements that impose specific percentages,

window openings, fence transparency and height, glazing areas, signage areas,

recognition of suitability of temporary bases and roof detail. The Design

Requirements as attached to the evidence of Mr Graeme McIndoe1 reflect this

flexibility and we support them. We consider design flexibility of these matters to be

important where no base building designs are proposed to be consented and no

actual designers of the base buildings have been involved in the design process to

date. However, in terms of the maximum 15m building height and building platform,

we agree that these should be bottom lines and no flexibility provided for within the

Design Requirements/conditions.

4.8 Relocation of Existing Activities: The key outstanding issue in this area relates to

the Sealink ferry operation and the fishing industry. It is proposed to relocate

Sealink permanently from April 2019 but the fishing industry will only be relocated

for the six month period of any event. Outside that time, existing berthage will be

available. Proposed Condition 46A provides for a Navigation and Safety

Management Plan during construction in order to ensure safe navigation to berths

for Sealink, the fishing industry and other waterspace users. Beyond this the

parties are working together to complete contract and lease negotiations to enable

relocation in a safe and efficient manner. The proposed relocation of the Sealink

operation to 44-56 Hamer Street (within sub-Precinct C of Wynyard Precinct) is

supported by the AUP Wynyard Precinct policy 13 as it will provide sufficient and

suitable facilities (land, berthage, wharf and waterspace) to accommodate the

current and future operation and growth of the maritime passenger operations. We

understand that it is proposed to temporarily relocate Sanford and Auckland Fishing

Port Limited to Marsden Wharf. In terms of Wynyard Precinct policies 11 and 12,

Panuku will need to manage any disruption to the Sealink service, such that the

economic importance of Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime passenger transport

operations to the Auckland Region is accommodated.

1 Evidence in Chief of Mr Graeme McIndoe, at Attachment 2.

1067

8

4.9 Maori Cultural Effects: There are a number of iwi in support of and a further group

of mana whenua opposed to the application. Mana whenua opposed to the

application raised issues with the lack of consultation regarding this application and

seek that the outcomes of the Cultural Values Assessment be considered and

addressed as part of the application. Mana whenua in support of the application,

support the application in its entirety and also support some form of cultural off

setting including the potential for a Maori/Polynesian cultural centre on Hobson

Wharf or elsewhere on the waterfront in the future.

4.10 In our view, the AUP has been prepared under the relevant statutory requirements

of the RMA and regulatory provisions of the NZCPS, HGMPA and RPS. The AUP

does not include specific identification of the application area as a Site of

Significance under the Mana Whenua Overlay. Regardless, a mana whenua

engagement plan is proposed, there are considerable environmental mitigation

measures proposed as part of the application, including measures to mitigate

adverse effects on ecology, water quality, contamination, stormwater runoff,

accidental discoveries, erosion and sediment control, underwater noise and

biosecurity. As a result, and subject to consideration of the Cultural Values

Assessment, it is our view Maori cultural effects, within the framework of the AUP

are adequately addressed.

4.11 Event-Related Effects: Event-related effects relating to noise, transport, lighting

and emergency management have been considered. The proposed conditions

require an Event Management Plan which involves separate management plans to

deal with traffic, noise, lighting and emergency evacuation. Draft management

plans for the event and event traffic have been provided to submitters/S274 parties

and are attached to the evidence of Mr Calder2 and Mr Phillips.3 These include

various scenarios based on visitor numbers and associated mitigation measures,

including marshalling of vehicle and pedestrian movements. Proposed conditions

180 to 183R address the potential effects resulting from the event on the

surrounding neighbourhood, including restrictions on event related noise and

lighting.

4.12 Legacy: In terms of legacy use of Hobson Wharf and Wynyard Point after the ten

year consent duration, our view is that there are a number of planning options that

can be utilised to ensure the appropriate long term use of these resources. The

2 Evidence in Chief of Mr Grant Calder, at Attachment A. 3 Evidence in Chief of Mr Joseph Phillips, at Appendix 3.

1068

9

options include utilising the provisions of the AUP to activate these areas either for

temporary activities or marine and port activities. Alternatively resource consent

could be applied for in order to provide an ongoing use for these locations, including

any future buildings. Or, a plan change process could be pursued in order to reflect

the Waterfront Plan 2017 Refresh, which provides for public open space along the

eastern edge of Wynyard Point and integrates the planning process with the public

use of Wynyard Wharf. A plan change could also accommodate Hobson Wharf in

order to provide specific planning controls for the proposed new wharf.

4.13 Mr Craig Jones has prepared evidence that confirms that the extended wharf and

surrounding water space will have a high demand for water based events as well as

other events. The Crown has also recommended legacy use conditions (198B -

198D) in order to ensure consideration is given to being able to host future events

of a similar nature within Auckland.

4.14 As a non-complying activity, the adverse effects of the proposal must be minor or

the proposal must not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant

planning documents. In our view, the proposal meets both limbs of section 104D

and can therefore be considered for consent under section 104.

4.15 Based on the analysis undertaken in our evidence (including the proposed

conditions and management plans), the evidence of other Panuku witnesses and in

the application for resource consent, we consider the proposal is consistent with

and satisfies the tests of section 104.

5. PROPOSAL

5.1 The Proposal has been outlined in detail in the AEE lodged with the application and

in the evidence of Mr Rod Marler (Panuku). Mr Marler’s evidence also outlines

design and operational refinements to the proposal that have been made since

lodgements. These matters have also been referred to in the evidence from

Panuku’s witnesses.

5.2 We have also been asked to review the refinements to confirm that the proposal

remains within the scope of the application. These include the following:

a) Reduction in the width of the breakwater east of Hobson Wharf;

b) An increase in the number of people that can be hosted at Bases C-G;

1069

10

c) Amended area of dredging for access channel into Viaduct Harbour;

d) Refinements of construction methodology for Wynyard Point area;

e) Finalisation of wave panel design;

f) Removal of base buildings 6 months following any unsuccessful defence;

g) Crown legacy condition;

h) Amended design approach for base buildings; and

i) Other minor consequential refinements.

5.3 Our view is that the proposal remains within scope of the application that was

publicly notified and in the relief sought in submissions and s274 notices. The AEE

lodged with the application confirmed that all necessary consents required to give

effect to the proposal are applied for.

5.4 The application also included a set of draft proposed conditions of consent (should

consent be granted). The conditions have continuously been amended and refined

following receipt of the Council’s S87F Report and subsequent to further

discussions between experts, submitters, S274 parties and the Wynyard Edge

Alliance.

5.5 The conditions refer to management plans to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects

resulting from the application. Draft management plans have been prepared for

construction of the infrastructure for the America’s Cup (all works other than

syndicate base buildings and yards and event structures) and for the event and

event traffic management.. The draft management plans have been issued to

Council, s274 parties and submitters, in order to facilitate early feedback and

ensure issues raised by these parties can be adequately addressed within the

management plans.

5.6 The draft management plans that have been prepared are:

a) Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);4

b) Remediation Action Plan (RAP);5

4 Evidence in Chief of Mr Kurt Grant, at Attachment A.

1070

11

c) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP);6

d) Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP);7

e) Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA

(MPDPM);8

f) Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP);9

g) Construction Staff Travel Plan (CSTP);10

h) Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP);11

i) Construction Lighting Management Plan (CLMP);12

j) Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP);13

k) Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP);14

l) Navigation and Safety Management Plan (NSMP);

m) Project Geotechnical Design Report (PGDR);

n) Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP);15 and

o) Event Management Plan (EMP).16

5.7 The conditions have also been redrafted as a result of mediation and expert

conferencing, in order to ensure the objectives of the management plans are clearly

articulated as well as the matters to be included/outcomes to be achieved.

5.8 It is intended that the final management plans will be certified by Council to confirm

they are in compliance with the conditions of consent. Each management plan is

subject to the objectives and matters to be included/outcomes to be achieved as set

5 Evidence in Chief of Mr Philip Ware, at Attachment A. 6 Evidence in Chief of Mr Kurt Grant, at Attachment C. 7 Evidence in Chief of Mr Kurt Grant, at Attachment D. 8 Evidence in Chief of Mr Kurt Grant, at Attachment E. 9 Evidence in Chief of Mr Joe Phillips, at Appendix 1. 10 Evidence in Chief of Mr Kurt Grant, at Attachment A. 11 Evidence in Chief of Mr Craig Fitzgerald, at Appendix B. 12 Evidence in Chief of Mr John Mckensey, at Appendix B. 13 Evidence in Chief of Mr Paul Kennedy, at Attachment A. 14 Evidence in Chief of Mr Paul Kennedy, at Attachment A. 15 Evidence in Chief of Mr Joe Phillips, at Appendix 3. 16 Evidence in Chief of Mr Grant Calder, at Attachment A.

1071

12

out in the conditions that form the basis for certification by the Council Team Leader

Compliance Monitoring – Central.

5.9 Overall, the application contains detailed assessment, a comprehensive set of

proposed draft conditions and management plans in order to ensure the effects of

the proposal are fully understood and adequately mitigated.

6. THE SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT – PLANNING CONTEXT

6.1 The site and locality is outlined in detail in the AEE and the evidence of Mr Graeme

McIndoe17 and Mr John Goodwin18. The following summary focuses on the

planning context that applies to the locality. The application area is within the

Wynyard Precinct, the Viaduct Harbour Precinct and the City Centre/General

Coastal Marine zones.

6.2 The CMA in this area has been continually reclaimed and redeveloped since the

early 1900s. As a result, the locality is a highly modified coastal environment which

is dominated by commercial and public activity in conjunction with commercial and

recreational boating. Development on land and in the CMA includes Westhaven

Marina, Wynyard Precinct, Viaduct Precinct, the Central Wharves Precinct and the

Port Precinct. The dominant activities include marine, fishing and port activities and

structures, maritime passenger and goods transport, food, beverage, entertainment,

retail and accommodation activities, berthage, public access and events.

6.3 This area has been significantly redeveloped since 1996, when development works

for the Round the World Race Stopover and the 2000 America’s Cup regatta

commenced. These works involved dredging, reclamations, declamations,

decontamination, wharf and berthage construction and other structures within the

CMA.

6.4 The water’s edge is dominated by vessels, wharfs, public access and reclamations.

Beyond this sits the natural landform of the Auckland Isthmus and the dominant

large scale commercial and residential buildings. The Symonds Street and Albert

Street ridges combined with the Queen Street Valley still remain the dominant

landform elements behind the modified water’s edge.

6.5 The CMA within Viaduct Harbour and the wider Freemans Bay is affected by a

complex arrangement of existing waterspace occupation permits, leases and 17 Evidence in Chief of Mr Graeme McIndoe, at sections 5 and 6. 18 Evidence in Chief of Mr John Goodwin, at section 5.

1072

13

management agreements. These are outlined in detail within the AEE19 submitted

with the application.

6.6 In terms of the bulk liquids industry, currently, three bulk liquids terminals remain in

Wynyard Precinct. These are operated by BST and Stolthaven (North & South

terminals) who import hazardous liquids (i.e. flammable and/or toxic) as well as

non-hazardous substances (such as vegetable oils) by ship or road tanker.

Hazardous goods are unloaded from ships berthing at the northern (outer berth)

section of Wynyard Wharf. The southern part of the wharf (inner berth) is used for

non-hazardous cargo unloading and fuel bunkering. Unloading is primarily

undertaken using a piping system which is currently located both above and below

the wharf structure. At present the public are generally excluded from the Wynyard

wharf area. As part of this application the Stolthaven South and BST operations will

cease and will be removed from the site. The Stolthaven north site will remain as the only operational bulk liquid storage facility on Wynyard Point (refer Figure 1

below).

6.7 The Sanford fish processing plant is located within the block bound by Jellicoe,

Halsey, Daldy and Madden streets. This includes a closed loop ammonia

refrigeration system, with associated potential for toxic gas release. The Sanford

business also includes a large public fish market and public dining areas. A number

of other public uses have established around the fishing plant including the ASB

Waterfront Theatre, the ASB head office building and various entertainment and

dining areas located on Jellicoe Street. Sanford has a perpetual lease for the facility

and will continue to operate at Wynyard Precinct for the foreseeable future.

6.8 The ASB Bank relies on a lease for parking on the land proposed to be used for

Bases C & D. Negotiations are underway to locate suitable alternative carparking

for these activities. The ASB Waterfront Theatre relies on the road network for

visitor drop offs including buses for school children. Other than after-hours use of

the parking spaces within the ASB Bank building on Jellicoe Street, the Theatre

resource consent did provide for any carparking in Wynyard Precinct.

19 Common Bundle Volume A – CB4 - Section 8.4.

1073

14

Figure 1 – Hazardous Substance Storage Locations – Wynyard Precinct

6.9 The Sealink ferry also has a lease to operate its car, passenger and good ferries

from the ramp at the southern end of Wynyard Wharf, although only until 2024. As

detailed further in evidence of Ms Knox, negotiations are underway to relate this

operation to another in the nearby vicinity and take the opportunity to provide it with

a longer-term tenure.

6.10 The Viaduct Events Centre, which is located on the Halsey Wharf, is to be occupied

by Emirates Team New Zealand and the application seeks to enable that use for up

to ten years as part of this application. This change in use will also require a

hardstand area with coastal access which is proposed along the eastern edge of

the wharf. Additionally, change in use will require coordination with the fishing

industry and the general public, both of whom have access to the wharf and utilise it

on a daily basis.

6.11 The above activities are all provided for within the objectives and policies and other

provisions of the precincts and zones identified above. The key issue is to ensure

1074

15

these activities can be established and continue to operate together without one

activity unduly compromising the other.

7. STATUTORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Consents Required

7.1 The application seeks consent to give effect to the proposal including all the

consent matters under the relevant planning documents including the AUP and the

NES: Soil. The AEE and the Council s87F Report have identified the relevant

consent requirements for this proposal.

7.2 We have reviewed the s87F Report and agree with the consent requirements

listed20 except for the matter identified below:

Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precinct(s):

a) Ms Broadbent identifies that application for consent under rule

I214.4.1(A35) of the Wynyard Precinct provisions for any activity not listed

as a permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary or non-complying activity

which has a functional need to be located in the CMA is not required to be

sought as in her opinion all the proposed activities within the CMA are

captured within the other rules. We conservatively identify this rule to

ensure that all activities forming part of this application are

comprehensively provided for noting once more that noted in our AEE that

this application is for all necessary resource consents required to enable

the proposal.

b) We note that Ms Broadbent identifies21] that the syndicate bases are

considered to fall within the definition of ‘marine and port facilities’ and

consent is provided subject to rules (A41) and (A51) as restricted

discretionary activities on land and in the CMA respectively. Further

analysis of the definition of ‘Marine and Port Facilities’ identifies that the

defined term in the AUP ‘excludes buildings’22 as such we consider the

scope of the application under rule I214.4.2.(A49) ‘Coastal marine area

20 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 135, pages 3511-3519. 21 Common Bundle Volume D, page 3514, paragraph 5.2.19 of N Broadbent Report. 22 AUP, Chapter J (page 74) “Marine and port facilities Facilities and structures that are associated with marine and port

activities and serve more than an accessory role. Includes: • drydocks; • travel lifts; • shiplifts; • cranes; • cargo stacking and lifting devices; • conveyors; • derricks; • gantries; • landings; • wharves; • jetties; • piers; and • dolphin structures (a structure that extends above the water level and is not connected to land above mean high water springs other than for access purposes, and is used for the berthing of vessels). Excludes: • buildings”.

1075

16

structures and buildings, and alterations and additions to coastal marine

area structures and buildings’23 be expanded to clearly provide for the

establishment of the Syndicate Base A and the associated alterations and

additions to the VEC in addition to the works to Wynyard Wharf and the

infill structures.

Auckland-Wide Matters

c) Ms Broadbent identifies that consent is sought for earthworks related to the

construction, maintenance and repair of public roads under rule E14.4.4

(A83) due to the level of contaminants in the land being unknown. The

requirement for consent is confirmed in the technical memorandum from

Mr Crimmins.24 Ms Broadbent considered that consent is not required

subject to this rule as only minor works will be occurring in Hamer Street

and Brigham Street will not be considered as a public road at the time

works will occur. We consider that the timing of enabling works within

Brigham street is such that this work may precede the formal ‘stopping’ of

the road. With respect to the works within Hamer and service installation

works within Jellicoe Street and south of Halsey Wharf we have

conservatively included this matter for consent in the event that the

permitted standards of chapter E14 are not able to be achieved, principally

in our understanding that offensive or objectionable odour, may be

associated with contaminates present within the Roading in these areas.

As such we continue to consider this is a relevant matter of consent to be

identified in the application.

d) We do not agree with the additional matter of consent identified by Ms

Broadbent (and Mr Crimmins) in Chapter E14. Ms Broadbent identifies

correctly that cement is proposed to be utilised in the construction process,

this is in its greatest quantity associated with cement for mudcreting and

grouting activities which would occur within the Business – City Centre

Zone and General Coastal Marine Zone, identified as High air quality –

dust and odour area). Pursuant to rule E14.4.4 (A77) Ms Broadbent considered that consent is required as a discretionary activity for cement

storage and handling within a ‘high air quality – dust and odour area’. We

consider that this rule is unclear in its scope and if applied as Ms 23 Common Bundle Volume A, page 0167, Table 4 reasons for consent-Wynyard precinct, Unio Assessment of Environmental

Effects. 24 Common Bundle Volume D, document 154, page 3948, paragraph 4.1.2.

1076

17

Broadbent identifies could by default result in domestic use or storage of

cement (in a residential zone- also a high-quality air area) being captured

as a discretionary activity. We consider that consent is therefore not

required under E14.4.4 (A77) and that the use and storage of cement for

construction purposes is permitted subject to E14.4.1(A1) Activities

meeting the permitted activity standards and not provided for by any other

rule.

e) Consent is sought under E36.4.1(A20) on a restricted discretionary activity

basis for the stabilisation works that are to occur along the eastern extent

of Wynyard Point, these ground improvement works on the coastal edge

have an effect of maintaining the stability of the coastal edge, and are

associated with the existing seawalls located on the eastern side of the

reclamation. As the methodology for these works is evolving, consent is

conservatively sought for these structures as hard protection structures

subject to rule E36.4.1(A20). The works, in our view, will effectively

maintain the stability of the coastal edge, with the scope of the works

sought may result in extension (including upgrading that increases the area

occupied by the structure noting this is not confined to a landward or

seaward extent) or alteration of the existing structures. This matter is also

relevant to the identification of consent requirements under

F2.19.10(A142). We consider the scale of the works to the seawall along

the eastern side of Wynyard Point merits consideration subject to Rule

(A142) under Chapter F2 applicable within the General Coastal Marine

Zone also.

f) Consent is sought as a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to

E36.4.1(A42) for buildings and structures located within or over an

overland flow path. Ms Broadbent discusses this in her section 87F report25

and appears to conflate the matter with a flood prone area. We consider

consent under E36.4.1(A42) remains applicable for the reasons identified

in the AEE.26

g) Regardless, overall the application is a non-complying activity and is

required to pass through the gateway test of section 104D and is to be

assessed against S104. 25 Common Bundle Volume D, page 3518, paragraph 5.2.56 of N Broadbent Report. 26 Common Bundle Volume A, page 0177, Table 5 Reasons for consent-Auckland wide, Unio Assessment of Environmental

Effects.

1077

18

7.3 We note that a recent High Court decision R J Davidson Family Trust27 has

established that reference to Part 2 in the resource consent decision-making

process is not required (absent invalidity, incompleteness or uncertainty). We

understand this decision is currently subject to Appeal. This application has been

assessed against the relevant provisions of the AUP including the Regional Policy

Statement and Regional Coastal Plan and we do not consider these documents to

be invalid or uncertain. The Natural Hazards provisions in the AUP are now fully

operative and we consider these to be complete, however section 6(h) of the RMA

– relating to the management of significant risks from natural hazards - has been

introduced since the AUP was notified. In light of that, and for completeness, an

assessment of the proposal against the relevant higher order planning documents

and matters in Part 2 is provided below.

7.4 Planning Framework

a) Under section 104(1) of the RMA, when considering an application for

resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority

must, subject to Part 2, have regard to:

(i) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the

activity;

(ii) Any measure proposed by the applicant for the purpose of

ensuring positive effects or to offset or compensate for adverse

effects;

(iii) The relevant provisions of a national policy statement;

(iv) A New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement;

(v) A regional policy statement;

(vi) A plan or proposed plan; and

(vii) Any other matter that the consent authority considers relevant and

reasonably necessary to determine the application.

7.5 Overall, the proposal is to be considered as a non-complying activity. Consent may

only be granted to the application if the adverse environmental effects are minor or

27 R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2017] NZHC 52.

1078

19

the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan. The

application is assessed against those matters in the AEE, the original application

documents and the evidence prepared by the Panuku witnesses. The proposed

draft conditions and management plans provide measures by which effects will be

avoided, remedied or mitigated.

7.6 Since lodgement of the application, the Minister has approved the Regional Coastal Plan (RCP) components of the AUP under clause 19 of Schedule 1 to the RMA,

and those provisions have been made operative in part by the Council under clause

20 of the RMA. Accordingly, the provisions of the former Auckland Regional Plan:

Coastal are now inoperative for the purposes of this application, and we do not

address them further.

8. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

Submissions received, submitter meetings and engagement

8.1 The application was publicly notified on 30 April 2018, over the course of the

submissions period 83 submissions were received on the application. Of the

submissions 33 were identified as being in opposition, 45 stated support (in some

instances subject to conditions or further clarifications, particularly regarding

management plans and continued involvement) and five neutral submissions.

8.2 The general issues raised were:

a) Hobson Wharf Extension;

b) Legacy;

c) Cultural matters;

d) Construction effects (traffic, noise, lighting);

e) Visual landscape and urban design;

f) Marine and fishing (including Sanfords and Sealink);

g) Heritage;

h) Event effects (traffic, noise, lighting and security;

i) Management plans; and

1079

20

j) Conditions of Consent.

8.3 In recognition of the issues raised, Panuku arranged a number of meetings with

submitters and s274 parties in order to better understand the relevant issues and to

seek to resolve them. Significant progress was made with a number of submitters

and this was carried through into the mediation and expert conferencing process.

8.4 The resolved issues are addressed in the following section as well as a detailed

evaluation of the issues that remain unresolved.

8.5 We both attended the mediation sessions and the two expert planning conference

sessions, where the planners focussed on the proposed conditions of consent

9. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

Matters Agreed or Not in Contention

9.1 Following liaison with the submitters, the s274 parties and the Council as outlined in

paragraph 8.3, the matters outlined below are either not in contention or have been

resolved between the various parties and are subject to specific proposed

conditions and the management plans (subject to mana whenua response when the CVA is received). These matters are addressed further in Attachment B to this

evidence:

a) Trees;

b) Land disturbance and contaminated land;

c) Groundwater;

d) Ecology;

e) Coastal processes;

f) Natural hazards and climate change;

g) Historic heritage and special character;

h) Hazardous substance risk; and

i) Stormwater and servicing.

1080

21

9.2 In relation to the above matters and based on the analysis undertaken (including

within the AEE, supporting technical reports and Panuku witness’ evidence), it is

our view that any adverse effects on the environment will be minor and that the

proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the AUP.

Additionally, these elements of the proposal are consistent with the NZCPS,

HGMPA and NES: Soil.

Matters Not Agreed or In Contention

9.3 Those matters which are not agreed between the applicant and some other parties

or which remain in contention are identified and evaluated below. This statement of

evidence addresses these matters by issue.

9.4 In summary they include:

a) Construction effects, including traffic and transport, noise and vibration,

and lighting;

b) CMA/General Infrastructure structures;

c) Hobson Wharf;

d) Breakwaters/Berthing;

e) Public Access;

f) Navigation & Safety;

g) Base design;

h) Relocation of existing activities;

i) Cultural/Māori Effects;

j) Event related effects including traffic and transport, noise, lighting; and

k) Legacy.

9.5 These matters are addressed in detail in the following sections of our evidence.

1081

22

CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

Overview

9.6 The effects resulting from the construction activities and works required for the

proposal relate to a wide range of matters. This section of evidence focuses on

traffic and transport (including disruption to residents and businesses), noise and

vibration, and lighting effects from construction. Navigational safety effects from

construction (and the event) are addressed in 9.128 to 9.132. As addressed earlier,

other construction-related effects including land disturbance and contamination,

groundwater diversion and coastal ecology are addressed in paragraphs 9.1 to 9.2 and in Attachment B.

9.7 Construction effects are, by their nature, temporary. However due to the need to

have infrastructure and bases ready in time to meet event timeframes, the

construction will extended hours of works (up to 24 hours/day and 6 days/week)

over an overall two-year period, with most works being completed within 15 months.

In our experience, this scale of development is commensurate with many other

projects in Wynyard Precinct and the City Centre with which we have been

involved.

9.8 Mr Grant’s evidence addresses construction of the infrastructure for the proposal,

which is being delivered by Panuku. As explained by Mr Grant and discussed in

more detail below, a range of management plans have been prepared for different

aspects of these construction works. These management plans have a range of

objectives however they are the principal mechanism for ensuring that the

construction process is well-managed and that construction-related effects are

appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

9.9 Draft management plans for the construction of infrastructure for the operation of

the bases and for the event are attached to the evidence of Panuku witnesses who

have involved in their preparation. Conditions are proposed that address the

matters within each of these plans, along with other aspects of construction. Both

the plans and the conditions have been circulated to parties for feedback, and have

been progressively revised and updated to take into account feedback from that

consultation.

9.10 Buildings will be built on the bases in a staged manner subsequent to completion of

the infrastructure construction works and availability of the bases. Construction of

1082

23

the bases will have minor effects given the relatively small scale and temporary

nature of these buildings, the short timeframes over which the works will take place,

and the spread of locations in which they are to be established, with only Base B on

Hobson Wharf being near the Princes Wharf apartments.

9.11 Relevant to all matters is the mixed-use character of the general environment within

which the construction works will take place, noting that the majority of works sit to

the north of the Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precincts. The activities in the

Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precinct areas include residents, hotels, restaurants

and bars, commercial offices, retail, entertainment, recreation, industry (including

fishing and marine industry) and maritime transport. Wynyard Precinct, in particular,

is undergoing a transformation from a predominantly industrial, marine and fishing

area to one involving new and more intensive commercial, residential, hotel,

entertainment, and bar and restaurant use.

Planning Provisions

9.12 The proposal requires overall non-complying activity consent meaning construction-

related effects require evaluation as part of the assessment of effects and analysis

of AUP provisions. Further, the proposal requires a number of construction-related

related resource consents including those relating to the following:

a) Demolition;

b) Dredging and disturbance of the CMA including for coastal protection

structures;

c) Groundwater take and diversion;

d) Earthworks/land disturbance;

e) Exceedance of construction noise standards; and

f) Discharges from disturbance of contaminated land and dredge material.

9.13 In addition to provisions relating to the above matters in chapters E4 (Other

discharges of contaminants),28 E7 (Taking…and diversion of water…),29 E11/E12

(Land disturbance – Regional / District),30 E24 (Lighting)31 and E25 (Noise and

28 Common Bundle Volume E, CB170. 29 Common Bundle Volume E, CB171. 30 Common Bundle Volume E, CB173/174.

1083

24

vibration)32 of the AUP, we consider the following to be relevant to all of the

construction-related effects evaluated below because they establish the anticipated

environment within which the construction effects will take place and provide

recognition of the impact of development and change:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct (I211)

Objectives I211.2

(3) A safe, convenient and interesting environment, which optimises pedestrian

and cycling use and improves connectivity within the precinct and to adjacent

areas of the City.

(5) Adverse effects arising from activities and development are avoided, remedied

or mitigated, in an integrated manner across mean high water springs.

(7) Maintain the residential character and amenity in Sub-precinct C as an attractive place for permanent residents.

Policies I211.3

(5) Encourage the development of a diverse range of high-quality visitor

experiences including promenading, coastal recreation, community and cultural

activities and temporary activities.

(11) Maintain the residential character and amenity values in Sub-precinct C by

avoiding activities that adversely affect the residential character and its related

amenity values.

Wynyard Precinct (I214)

Objectives I214.2

(1) Wynyard precinct is redeveloped while managing potential conflicts between

different uses to achieve:

(a) a high-quality visitor destination which showcases the City’s diverse

communities and the importance of the harbour;

(c) vibrant community with a mix of activities and experiences for all people

including a community focal point, high quality public open space and community

facilities;

31 Common Bundle Volume E, CB181. 32 Common Bundle Volume E, CB182.

1084

25

(d) public open space on the waterfront, and an area for events and entertainment

activity for the social and economic benefit of the wider Auckland Region;

Policies I214.3

Pedestrian access, street quality and safety

(10) A safe, convenient and interesting environment, which optimises pedestrian

and cycling use and improves connectivity within the precinct and to adjacent

areas of the City.

Transport

(11) Enabling a diverse range of activities, high quality visitor experiences,

entertainment, events and development to occur, while recognising and

maintaining the economic importance of the marine and fishing industry, the bulk

liquid industry and Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime passenger operations to the

Auckland Region.

Integrated development

(12) Recognise the significant local and regional socio-economic benefits

associated with providing high-quality waterfront public open space and events

activity while also providing for the operational and access requirements of the

marine and fishing industries, other industrial activities and maritime passenger

operations.

9.14 AUP provisions relating more specifically to transport, noise, and lighting are

addressed in the sections that follow.

Construction Effects - Transport

9.15 Particularly relevant AUP provisions are located in chapter E12 Land disturbance –

District33 (seeking, in Policy 2, to manage the amount of land being disturbed to

avoid, remedy or mitigate traffic effects). However there are no construction-related

provisions in chapter E27 Transport34 and the AUP:OP is generally silent about

construction activity, with the more general provisions for the Viaduct Harbour

Precinct noted above including provisions relating to avoiding, remedying or

mitigating adverse effects from activities and development and maintaining

residential character and amenity.

33 Common Bundle Volume E, CB174. 34 Common Bundle Volume E, CB184.

1085

26

Specific Issues & Analysis

9.16 A range of submitters and s274 parties identify concerns with transport-related

construction effects. These include:

o Businesses such as Sanford and Auckland Fishing Port, Hirepool and Firth

Industries with 24-hour/6-day operations;

o Landowners and commercial landlords such as VHHL, Kiwi Property Group,

Precinct Properties and Willis Bond;

o Tenants ranging from offices (KPMG, Kensington Swan and ASB), entertainment

(Auckland Theatre Company), food and beverage (Rushworth Café, The

Conservatory and Jack Tar); and hotel (Fu Wah);

o Representative organisations such as Heart of the City and the Wynyard Quarter

Transport Management Association; and

o Residents such as The Point and Lighter Quay apartments.

9.17 The issues raised by these submitters and s274 parties are predominantly related

to ensuring that they will continue to have access during construction (including to

pick-up and drop-off zones for the theatre), ensuring safety (including for walking

and cycling), impacts on car parking, a lack of detail in management plans included

in the application, being consulted on and having involvement in the preparation of

management plans, and that their own construction activities will not be impeded.

9.18 These matters are addressed in detail in Ms Broadbent’s section 87F report35 and

the supporting Transport Report.36 Several recommendations were made in the

section 87F supporting Transport Report and suggested changes were made to the

draft conditions proposed by the applicant, many of which were discussed in

meetings held with Council and submitters prior to mediation. Construction traffic

matters were a particular focus of the Court-assisted mediation and the transport

expert conferencing, with changes made to the objectives for and matters to be

included in draft Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Construction

Staff Travel Plan (CSTP) conditions.

35 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 135. 36 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 148.

1086

27

9.19 Transport-related construction effects are addressed in the evidence of Mr Phillips,

whose statement addresses the matters outlined above and includes the draft

CTMP and draft CSTP. Mr Phillips identifies that the construction works will lead to

some general disruption of normal travel patterns. But that, as agreed with the

transport experts at conferencing, the management plans and other mechanisms in

the conditions will ensure that these are satisfactorily managed and mitigated. The

measures proposed to avoid and mitigate transport-related construction effects

included use of barges and other sea-borne transport, keeping heavy vehicles to

defined routes along Beaumont, Halsey and lower Hobson/Quay Streets, and

avoiding use of streets including Jellicoe Street, Viaduct Harbour Avenue, and

Customs Street West west of lower Hobson Street.

9.20 These matters are addressed in proposed Conditions 103-105 (CTMP) and Conditions 106-108B (CSTP) in Attachment A. In both instances final plans

submitted for certification are required to be in general accordance with the draft

plans consulted with submitters and s274 parties and attached to Mr Phillips’

evidence, to give effect to the objectives stated in the conditions and achieve

compliance with the matters listed.

9.21 Based on the outcome of the mediation and Transport JWS, the measures

proposed in the draft CTMP and CSTP documents and associated proposed

conditions, and in reliance on the evidence of Mr Phillips we conclude that the

application appropriately addresses the applicable AUP provisions relating to

construction traffic.

Construction Effects - Noise and Vibration

9.22 Relevant AUP provisions are located in chapter E25 Noise and vibration. Chapter

25 of the AUP contains a comprehensive framework of objectives, policies,

standards, matters of discretion and assessment criteria for, among other matters,

noise and vibration from construction activities. Relevant objectives and policies

include:

E25.2. Objectives [rcp/dp]

(1) People are protected from unreasonable levels of noise and vibration.

(2) The amenity values of residential zones are protected from unreasonable noise

and vibration, particularly at night.

1087

28

(4) Construction activities that cannot meet noise and vibration standards are

enabled while controlling duration, frequency and timing to manage adverse

effects.

E25.3. Policies [rcp/dp]

(1) Set appropriate noise and vibration standards to reflect each zone’s function

and permitted activities, while ensuring that the potential adverse effects of noise

and vibration are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

(2) Minimise, where practicable, noise and vibration at its source or on the site

from which it is generated to mitigate adverse effects on adjacent sites.

(4) Use area or activity specific rules where the particular functional or operational

needs of the area or activity make such rules appropriate.

Noise arising from lakes, rivers and the coastal marine area

(8) Require activities to be insulated or protected, from unreasonable manmade

noise and vibration emitted from the use and development of neighbouring lakes,

rivers or the coastal marine area.

Construction, demolition and maintenance activities

(10) Avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration from

construction, maintenance and demolition activities while having regard to:

(a) the sensitivity of the receiving environment; and

(b) the proposed duration and hours of operation of the activity; and

(c) the practicability of complying with permitted noise and vibration standards.

9.23 While noise and vibration from construction activities will be substantially compliant

with the AUP:OP standards, resource consent is required for exceedances of:

a) The permitted construction noise levels for brief periods at occupied

buildings from piling and concrete cutting; and

b) The cosmetic building damage vibration limits for piles driven directly

adjacent to the Maritime Museum.

1088

29

Specific Issues & Analysis

9.24 Several submitters raised concerns over noise and vibration from construction

activities. These are summarised in section 9 of Mr Fitzgerald’s evidence.

9.25 Since completion of the section 87F report and supporting Noise Report,37

substantial progress has been made regarding concerns over construction noise

and vibration – in discussions between the applicant, Council and submitters, in

mediation and in expert conferencing. With the refinement of the piling construction

methodology for Hobson Wharf and breakwaters and confirmation of the written

approval of Regional Facilities Auckland for the New Zealand Maritime Museum,

adverse effects have been confirmed as being reduced to minor.

9.26 Noise and vibration from construction including the matters outlined above is

addressed in the evidence of Mr Fitzgerald. Mr Fitzgerald’s evidence includes a

draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) that has been

prepared with input from the Alliance, submitters, s274 parties and Council’s

acoustic expert, Mr Styles. We note that an outcome of the mediation on 30 July

2018 (Sub-topic: Noise and vibration) was that The Princes Wharf Apartments

agreed to the changes proposed to Condition 110Ak) and l) (now numbered 110Bk) and l) in Attachment A).

9.27 The focus of the proposed conditions is on ensuring an appropriate framework is in

place for management of noise and vibration from construction activities through the

CNVMP and proposed conditions 109-110D. Like the CTMP, the final CNVMP

submitted for certification is required to be in general accordance with the draft

plans consulted with submitters and s274 parties and attached to Mr Fitzgerald’s

evidence, to give effect to the objectives stated in the conditions and achieve

compliance with the matters listed.

9.28 Based on the outcome of the mediation and Noise and Vibration JWS, the

measures proposed in the draft CNVMP document and associated proposed

conditions, and in reliance on the evidence of Mr Fitzgerald we conclude that the

application appropriately addresses the applicable AUP provisions relating to

construction noise and vibration.

37 Common Bundle volume D, Document 143.

1089

30

Construction Effects - Lighting

9.29 Lighting effects are addressed in the evidence of Mr Mckensey. As with the

transport and noise and vibration aspects of construction, management of effects is

proposed through a Construction Lighting Management Plan (CLMP), with a draft

attached to Mr Mckensey’s evidence.

9.30 Particularly relevant AUP provisions are located in chapter E24 Lighting.

Compliance is proposed with the applicable standards in chapter E24 of the AUP,

all required through the CMP and proposed Conditions 111-113.

Specific Issues & Analysis

9.31 Mr Mckensey addresses the matters discussed with s274 parties at mediation in

section 7 of his evidence.

9.32 In reliance on Council’s lighting expert, Mr Wright, Ms Broadbent concludes in the

section 897F report that construction lighting effects are appropriate and will not

create adverse effects given that they are not expected to exceed permitted

levels.38 I note Mr Mckensey and Mr Wright have subsequently agreed that the

lighting conditions would appropriately refer to AUP:OP rule E24.6.1.(6) rather than

only to (6)(b) (refer to section 3.1 of Lighting JWS, dated 30 July 2018). This

supersedes the position held by Mr Wright in paragraph 2.2i)39 and as adopted by

Ms Broadbent in paragraph 9.9.3 of the section 87F report.40

9.33 The proposed conditions at Attachment A to our evidence relating to construction

lighting (Conditions 111-113) require the submission of a Construction Lighting

Management Plan (CLMP) to Council that shall be in general accordance with the

draft CLMP attached to Mr Mckensey’s evidence. The CLMP has the objective of

minimising the potential impacts of construction lighting and among other things

shall include details of lighting to ensure compliance with the AUP rules.

9.34 In reliance on Mr Mckensey’s evidence and compliance with the AUP:OP standards

proposed via a management plan we consider the applicable statutory provisions to

be met.

38 Common Bundle volume D, Document 135 page 3534. 39 Common Bundle volume D, Document 150 page 3904. 40 Common Bundle volume D, Document 135 page 3533.

1090

31

HOBSON WHARF

Overview

9.35 Consent is sought to construct and occupy the CMA with an extension to Hobson

Wharf for a period of 35 years.

9.36 The focus of this section of evidence is consideration of the landscape, visual

amenity and urban design considerations applicable to the proposed extension to

Hobson Wharf and the ‘need’ to establish the Hobson Wharf extension to provide

for the America’s Cup 36 and subsequent events. This section considers both

functional need and uses as well as consideration of alternatives.

9.37 With respect to the relationship of this matter to other sections in our evidence we

note that:

a) Construction effects associated with the physical works required to

establish Hobson Wharf extension (and the associated breakwaters and

structures) are addressed above;

b) The establishment of a syndicate base building B on the extended wharf

for up to 10 years (if the cup is defended successfully at least twice) is

addressed later;

c) Coastal processes and coastal ecology associated with Hobson wharf are addressed in Attachment B to this evidence and are considered to be

resolved overall. Navigational safety and relocation of existing uses are

addressed in this section and further in section 10 below. Legacy uses for

the wharf space are subject to an additional set of issues and are

addressed separately in section 12 below; and

d) The breakwaters associated with Hobson wharf are also more specifically

addressed below from paragraph 9.71 although they are considered here

also to the extent relevant to these matters.

Planning Context

9.38 The Hobson Wharf extension is located within the Viaduct Harbour Precinct, within

the CMA and has an underlying General Coastal Marine Zone. The construction

1091

32

and occupation of the Hobson Wharf extension requires a number of resource

consents as described below.

9.39 The precinct provisions provide most specifically for activities within the Viaduct

Harbour Precinct which applies to the water space in which the wharf extension is

proposed. Under rule I211.4.1 (A35) “Coastal marine area structures or buildings

not otherwise provided for” require consent as a discretionary activity where located

within the CMA in the Precinct. Discretionary activity consent is also required under

rule F2.19.8(A84) for occupation of the CMA associated with the wharf extension.

9.40 The relevant objectives are policies include the following:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct (I211)41

Objectives I211.2

(1) An attractive public waterfront and world-class visitor destination that is

recognised for its distinctive character, quality buildings, public open spaces,

recreational opportunities, community and cultural facilities and events.

(5) Adverse effects arising from activities and development are avoided, remedied

or mitigated, in an integrated manner across mean high water springs.

Policies I211.3

(5) Encourage the development of a diverse range of high-quality visitor

experiences including promenading, coastal recreation, community and cultural

activities and temporary activities.

(11) Maintain the residential character and amenity values in Sub-precinct C by

avoiding activities that adversely affect the residential character and its related

amenity values.

Wynyard Precinct (I214)42

Objectives I214.2

(1) Wynyard precinct is redeveloped while managing potential conflicts between

different uses to achieve:

(a) a high-quality visitor destination which showcases the City’s diverse

communities and the importance of the harbour; 41 Common Bundle Volume E, CB195. 42 Common Bundle Volume E, CB196.

1092

33

(c) vibrant community with a mix of activities and experiences for all people

including a community focal point, high quality public open space and community

facilities;

(d) public open space on the waterfront, and an area for events and entertainment

activity for the social and economic benefit of the wider Auckland Region;

Policies I214.3

(11) Enabling a diverse range of activities, high quality visitor experiences,

entertainment, events and development to occur, while recognising and

maintaining the economic importance of the marine and fishing industry, the bulk

liquid industry and Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime passenger operations to the

Auckland Region.

(12) Recognise the significant local and regional socio-economic benefits

associated with providing high-quality waterfront public open space and events

activity while also providing for the operational and access requirements of the

marine and fishing industries, other industrial activities and maritime passenger

operations.

9.41 As the wharf extension is located in the CMA the GCMZ provides the underlying

policy framework in AUP chapter F2. We note that consent is sought subject to

chapter F2 and as a result consideration of the policy direction under F2.14 is of

particular relevance.

9.42 We consider the following objectives and policies to be of particular relevance:

Objectives F2.14.2

(4) Efficient use is made of coastal marine area by consolidating use and

development within appropriate areas, where practicable.

(5) Activities that do not have a functional or operational need to be undertaken in

the common marine and coastal area are provided for within zones or precincts

only where they can demonstrate:

(a) the need for a common marine and coastal area location;

(b) they cannot practicably be located on land outside of the coastal marine area;

and

1093

34

(c) they are consistent with the use and value of the area, including the adjacent

land area, and do not compromise natural character, ecological, public access,

Mana Whenua, historic heritage, or amenity values.

F2.14.3. Policies

(1) Enable use and occupation of the common marine and coastal area to provide

for use and development that:

(a) has a functional or operational need to be below mean high water springs and

may require public access to be restricted; or

(b) is necessary to provide for the use of the coastal marine area by Mana

Whenua for Māori cultural activities and customary uses; and

(c) will not compromise or limit the operation of existing activities that have

occupation rights within the common marine and coastal area

(2) Provide for exclusive occupation rights in the common marine and coastal area

only where it can be demonstrated this is necessary for the efficient functioning of

the use and development or is needed for public safety, and will enable the most

efficient use of space by activities in the common marine and coastal area and

require that the loss of public access and recreational use is mitigated.

(3) Avoid use and occupation of the common marine and coastal area by activities

that do not have a functional need to be undertaken below mean high water

springs, unless the proposed use:

(a) can demonstrated it needs to be located in the common marine and coastal

area and cannot practicably be located on land outside of the common marine and

coastal area;

(b) is consistent with the objectives and policies for the relevant zone or precinct;

(c) will enhance amenity values and not conflict with marine activities; or

(d) any necessary land-based infrastructure can be provided.

9.43 A number of issues have been raised through submissions, in s274 notices,

discussed through mediation and referenced in Joint Witness Statements. These

are broadly grouped as two key matters with ‘sub-elements’ as discussed below:

a) General opposition to the extension of Hobson Wharf to provide for the

accommodation of a syndicate base; and

1094

35

b) Concerns regarding the visual impacts of the wharf extension including the

appropriate consideration of the relevant planning instruments in assessing

the actual and potential effects.

9.44 Various submitters have raised concerns regarding the need for an extension to

Hobson Wharf to accommodate the America’s Cup events, including; Stuart

Speed43, Geraldine Speed44, Frances Stead45, Russel Hall46, Elizabeth Mary

Greive, Gavin John Webber47, Brett MacLean48, John Mandeno49, Brent Impey50,

William John Strowger and Shelley Ann Hodge51, Peter Lawn52. Submitters

including the Auckland City Centre Residents' Group CCRG53, Jeremy John

Stevens54, and Coralie van Camp55 have raised concerns regarding the

unnecessary incursion in to the harbour, particularly where it results in adverse

effects in terms of amenity on views and they consider that while there may be an

identified need for a marine event space it is not necessarily to be provided as

Hobson or Halsey Wharf. Submitters consider that the proposed extension to

Hobson Wharf does not achieve the Waterfront plan and in their view extending into

public water space is not justified or needed. Several arguments and suggestions

have been put forward through submissions, s274 party notices regarding

alternative options available including:

a) Submitters seek that the constructing the Wharf extension only occurs as a

‘last resort’ only when all other bases are accommodated for by

challengers. The benefits of this option are suggested as a saving

financially and in relation to the adverse effects associated with this

structure (and associated base building);

b) Limitation of the term of consent being for 5 years only to provide for a

fresh consideration of the structure (both the Base building and wharf) to

enable this consideration of the relocation of America’s Cup facilities;

c) Removal of the structure following the Americas Cup 10 year period;

43 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 74 44 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 73 45 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 80 46 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 81 47 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 86 48 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 104 49 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 111 50 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 112 51 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 119 52 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 134 53 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 66 54 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 52 55 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 55

1095

36

d) Relocation of the ‘infill’ area to utilise the area southwest of the existing

Hobson Wharf area within the outer viaduct harbour; or

e) Reduction of size of the wharf extension through use of a temporary

structure which could be removed following the removal of Base B.

9.45 The other theme raised relates to the consideration of the proposal in relation to the

appropriate and applicable planning context, in particular the consideration of

viewshafts and sightlines applicable to the waterfront area and adverse effects

including visual effects, visual pollution and the reindustrialisation of the Viaduct

Harbour and waterfront area56.

9.46 The following submitters have become s274 parties to the proceedings and have to

varying extents been involved with mediation and in some instances JW

conferencing (involving expert witnesses on behalf of parties). ACCRG, Coralie Van

Camp, Francis Stead, Russell Hall, VHH and The Point Body Corporate.

9.47 We also note that the Crown have submitted in relation to the application and are a

s274 party to the proceeding’s. They have sought inclusion of a conditions which

has the aim of maintaining space within the waterfront area to accommodate future

America’s Cup challenges to ensure that a subsequent application does not need to

be made in relation to future challenges.

Council s87F reporting

9.48 Council’s experts have considered the proposal including the Hobson Wharf

extension as a component of the wider consent. An assessment of visual amenity

landscape values and amenity effects associated with the Hobson Wharf extension

is broadly included in Ms Skidmore’s and Mr Kensington’s expert assessments and

addressed in in relation to the policy context in Ms Broadbent’s s87F report. Mr

Morgan also addresses the feasibility of some of the alternate structural

propositions raised by submitters. Council officer’s position in relation the matters

raised is discussed below as part of the analysis of the matters raised.

9.49 It is noted that while these matters were discussed more generally at expert

conferencing there was no recorded agreement in relation to the key planning tools

in relation to these matters. We note that the conferencing in relation to landscape

matters recorded that:

56 Common Bundle Volume C Documents 84 and 90

1096

37

“Nelson Street is important as it contributes to the arrival experience to the

CBD in terms of providing orientation and a sense of place for people. The

views from parts of this street to the Waitemata Harbour are considered

important and new and / or temporary buildings and structures (having

regard to their scale and duration) within these views should be carefully

managed”

Analysis

9.50 We consider it appropriate to first consider the ‘need’ for the Hobson wharf structure

and consider the alternatives proposed by submitters with reference to the

assessment provided by both Panuku’s and Council’s experts as relevant.

9.51 Submitters opposing the Hobson Wharf extension question the need for the wharf

extension to be established in order to accommodate a syndicate base. We note

that ETNZ and the Challenger of Record have confirmed that syndicates do intend

to compete and that challenges have been received that require three double

bases. Mr Green identifies the confirmed challengers in section 5 of his evidence.

He also identifies that it would be detrimental to the event to remove the opportunity

for additional teams to join the challenge by not providing the infrastructure for a

sufficient number of bases. As such we consider that in order to provide the

facilities required to accommodate the competitors, including appropriate

waterspace and berthage, that an extension to Hobson Wharf is necessary. With

respect to alternative locations for this double base, this matter was subject to

thorough investigation through the development of both this application and the

preceding application. We refer to the options and alternatives assessment with the

application material57 and the EIC of Ms Knox with respect to the selection of the

accommodation of a base on Hobson Wharf.

9.52 Notwithstanding the above we also note that in order to accommodate the

anticipated number of syndicates, the construction of Base B and therefore the

extension to Hobson Wharf needs to occur in tandem with the development of the

wider physical infrastructure. This is set out in the Attachments to Mr Grant’s EIC in

relation to construction sequencing. We also understand that elements of the works

in relation to Hobson Wharf are required to achieve tranquil waterspace within the

Outer Viaduct Harbour necessary for Base A. As such we understand that it would

57 Common Bundle Volume A, Documents 05 and 06

1097

38

not be feasible to delay the construction of this element of the proposal as a ‘last

resort’ base as proposed by submitters.

9.53 Some submitters propose a limitation of the term of consent to 5 years. This matter

is considered in relation to the base buildings elsewhere in our statement. However,

we note that with respect to the structure of Hobson Wharf, limiting the tenure of

consent in this manner would both conflict with the ability to provide an event space

for subsequent challenges (should ETNZ defend the Cup, or lose the Cup and

pursue it overseas and win it again) and we consider it would not be an efficient or

effective use of resources to provide the degree of infrastructure required for a more

limited tenure, we also note that shorter term of consent may result in a lesser

incentive to provide a quality design of wharf structures without the confidence in

their future retention and use. Likewise, the removal of the structure (or lack of

confirmation that the structure may remain) after 10 years is equally problematic

when considering the investment associated with its construction and the

associated effects.

9.54 Submitters suggest the use of the area within the Outer Viaduct Harbour

waterspace west of the Maritime Museum (with the extension projecting southwards

into the Outer Viaduct Harbour instead of northwards, as proposed) to

accommodate Base B as an alternative to the location of this use on the Hobson

extension. Council’s expert, Mr Morgan, has considered this option as an element

of his specialist reporting where he notes that such an infill would need to be

considered in relation to the volume of water displaced and effects on flushing. We

note also, from a planning perspective that infill within this area of the water space

would potentially conflict with the identified CMA viewshaft providing views from the

Eastern Viaduct to the Outer Viaduct Harbour area and would require further

understanding in relation to a range of actual and potential effects.

1098

39

Figure 2: Annotated I211.10.5 Viaduct Harbour: Precinct plan 5 - Pedestrian accessways and viewshafts. The black dashed line identifies the area understood to be referenced by the submitter.

9.55 Another alternative presented has been the reduction of the extent of the wharf

deck area in favour of including an area which can be removed following the

America’s Cup events, thus retaining a smaller wharf area. This matter is

considered in terms of the legacy value presented by this space however we also

note that this may have effects in term of the functionality and buildability of the

base and potentially on the quality or public access able to be provided.

9.56 When considering the evolution of the options for the accommodation of the

America’s Cup and at a high level the consideration of alternatives proposed by

submitters we remain of a view that there is a demonstrated need, based on the

functional and operational requirements of the AC36 event and the need to consider

effects on public access and legacy values to require a location and area of

hardstand as sought in relation to Hobson wharf.

9.57 We consider this achieves the policy tests for the Viaduct Harbour precinct and

general Coastal Marine area and is consistent with the strategic planning direction

included in the Auckland Plan and Waterfront plan, as assessed at sections 4.2 and

15.258 of the AEE.

58 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 04 at pages 0102 and Pages 0340.

1099

40

9.58 A consideration of visual amenity, landscape and associated amenity effects and

the relevant policy direction applicable to the location of the Hobson Wharf

extension there has been an area of identified disagreement both in submissions

(as detailed above) and through the expert conferencing and identification of issues

and mediation process. The dispute has been in relation to the applicability of

certain planning mechanisms and, as a result, the weighting placed on particular

planning provisions.

9.59 Submitters identify that the Hobson Wharf extension is located within the CMA

within the Viaduct Harbour Precinct and is located to the north of sightlines mapped

in the Business - City Centre provisions. The Viaduct Harbour Precinct includes

both regional coastal plan and district plan provisions enabling this section to deal

with and apply controls on both land and in the CMA. The Precinct includes

identified viewshafts which protect views from specific vantage points within the

precinct to the immediately adjacent waterspace. Viewshafts or sightlines do not

extend north of the Outer Viaduct Harbour, reflecting the protection of views within

the precinct.

9.60 We have considered the applicability of the sightlines identified in the Business -

City Centre provisions and consider that while clause (2) of standard H8.6.31 states

that “Buildings or structures must not locate within the sightlines…” and Sightline 15

extends over the position the proposed Hobson Wharf extension, the standard sits

in Chapter H8, which is a district plan/RMA section 9 chapter and does not apply to

the CMA. Further, the sightlines referend to in Chapter H8 City Centre are located

in Appendix 9 of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) AUP at pages 29

and 30. The sightlines included are included below for reference.

1100

41

Figure 3: AUP Figure 15

Figure 4: AUP Figure 15b

9.61 The standard states in clause (1): “Except for the eastern ray of Street Line No. 23 (which affects part of the Maritime Square site (being Lot 1A DP 198984), this

1101

42

standard does not apply beyond the streets affected. Refer to Appendix 9

Business – City Centre Zone sight lines, where the sightlines are shown in detail”. [emphasis added]. We also note that Figure 15b does not include any CMA

structures (wharves).

9.62 Furthermore, the Regional Coastal Plan rules within the Viaduct Harbour Precinct

provide for the construction of buildings on the wharves, including the existing

Hobson Wharf which sits within Sightline 15. This, therefore, reinforces our points

above that the standard only applies to land.

9.63 However, the proposal has an overall (bundled) non-complying activity status and

the policy context is arguably broad in places and refers to views of the harbour and

beyond from public open space and roads within the city centre. Accordingly, the

view has been assessed as part of the application.

9.64 As identified in the AEE the AUP seeks to limit the loss of ‘significant public views’

from the city to the harbour and adjacent landscape features, and protect public

views within and to the area (objectives and policies I211.3 (10), 1214.3(1),(3)).

While there is no specific description of ‘significant public views’, the City Centre

Street Sightlines and the Viaduct Harbour Precinct viewshaft rules refer to views

from public spaces. The City Centre Street Sightlines rule addresses buildings on

streets to maintain views to the wider harbour while the viewshaft controls establish

a series of internal viewing points to the inner Viaduct and Freemans Bay

waterspace areas.

9.65 There is no policy direction, nor intention in the AUP Business - City Centre zone or

Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precinct provisions to maintain private views to the

coastal environment or wider landscape. In this respect, it is noted that the purpose

of the height control within the precinct provisions is to achieve an appropriate scale

in relation to streets, compliment the character or sense of place and provide a

transition in height to the City centre in the foreground, with no reference to

maintaining views.

9.66 Furthermore, permanent marine related buildings (15m above wharf deck level) are

enabled as a restricted discretionary activity on the Halsey Street Extension Wharf

and Western Viaduct Wharf, subject to demonstrating that the buildings cannot be

reasonably accommodated on land or other wharf structures. Therefore, while

1102

43

views remain relevant, they must be considered within this policy context, which is

focussed on identified views from public spaces.

9.67 Noting the consultation of the expert conferencing undertaken by the landscape

experts and with reference to the additional analysis provided by Mr Goodwin on

behalf of Panuku, we note that proposal will give rise to a visual change in the

environment and will change the nature of existing views to the CMA from

surrounding areas. In our view the appropriateness of the change in this

environment depends on site specific and policy considerations. In this respect we

consider the existing environment is highly modified however we note the AUP

seeks to maintain significant views to the water and ensure development responds

to its waterfront setting. We consider the AUP implements this policy by identifying

specific viewshafts in the Wynyard and Viaduct Precincts and street sightlines in the

City Centre zone.

9.68 While we acknowledge that views to the wider Waitematā Harbour will be partially

obscured by the wharf extension and to a slightly greater extent by Base Building B,

the proposal will comply with the viewshaft controls in the Viaduct Harbour Precinct

applying to the site and therefore views to the water in the harbour area, as well as

boats and marine activity, consistent with the planned land use character of the

area, would be maintained.

9.69 The proposed wharf, coastal structures and building additions are considered to be

visually coherent with existing development within this part of the waterfront and

consistent with the city centre waterfront morphometry. Taking the actual and

potential effects in to account and considering the proposed Hobson wharf

extension in the context of the existing environment and policy framework we

consider that the wharf structure is appropriate and aligns with the general policy

direction applicable to development within this area of the developed waterfront.

9.70 Overall, for the above mentioned reasons and subject to the proposed conditions

and management plan measures, we consider any adverse effects resulting from

the construction of the extension to Hobson Wharf and the retention of this structure

for a 35 year time period will be minor.

1103

44

BREAKWATERS AND ASSOCIATED MARINE STRUCTURES ENABLING BERTHAGE

The breakwaters required as a component of the application are identified as

follows:

a) Breakwater 1: Wynyard Wharf East Breakwater (81m x 10m) projecting

from the existing Wynyard Wharf east in to the Wynyard Wharf South

Waterspace;

b) Breakwater 2 & 3: Halsey Wharf North and West Breakwater (39m and

84m x 10m) involving two components a triangular projection north from

the western side of Halsey extension wharf and a 84m projection from this

to the west, toward the Wynyard breakwater;

c) Breakwater 5: Hobson West Breakwater (42m x 10m) projecting south

internally within the Outer Viaduct harbour to create tranquil water space

for Base B;

d) Breakwater 6: Hobson East Breakwater (35m x2.5m), located to the east of

Hobson wharf designed to manage wave and wake effects for Base B; and

e) Breakwaters 7 & 8: also referred to as ‘wave attenuation structures’

required along the existing east and western face of the existing Hobson

Wharf which may be provided as one or a combination of three options

including panels affixed to the existing wharf, a free standing breakwater

structure or floating pontoons, dependent on final consideration of the

ability to achieve a tranquil waterspace for Base B and the ability to retrofit

panels to the existing Hobson Wharf structure.

1104

45

Figure 5: Location of Breakwaters discussed in paragraph 9.72 (source: Evidence in Chief of Mr Kurt Grant, at Attachment A).

These proposed structures are described in greater detail in the Application

material59 and supporting technical reports. We note that as set out in Mr Marler’s

EIC that one key change has been the reduction in width of the Hobson East

breakwater (breakwater 6), which is now proposed to be 2.5m in width. The

reduced footprint achieves a purely functional requirement, however, this also

means that access to the deck of this structure is limited to operational and not

public use.

Berthage associated with the breakwaters and existing wharf structures involves

provision for pontoons primarily within the Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace and to

the north east of Hobson Wharf as depicted in the drawing below.

59 Common Bundle Volume A, Documents 04, 10, 17-20 and as included in the drawings at document 45.

1105

46

Figure 6: Location of indicative super yachts berthage. (Source: updated Beca Design Drawing appended as Appendix B to Mr Priestley’s EIC.)

Matters relating to coastal processes and ecological impacts associated with these

structures and other element of physical infrastructure provided have been considered in Attachment B to our evidence and are considered to be generally

resolved. The elements of the structures which remain in contention relate to this

visual appearance and these structures and uses which they enable both during the

10 year America’s Cup period and for the subsequent 25 year period. We

understand the main area of contention is the view provided from the North Wharf

area to the wider harbour and the impacts the proposed structures and any

associated berthage will have on visual amenity and views to the water and beyond.

Planning Context

9.75 Breakwaters 1, 2 and 3 and associated berthage are located within the Wynyard

Wharf South water space and within the Wynyard Precinct while breakwaters 5, 6 7

and 8 are located within the Viaduct Harbour Precinct. All structures are located

within the underlying General Coastal Marine Zone.

1106

47

9.76 Breakwaters 1, 2 and 3 are located within the Wynyard Precinct and trigger

requirement for consent subject to the following provisions:

a) Marine and port facilities require consent as a restricted discretionary

activity subject to rule I214.4.2.(A41) and while definition does not clearly

include breakwaters we note that subject to rule I214.4.2.(A49) Coastal

marine area structures and buildings, and alterations and additions to

coastal marine area structures and buildings are also provided for as restricted discretionary activities.

b) The upgrading and any alteration required to Wynyard Wharf, and any

other existing coastal marine structures required to be altered (such as the

existing wharf structures) to enable the proposed structures to be constructed, requires consent under this rule as a restricted discretionary activity.

c) As observation and public viewing areas are not more specifically provided

for in the Wynyard precinct reference to chapter F2 is required which

subject to rule F2.19.10 (A143) identifies that this use would be a discretionary activity.

d) We note that Marine and port ancillary structures and services and marine and port activities are provided for as permitted in the Wynyard precinct

subject to rule (A40)).

9.77 Breakwaters 5, 6, 7 and 8 are located within the Viaduct Harbour Precinct and

trigger consent for slightly differing reasons under the precinct provisions.

a) Wave attenuation devices are provided for as a Restricted discretionary activity within the Viaduct Harbour precinct subject to rule I211.4.1.(A27).

b) The activities undertaken atop the structures are also considered in relation to the precinct provisions and restricted discretionary consent is

sought subject to rule I211.4.1.(A28) for observation and viewing areas as

it is intended that the public may access breakwaters (now excluding

breakwater 6).

c) Fendering enabling berthage (and associated structures) are provided for as permitted activities within the Precinct as marine and port accessory

1107

48

structures and services. And it is noted that ’marinas’ are also enabled as a

permitted use within the precinct.

9.78 The activities associated with establishing the berthage and breakwaters also

trigger consenting considerations subject to chapter F2, including consent matters

relating to piling, disturbance, dredging to achieve the necessary water depths for

the race boats and a consideration of the use of breakwaters 1, 2, and 3 within the

Wynyard precinct for public viewing areas. overall a Discretionary resource consent

status is applicable to the breakwaters.

9.79 The objectives and policies relevant to a consideration of the breakwater and

associated marine and port accessory structures (and the subsequent use of the

waterspace) include those in the precinct provisions, General Coastal Marine Zone

and in relation to high order policy documents the NZCPS and HGMPA. The

provisions identified are identified in relation to the issues raised in relation to visual

effects and use.

9.80 Breakwaters 1, 2 and 3 visible within the Wynyard South waterspace are the focus

of our analysis and evaluation. We consider the effects of the proposal in relation to

loss visual amenity and loss of views in the context of the existing environment

Wynyard precinct and utility and use of these structures and waterspace both

during the 10 year Events period and following this.

9.81 The Wynyard precinct description identifies that marine-related activities, including

marine services, ship repairs, fish processing, berthage and marine-related events,

will continue to play an important economic and social role for the area. And

includes several objectives and policies of key relevance to the consideration of

breakwaters and their associated uses within this specific area.

Objective(s):

(1) Wynyard precinct is redeveloped while managing potential conflicts between

different uses to achieve:

(a) a high-quality visitor destination which showcases the City’s diverse

communities and the importance of the harbour;

(b) maintenance and enhancement of the regionally significant economic

function of the marine, fishing and other industries and maritime passenger

operations to the Hauraki Gulf islands;

1108

49

(c) a vibrant community with a mix of activities and experiences for all people

including a community focal point, high quality public open space and

community facilities;

(d) public open space on the waterfront, and an area for events and

entertainment activity for the social and economic benefit of the wider

Auckland Region;

(e) access to and along the coast and enjoyment of the coastal environment

with a network of open space while recognising the need to manage access

with competing commercial activities; and

(f) the maintenance and where practicable enhancement of navigation and

berthage within the Wynyard Precinct coastal marine area for a wide range of

recreational and commercial vessels, including maritime passenger transport

and fishing industry operations, excluding in areas subject to potential risk

and public safety effects.

(9) Conflicts between different uses are managed to ensure the efficient operation

of marine industry and fishing industry, other industry and regionally significant

transport infrastructure while enabling the marine events centre and public spaces

to be used for a range of public events.

(12) The development of buildings and activities and the provision of infrastructure

in a comprehensive and integrated manner which achieves high quality urban

design outcomes and which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on

existing and planned infrastructure.

Policies

(4) Identify and protect public view shafts from open space across, within, and to

Wynyard precinct to reinforce connections with the central area, harbour, and

wider Auckland.

(10) Promote and encourage the important role the marine and fishing industries

play in defining the character and amenity of the precinct.

(11) Enabling a diverse range of activities, high quality visitor experiences,

entertainment, events and development to occur, while recognising and

maintaining the economic importance of the marine and fishing industry, the bulk

liquid industry and Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime passenger operations to the

Auckland Region.

1109

50

(12) Recognise the significant local and regional socio-economic benefits

associated with providing high-quality waterfront public open space and events

activity while also providing for the operational and access requirements of the

marine and fishing industries, other industrial activities and maritime passenger

operations.

(13) Ensure that sufficient and suitably located land, wharf, waterspace and

appropriate, convenient and adequate navigation and berthing facilities are

provided to accommodate the current and future operation and growth of the

marine and fishing industries and maritime passenger operations, including

Subprecinct C, North Wharf, the southern face of the Western Viaduct Wharf and

the western face of the Halsey Street Extension Wharf together with the adjacent

waterspace for use primarily by the fishing industry.

(29) Provide for the continued efficient operation of existing and future marine,

fishing and other industries, including maritime passenger operations.

9.82 The General Coastal Marine Zone is the underlying zone and includes objectives

and policies applicable to the consideration of structures across the general zone

area. This enables a comprehensive consideration of effects including visual and

amenity effects and the functional need for structures to locate within the coastal

marine area. Objectives and policies in relation to chapter F2.16. Structures of the

AUP:

Objectives

(1) Structures are generally limited to those that have a functional need to be

located in the coastal marine area, or those that have an operational need and that

cannot be practicably located outside of the coastal marine area.

(2) Structures provide for public access and multiple uses where practicable, other

than those restricted by location or functional requirements.

(3) Structures are appropriately located and designed to minimise adverse effects

on the ecological, natural character, landscape, natural features, historic heritage

and Mana Whenua values of the coastal marine area, and avoid to the extent

practicable the risk of being adversely affected by coastal hazards.

Policies

(1) Limit structures to the following:

1110

51

(a) those that generally have a functional need to be located in the coastal marine

area, or that have an operational need and cannot be practicably be located

outside of the coastal marine area;

(b) where the proposed purpose or use cannot practicably be accommodated on

existing structures or facilities;

(c) those that are necessary to provide access to land where there are no

practicable land-based access options, and there is no existing structure in close

proximity that could provide reasonable access; and

(d) locations where the purpose and frequency of use warrants the proposed

structure, and an alternative that would have lesser effects is not a practicable

option.

(5) Enable the extension or alteration of existing structures in locations where they

will:

(a) not have significant adverse effects on other uses and values;

(b) result in greater, more efficient, or multiple use of the structure; or

(c) reduce the need for new structures elsewhere

(11) Require buildings in the coastal marine area to be of a scale, location and

design that is appropriate to its context.

(20) Require applications for structures in the coastal marine area to demonstrate

how any significant adverse effects on the use of adjoining land, including reverse

sensitivity effects on existing use or development of that land, can be avoided,

remedied or mitigated

9.83 In addition to the district plan and regional coastal plan AUP policy direction there

are also elements of the Regional Policy Statement and NZCPS which are relevant

to the consideration of structures within the coastal marine area. The AEE includes

discussion of these matters at section 11.4.

Issues

9.84 The issues raised by submitters relate to the location of breakwaters and

associated berthage within the Wynyard wharf south water space.

1111

52

9.85 The breakwater layout and function is described above. While the primary role of

the Wynyard South Waterspace is to accommodate race boats associated with

bases C to G berthage in this area is also anticipated to accommodate support

boats and super yachts associated with the event. These smaller vessels and super

yachts also require tranquil waterspace to berth and will be enabled within the

waterspace during event periods. As discussed in detail later in our evidence this

waterspace will also serve to accommodate the existing fishing fleet between

events and a range of marine and port uses which currently utilise this harbour

space.

9.86 Proposed berthage in particular along the western face of Halsey Extension Wharf

will be adapted dependent on the final demand for super yacht berthage and the

operational needs of the fishing and ferry fleet between and following the America’s

Cup events. Berthage in this location is likely to be ‘stern to’ and provided through

piles and pontoons or Mediterranean mooring as discussed in the Navigatus

report60. The extent of berthage is best illustrated through reference to the

navigational constraints plan appended to that report.

9.87 Several submitters have raised concerns regarding loss of views from

establishments on North Wharf to the immediately adjacent waterspace and 60 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 23.

1112

53

beyond61. Heart of the City62 also identifies concerns relating to visual amenity

associated with the development of marine infrastructure associated with the event

period and the retention of breakwaters following this period.

9.88 The Conservatory as a s274 party continues to oppose location of superyacht

berthage in proximity to North Wharf (and raises concerns regarding breakwaters 1,

2 and 3) on the basis that harbour views from the businesses on North wharf are to

be lost. In the submitters opinion the views to the harbour from the Wynyard

Quarter is unique within the waterfront area. The Conservatory maintain the

proposal is not consistent with Policy 4 of the Precinct provisions.

Councils 87F Reporting

9.89 On behalf of Council Ms Broadbent has considered the concerns raised in relation

to views in her s87F report63 and notes in relation to this matter that:

a) Superyachts are to be berthed adjacent to the Halsey Street Wharf

Extension but are not proposed to be located directly adjacent to North

Wharf;

b) This position of the superyachts will ensure a level openness from North

Wharf and continue views out into the harbour for the cafes along this

aspect of north wharf; and

c) While superyachts will be visible they will not obstruct views completely

and the superyachts themselves can be perceived to be an added visual

attraction to the area and will draw people to them.

9.90 Ms Broadbent goes on to recommend that the Urban Design Figure 20 (the “Water

Use” plan, copied below) be utilised to limit the extent to which super yacht

berthage is enabled to the north of North Wharf.

61 Common Bundle Volume C, Documents 93 (Jack tar), 94 (The Conservatory) 118 (Rushworth Café) 71 (Charlotte Fisher). 62 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 110. 63 Common Bundle volume D, Document 135 page 3537.

1113

54

Figure 8: Figure 20 Water use event mode, Boffa/McIndoe Urban (Source: Common Bundle, Volume A, Document 41)

9.91 We note also that Council landscape expert Mr Kensington considered this matter

and concludes that “the outlook from North Wharf will change as a result of the

proposal, however this change will not be adverse in my opinion because the new

elements in the view (safety from fall balustrades, breakwaters and super yachts)

are all expected in this environment and the overall level of visual amenity

experienced from North Wharf will remain unchanged.64” although Mr Kensington

goes on to recommend that some restriction is placed on a portion (the central

portion) of North wharf to ensure that adverse effects on visual amenity are

mitigated.

9.92 This matter has not been subject, to our knowledge, to any further discussion

through mediation or Joint Witness Conferencing.

64 Common Bundle Volume D, document 140 page 3667 and 3668.

1114

55

Analysis

9.93 The discussion provided in the AEE in relation to visual amenity and effects on

views and landscape values is informed by the expert visual and landscape report

provided in support of the application. Views from North wharf are considered in this

assessment, in particular viewpoint 13. The assessment included in The LVA

report65 identifies that the existing views are framed by Wynyard point and the VEC

to the east, and may be partially obstructed by vessels along North Wharf and

Halsey Wharf.

9.94 The assessment identifies that Rangitoto would still be visible from this location and

the North Wharf promenade to the west but obscured from locations further east.

Vessels moored alongside North Wharf may also partially obscure views towards

these features and the retention of the breakwaters following the event period would

foreshorten the expanse of water visible out in to the Waitemata Harbour. The

assessment concludes “…Due to the location of the breakwaters and the partial

foreshortening of the continuous water view across the harbour it is considered that

the visual effects would be Low adverse both during and following the event period.”

The visual simulation prepared by Mr Goodwin is included below and assists in

developing an understanding of the height and scale of the breakwater structures

as well as potential for vessels to locate within this area.

65 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 12 page 0763.

1115

56

Figure 9: Visual simulation from North Wharf (Source: Common Bundle, Volume A, Document 42)

9.95 The extent of superyacht berthage proposed in the application and considered in Mr

Goodwin’s report corresponds with the limiting of this berthage to the eastern extent

of North Wharf as identified in Urban Design Plan 20 referenced by Councils

experts and sought to be included in the relevant list of plans as an annexure to the

conditions of consent.

Views during the Event period

9.96 Management of activities and access to breakwaters will be subject to the proposed

Event Management Plans for the duration of the event periods. This will result in the

management of the use of these structures and the placement of any event related

structures within these areas, as identified in the draft event management plan the

breakwater fingers will not be subject to specifically identified event activities and

will be maintained for public access (to the extent practicable subject to health and

safety requirements).

9.97 For the duration of the 10-year period the use of the breakwaters and pontoons will

be subject to condition 13 of the application material requiring the proposal to be

1116

57

carried out in general accordance with the plans and figures identified in the

annexure. Panuku agrees with councils suggested inclusion of water use event

Mode plan 20 in this annexure.

9.98 We do not disagree that the outlook over the seascape (both nearby and distant)

from public and private viewpoints will be affected by the proposed development. In

relation to the Wynyard Wharf South Waterspace for the 10 year event period this

will reflect the presence of race boats within this area and the change in view will be

towards the America’s Cup village. This matter has been considered further by Mr

Goodwin in his EIC where he identifies that the identified lands and viewshafts are

designed to protect views to the immediate CMA from the water’s edge and around

the walkways, laneways and open space areas in the immediate waterfront area, in

this case the public north wharf area. Mr Goodwin considered and we concur that

they do not identify specific views to the more distant harbour waters or features

beyond as other viewshaft mechanisms in the AUP are designed to do.

9.99 Mr Goodwin identifies that in relation to the visual amenity provided by views to the

wider harbour, Rangitoto and areas beyond are not uninterrupted and are subject to

being obscured by boats moored within the existing waterpspace, Mr Goodwin

considered the importance and role of these views in the context of North wharf

(and the wider waterfront axis within the proposal area) and concludes that the

views are but one element of the waterfront area and notes that people recreate in

this area in order to be close to the water, which accommodates a range of

activities which provide interest and character to the area.

9.100 We note the proposal sits within the CBD of New Zealand’s largest city, an area

where growth, activity and events are encouraged through the AUP policy direction.

The proposed structures and associated berthage are located within a water space

where the consolidation of existing and new infrastructure and buildings are

provided for through the relevant precincts, in contrast to general areas of the

Coastal Marine Zone. Over the event period the theatre of the water created by the

America’s Cup race boats, support boats and associated superyachts will create a

new visual and physical attraction into this part of the waterspace, providing a

different form of visual amenity that can be considered positive. We consider this

will assist in mitigating the temporary loss of wider views to the Waitematā Harbour.

9.101 We note that any structures including safety balustrades located within the

viewshaft (and within the waterspace) will be visual permeable and retained for the

1117

58

event periods for safety purposes. We also note that boats utilising this

infrastructure could conceivably be moored ‘alongside’ the existing wharf as

currently occurs at present. As discussed in both the LVA in support of the

application and reiterated in Mr Goodwin’s EIC the visual effects are considered to

be ‘low adverse’ and we consider this should be considered both in the context of

the exiting marine and port uses and their potential effect on views and in relation to

the dynamic environment and theatre of the waterfront that will be created by the

accommodation of the syndicate village within the Wynyard South Waterspace.

Legacy period (post event)

9.102 Following the event, we acknowledge views to the wider harbour from key public

vantage points would be similar to the existing view subject to the retention of

element of infrastructure such as breakwater 1, 2 and 3 that will remain and support

the increased utilisation of tranquil water space within the central city area.

9.103 We again identify that the viewshafts provided in relation to the Wynyard Wharf

Waterspace within the precinct provisions reflect the maintenance of views to this

waterpsace area and consider that following (and during) this 10-year event period

the use of the northern face of north wharf is proposed to return to ‘marine and port’

use as is currently the case and as is enabled by the precinct provisions.

Balustrades required for health and safety reasons in relation to pontoon structures

will no longer be required and this area will again accommodate the fishing fleet and

a range of other marine uses which frequent this waterspace utilising Wynyard

wharf and the northern faces of North wharf and the Halsey street extension Wharf.

The increased tranquillity of this waterspace may conceivably strengthen this area

of the waterfronts role in supporting marine activity within this area and as such

reflects the policy direction of the precinct. Furthermore and as discussed in Mr

Jones evidence the opportunity provided for future events within this area of the

waterfront may also be viewed as a positive contribution to the waterfront area

strengthening connections between the waterspace and landward activities. We

consider this an appropriate outcome.

9.104 In conclusion when considering the purpose and extent of the identified viewshafts,

the scale of the change or obstruction of the views, the context of the Wynyard

precinct and the policy direction which seeks to enable a range of marine uses we

maintain the opinion that the potential adverse effects of the breakwaters and

associated berthage (both for the event period of 10 years and following the event

1118

59

the retention of the breakwaters for a further 25 years) in relation to landscape and

visual amenity will be minor and is acceptable.

PUBLIC ACCESS

9.105 Public access was addressed as an element of character and amenity in the AEE

and associated technical reports. We have identified a number of specific interests

raised by submitters in relation to this matter and therefore address this as a

specific topic.

Planning Context

9.106 The Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precincts include provisions which identify and

require the maintenance of public access within various areas of the respective

precincts. As the syndicate bases required access directly from their bases across

yards to the water’s edge there is a need to control access for operational and

safety purposes, particularly where bases are to be located on existing wharf

structures (Wynyard and Halsey wharves). As such consent is sought to infringe

the public accessway standards as included in the Wynyard precinct provisions as

follows:

a) The proposal restricts public access to that part of Halsey Wharf to the

north of the VEC building in relation to ETNZs base A and the eastern

edge of Wynyard Wharf to provide the yard access associated with based

C to G. Standards I214.6.13 (1) and (2) Public Accessways – Wharves are

therefore infringed as access will be interrupted for the period of the event

and during the operational use of the bases in between event periods.

Subject to Rule C1.9 (2), infringement of these standards requires consent

as a restricted discretionary activity;

b) With respect to standard I214.6.13 (3), fencing and ancillary buildings

associated with Base A are proposed on the Western Viaduct Wharf for a

period exceeding the temporary parameters. This includes operational

structures within the yard and the provision of temporary event structures

associated with the event period. This also requires consent as a restricted

discretionary activity; and

c) The extension to Hobson Wharf is proposed to utilise the existing

accessway along the western side of the Maritime Museum. As the wharf

1119

60

results in a new structure within the coastal marine area consent is

required as a discretionary activity enabling a consideration of a range of

matters including public access.

9.107 Public access in relation to the coastal marine area is subject to well established

policy direction. This is augmented by the specific considerations for the working

waterfront area within the Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour precincts which also

balance provisions for a variety of events and accommodate a range of marine and

port uses.

9.108 Public access is addressed in relation to the provisions in the AUP, including the

RPS direction and in the context of the NZCPS and HGMPA.

9.109 The Wynyard Harbour Precinct includes a consideration of the provision of public

space and access to the water’s edge balanced with the acknowledged need to

restrict access to provide for marine and port uses and events. As identified below

Policy 16 seeks to provide for coastal promenade access along the coast where

policies 20 and 29 confirm the need to provide for limitation on that access. This

policy direction serves the objective of the precinct which seek to balance the

competing needs of different activities and the unique feature of the precinct such

as the central city waterfront location, the presence of hazardous industries and the

need to manage transport, open space demands and aspirations.

Policy

(16) Establish a framework which supports the development of key interconnected

public open space across the precinct, including:

…

(b) a network of coastal edge promenades and pedestrian accessways

enabling access to and along the coast comprising a minimum width of

20 metres, with the exception of Sub-precinct C;

…

(20) Provide mechanisms to manage and, in some cases temporarily restrict,

public access to and along some parts of the water's edge to enable marine and

fishing industry, maritime passenger operations and events to operate.

1120

61

(29) Provide for the continued efficient operation of existing and future marine,

fishing and other industries, including maritime passenger operations.

9.110 The Viaduct Harbour Precinct is described as being characterised by its enclosed

water space, interesting water edge, proximity to the city core. A mix of recreation,

leisure, retail, entertainment and community/cultural activities is encouraged along

the water’s edge and in relation to open spaces. Objectives and policies provide for

a mix of activities while generally seeking to maintain a connection with the water’s

edge.

Objective

(1) An attractive public waterfront and world-class visitor destination that is

recognised for its distinctive character, quality buildings, public open spaces,

recreational opportunities, community and cultural facilities and events.

Policy

(1) Enable the efficient operation and development of the precinct by providing for

activities which have a functional need to locate in or adjacent to the coastal

marine area.

(2) Enable a diverse range of activities while:

(a) avoiding, mitigating or remedying potential adverse effects in an integrated

manner across mean high water springs, including reverse sensitivity effects on

marine and port activities; and

(b) maintaining and enhancing public access to the waters edge

9.111 Chapter F2.14 includes policy direction in relation to use, development and

occupation in the coastal marine area. These provisions identify the coastal marine

areas a as a finite resource along with access to this area. The chapter

acknowledges that in some instances restriction of access may be required for the

safe operation of some activities. Particular objectives and policies of relevance are

identified below.

Objective

(1) The high public value of the coast and coastal marine area as open space area

with free public access is maintained.

1121

62

(4) Efficient use is made of coastal marine area by consolidating use and

development within appropriate areas, where practicable.

(8) Short-term occupation that restricts public access for a limited period to enable

special events and activities to be undertaken in the common marine and coastal

area is allowed.

9.112 As noted the NZCPS and the HGMPA also include strong policy themes in relation

to public access and the recreation, enjoyment and social and economic wellbeing

of the people and communities of the Gulf.

Issues

9.113 Several submitters have identified concerns in relation to the maintenance of public

access throughout the waterfront area both in relation to existing access and

access to new structures and wharf areas.

a) Splice66 identify concerns with restrictions on public access.

b) Charlotte Fisher67 raises general concerns with the need to maintain public

access throughout the America’s cup area and new structures.

c) Richard Cobb68 seeks conformation that the new areas would be retained

as public open space for public use in perpetuity.

d) Heart of the City69 seek retention of access to public open space within the

waterfront area and maintenance of public access and connection to the

water space.

e) Kawau Island Action Incorporated Society70 are also interested that public

access is preserved where not required to be limited for short operational

periods.

f) St Marys Bay Association inc71 also hold an interest in ensuing that

harbour edge access is maintained.

g) VHHL seek to reduce the extent of the Hobson Wharf extension through

the loss of 10m from the northern portion of the structure. An opportunity 66 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 68. 67 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 71. 68 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 75. 69 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 110. 70 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 132. 71 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 133.

1122

63

for a more temporary structure to be provided is raised which would then

be removed following the removal of Base B at this location.

9.114 Several of these parties72 have become s274 parties to the application and

reiterated their concerns in relation to the ongoing need to consider public access

through mediations sessions.

9.115 Council officers have considered the matters raised by submitters and this is

addressed primarily in the specialist urban design report provided by Ms Rebecca

Skidmore and adopted in the discussion of Ms Broadbent in her s87F report both in

relation to effects and policy direction.

9.116 Ms Skidmore discusses public access in relation to three key areas within the

application area: Wynyard Point and access along the eastern extent of the Point

and Wynyard Wharf; access in relation to the Halsey Street Wharf Extension and

the Western Viaduct Wharf (Halsey Wharf); and public access in relation to Hobson

Wharf and associated breakwaters.

a) With respect to Hobson Wharf (and the various breakwaters) Ms Skidmore

identifies that these areas “…will be compatible with the established

pattern and will improve public access out over the water, enabling people

to experience the dynamic of sheltered and open waters from different

perspectives”73. Ms Skidmore has considered the submission from VHHL

and maintains that decreased public access (the loss of the northern 10m

promenade) would not be an improved outcome.

b) In relation to Halsey Wharf and Base A located within the modified VEC Ms

Skidmore considered that there is a need to confirm the provisions of

public access to the viewing deck and that this should be confirmed

through conditions of consent. Ms Skidmore also identifies that in her

opinion the use of the VEC as Base A results in reduced connectivity

around the Halsey Street Wharf. Ms Skidmore considered that confirmation

of the limitation on public access (being constrained to event period only) is

provided and that it is clarified that access is maintained on the western

façade at all times.

72 VHHL, St Marys Bay Association Inc, Kawau island Action Incorporated Society and Charlotte Fisher. 73 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 141 page 3683

1123

64

c) Ms Skidmore identifies concerns regarding the ongoing maintenance of

access along the eastern edge of Wynyard point (Brigham Street) both

during the 10 year event period and in the legacy period. She maintains a

need to confirm access is retained where bases are not in operational use

over this period and considers such a provisions should be made for

pedestrian and cycle access.

9.117 Ms Broadbent considers public access in the context of character and amenity in

her s87F report in general she considers that additional areas of public open space

will be provided through the development which will enable greater access to the

harbour and increases the pedestrian network and vantage points.

9.118 With respect to the concerns identified in Ms Skidmore’s assessment Ms Broadbent

considered that the potential impact on public access over the event period could

be significant if access is not able to be proposed during this time. Ms Broadbent

considers it appropriate that public access be provided in the event that these are

bases are not being occupied in order to achieve an acceptable outcome in relation

to the potential for adverse effects. Ms Broadbent therefore recommends inclusion

of conditions of consent to achieve the outcomes sought by Ms Skidmore.

9.119 Ms Broadbent considered the relevant statutory context noting that public access

associated with bases A and C-G is only temporary in nature with potential for

access to be provided between events and when bases are not in operation and

concludes that in relation to this matter the proposal is consistent with the relevant

policy direction.

9.120 At mediation the matter of public access arose in general terms. Discussion

confirmed that it is the applicant’s intention to provide for public access where it is

not required to be managed for both construction and operational reasons.

Analysis

9.121 Generally, we consider that the proposal seeks to provide for a level of public

access which appropriately responds to the concerns raised by councils’ specialists

and submitters. It is the method of confirmation this access which we consider to

remain to be confirmed as appropriate between parties.

9.122 In terms of the provision of public access to all structures we note that as identified

in Mr Marler’s EIC the extent of the breakwater to the east of Hobson Wharf has

1124

65

been reduced from 10m in width to 2.5m in width limits public accessibility to this

structure, although this has the benefit of reducing the incursion of structures into

the harbour. As noted earlier we consider this amendment to be within scope of the

application and in relation to public access understand that provision of access onto

this breakwater is not an essential component of the public access provided in and

around the Hobson wharf extension.

9.123 In considering this matter we refer to the discussion of public access included in the

application material and address concerns with respect to the provisions of access

during the event period and following the event.

9.124 We also highlight the conditions proposed by Panuku to respond to the concerns

raised and confirm the intention to provide for public access to the extent practicable during the 10-year Event period (as included at Attachment A to our

EIC):

9.125 Public Access

195. In the event that Bases C-G (inclusive) are not occupied during the ten year

consent period, the consent holder shall provide a minimum 10m wide pedestrian

and cycle connection between North Wharf and Brigham St except where closure

required for temporary events and marine and port operations.

196. Public access shall be maintained along the western side of Halsey Wharf at

all times except where closure is required during construction for safety and

operational reasons.

197. Public access shall be maintained to the upper level viewing deck of the

Viaduct Events Centre at all times except where required during construction for

safety and operational reasons.

197A. During the ten year consent period public access shall be provided to the

eastern side of Halsey Wharf when Base A is not occupied and to the southern

edge of Hobson Wharf for a minimum width of 10m when Base B is not occupied,

except where closure is required for temporary events and marine and port

operations.

9.126 We consider that the proposed approach to the provisions of public access provides

the necessary and reasonable balance between enabling the safe and efficient

operation of the syndicate bases (and their construction and demolition as required)

1125

66

and the provision for public use and access to the coastal edge. We consider that

the effects on public access are appropriately managed and will be no more than

minor for the 10 year event period. Further when considering the following elements

of the planning framework we consider the proposal appropriately provides for

public access outcomes and is both consistent with and implements the policy

direction applicable to the waterfront area for the following reasons:

a) The policy context set out above which clearly acknowledges and provides

for marine activities and acknowledges and enables operational restrictions

and requirements associated with marine uses;

b) The proposal supports positive outcomes for public access and activation

of access across the wider waterfront axis and event areas;

c) The proposal includes defined event periods and consolidates, to the

extent practicable, the operational marine uses, enabling opportunity for

public access to be maintained and enhanced. Supporting the increased

activation of the environment in between operational restrictions;

d) The proposal will achieve an attractive public waterfront and world-class

visitor destination; and

e) Provide for recreational use and enjoyment within the waterfront area.

Following the event period, we consider that the proposal adequately provides and

improves on public access opportunities within the waterfront context. Public access

will be maintained to new and existing coastal marine structures as well as the

redevelopment of a portion of Wynyard Point. We note the requirements of

conditions 6-7A and the intended provision of a future park along the eastern side of

Wynyard Point and we consider that the proposal supports future public access and

amenity outcomes supporting the retention of public open spaces, recreational

opportunities, community and cultural facilities and events within the Wynyard and

Viaduct Harbour areas.

NAVIGATION & SAFETY

Overview

9.127 An assessment of navigational safety and utility has been undertaken by Navigatus

Consulting and was submitted with the application. Subsequently Navigatus

1126

67

Consulting have prepared evidence in support of the application. The waterspace

affected by the proposal includes Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Basin as well as

the wider harbour (in terms of yacht race courses). It is proposed to undertake

water based construction activities (dredging, piling, wharf and breakwaters), day to

day operational vessel movements and boat movements during the Event period

(race boats, support boats and spectator boats).

9.128 There are a number of changes proposed to the surrounding waterspace in order to

accommodate the infrastructure required to host the America’s Cup regatta. These

include the following:

a) Utilisation of the southern portion of Wynyard Wharf to create berthage

associated with Bases C – G;

b) Relocation of the Sealink Ferry Terminal;

c) Establishment of super yacht berthage along the western edge of the

Halsey Street wharf;

d) Temporary relocation of the fishing industry from Halsey Wharf during any

six month event period;

e) Calm waterspace in order to provide appropriate conditions to launch and

extract race boats;

f) Establishment of berthage for ETNZ’s race boats along the eastern edge of

Halsey Wharf; and

g) Additional berthage from the Hobson Wharf extension and associated

occupation permits.

9.129 The Navigatus Report states that construction traffic is relatively common place

within this area of the Waitematā Harbour and effects on marine traffic are routinely

managed by contractors overseen by the Harbourmaster. Notifications and

management plans are typically associated with these activities and a similar

management plan will be utilised for the proposal. Mitigations such as placement of

buoys and temporary beacon lights, as well as operational communications are all

commonly utilised as part of a Navigation and Safety Management Plan.

1127

68

9.130 During normal operational periods and the Event, Viaduct Harbour users will see an

increase in traffic. This will require a range of vessel traffic control measures to be

implemented similar to those employed for prior events, including additional

management measures to ensure the safe passage of vessels. In relation to the

Event it is expected that the races (and supporting events) will see a notable

increase in both recreational and commercial small boat traffic in the Waitematā

Harbour in much the same way as prior events. These have been effectively

managed and similar planning can be expected to be effective for future events.

9.131 The Navigatus Report identifies a Constraints Plan that identifies manoeuvring and

turning areas that should be maintained in order to provide a safe navigation

environment within the locality.

Planning Provisions

9.132 The proposal requires a variety of resource consents relating to matters that affect

navigation and safety including CMA structures, dredging, marine and port

activities, berthage and occupation. These are outlined in evaluation of CMA

structures and CMA activities in our evidence and in the AEE.

9.133 The relevant objectives are policies include the following:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct (I211)

Policies I211.3

(5) Enable the efficient operation and development of the precinct by providing for

activities which have a functional need to locate in or adjacent to the coastal

marine area.

Wynyard Precinct (I214)

Policies I214.3

(13) Ensure that sufficient and suitably located land, wharf, waterspace and

appropriate, convenient and adequate navigation and berthing facilities are

provided to accommodate the current and future operation and growth of the

marine and fishing industries and maritime passenger operations, including Sub-

precinct C, North Wharf, the southern face of the Western Viaduct Wharf and the

western face of the Halsey Street Extension Wharf together with the adjacent

waterspace for use primarily by the fishing industry.

1128

69

Issues and Analysis

9.134 ETNZ and the Challenger of Record have stated that they require calm waterspace

in order to launch and retrieve race boats. Three separate locations are identified

around Hobson Wharf, Halsey Wharf and Wynyard Point. This has necessitated

the construction of breakwaters and wave panels within the waterspace. Sealink

and Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port Limited have raised concerns regarding the

establishment of these structures, the effects on waterspace and navigation and

access to their berthage. The Navigation Safety JWS (authored by

Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port, Sealink, Panuku and the Harbourmaster) has

identified that the continued safe navigation access to berths must be maintained to

enable continued operation by Sealink, Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port prior to their

respective relocation. The statement also sought to enable continued tanker

operations at Wynyard Wharf (north).

9.135 The wharf and waterspace for tanker operations on Wynyard Wharf (north) are not

affected by the proposal. In terms of Sealink and Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port, it

is proposed to include a new objective within proposed condition 46A requiring

continued safe navigation access to berths for the above operators prior to their

relocation. Proposed condition 46A sets out the requirement for a Navigation and

Safety Management Plan (NSMP) and the objectives of that plan. Proposed

conditions 46 to 50 set out relevant navigation and safety requirements that need to

be satisfied in order to ensure a safe and efficient environment during construction,

as well as access to berthage. In addition to the NSMP, the measures include

consultation, identification of navigational aids, construction pre-start meeting

process, notice to mariners and hydrographic survey requirements.

9.136 In terms of functional need (policy 5 above), the America’s Cup Event has a

functional need to locate in and adjacent to the CMA. This facilitates the launching

and extraction of boats from the water and into the boat sheds for repair and

maintenance.

9.137 Convenient and adequate navigation and berthing facilities for Sanford and Sealink

will be provided for within the vicinity, in order to ensure the ongoing operation of

these activities. We understand that separate commercial agreements are being

made to facilitate these activities, while ensuring safe navigation outcomes.

1129

70

9.138 The legacy of the proposal is not expected to see an overall increase in the

maritime traffic in the harbour and aside from the short-term effects associated with

the construction activities (involving the use of barges). The Navigatus Report

concludes that there should be no discernible impact on harbour users from a

navigational safety perspective.

9.139 Accordingly, it is considered that any adverse navigation and safety effects will be

minor and the proposal will be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies.

BASE DESIGN

Overview

9.140 Base buildings for the yachting syndicates are to be provided for as follows:

a) Emirates Team New Zealand – Viaduct Events Centre (converted) Base A

b) Luna Rossa – Base B

c) America Magic – Base C

d) Ineos UK – Base D

e) Remaining Bases E, F and G for single boat entries

9.141 The new buildings (B - G) are to be located within the building platforms outlined on

the Beca drawing 4101 including in the drawing set. The buildings will be

approximately 15m in height and include the necessary elements to comprise a

functional boat shed and syndicate bases of the America’s Cup syndicates. The

facilities include a boat service, repair and maintenance area, sail loft, rigging bay,

administrative support and design offices, team amenities and sponsors areas.

Team bases have been designed to enable more interaction areas with the public

as the designs are not as secretive as previous regattas.

9.142 The application proposed that bases B – G be in place for no longer than ten years.

Building designs for bases B – G were submitted with the application for approval.

In addition draft conditions of consent were proposed that enabled the bases to be

constructed in accordance with the submitted designs, or construct an alternative

design which was to go through a design review process and be in accordance with

the building height, footprint submitted and the Design Guidelines submitted with

the application.

1130

71

Planning Provisions

9.143 The proposal requires a number of resource consents relating to matters that affect

base building design. These are outlined below:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct – I211.4.1 (A35) – Coastal marine area structures or

buildings not otherwise provided for, in this case the extension of Hobson Wharf

and base B located on top of the wharf structure, require consent as a

discretionary activity.

Viaduct Harbour Precinct – I211.6.4 The temporary Base B on Hobson wharf will

have a height of up to 15m above the wharf deck level. The wharf deck level is

proposed to be a maximum of 5.36 Chart Datum. Overall this results in the

potential for a 1m infringement to the maximum height control applicable to this

area of the precinct. Subject to chapter C1.9 (2), infringement of standards

requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

Wynyard Precinct – I214.4.2 (A51) – New buildings, and alterations and additions

to buildings (not otherwise provided for as a permitted activity). The Bases (C to

G) proposed to be located on Wynyard point will require consent as a restricted discretionary activity as will the amendments to the VEC building.

Wynyard Precinct - I214.4.2 (A61) - Development that does not comply with

I214.6.6. building height I214.6.6 is a discretionary activity. While sub-precinct F

has a 27m height limit for the majority of land within it, the areas which are

proposed for road have a 15m maximum permitted height. The proposed

syndicate base buildings will have a height of 15m (in order to accommodate the

functional requirements of the race boats). When considering the potential space

for up to 1.0m of fill raising natural ground levels an overall height of 16m may

result. Therefore, consent is sought as a discretionary activity.

9.144 The relevant objectives are policies include the following:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct (I211)

Objectives I211.2

(1) An attractive public waterfront and world-class visitor destination that is

recognised for its distinctive character, quality buildings, public open spaces,

recreational opportunities, community and cultural facilities and events.

(5) Adverse effects arising from activities and development are avoided,

remedied or mitigated, in an integrated manner across mean high water springs.

1131

72

Policies I211.3

(1) Enable the efficient operation and development of the precinct by providing for

activities which have a functional need to locate in or adjacent to

(4) Manage building height and bulk to:

(a) achieve an appropriate scale in relation to the street network and the precinct's

prominent waterfront location;

(b) complement and maintain the distinctive low-medium rise character

established by development in Viaduct Harbour, including a sense of intimacy

along streets and other public space frontages;

(c) complement the height enabled in the adjacent Downtown West, Central

Wharves and Wynyard precincts; and

(d) provide a transition in height between the core city centre and the harbour.

Wynyard Precinct (I214)

Objectives I2114.2

(2) An integrated urban environment is created which:

(a) exhibits high-quality and diverse built form and urban design which reflects the

marine attributes of the precinct;

(b) has appropriate building heights that enhance its prominent waterfront

location and which complements the central area and wider city landforms, skyline

and views; and

(c) avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse effects on existing infrastructure.

(3) Individual buildings or collections of buildings are designed to achieve an

appropriate form and scale in relation to:

(a) existing and proposed public open spaces; and

(b) identified view shafts. Policies I214.3

Policies I214.3

1132

73

(1) Encourage the location, bulk, outlook, access to, and servicing of buildings to

be planned and designed on a comprehensive and integrated basis rather than on

an ad hoc individual building basis.

(2) Encourage the integration of built form with the existing and proposed public

open space network on a comprehensive land area basis, rather than a site by site

basis, to create a sounds framework for a well designed and high quality

environment.

(4) Manage building height and bulk to:

(a) achieve an appropriate scale in relation to the street network and the precinct's

prominent waterfront location;

(3) Ensure that maximum building height:

(a) is appropriate in scale to the street network and the prominent waterfront

location;

(b) provides a transition between the core of the precinct and the coastal edge with

site-specific opportunities for taller buildings located and designed to reinforce key

public open space and waterfront connections while avoiding intrusion of public

views into and through Wynyard Precinct;

(c) complements development in the Viaduct Harbour Precinct; and

(d) provides a transition in height between the core central business district and

the harbour.

(4) Identify and protect public view shafts from open space across, within, and to

Wynyard precinct to reinforce connections with the central area, harbour, and

wider Auckland.

(5) Promote excellence and diversity in architecture and urban design that

enhances the relationship of buildings with public open space, and reflects the

coastal, topographical, and historical qualities of the precinct.

Issues/Analysis

9.145 A number of submitters and s274 parties have raised consents regarding the design

and location of the buildings and the potential for the base buildings to create

adverse effects in this coastal environment. These include Viaduct Harbour

Holdings Limited, The Kiwi Property Group, The Point Apartments, Customs Street

1133

74

West Apartment Owners or Residents and the Princes Wharf apartments. The

issues raised related to the design and appearance of the base buildings which

were to be in place for a period of ten years. Concerns were also raised with the

proposed conditions, which enabled departure from the submitted drawings, subject

to meeting the Design Guidelines (which were not considered to be sufficiently

prescriptive to ensure quality design outcomes). Ms Skidmore, urban design expert

for the Council also supported the expansion of the Design Guidelines to address

additional matters including consideration of signage/branding, Council approval of

base designs, matters relating to public space design and public access.74

9.146 Conversely, ETNZ and COP were of the view that the Design Guidelines were

overly restrictive and would not allow for design innovation or creativity.

Additionally, for late entries, the Design Guidelines would enable the typical

container/marquee temporary base design outcomes. This type of base

development was utilised by a number of syndicates in Bermuda and San Francisco

(including ETNZ). Such structures are only erected for a short time (six months to a

year) and therefore create limited effects. As part of expert witness conferencing,

the urban design and landscape witnesses were tasked with re-writing the Design

Guidelines so that they were Design Requirements that the syndicates were

required to comply with. The planners were also asked to consider conditions that

gave effect to the Design Requirements only and not the submitted plans. As a

result, no “consented plans” would form part of any consent granted, only the

“envelope”, which would be “consented” through Design Requirements.

9.147 The Design Requirements included a high level of prescription relating to areas of

glazing of certain base building frontages, numbers of openings/windows,

transparency of fencing, roof profiles, area of signage/branding and height of flag

poles/sizes of flags. In order to provide for some design innovation and creativity,

the Design Requirements document attached to Mr McIndoe’s evidence enables

flexibility for the base building designer to modify the prescriptive standards as long

as the effects are not materially different. We note that the critical building height

and envelope controls are not able to be varied and must be complied with. It is

only the design elements where flexibility is proposed.

9.148 The evidence of Mr Graeme McIndoe (Urban Design expert for Panuku) supports

the need for flexibility in the application of the Design Requirements.75 Mr Russell

74 Common Bundle Volume D – CB141 Annexure Pages 17-19 75 Evidence in Chief of Mr Graeme McIndoe, at paragraph 2.2.

1134

75

Green (Legal and Rules Adviser to ETNZ) also prepared evidence and states that

all buildings will be designed as temporary buildings, that late entries will be on tight

budgets and therefore Mr Green is of the view that further flexibility is required

within the Design Requirements or conditions.76

9.149 We support the approach to provide for flexibility in the design of the bases,

especially Bases C – G, particularly in the absence of any specific designs being

consented and as the syndicates themselves have not as yet provided or prepared

designs themselves. Further, we support the inclusion of references to temporary

bases buildings (potentially containers and marquee structures) within the Design

Requirements as an acceptable design outcome.

9.150 In addition, the applicant has offered a condition that the syndicate base buildings

(except Base A), be demolished no later than six months after any unsuccessful

defence by ETNZ. This will ensure submitter concerns regarding the occupation of

the bases for a full ten year period (regardless of whether there are ongoing

America’s Cup defences) are avoided.

9.151 Overall, we consider the base designs will contribute positively to the ‘sense of

place’ of the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts and will result in yachting

syndicate bases that have a functional need to be located in the coastal

environment, and will provide a quality of architecture and urban design that reflects

the public open space and coastal qualities of the precincts. The proposed building

height will provide an appropriate transition from the City Centre to the coastal edge

and any imposition of coastal viewshafts will be temporary and replaced in the

interim by the views along the northern connector and the Wynyard Wharf

breakwater. In the longer term it is expected that the redevelopment of Wynyard

Point will result in aligned lanes and viewshafts in order to meet the intentions of the

AUP.

9.152 Accordingly, we consider that any adverse effects from the design of the bases will

be minor and the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies.

76 Evidence in Chief of Mr Russell Green, at section 7.

1135

76

10. RELOCATION OF EXISTING ACTIVITIES

Overview

10.1 There are a number of existing activities within the event area that will require

relocation during the event. Some of these will be relocated permanently so that

they can be provided with longer term destination from which to base their activities.

A summary of the relocated activities is provided below:

10.2 Sealink Ferries: Panuku is working with Sealink in order to find them a suitable

longer term home in the vicinity. Initially the FFIRF application was proposed as a

new base for Sealing and the fishing industry. However that application remains on

hold. It is now proposed to relocate Sealink to the former Sanford slip on the

western edge of Wynyard Point, north of the Silo Park and the Titan Marine

operation. The new facility will include wharf and berthage facilities along with on-

shore terminal operations and hardstand area for loading and vehicle queuing. A

resource consent application for this new terminal is currently under preparation.

Sealink is currently a tenant of Panuku at its current location. There have been

extensive lease negotiations conducted between Sealink and Panuku, in order to

agree a relocation outcome. This process is on-going and it is assumed that the

parties will reach agreement prior to any construction activities infringing on Sealink

to be able to run their commercial operation in a safe and efficient manner.

10.3 Sanford and Auckland Fishing Port Limited: Sanford and Auckland Fishing Port

Limited operate from the western edge of Halsey Wharf and the southern edge of

the Western Viaduct Extension Wharf. North Wharf is also used on occasions by

the fishing industry. It is proposed to retain the fishing industry in these locations

throughout the consent period, except when they are required to be temporarily

located for any six month regatta period. During these periods it is proposed to

relocate the fishing industry to the eastern end of the City Centre waterfront within

the Port Precinct. The proposed location is Marsden Wharf.

10.4 As with Sealink, Sanford and Auckland Fishing Port Limited are currently tenants of

Panuku at their current locations. There have been extensive lease negotiations

conducted between Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port and Panuku, in order to agree a

relocation outcome. This process is on-going and it is assumed that the parties will

reach agreement prior to any construction activities infringing on Sanford/Auckland

1136

77

Fishing Port to be able to run their commercial operations in a safe and efficient

manner.

10.5 William C Daldy: The William C Daldy tug boat is berthed on the northern edge of

the existing Hobson Wharf. It is proposed to be located in order to facilitate the

construction of the Hobson Wharf extension and the location of Syndicate Base B

on the existing wharf and extension. The William C Daldy tug boat is also a tenant

of Panuku and we understand that agreement has been reached on the relocation

of the tug to a new location on the south-eastern corner of Queens Wharf.

10.6 Seaplane: The Auckland Seaplane loading area will be relocated from its current

location on Wynyard Wharf to another location within the wider area. Panuku have

agreed with the operators that the Seaplane can remain in its current location as

long as possible until it is relocated to a suitable venue within the vicinity. The

plane while in the sea is considered to be a vessel and will taxi out to clear water

space from its berthage for take-off as is its current practice.

10.7 It is also proposed to utilise the existing sites currently occupied by the temporary

ASB Carpark, Stolthaven South terminal and the BST terminal to accommodate

Syndicate Bases C – G. It is understood that agreements have been reached with

these parties regarding exit dates from these sites.

Planning Provisions

10.8 In terms of relocation of existing activities, the demolition or removal of marine and

port facilities (which includes landings) are provided for as a permitted activity. The

relocation areas may be provided for as permitted activities or may require resource

consent. However, any required resource consents are being prepared separate to

this application and will be lodged and processed separately.

10.9 The relevant objectives are policies include the following:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct (I211)

Policies I211.3

(5) Enable the efficient operation and development of the precinct by providing for

activities which have a functional need to locate in or adjacent to the coastal

marine area.

Wynyard Precinct (I214)

1137

78

Objectives (I214.2)

(1) Wynyard precinct is redeveloped while managing potential conflicts between

different uses to achieve:

(b) maintenance and enhancement of the regionally significant economic function

of the marine, fishing and other industries and maritime passenger operations to

the Hauraki Gulf islands;

(d) public open space on the waterfront, and an area for events and entertainment

activity for the social and economic benefit of the wider Auckland Region;

Policies I214.3

(11) Enabling a diverse range of activities, high quality visitor experiences,

entertainment, events and development to occur, while recognising and

maintaining the economic importance of the marine and fishing industry, the bulk

liquid industry and Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime passenger operations to the

Auckland Region.

(12) Recognise the significant local and regional socio-economic benefits

associated with providing high-quality waterfront public open space and events

activity while also providing for the operational and access requirements of the

marine and fishing industries, other industrial activities and maritime passenger

operations.

(13) Ensure that sufficient and suitably located land, wharf, waterspace and

appropriate, convenient and adequate navigation and berthing facilities are

provided to accommodate the current and future operation and growth of the

marine and fishing industries and maritime passenger operations, including Sub-

precinct C, North Wharf, the southern face of the Western Viaduct Wharf and the

western face of the Halsey Street Extension Wharf together with the adjacent

waterspace for use primarily by the fishing industry.

Issues and Analysis

10.10 The key issues remaining in association with relocation of existing activities relate to

Sealink and Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port Limited (William C Daldy Tug and

Seaplane resolved). The issues affecting these two parties were expressed at

mediation and as part of the Navigation Safety JWS. The mediation outcome

records that Sealink considers that it is an essential service to the Gulf Islands and

the fishing industry is of economic importance. In response to this, the mediation

outcome records that Panuku considers the recognition in the Unitary Plan

1138

79

provisions is an appropriate level of acknowledgement – that is the “regionally

significant economic function of the marine, fishing and other industries and

maritime passenger operations to the Hauraki Gulf islands” which relates to both

Sealink and Sanford.

10.11 Panuku have also amended proposed condition 46A as follows, in order to reflect

the wording of paragraph 2 of the Navigation Safety JWS:

46A. The consent holder shall establish a Navigation Safety Management Plan for on-water construction activities (NSMP). The objectives of the NSMP are to:

a) Provide for efficient operation of the waterspace affected by construction;

b) Provide a safe environment for all water users;

c) Ensure water users are appropriately notified of construction activities and any changes to the operation of the waterspace affected by construction;

d) Maintain safe navigation to berths to enable continued operations by Sealink (Wynyard Terminal), Sanford and wider commercial fishing fleet (AFPL) prior to their respective relocation; and

e) Maintain safe navigation for and access to other berth holders and water space users.

10.12 In our view, the relevant objectives and policies acknowledge that Wynyard Precinct

is undergoing redevelopment and that during this period potential conflicts between

different uses need to be managed. These include both events and the

Sealink/Fishing Industry operations. Events provide social and economic benefit to

the wider Auckland Region, while marine, fishing and other industries and maritime

passenger operations provide a regionally significant economic function to the

Hauraki Gulf Islands. The objectives and policies focus on maritime passenger

operations as opposed to delivery of goods and services through maritime transport

operations. Regardless, the policy framework seeks to ensure the recognition and

maintenance of the economic importance of fishing and maritime passenger

transport operations, operational and access requirements and current/future

operations and growth is provided for. Sub-precinct C (along with existing locations

on North Wharf and Halsey Wharf) is recognised as an appropriate location for such

activities.

10.13 The present Sealink operation is located on Wynyard Wharf and includes vehicle

access from Brigham Street over Wynyard Wharf, vehicle queuing on Wynyard

1139

80

Wharf, an operations office on Wynyard Wharf and a landing ramp (accessed from

Wynyard Wharf). The current location is not one of the identified locations within

the Policy 13 and further, future operation and growth is compromised by the

restricted availability of space for increased passenger demand. The Transport

Assessment by Beca that was submitted with the application, identifies the

following77:

“Vehicles currently access the Sealink ferry terminal from either Daldy Street or Brigham

Street. Sealink provides four stacking lanes for the equivalent of approximately 20 cars on-

site. The current operation involves some on-street manoeuvring on Brigham Street

adjacent to the shared path, but separated by large concrete blocks. Vehicles also

currently wait on local roads to drive onto the ferry, including large vehicles. Vehicles are

currently marshalled on and off the ferry and boarding vehicles reverse onto the Island

Navigator and Seabridge ferries while driving on frontwards onto the other Waiheke Ferry.

A large proportion of these passengers are currently dropped off / picked up on the local

streets around the existing facility due to the luggage they are carrying. There is no

parking provided on the Sealink site for passengers.

During the busy periods, Sealink can have a maximum of 25 staff plus 3 crew per boat.

Parking spaces for 21 staff are provided on the Sealink site.”

10.14 The transport assessment recognises that vehicles wait on roads for the ferry

including large vehicles. Therefore the existing operation already indicates potential

issues for future operations and growth at the current location. Further, 21 staff

carpark spaces are located on Sealink site, which is Wynyard Wharf and which is

proposed to become a public wharf in the future.

10.15 Panuku is working with Sealink in order to develop a fit for purpose maritime

passenger transport service within sub-Precinct C at 44-56 Hamer Street. This will

include wharf access, berthage, landings and on shore office and vehicle queuing

operations. We consider, the proposed location will better achieve Policy 13 in

terms of the current and future operation and growth outcomes for Sealink.

10.16 In terms of policies 11 and 12, we understand that Panuku is working with Sealink

to maintain this service for maritime passenger operations to the Auckland Region,

in order to ensure the economic importance of the service is maintained. We

understand this matter would be addressed in any agreement between the parties.

Subject to that outcome it our view that the relocation of the Sealink operation will

result in positive effects and better achieve the objectives and policies of the AUP.

77 Common Bundle Vol A – CB 25 - Beca Transport Assessment - Para 3.2.2.1.

1140

81

10.17 With regard to Sanford/Auckland Fishing Port Limited, as they are only proposed to

be relocated for a six month period, we consider Policy 13 is met as the areas

identified will “primarily” be utilised for the fishing industry.

10.18 We understand these are matters relating to lease agreements between the parties

and that detailed negotiations have been undertaken (and are ongoing) between

the parties. It is expected that in order to ensure the Amercia’s Cup event proceeds

these matters will be resolved.

10.19 The above approach recognises the balance between the provision for events and

the importance of marine, fishing and passenger transport operations that is

required in policies 11 and 12. In our view, the application reaches an appropriate

balance in providing for both outcomes. Overall, it is considered that any adverse

effects will be minor (positive effects will result) and the proposal is not contrary to

the objectives and policies.

11. MAORI CULTURAL EFFECTS

Overview

11.1 There are several mana whenua in support of the application and several mana

whenua in opposition to the application. Mana whenua have actively engaged in

the application process through the submission process and as s274 parties to the

Direct Referral hearing process.

11.2 The mana whenua in support of the application comprise for following:

a) Ngati Whatua Orakei;

b) Te Kawerau a Maki Iwi Tribal Authority Inc; and

c) Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust.

11.3 The mana whenua in opposition to the application comprise the following:

a) Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society;

b) Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust;

c) Ngati Maru Runanga Trust;

d) Ngati Tamaoho Trust;

1141

82

e) Ngati Tamatera;

f) Ngati Te Ata Claims Support Whanau;

g) Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Inc; and

h) Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust.

11.4 There has been on-going dialogue and discussions with mana whenua through the

processing of this application. In Panuku’s response to the mana whenua in

opposition to the application request to the Environment Court to appoint a Maori

Land Court Judge for the hearing, a detailed summary of Panuku’s position in

relation to consultation and discussions/correspondence was submitted. Mana

whenua in opposition have maintained that inadequate consultation has been

undertaken in order to determine whether any adverse effects on Maori cultural

values have been adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. In order to determine

potential cultural values that may be affected by the proposal, mana whenua in

opposition have requested a cultural values assessment. A generic Cultural Values

Assessment is currently being prepared (due to be released 21 August 2018).

Additional Cultural Values Assessment are also being prepared by:

a) Te Kawerau a Maki Iwi Tribal Authority Inc;

b) Ngati Paoa Iwi Trust; and

c) Ngati Maru Runanga Trust;

11.5 As a result, we are not able to comment on the specific findings of the cultural

values assessments until they have been issued on or before 20 August 2018.

11.6 The AUP process was only completed recently and involved mana whenua and the

Independent Maori Statutory Board participation. The AUP has specific provision for

identification and protection of sites or places of significance and of value to mana

whenua. There are no sites or places of significance to mana whenua identified in

the AUP in the vicinity of the proposed works. However, there were a number of Pa

and other cultural heritage elements along the original coastline prior to the

reclamation of the waterfront.

1142

83

11.7 While there are no identified cultural sites within the application site, the Waitematā

Harbour is, and continues to be, of great cultural, historical and spiritual importance

to mana whenua.

11.8 It is understood that mana whenua have aspirations for harbours redress. These

include restoration and enhancement of the mauri of the harbour and the exercise

by mana whenua of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga.

11.9 The applicant seeks to continue to engage with mana whenua groups in relation to

impact of the proposal on cultural values and to develop any mitigations measures.

It is the intention of applicant to have an ongoing, constructive relationship

throughout the construction period and the event period. This will provide the

opportunity to explore further opportunities for environmental mitigation (if required)

and positive opportunities for cultural expression and kaitiakitanga as part of the

proposal.

11.10 Where there is a difference in opinion between mana whenua as to whether the

application is opposed or supported, it is our view that both positions are evaluated

against the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.

11.11 It is considered that issues relating to rangatiratanga are more appropriately

addressed by the government and/or Council outside of this resource consent

process at the governance level.

Planning Provisions

11.12 There are no specific sites of significance identified within the AUP in the

application area and there are no associated consent requirements. The mana

whenua S274 parties have identified Part 2 of the RMA (sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8)),

the NZCPS (including Objective 3, Policy 2), the HGMPA and Section B6 of the

AUP which relate to the Regional Policy Statement mana whenua matters.

Issues and Analysis

11.13 During the mediation process and the planning JWS process, significant concerns

were raised by mana whenua in opposition regarding the consultation process

leading up to the lodgement of the application. Following that, focus was placed on

the mana whenua engagement plan condition. Concerns were raised that the

condition was not fit for purpose and required amendment. It was agreed that the

planners would meet to work on how to best amend the condition.

1143

84

11.14 Subsequently draft conditions 5 to 5F have been amended so that a process is set

out for developing the America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (ACKEP) through

the Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. The objectives of the plan are

outlined in the proposed conditions, as are the matters to be included. The

amended conditions also outlines the management plans that mana whenua will be

involved in the review of. Lastly, proposed condition 5E confirms that the consent

holder is to operate in accordance with the ACKEP. In addition, advice notes were

requested by mana whenua in opposition to be added to the conditions. These

have now also been added, with modification.

11.15 The condition is supported by the mana whenua in support of the application. In

addition to support of the condition mana whenua in support of the application

(Ngati Whatua Orakei, Ngati Paoa and Te Kawerau a Maki) support the application

in its entirety, subject to cultural offsetting and proposed conditions of consent. This

includes a proposed Maori/Polynesian cultural centre on Hobson Wharf or the

waterfront surrounds as a legacy project.

11.16 This builds on previous relationships between mana whenua and the Council

developed over time. We acknowledge the valuable input that Ngati Whatua Orakei

provided into the development of the Wynyard Quarter planning provisions during

2004 – 2006 plan change process. Ngati Whatua Orakei has also submitted a draft

Iwi Management Plan (IMP) during the consent process. The IMP identifies the

area of application of the plan, engagement protocols and a kaitiakitanga

framework.

11.17 Based on the mediation outcome, we understand that the mana whenua opposed to

the application seek the following further amendments to the conditions at Attachment A:

a) Oppose the use of the existing Auckland Council forum and request a

separate forum for this application;

b) In evidence exchange on 21 August 2018, mana whenua opposed to the

application will be able to advise whether any changes to conditions 5 to

5F are required if something arises from the CVA under preparation; and

c) That a review condition be included to require the Council to review any

conditions of this consent to reflect any changes that may arise from any

1144

85

declaration of customary title over coastal areas as a result of the Marine

and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACA) process.

11.18 In our view, subsection a) above is a process issue between the parties. Ms Knox

explains in her evidence78 the preference to use the existing Auckland Council

forum. Subsection b) is subject to the outcomes of the Cultural Values Assessments

(which are yet to be issued). In terms of subsection c) it is our understanding that

under MACA Act process Panuku would remain the owner of any structures in the

CMA regardless of the outcomes the MACA Act applications. In addition, it would

be unreasonable to require a Council to review the conditions, as it would be

uncertain as to what adverse effects/conditions would need to be reviewed.

11.19 In terms of MACA, Panuku followed the process required by the Act and notified all

parties with claims for customary title over the waterspace subject to this application

that the America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson application was to be lodged in the near

future79. A summary of feedback is set out in the attachment to the application.

The applicant has considered the feedback, commissioned Cultural Values

Assessments as requested and proceeded with the application.

11.20 In terms of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions outlines above, it is our

view that the AUP provisions have been developed under these provisions and

gives effect to them. We consider the AUP preparation, submission, further

submissions, hearing, decision and appeal process is to ensure the statutory and

higher order documents/provisions (NZCPS, HGMPA, RPS) are appropriately taken

into account and reflected in the resulting AUP provisions. In this regard, there are

no mana whenua sites of significance identified within the application area.

Regardless, the application includes measures to mitigate adverse environmental

effects on the coastal environment relating to ecology, water quality, contamination

management, stormwater treatment, accidental discovery protocols, erosion and

sediment control, underwater noise effects on marine mammals and biosecurity

management.

11.21 Submissions from mana whenua in opposition have also raised concerns regarding

adverse cumulative effects resulting from development within the CMA. In our view,

the proposed development remains within the City Centre Precinct boundaries

(formerly Port Management Areas) and does not impact on any areas of

78 Evidence in Chief of Ms Fiona Knox, at section 6. 79 Refer Common Bundle – Vol A – BC36

1145

86

outstanding or high natural character, landscape or features. Further, the proposal

minimises impact on the CMA as it has utilised existing facilities or land based

options as much as possible. Overall, we consider any adverse cumulative effects

to be minor.

11.22 In terms of the submission and s274 notice from mana whenua in support, they

have expressly supported a number of the proposed conditions in Attachment A

including Condition 5 and the involvement of the Auckland Council Mana Whenua

Kaitiaki Forum.

11.23 On this basis, subject to consideration of any findings of the cultural values

assessments, it is our view that any adverse effects on cultural values will be minor

and that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies.

EVENT EFFECTS

Overview

11.24 The America’s Cup event is to take place between November 2020 to April 2021

(including pack in and pack out) and for a similar six month period for any future

defences within the ten year period (maximum of three envisaged). The event

venue comprises a variety of venues along Auckland City Centre waterfront,

including Eastern Viaduct, Te Wero Island, Hobson Wharf, Halsey Street Wharf,

Karanga Plaza, Silo Park and parts of Wynyard Point (north of Jellicoe Street). The

waterspace within Wynyard Basin and parts of Viaduct Harbour also form part of

the event location (refer Figure 10 below). Yacht racing will take place within the

Waitemata Harbour, where three separate race courses have been identified80.

Determination of which course to utilise each race day will depend on prevailing

weather conditions.

11.25 The Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts are acknowledged as event locations

and are utilised as such. The flat areas of open space (Te Wero Island, Eastern

Viaduct, Karanga Plaza, and Silo Park) as well as the wharf areas (Halsey Wharf,

Western Viaduct Wharf and Hobson Wharf) provide suitable areas to accommodate

event activities and associated temporary structures. Additionally the adjacent

waterspace makes the location ideal for water based events. In conjunction with

the events, open space and entertainment focus, the locality also comprises retail,

residential, office, food and beverage, marine and port activities (including maritime 80 Evidence in Chief of Mr Grant Calder, at paragraph 4.4.

1146

87

passenger transport services and the fishing industry) and the bulk liquids industry.

Overall, there are a rich mixture of activities that occupy the area which contribute

the vibrancy that currently exists.

11.26 Events such as the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover and the annual Auckland Boat

Show are good examples of how events can be accommodated within this locality

while remaining compatible with existing uses. An overview of the proposed

concept plan for the event is outlined in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10: Event Concept Plan (Source: Appendix A to Attachment A to Mr Grant Calder’s EIC)

Planning Provisions

11.27 The proposal requires a number of event related resource consents including the

following:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct – I211.6.1 – The proposal will not comply with the temporary

activities events standard at Rule I211.6.1 with respect to the high noise event low

frequency (63Hz and 125hz) dB limit. The standard requires 76 dB, whereas 86 is

proposed. This therefore requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

1147

88

Wynyard Precinct - I214.4.1 (A11) Events - Events for more than 1000 people at any one

time or longer than 21 days (2-3 x six month event period proposed) in Area 5 and in Sub-

precinct F are a non-complying activity. The proposal involves the location of bases within

risk Area F which will host America’s Cup activities.

Wynyard Precinct - I214.4.1 (A12) Events - The event will attract more than 1000 people

and is longer than 21 days in Area E and Area 6. Consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity.

Wynyard Precinct - I214.4.1 (A13) Major Marine Event - The major marine event longer

than 60 consecutive days is not provided for and subject to C1.7 is a discretionary activity.

E40 – Temporary Activities - The proposal involves event periods to provide for the AC36

and potentially subsequent America’s Cup defences including set up and pack down and

associated challenger series.

Temporary activities which are undertaken in public places and on private land for more

than 21 consecutive days within the area of the City Centre and Metropolitan Centres

require restricted discretionary activity consent subject to Rule E40.4.1 (A6). The CMA

parts of the event location fall within the City Centre zone by virtue of Note 5 to this section.

Any associated CMS event structures are either permitted or restricted discretionary

activities under the General Coastal Marine Zone as a modification of standard F2.21.10.4.

11.28 The relevant objectives are policies include the following:

Viaduct Harbour Precinct (I211)

Objectives I211.2

(1) An attractive public waterfront and world-class visitor destination that is recognised for its

distinctive character, quality buildings, public open spaces, recreational opportunities,

community and cultural facilities and events.

(5) Adverse effects arising from activities and development are avoided, remedied or mitigated,

in an integrated manner across mean high water springs.

Policies I211.3

(5) Encourage the development of a diverse range of high-quality visitor experiences including

promenading, coastal recreation, community and cultural activities and temporary activities.

(11) Maintain the residential character and amenity values in Sub-precinct C by avoiding

activities that adversely affect the residential character and its related amenity values.

Wynyard Precinct (I214)

Objectives I214.2

1148

89

(1) Wynyard precinct is redeveloped while managing potential conflicts between different uses

to achieve:

(a) a high-quality visitor destination which showcases the City’s diverse communities and

the importance of the harbour;

(c) vibrant community with a mix of activities and experiences for all people including a

community focal point, high quality public open space and community facilities;

(d) public open space on the waterfront, and an area for events and entertainment activity

for the social and economic benefit of the wider Auckland Region;

Policies I214.3

(11) Enabling a diverse range of activities, high quality visitor experiences, entertainment,

events and development to occur, while recognising and maintaining the economic importance

of the marine and fishing industry, the bulk liquid industry and Hauraki Gulf Islands maritime

passenger operations to the Auckland Region.

(12) Recognise the significant local and regional socio-economic benefits associated with

providing high-quality waterfront public open space and events activity while also providing for

the operational and access requirements of the marine and fishing industries, other industrial

activities and maritime passenger operations.

Temporary Activities (E40)

Chapter E40 provides for more general objectives and policies that recognise events contribute

to a vibrant city and enhance social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of

communities (E40.2 (1) and that they should be located and managed to mitigate adverse

effects on amenity values, communities and the natural environment (E40.1 (2). Specific

consideration is made to ensure that activities sensitive to noise are protected from

unreasonable or unnecessary noise, including from amplified equipment (E40.3 (1)(b) & (c).

The chapter also seeks to ensure adequately traffic controls are in place and there is the

capacity to safely host large numbers of people (E40.3 (4) & (5).

Event Transport Analysis

11.29 Beca have undertaken traffic analysis for the event. In terms of the roading

environment, the key access points for vehicles and taxis into Wynyard Quarter are

Beaumont Street, Daldy Street and Halsey Street. Halsey Street also provides

access into the Viaduct Harbour Precinct. These roads provide access to the

occupants of the Precincts, while also providing access to the event venue.

Fanshawe Street is a major arterial road which runs along the southern boundary of

Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct.

1149

90

11.30 Access to Hobson Wharf, the Eastern Viaduct and Te Wero Island is provided from

Quay Street/Lower Hobson Street and via the Wynyard Crossing Bridge. The area

is very well served by public transport with the Britomart train station, the ferry hub

and bus interchange area. People can also access the area from the CMA via

private of charter boats. Frequent public transport services also exist along

Fanshawe Street and within Wynyard Quarter, with services scheduled every four

to five minutes during peak hours.

11.31 Pedestrians and people on cycles can also access the event area via footpaths,

permanent and interim cycle lanes (Beaumont Street) or the Westhaven

promenade. Overall, the area has a high level of accessibility.

11.32 The event will be managed through an Event Management Plan (EMP) and an

Event Permit (issued closer to the actual event). Two drafts of the EMP have been

prepared and distributed to submitters and s274 parties during the mediation

period81. The structure of the EMP documents is set out in Figure 11 below:

Figure 11: Event Management Plan Framework (Source: From Attachment A to Mr Grant Calder’s EIC)

11.33 The draft EMP and draft Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP) have been

prepared. The Noise, Lighting and Emergency Management Plans will be prepared

closer to the event, but will be based on the objectives and matters specified within

the proposed conditions of consent.

11.34 The event will be based around three main regattas – the Christmas Cup, the Prada

Cup and the America’s Cup Match. The event calendar and activation programme

identify the indicative racing programme, daily activities and operational procedures.

11.35 The EMP and ETMP identify three different scenarios relating to the potential

number of spectators that will attend the event on any given day. This includes all

81 Evidence in Chief of Mr Grant Calder.

1150

91

people that may pass through the event on any given day. The scenarios are

outlined below82.

a) Scenario 3 – Low – Similar to day-to-day activities during the 2018 Volvo

Ocean Race. In general these will be non-race days with an expectation of

between 15,000-35,000 spectators. This scenario envisages marshalled

vehicle access from Quay Street/Lower Hobson Street.

b) Scenario 2 – Medium – Similar to the busiest day activities during the 2018

Volvo Ocean Race. In general these will be race days not involving ETNZ

and the majority of the Prada Cup race days. It is envisaged that between

45,000 to 65,000 people will attend the venue during the day. Under this

scenario, there will be additional marshalled vehicle access on Jellicoe

Street at the intersections of Halsey Street, Daldy Street and Beaumont

Street. Managed vehicle access along Jellicoe Street will also be put in

place. Marshalled control points will only allow access for event related

traffic and occupants of the Precincts. It is envisaged that some form of

accredited vehicle validation system will be put in place on these

occasions. Additionally, pedestrian and people of cycles marshalling will

be in place at various locations in order to manage public safety.

c) Scenario 1 (and 1+) – High – A significant event, involving much larger

public attraction. In general these will be during opening and closing

ceremonies, ETNZ race days and key race days. It is envisaged there will

be approximately 5 to 7 of these and that between 65,000 to 200,000

people will attend the venue during the day. In addition to the scenario 2

management measures, it is envisaged that the marshalled vehicle entry

points along Beaumont, Daldy and Halsey Streets will be shifted south one

block to Madden Street. Managed vehicle access will be in place north of

these marshal points along Beaumont, Halsey and Madden Streets.

11.36 As will all scenarios, the NZ Police will take over and manage certain areas where

public safety issues escalate to a point where this is required.

11.37 For the majority of time Scenario 3 is envisaged to be employed. This will enable

the event to be undertaken with minimal disruption to the surrounding environment.

Scenario 2 and 1 will be used on days where larger patronage is expected. The

82 Evidence in Chief of Mr Grant Calder.

1151

92

management measures have been designed to enable access to occupants in and

around the event area while the general public will be encouraged to access the

event by public transport or modes other than private vehicle movements.

11.38 An additional initiative proposed includes the Major Events Operation Centre

(MOEC). The MEOC will provide command, control and coordination (a ‘C3’

structure), which will enable coordinated, responsive and real time, event

management. The MEOC will allow a dynamic and responsive approach to overall

traffic and crowd management. MEOC will be operating on all racing days and

ceremonies to provide for the coordinated and safe operation of the Event. This

means that events can switch between scenarios in real time depending on crowd

numbers. Should the scenario change then the relevant management measures

will be immediately deployed in order to enable management of effects in at the

time they are needed.

Specific Issues and Analysis

11.39 A number of issues have been raised through submissions, in s274 notices and at

mediation and in Joint Witness Statements. These are addressed in the following

sections of our evidence.

11.40 A number of parties including VHHL, Firth, ASB Bank, ASB Theatre, Kensington

Swan, The Point Apartments, Willis Bond (on behalf of new apartments under

construction in Wynyard Quarter), Fu Wah (on behalf of the Park Hyatt Hotel and

Hire Pool expressed concern that access to their properties and businesses be

maintained throughout each six moth event period. Through discussions, the

parties have been informed of the approach to managing traffic during the event (as

outlined above). For each scenario, the ETMP identifies event and public transport

management measures, pedestrian and cyclist management measures and traffic

and parking management measures. In our view, the combination of marshalled

vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access and managed road access (through the

proposed conditions of consent (180 – 183G) and the EMP/ETMP) will adequately

address any adverse event traffic effects on these properties/businesses.

11.41 The objectives of the draft EMP and proposed condition (181(g) and (h) seek to

ensure the maintenance of access to properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct

Harbour Precinct and to minimise disruption from event related traffic. The use of

1152

93

the proposed event scenarios, traffic management measures and the MOEC will in

our view ensure any adverse event traffic effects will be mitigated.

11.42 The event layout is similar to the Volvo Ocean Race (although the America’s Cup

event will cover a larger area) and on the majority of days the traffic related effects

for the America’s Cup event will be similar to the Volvo Ocean Race. Additionally,

the same people than ran the Volvo Ocean Race event on the past three occasions

(2012, 2015, 2018) will also manage the America’s Cup event. As a result, a

significant level of experience exists in running successful events on this nature in

this locality. Part of the success is being able to facilitate such an event without

compromising the amenity of permanent occupants of the locality. On the days

where significant crowds are expected, part of the event management process will

be to ensure advance warning of potential management measures that will be in

place, so that businesses can inform staff and visitors and alternative arrangements

can be made if necessary. The public will also be encouraged not to bring private

vehicles to the event area and to utilise public transport modes or cycle/walk.

Additional public transport services will also put on in order to cope with larger

crowd numbers.

11.43 The conditions also recommend Syndicate Staff Travel Plans (SSTP’s), clear event

traffic signage, a travel management plan for the VEC (which is an update of the

existing TMP to better manage the interface between vehicular traffic using the

wharf and VEC and the general public), and Servicing, Delivery and Guest

Transport Plans (SDGTP). These plans and measures will further reduce effects on

the transport network and occupants within Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour

Precinct.

11.44 The Joint Witness Statement from the traffic engineers recommends specific

objectives and definitions (relating to road closure terminology) be added into the

conditions. We agree with these amendments and have incorporated them in to the

proposed conditions. The amendments from the mediation sessions have also

been incorporated into the proposed conditions.

11.45 The traffic and transport JWS also contains an additional matter raised by Mr John

Parlane (traffic witness for ASB and VHHL) in relation to the loss of carparks in

Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct. Mr Parlane considers that for

each car space lost should be mitigated with a replacement carparking space in the

vicinity. In terms of the AUP, there is a general thrust to reduce private vehicle trips

1153

94

and encourage the use of public transport particularly within the City Centre

zone. Chapter E27 confirms that no parking is required within the City Centre and

that maximum ancillary parking ratios will be imposed (E27.3 Policy 4 and

5). Additionally, the Wynyard Precinct provisions contain policies 34 to 38 which

seek to constrain and manage private vehicle trips and encourage alternative

modes. Rule I214.6.1 also imposes restrictive maximum parking ratios. The

purpose of this rule is to maintain or enhance the both the safety and capacity of the

internal and wider road network and to significantly reduce single occupancy vehicle

commuter trips to and from the Wynyard Precinct. As a result, it is our view that the

relief sought by Mr Parlane is contrary to the strategic planning approach of the

AUP, City Centre Zone and Wynyard Precinct.

11.46 Overall, for the above mentioned reasons and subject to the proposed conditions

and management plan measures, we consider any adverse effects resulting from

event traffic will be minor.

Event Noise Analysis

11.47 Marshall Day Acoustics have undertaken noise assessments for the event. These

have been peer reviewed by Styles Group on behalf of Auckland Council. The

Point Apartments have also engaged NDY Acoustics to provide advice on this

matter. The event venues is subject to a complicated matrix83 of noise controls (as

a result of the precinct standards, zone standards and Auckland-wide rules). The

proposed conditions impose the permitted standards from the AUP for everyday

operational noise and also reflect the respective noise event provisions for each

precinct, except as noted below. The AUP noise event provisions allow for 15 noise

events per precinct per calendar year. The noise events are permitted higher noise

limits for no more than six hours in duration. Of the 12 noise events three vents are

permitted an additional noise allowance for no more than three hours.

11.48 Additionally, the only noise control that applies to the CMA in proximity to Hobson

Wharf only requires measurement of noise at the coastal interface with the nearest

residential zone, which maybe on the North Shore or St Mary’s Bay. As a result,

the proposed conditions recommend the City Centre noise limits be imposed over

the Hobson Wharf extension.

83 Evidence in Chief of Mr Craig Fitzgerald, at paragraph 7.1.

1154

95

11.49 For the event, it is proposed to establish two stages where amplified music will be

played. One is proposed on Te Wero Island (same location as Volvo Ocean Race)

and a second on Silo Park. It is proposed to provide an activation schedule for the

duration of the event which is aimed at entertaining visitors while they are in the

event venue. This will involve amplified music, televising of races, PA systems and

on occasions live bands.

Specific Issues & Analysis

11.50 A number of issues have been raised through submissions, in S274 notices and at

mediation and in Joint Witness Statements. These are addressed in the following

sections of our evidence.

11.51 A number of parties including, The Point Apartments, Princes Wharf Apartments, Fu

Wah and supported by VHHL expressed concern about the removal of low

frequency noise limits for noise events, the application of low frequency noise limits

for indoor locations only and the potential duration that music may be played all day

for six months. In the noise JWS, Mr Finley also expressed concern regarding the

exclusion of crowd noise from noise measurement.

11.52 In response, ACEL have confirmed the following:

a) There will be no amplified music prior to midday on any day;

b) At all times, noise will comply with the operational noise limits of 60/65 dBA

within Viaduct Harbour Precinct and the applicable Wynyard Precinct noise

limits, except where a noise event is proposed (refer below).

c) For noise events, the low frequency noise limits will apply both indoor and

outdoor as per the AUP apart from the high noise events which require a

low frequency limit of 86 dB. Medium noise limits will be no longer than 6

hours in cumulative duration and high noise events will be no longer than 3

hours (within the six hour duration period).

d) No more than the permitted number of noise events will be applied for or

utilised.

11.53 Overall, it is our view that noise from the event will be appropriately managed

through the proposed event noise conditions and the subsequent noise event

management plan. The confirmation from the event managers and the utilisation of

1155

96

a similar management plan for the Volvo Ocean Race stopover provides sufficient

comfort that the resulting noise environment will be appropriate for this location,

particularly given the focus for events in the precinct objectives and policies noted

above.

11.54 In addition, we consider that the restriction on amplified music prior to midday will

further ensure the amenity of nearby residents is preserved. The acoustic analysis

also confirms that the separation distances between the noise sources (stage on Te

Wero) and the sensitive receivers (The Point Apartments = 180m, Princes Wharf =

100m, Park Hyatt = 200m, Quay Apartments = 160m) will ensure complying noise

levels by the time the sound reaches these locations.

11.55 Overall, for the above mentioned reasons and subject to the proposed conditions

and management plan measures, we consider any adverse effects resulting from

event noise will be minor and the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives

and policies.

Event Lighting Analysis

11.56 Mr Mckensey has undertaken lighting assessments for the event. It is proposed to

establish temporary event lighting during the event period. The lighting will be

similar to the temporary lighting used for the Volvo Ocean Race. It is also proposed

to establish LED screens around the event venue in order to televise races and

other activities within the venue. Lighting for live telecasts will also be required

where necessary to provide adequate lighting for television purposes. Lighting

design is also to be in accordance with CTPED principles.

11.57 In order to achieve this temporary lighting structures will be established around the

event venue. The height of the lighting poles will be approximately 15m. The poles

will generally be located on Hobson Wharf and Halsey Wharf. Some additional

lighting will be located on Te Wero Island and the Eastern Viaduct.

Specific Issues & Analysis

11.58 A number of issues have been raised through submissions, in s274 notices and at

mediation and in Joint Witness Statements. These are addressed in the following

sections of our evidence. A number of parties including, The Point Apartments,

Princes Wharf Apartments and Fu Wah sought to confirm that the lighting effects

1156

97

from the event lighting would minimise obtrusive lighting effects on light sensitive

areas and visitor accommodation.

11.59 The provisions in the AUP seek to manage lighting effects on dwellings (which are

defined as a single household residence). Regardless, the lighting analysis has

also taking into account visitor accommodation in order to ensure any potential

adverse effects are appropriately taken into account. The principal mechanism to

manage lighting effects during the event will be via the implementation of an Event

Lighting Management Plan (ELMP).

11.60 The ELMP will require lighting effects to satisfy the AUP:OP rules for spill light and

glare. By meeting these requirements, the lighting effects will be negligible and at a

level that is anticipated by the plan. It is anticipated that the design of lighting will

involve lamps that have minimal tilt. This will avoid illuminance and glare effects on

any nearby residents and other occupiers while providing sufficient lighting for the

event. In terms of glare, the lamps will likely be fitted with shields if necessary and

directed to prevent adverse glare effects on any neighbours.

11.61 Also, any LED screens will have lighting levels that meet AUP standards to ensure

adverse effects on any sensitive areas are avoided. The objectives within proposed

condition 183K and the matters to be included in any Event Lighting Management

Plan will ensure any adverse effects will be minor.

11.62 Overall, it is our view that lighting from the event will be appropriately managed

through the proposed event lighting conditions and the associated event lighting

plan. The confirmation from the event managers and the utilisation of a similar

management plan for the Volvo Ocean Race stopover provides sufficient comfort

that the resulting environment will be appropriate for this location, particularly given

the focus for events in the precinct objectives and policies noted above.

11.63 Overall, for the above mentioned reasons and subject to the proposed conditions

and management plan measures, we consider any adverse effects resulting from

event lighting will be minor and the proposal is consistent with the relevant

objectives and policies.

1157

98

12. LEGACY

Overview

12.1 Hosting the America’s Cup provides an opportunity to continue the transformation of

Auckland’s downtown waterfront, and to leave a long-term legacy for Aucklanders

and visitors.

12.2 The next America’s Cup events are an opportunity for Auckland to showcase the

harbour and New Zealand’s sailing technology. Once the events are over, Auckland

will also enjoy some significant legacy benefits:

a) The early exit of bulk liquid operators (Stolthaven and BST) form the

southern part of Wynyard Point means these sites can be utilised for

syndicate bases until the headland park and associated Wynyard Wharf

are developed for public use;

b) A 74-metre extension of Hobson Wharf to create a new public space, with

potential for marine and land-based events and activation as well as

marine and port activities;

c) The future uses could be in conjunction with the existing Hobson Wharf

buildings owned by the Council group and presently occupied by the

Maritime Museum or for alternative complementary uses;

d) An extension of the waterfront pedestrian network around the Hobson and

Halsey wharves and breakwaters, allowing public access to the water’s

edge and views across the basin;

e) New sheltered water space in the Viaduct and Wynyard Wharf South

waterspaces to enable water-based events, both local and international;

and

f) Upgrade to Wynyard Wharf and sea wall, with wharf infill spaces that can

be temporarily used for public activation until the proposed Wynyard Point

linear park can be developed and Wynyard Wharf becomes available for

public use.

12.3 This next phase of waterfront regeneration builds on previous long term planning

undertaken by various public entities where a working waterfront is combined with

1158

99

recreation, visitor and event activities. These will link the city to the sea and reflect

New Zealand’s maritime heritage and culture.

12.4 The transformation of this locality from an industrial area to the Viaduct Harbour has

been a successful legacy outcome of pervious international events. Since the 1994

Whitbread Round the World stopover initiated the creation of a new public

destination on Viaduct Harbour, major international events have resulted in the

ongoing transformation of Auckland’s waterfront.

12.5 Previous America’s Cups in 2000 and 2003 were focussed around the Viaduct

Harbour and resulted in significant activation of the area and a popular destination

for New Zealanders and visitors. This resulted from proximity to hospitality areas,

tourism activities and public areas in close proximity to syndicate bases. This

enables the public to be visually connected to the bases and the racing yachts

themselves. These elements combine to create the ‘village atmosphere’ associated

with successful America’s Cup events.

12.6 Subsequently, the Rugby World Cup 2011 introduced Aucklanders to the

regenerated Wynyard Quarter, with the Wynyard Crossing bridge connecting

together the wider downtown waterfront corridor (Britomart, Queens Wharf, Princes

Wharf, Viaduct Harbour and Karanga Plaza, Viaduct Events Centre, North Wharf,

Silo Park) for events and new public spaces.

12.7 Following Rugby World Cup 2011, a continuous programme of events, festivals and

more informal activation has continued to draw almost 2 million visitors a year to the

city’s waterfront public spaces. Demand for event space is growing, along with

Aucklanders’ expectations for access to the water, and places to walk, cycle, relax

and play with a view of the Waitematā Harbour. Event space with access to calm

water and an area of flat wharf deck which is not compromised by competing uses

(cruise ship berthage, ferry terminal) will provide for this growing demand.

12.8 Design and development of the new waterfront spaces delivered by the America’s

Cup – particularly Hobson Wharf – will build on the success (and learnings) of the

Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precincts, using a ‘place-making’ approach to

design, management and activation of public spaces.

12.9 In addition to the dedicated America’s Cup facilities, Council have advised that they

will also be progressing (earlier than envisaged) critical work in the downtown area

to support a successful event. That work includes upgrading the Quay Street

1159

100

seawall, new public transport facilities (bus and ferry), a new waterfront public

space in the ferry basin, relocation of pier 3 and 4 to Queens Wharf West and

improved Quay Street streetscape. It is also proposed to remove parking from the

Eastern Viaduct and undertake improvements to this area to form a quality public

open space area.

Planning Provisions

12.10 There are no specific consent matters relevant to legacy uses as no consents are

being sought to utilise Hobson Wharf or Wynyard Point beyond the proposed ten

year duration period. After the ten year period, the consent holder will rely on the

following to activate Hobson Wharf or Wynyard Point:

a) The AUP provisions which provide for some temporary activities as

permitted activities on Hobson Wharf (up to 21 consecutive days under rule

E40.4.1 (A5).84 Associated buildings are provided for in the F2 Coastal –

General Coastal Marine Zone and enable temporary coastal marine area

structures and or buildings as permitted activities (F2.19.1085 (A128),

provided that the structure is in place for no longer than 14 days within any

six month structure (F2.21.10.4(1)).86 We note that the rule does not

restrict the number of structures so multiple temporary events can occur.

Modification of this standard would be considered as a restricted

discretionary activity. If there was a wish to erect a permanent building

such as an extension to the Maritime Museum or a cultural centre, that is

provided for as a restricted discretionary activity (with, however, wide-

ranging assessment criteria).

b) On Wynyard Point, the land is able to be used for marine and port facilities

and marine and port activities as a restricted discretionary activity (I214.4.1

(A19) & I214.4.2 (A41)).87 Other activities such as events, offices,

residential and public amenities are a non-complying activity, until all the

bulk liquids industry operations are removed (I214.4.1 (A1), (A11 – A12),

(A21), (A25)). The last bulk liquids operations (Stolthaven north) are due to

discontinue in December 2022 and at therefore under the AUP these

84 Common Bundle Volume E, CB189. 85 Common Bundle Volume E, CB191 at page 4782. 86 Common Bundle Volume E, CB189 at page 4800. 87 Common Bundle Volume E, CB196 at page 4955.

1160

101

activities will be able to activate the area immediately after the 10-year

period.

c) Panuku has foreshadowed a plan change to enable Wynyard Point to be

developed in accordance with the Waterfront Plan Refresh 2017, which

involves a linear park along the eastern edge of Wynyard Point and

interface with Wynyard Wharf so that both areas are combined as public

spaces. This could potentially apply as well to Hobson Wharf to enable a

specifically tailored set of planning provisions that best provide for the

future use of the wharf, while appropriately managing effects on nearby

occupants.

12.11 In our view, there are a number of options, including permitted activities, activities

provided for by way of resource consent and activities provided through a future

plan change that will enable activation and use of the wharf space. Additionally, for

Hobson Wharf, the Viaduct Harbour Precinct controls (I211) and the Coastal –

General Coastal Marine Zone controls (F2) provide sufficient measures to manage

the design and appearance of buildings on the wharf.

Issues and Analysis

12.12 There are a number of issues raised by submitters, S274 parties and the Council in

relation to the size and location of the Hobson Wharf extension, legacy use of

Hobson Wharf and potential future buildings on the wharf creating adverse visual

and urban design effects. Parties that have raised this issue include VHHL, the

Point Apartments, the Princes Wharf residents, Coralie van Camp, The Auckland

City Centre Residents’ Group. In addition to the submissions, S274 notices and the

S87F report, these issues were also raised in mediation. The particular concerns of

the Council related to the wharf being left vacant for long periods of time, the

location of the wharf off the main waterfront axis and constrained access for large

scale events.

12.13 The JWS from the landscape architects also sought amendments to the proposed

conditions to require a concrete finish to the wharf surface, encourage use of the

wharf for temporary activities and that the wharf not be left vacant and un-activated

for more than 3 months. The planners considered this during their expert witness

conference and agreed to the first point but did not agree that it was appropriate to

1161

102

amend the conditions to provide for the remaining outcomes. The statement form

the planners is noted below:

“The planners consider there are sufficient permitted, restricted discretionary or

discretionary activity provisions in the AUP that enable activation of the wharf as

either a permitted activity or via resource consent.”

12.14 The evidence of Mr Craig Jones on behalf of Panuku provides a detailed analysis of

the potential event legacy use of Hobson Wharf. Mr Jones also considers the

potential use of the wharf for a cultural centre or an extension to the maritime

museum. Overall, Mr Jones supports the legacy use of Hobson Wharf as it has the

potential to fulfil a number of activation roles, all of which will provide positive

outcomes for the locality and the wider region.

12.15 Mr Jones’ evidence concludes the following:

a) There is strong demand for water based events and activities including the

on-water boat show, Volvo Ocean Race, ITU Triathlon events, sheltered

on-water activities such as waka ama, dragon boat races, stand up

paddleboard, canoe racing, and more social activities like raft races (para

6.3). Mr Jones states that calm waterspace featuring approximately 250m

in a straight paddling line provide the necessary requirements for the

above type of events/activities. There are few of these within Auckland’s

City Centre.

b) Alternatively, Mr Jones research confirms there is demand for longer

duration non-water based events that are seeking a flat location such as

this. These activities include the Pop-Up Globe and Pleasuredome (para

6.17), who have previously sought locations such as this within the City

Centre but have not been able to locate suitable venues. Should such

activities locate in this this vicinity, the perimeter of the wharf could still be

utilised by marine and fishing industries at the same time.

c) The proposed size of the wharf extension and its flat surface are

considered to be appropriate not only for events and activation, but also to

potentially host a cultural centre or an addition to the maritime museum.

The cultural centre has been proposed within the submission from Ngati

Whatua Orakei and is supported as option to investigate for the future use

of the wharf.

1162

103

d) Mr Jones disagrees with Ms Skidmore’s comments regarding Hobson

Wharf not being suitable for events but agrees with a possible outcome for

Hobson Wharf as a destination. Based on Mr Jones, evidence, we support

the view that Hobson Wharf is suitable for events (particularly water based

events).

e) Both Mr Jones (para 8.10) and Ms Skidmore (section 4.30) agree that the

removal of the Sealink ferry and replacement with a new temporary public

space will result in positive outcomes for the open space is the locality and

will further support the utilisation of the water space for usable on-water

events. We support these outcomes.

12.16 The Crown have also expressed an interest in the legacy use of the event area.

The Crown is keen to ensure that sufficient space is available within Auckland to

host a future event of similar scale. Proposed condition 198B - 198 D have been

included to ensure a Legacy use Options Plan (demonstrating the above

requirement) is produced either before a plan change/plan review/resource consent

initiated by the consent holder for the event area or as soon as reasonably

practicable after the lodgement of a resource consent or plan change by any party

other than the consent holder.

12.17 Overall, we consider that there are sufficient provisions and/or planning

mechanisms available to ensure positive legacy outcomes for Wynyard Point and

Hobson Wharf in a manner similar to the strong legacy outcomes that have resulted

from previous events of this nature and scale in the locality.

13. CONCLUSIONS

13.1 This application for resource consent has been assessed in detail, particularly in

regard to the matters not agreed between the parties. The AEE, plans and

technical assessments submitted with the application (as updated through

evidence) in addition to the proposed conditions and management plans have been

considered in the assessment of the application and in relation to the relevant

statutory considerations.

13.2 In terms of the RMA, the relevant section 104 considerations are assessed below:

a) Actual and potential effects: In particular there are a number of positive

effects associated with the proposal and a number of adverse effects. In

1163

104

our view, any adverse effects will range from negligible to minor, subject to

the proposed conditions and management plans. A comprehensive suite

of conditions and management plans have been proposed in order to

manage effects relating to construction, operations and the event, including

cultural effects. In consideration of these effects, we have considered the

written approval from Regional Facilities Auckland, who manage the NZ

Maritime Museum;

b) The relevant provisions of a national policy statement: In our view the

proposal is consistent with and complementary to the objectives and

policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and in particular the

coastal processes and character and amenity provisions. The proposed

development is located in a highly modified environment where no areas of

outstanding or high natural character, landscapes or features are affected

by the proposal. As a result policies 13 and 15 are not compromised by

the proposal. Further polices 18 and 19 are supported by the proposal

with the creation of additional public space on Hobson Wharf and walking

access along the coast via the public accessways proposed along the

wharf edges and breakwaters. Coastal processes and coastal hazards are

also taken into account through the identification of a suitable wharf deck

level (5.3CD), tsunami and storm surge mitigation conditions as well as

wave and tidal flow modelling.

c) The proposal is also consistent with the HGMPA and in particular the

proposal will not adversely affect the sustainable life supporting capacity of

the CMA of the Hauraki Gulf. The proposal incorporates a detailed Coastal

Environmental Effects assessment (peer reviewed by Council) and

conditions of consent/management plans (dredging, water quality,

stormwater, contamination, groundwater, erosion and sediment control and

biosecurity). The proposed mitigation measures will ensure the objective

(S8) of the HGMPA are achieved, while also ensuring section 7(2) (b) is

also fulfilled, which includes the capacity to use resources of the Gulf by

the people and communities of the Gulf and New Zealand for economic

activities and recreation;

d) Regional policy statement: We consider the proposal to be consistent with

the provisions of this document, including the following. These provisions

1164

105

are addressed in more detail within the application documents, the AEE

and within our evidence above:

i. B2.2.1 & B2.2.2 – Urban Growth & Form

ii. B2.3.1 & B2.3.2 – A Quality Built Environment

iii. B2.5.1 & B2.5.2 – Commercial & Industrial Growth

iv. B2.6.1 & B2.6.2 – Mana Whenua

v. B2.7.1 & B2.7.2 – Open Space & Recreational Facilities

vi. B2.8.1 & B2.8.2 – Social Facilities;

e) Overall, we consider the proposal satisfies the objectives and policies of

the RPS.

f) The relevant provisions of any plan of proposed plan: We consider that the

proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the AUP, including the

Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precincts, the City Centre and General

Coastal Marine Zones, the Auckland–wide and Overlay provisions. Within

our evidence, we have identified the matters agreed between the parties

(refer Attachment A) and the matters not agreed between the parties. Our

evidence has focused on the matters not agreed. In our view, based on

the analysis within the AEE, the technical reports supporting the

application, the subsequent evidence produced by Panuku’s witnesses and

the proposed conditions of consent/management plans, it is our view that

the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the AUP; and

g) Any other relevant matters, including the Auckland Plan and the associated

Waterfront Plan (assessed within the original AEE).

13.3 Part 2 of the RMA establishes the purpose of the Act which is to promote the

sustainable management of natural and physical resources. As stated in section 5

of the Act, this means:

13.4 5(2) The sustainable management means managing the use, development and

protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables

people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing

and for their health and safety while –

1165

106

a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding

minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

and

b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and

ecosystems; and

c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the

environment.

13.5 Whether the purpose of the RMA is being achieved consideration of the matters set

out in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act.

13.6 Section 6 sets out matters of national importance that are to be recognised and

provided for in managing the use, development and protection of natural and

physical resources. The matters relevant to this application include the

maintenance of public access to and along the coastal marine area (6(d), the

relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions (6(e) and the management of

significant risks from natural hazards (6(h).

13.7 Public access is to be provided throughout the event area, except where restriction

is required for safety or security reasons (construction and boat launching/retrieval).

Access to the event venue will be open and free of charge. Additionally public

access to the water’s edge will be available overall the CMA structures and land,

except parts of Hobson Wharf, Halsey Wharf and the parts of Brigham Street

proposed to be closed when used by syndicate bases. Outside of these times,

public access will be provided.

13.8 The relationship with Maori and their culture and traditions are considered and

assessed within section 11 of our evidence. In summary, while the AUP does not

specifically identify any sites of significance to mana whenua within the application

area, it is considered that, subject to consideration of the findings of any Cultural

Values Assessments, that cultural effects are addressed through the conditions

relating to ecology, water quality, contamination, stormwater runoff, accidental

discoveries, erosion and sediment control, underwater noise and biosecurity. As a

result, it is our view Maori cultural effects as identified within section 6(e), 7(a) and

(aa) and Section 8, within the framework of the AUP are adequately addressed.

1166

107

13.9 In terms of the remaining matters within Section 7, particular regard be had to the

following matters of relevance to this application:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(f) the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment; and

(g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources.

13.10 We consider the proposal together with the proposed conditions and management

plans will achieve the above matters. In particular, the minimum area of land and

wharf space has been utilised in order to provide for the requirements of the event

in the most efficient manner while providing public access to the coast and

recognising the finite characteristics of natural and physical resources.

13.11 In our view, the proposed development will achieve the purpose and principles of

the RMA within this local context. Matters relating to any potential adverse effects

on the environment and proposed mitigation are addressed in our evidence, the

evidence of other Panuku witnesses and in the application material.

13.12 On the basis of this assessment, we consider the proposal satisfies the

requirements of section 104.

Section 104D

13.13 As the application is a non-complying activity, consideration must be given to

section 104D of the RMA. The non-complying elements of the application relate to

development of bases on Wynyard Point, which is an outcome supported by many

parties in preference to a wharf extension to Halsey Wharf within the CMA. The

non-complying consent matters include: building within proposed lanes, events,

entertainment activities within the syndicate bases, public amenities, landscaping

and kiosk within sub-precinct F (Wynyard Point).

13.14 Section 104D sets out particular restrictions relating to non-complying

activities. Consent may only be granted to non-complying activities if either the

adverse effects on the environment will be minor or the activity is not contrary to the

objectives and policies of a plan or proposed plan.

1167

108

13.15 The effects of the proposal are addressed in detail in the AEE and supporting

technical documents as well as in our evidence and the evidence of other Panuku

witnesses. The comprehensive analysis undertaken includes consideration of the

following effects:

a) Character, amenity, visual, landscape, coastal processes/ecology/hazards;

b) Social and Maori cultural;

c) Infrastructure and navigation;

d) Transportation, noise/vibration and lighting;

e) Environmental risk and environmental management (land instability and

groundwater diversion); and

f) Detailed conditions of consent and management plans.

13.16 In conclusion we consider that taking into account the proposed conditions of

consent and management plans any adverse effects will be minor or less than

minor.

13.17 In terms of objectives and policies of the AUP, these have also been considered in

detail in the AEE submitted with the application and within our evidence. The

analysis undertaken is summarised below:

a) Viaduct Harbour Precinct – The proposal will facilitate an international

event within the precinct whilst ensuring the amenity of occupants is

appropriately maintained (policies 5 and 11). The construction of a new

wharf and provision for additional public access to the water’s edge is

maintained and enhanced (policy 2b). Continued use of berthage adjacent

public space will also be provided (policy 3). The Design Requirements

and proposed conditions 23 and 23 will ensure quality buildings will result

(Objective 1 and policy 4). Further, the conditions and management plans

relating to water quality and ecology will ensure policy 9 is met;

b) Wynyard Precinct – The proposal will facilitate a major marine event, while

ensuring amenity (objective 1d) effects are appropriately

managed. Access to and along the coast (objective 1e, policy 16) and

within the precinct (objective 10) will also be achieved, where access is not

1168

109

required to be temporarily restricted for safety or security reasons. The

regionally significant economic function of the fishing industry and maritime

passenger operations (objective 1b) is maintained and in the case of

Sealink, ultimately enhanced and provision for current and future operation

and growth of these industries is provided for (policies 11, 12 and 13). It is

also proposed to maintain navigation and berthage (objective 1f), achieve

high quality and diverse built form (objective 2) and ensure adverse

environmental risk effects are managed (objective 7, policy 26);

c) City Centre and General Coastal Marine Zones – The proposal is

considered to be generally consistent with the zone objectives and policies

and we also consider that the city centre sight lines and coastal view shafts

within Viaduct Precinct are not compromised; and

d) The Auckland-wide and Overlay objectives and policies – The proposal is

also considered to be consistent with these objectives and policies subject

to compliance with the proposed conditions and management plans.

13.18 Overall, we consider the proposal is complementary to the relevant objectives and

policies and is therefore not contrary to them.

13.19 The above assessment confirms that both limbs of section 104D are satisfied by the

proposal and therefore it is considered that consent can be granted, pursuant to

section 104D.

Vijay Lala / Karl Cook

7 August 2018

1169

1

ATTACHMENT A – PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

1170

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 i

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson - Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent

7 August 2018

Table of Contents Page List of Annexures .................................................................................................................. iv

Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................ iv

General ..................................................................................................................... 1 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................ 1

Commencement & Duration of Consents .......................................................................... 3

Mana Whenua Engagement ................................................................................................ 4

Removal of Structures/Reinstatement ............................................................................... 7

Access to the Site .................................................................................................................. 8

Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 8

Review Condition ................................................................................................................... 8

Development in Accordance with Plans ............................................................................ 8

Management Plan Certification Process............................................................................ 9

Pre-construction Conditions ............................................................................... 10 Community Liaison Group .................................................................................................. 10

Base Design - Buildings, Structures and Yard Area ...................................................... 11

Public Space Design ........................................................................................................... 11

Roading Design and Layout .............................................................................................. 12

Detailed Engineering Drawings and Details .................................................................... 13

As-Built Drawings ................................................................................................................ 13

Construction Environmental Management Plan ............................................................. 13

Construction Quality Assurance .............................................................................. 14

Construction Works Programme ............................................................................. 16

Site Management ....................................................................................................... 16

Implementation ........................................................................................................... 16

Accidental Discovery Condition ......................................................................................... 17

Navigation and Safety Notifications and Documentation .............................................. 18

1171

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 ii

Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA ......................................................... 19

Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA ........ 19

Water Quality Monitoring for Dredging of North Wharf and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA - Sampling ................................................................. 20

Water Quality Monitoring for Dredging and CMA Mudcrete – Trigger Levels and Contingency Plan ................................................................................... 21

Aerial Photography Monitoring for Dredging ......................................................... 22

Reporting for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA ....................... 22

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ................................................................................. 22

Contaminated Land Management .................................................................................... 25

Detailed Site Investigation and Remediation Action Plan ................................... 25

Site Management ....................................................................................................... 27

Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 28

Damage Avoidance ................................................................................................... 28

Alert Levels ................................................................................................................. 28

Alert Level actions ...................................................................................................... 28

Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan ................................................... 29

Groundwater Monitoring ........................................................................................... 30

Contingency Actions .................................................................................................. 31

Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 31

Notice of Completion ................................................................................................. 31

Construction Traffic ............................................................................................................. 31

Construction Traffic Management Plan .................................................................. 31

Construction Staff Travel Plan ................................................................................. 34

Construction Noise and Vibration ..................................................................................... 35

Construction Lighting Management Plan ......................................................................... 37

Biosecurity Management Plan ........................................................................................... 38

Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan ............................................ 39

Trees ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Geotechnical Conditions .................................................................................................... 42

Post Construction Requirements ....................................................................... 43 Industrial and Trade Activities ........................................................................................... 43

Stormwater Treatment Devices ............................................................................... 43

1172

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 iii

Industrial and Trade Activities Environmental Management Plans .................... 43

Industrial and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response Plans ...................... 44

Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 45

Stormwater Management ................................................................................................... 45

Stormwater Systems and Treatment Devices ....................................................... 45

Pre-construction meeting .......................................................................................... 46

Post-construction meeting ........................................................................................ 46

As-Built Drawings ....................................................................................................... 47

Operation and Maintenance Plan ............................................................................ 47

Maintenance Contract ............................................................................................... 48

Maintenance Report .................................................................................................. 48

Pre-Occupation and Event Conditions .............................................................. 48 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Wynyard Point Bases Design and Management ............................................................ 49

Location of Base Buildings ....................................................................................... 49

Detailed Design .......................................................................................................... 49

Occupant Numbers .................................................................................................... 50

Pedestrian Access ..................................................................................................... 50

Emergency Evacuation Plan .................................................................................... 50

Wynyard Wharf South Water Space area .............................................................. 51

Servicing, Delivery and Guest Transport Plans .............................................................. 51

Event Management Plan .................................................................................................... 53

Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP) ......................................................... 55

Emergency Management Plan ................................................................................. 58

Lighting Management Plan ....................................................................................... 58

Noise Event Management Plan ............................................................................... 59

Noise Events ........................................................................................................................ 60

Syndicate Staff Travel Plans (SSTPs) ............................................................................. 61

Wynyard Point Traffic Measures ....................................................................................... 61

VEC Syndicate Base Traffic Management Plan ............................................................. 62

VEC Syndicate Base Marine and Fishing Industry Management Plan ....................... 63

Public Access ....................................................................................................................... 63

1173

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 iv

Use of and Buildings on Wharf Extensions and Infill ..................................................... 64

Legacy Use Options ............................................................................................................ 64

Illuminated Signage ............................................................................................................. 65

BAU Lighting ........................................................................................................................ 65

List of Annexures Annexure A Drawings and Documents (refer to Condition 13) Annexure B Management Plans Annexure C America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open

Space Design Requirements Annexure D Protected Objects Protocol

Glossary of Terms ACKEP America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan ACMWKF Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum BMP Biosecurity Management Plan BPO Best Practicable Option CCOs Council-Controlled Organisations CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CLG Community Liaison Group CLMP Construction Lighting Management Plan CMA Coastal Marine Area CMCA Common Marine and Coastal Area CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CSTP Construction Staff Travel Plan CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan DSI Detailed Site Investigation EEP Emergency Evacuation Plan ELMP Event Lighting Management Plan EMP Event Management Plan EmMP Emergency Management Plan EPTMM Event and Public Transport Management Measures ETMP Event Transport Management Plan ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan GWMCP Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan ITA ESRPs Industrial and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response Plans ITA HSEMPs Industrial and Trade Activities Hazardous Substances and

Environmental Management Plans IVHEMP Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan MEOC Major Events Operations Centre MPDPM Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the

CMA NEMP Noise Events Management Plan NSMP Navigation and Safety Management Plan PCMM Pedestrian and Cyclist Management Measures

1174

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 v

PGDR Project Geotechnical Design Report RAP Remediation Action Plan RMA Resource Management Act 1991 SDGTPs Servicing, Delivery and Guest Transport Plans SQEP Suitably Qualified Environmental Practitioner SSTMPs Site-Specific Traffic Management Plan TAG Panuku Development Auckland’s Technical Advisory Group TMP Traffic Management Plan TPMM Traffic and Parking Management Measures VEC Viaduct Events Centre VEC SB MFIMP VEC Syndicate Base Marine & Fishing Industry Management Plan VEC SB TMP VEC Syndicate Base Traffic Management Plan

1175

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 1

General Definition of Terms 1. In these conditions:

a) “Alert Levels” means specific groundwater levels at which actions are required as described in the conditions;

b) “Authorised Vehicle” means vehicles travelling to and from properties to which vehicle access needs to be maintained;

c) “certify”, “certification” and “certified” in relation to plans or management plans means assessed by Council staff acting in a technical certification capacity, and in particular as to whether the document or matter is consistent with, or sufficient to meet, the conditions of this consent in terms of the matters set out in the conditions;

d) "Commencement of Construction" means commencement of any construction works for the Project or (as the case requires) commencement of any construction works for a part or stage of the Project. For the avoidance of doubt, it excludes site investigations, fencing, and any activities that do not need resource consent / are permitted activities.

e) “Commencement of Dewatering/Stabilisation” - means when ground improvements commence;

f) “Completion of Dewatering /Stabilisation” means when all ground improvements are complete;

g) “consent holder” means Panuku Development Auckland;

h) “Council” means the Auckland Council;

i) “Damage” means - including Aesthetic, Serviceability, Stability, but does not include Negligible Damage as described in the table below:

Building Damage Classification

Category of Damage

Normal Degree ofSeverity

Description of Typical Damage

(Building Damage Classification after Burland (1995), and Mair et al (1996))

General Category

(after Burland – 1995)

0 Negligible Hairline cracks. Aesthetic Damage

1 Very Slight Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration.Perhaps isolated slight fracture in building. Cracks inexterior visible upon close inspection. Typical crackwidths up to 1mm.

1176

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 2

2 Slight Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required.Several slight fractures inside building. Exterior cracksvisible, some repainting may be required for weather-tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly.Typically crack widths up to 5mm.

3 Moderate Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrentcracks can be masked by suitable linings. Brick pointingand possible replacement of a small amount of exteriorbrickwork may be required. Doors and windows sticking.Utility services may be interrupted. Weather tightnessoften impaired. Typical crack widths are 5mm to 15mm orseveral greater than 3mm.

Serviceability Damage

4 Severe Extensive repair involving removal and replacement ofwalls especially over door and windows required. Windowand door frames distorted. Floor slopes noticeably. Wallslean or bulge noticeably. Some loss of bearing in beams.Utility services disrupted. Typical crack widths are 15mmto 25mm but also depend on the number of cracks.

5 Very Severe

Major repair required involving partial or completereconstruction. Beams lose bearing, walls lean badly andrequire shoring. Windows broken by distortion. Danger ofinstability. Typical crack widths are greater than 25mm butdepend on the number of cracks.

Stability Damage

Note: ‘Description of Typical Damage’ applies to masonry buildings only. The ‘General Category’ applies to all buildings.

j) “Event” means the use and operation of land and water space associated with 36th America’s Cup event to be held in the six month period from 1 November 2020 to 30 April 2021 (including pack in and pack out of land based and water based activities/structures) and any subsequent America’s Cup event(s) held during the ten (10) year period from the commencement of consent with a six month period each;

k) “Full Road Closure” means the whole of the road carriageway would be closed to all motor vehicles and cyclists but remain accessible to pedestrians;

l) “Halsey Wharf” means the Halsey Street Extension Wharf and the Western Viaduct Wharf;

m) “Harbourmaster” means the Harbourmaster’s office within Auckland Transport;

n) “Heavy vehicle” means a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes;

o) “Infrastructure” means the wharves, piles, berths, buildings, other structures, and related works, services and access for the Event and Operations to be constructed by Panuku Development Auckland but does not include the syndicate bases (buildings and associated yards on land/wharves and water space) to be constructed by the syndicates;

p) “Managed Road Closure” means a full road closure for motor vehicles only, with access permitted for authorised vehicles;

1177

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 3

q) “Monitoring Station” - means a groundwater monitoring borehole;

r) “Noise Event” means the planned use of a space or building involving amplified sound being broadcast to people and where the noise levels (excluding crowd noise) will not comply with the noise limits in Condition 168A;

s) “Operations” means the use and operation of the syndicate bases (buildings and associated yards on land/wharves and water space) for a period up to ten (10) years from the commencement of consent;

t) “Partial Road Closure” means a restriction on the capacity and/or direction of travel, potentially for all modes, within the whole road reserve;

u) "Project" means the construction, operation and management of the Infrastructure on land and water space to facilitate the Operations and Event;

v) “Seasonal Low Groundwater Level” - means the annual lowest groundwater level – which typically occurs in summer;

w) “Services” means - including fibre optic cables, sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage, gas and water mains, power and telephone installations and infrastructure, road infrastructure assets such as footpaths, kerbs, catch-pits, pavements and street furniture;

x) “Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central” means the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for the time being of the Council’s Licencing and Regulatory Compliance Department;

2. [not used]

3. [not used]

Commencement & Duration of Consents 4. Pursuant to sections 116 and 123 of the RMA, the commencement and duration for the

various resource consents shall be as set out in the table below:

Consent Duration (unless the consent has lapsed, been surrendered, or been cancelled at an earlier time)

Commencement

Land use consents (for the establishment of temporary structures associated with the America’s Cup, land disturbance activities, including earthworks, NES consent for disturbance of contaminated soils, and tree removal) and for the Event

(a) Consents for the Event and temporary structures: 10 years from commencement (b) For all other land use consents: 5 years from commencement

In accordance with section 116(1)

Consent to construct structures in the CMA and to occupy for construction purposes under section 12

10 years from commencement

1178

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 4

Consent to carry out the Event on the structures in the CMA under section 12

10 years from commencement

Occupation of the CMCA for the Base B structure under section 12

10 years from commencement

Consent to occupy the CMCA under section 12 following completion of construction

35 years from commencement Commences on the date the construction of the structures in the CMA is completed (as notified to the Team Leader Monitoring Compliance – Central under condition 44)

ITA discharge consent 10 years from commencement In accordance with section 116(1)

Stormwater diversion and discharge consent

35 years from commencement

Consent to discharge contaminants into air associated with storage of the dredged materials and use of cement during construction

10 years from commencement

Consent for capital works dredging within the CMA to facilitate construction of the coastal structures and create adequate depths for the boats

10 years from commencement

Consent for diversion of ground water associated with ground stabilisation works

35 years from commencement

Consent to discharge of contaminants to land and water as a result of storage of the dredged material and potential use in construction

10 years from commencement

Mana Whenua Engagement 5. Prior to the Commencement of Consent, the consent holder shall invite the existing

Auckland Council Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (ACMWKF) to:

a) Assist the consent holder in the preparation of an America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (ACKEP) (Conditions 5A-5F) consistent with relevant customary practices and in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), especially the principles of consultation, active participation and partnership; and

b) Fulfil the obligations set out in the America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan on behalf of mana whenua.

The consent holder shall facilitate and fund the additional resourcing of the ACMWKF to meet all its fair and reasonable costs associated with any work streams required for the ACMWKF to fulfil its role in respect of this condition.

1179

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 5

Advice Note 1: It is acknowledged that Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi underpins the relationship between Mana Whenua and the Crown. Inherent in this are (amongst other things) the principles of partnership, reciprocity, active protection and equity. Importantly, the principle of partnership is endorsed by the concept of good faith. Those principles are acknowledged in the Local Government Act 2002.

Advice Note 2: The Consent Holder acknowledges that the Waitematā is of extremely high spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical importance to Mana Whenua

Advice Note 3: The Consent Holder records its commitment to implementing this condition in good faith, and to using the services of an independent mediator, as necessary.

5A. The consent holder shall prepare an America’s Cup Kaitiaki Engagement Plan (ACKEP) for the Project with the assistance of the ACMWKF. Within ten (10) working days of the Commencement of Consent or prior, the consent holder shall provide a copy of the ACKEP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

5B. The purpose of the ACKEP is to assist mana whenua to express tikanga, fulfil their role as kaitiaki, and establish the engagement process before, during and after the completion of construction activities for implementation throughout the project. It shall be formulated through:

a) Providing the framework for a collaborative approach between the consent holder and mana whenua to address the matters which impact cultural values / interest, before, during and after the completion of the construction activities; and

b) Identifying how the consent holder and the ACMWKF will ensure that effective relationships are provided for throughout the Event.

5C. The objectives of the ACKEP are to:

a) Acknowledge the cultural and spiritual importance of the Waitemata and its surrounds to mana whenua;

b) Acknowledge mana whenua as kaitiaki;

c) Recognise the importance of engagement and identification of key mana whenua values, areas of interest and matters concern in relation to the Project;

d) Provide mana whenua with an opportunity to be actively involved with the formulation and implementation of the ACKEP; and

e) Facilitate engagement between the consent holder and mana whenua in relation to the activities authorised by this consent, and to assist mana whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki.

5D As a minimum, the ACKEP shall include details of the following matters:

How mana whenua who have historic associations with the Project area and its surrounding waters have been involved in the formulation of the ACKEP and are to be involved in its implementation;

1180

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 6

The process for involvement of mana whenua in the preparation and implementation of the engineering design, construction management, and operational plans as they relate to:

(i) Managing water quality during the construction and operation of the Infrastructure;

(ii) Managing underwater noise during construction so as to protect marine animals;

(iii) Protecting the waters of the area from biosecurity risks;

(iv) Providing cultural markers within the Infrastructure to recognise the historic associations of mana whenua with the area and the significance of the land and seascapes of Waitematā to mana whenua; and

(v) Enabling use of the Infrastructure for cultural activities.

In giving effect to Condition 5Db), involvement by mana whenua in preparation and implementation of the following management plans:

Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA (MPDPM);

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP);

Remediation Action Plan (RAP);

Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP);

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP);

Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP);

Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP);

Industrial and Trade Activities Hazardous Substances and Environmental Management Plans (ITA HSEMPs);

Industrial and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response Plans (ITA ESRPs); and

Event Management Plan (EMP).

Accidental discovery protocols;

Procedures for the cultural induction of construction workers and Event staff;

Timing, frequency, location and methods of cultural monitoring procedures and protocols during construction activities to demonstrate achievement of the objective(s) for the ACKEP;

Ongoing mana whenua engagement procedures following the completion of construction; and

The process by which amendments can be made to the ACKEP.

5E. The Consent Holder shall operate in accordance with the ACKEP.

5F. The role of the Forum in terms of this consent shall continue for the duration of the 10-year period of the consent, and until the requirements of Conditions of 6 to 7C have been complied with.

1181

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 7

Removal of Structures/Reinstatement

6. The buildings for syndicate bases B-G shall be removed no later than six (6) months after any loss of the America’s Cup during the period ten (10) years following the commencement of consent (Base Removal Works). The purposes of the base removal works are to ensure that base buildings are removed when not required after an America’s Cup event, that demolition works are managed appropriately and the surface of Hobson Wharf is left in a suitable condition for future use. For the avoidance of doubt, this condition does not prevent a replacement base being constructed under this consent and in accordance with all conditions in the event that the Cup is won again overseas and hosted back in Auckland during the ten year period, and in any event all bases B-G are to be removed at the end of the ten year period.

6A. The consent holder shall give at least one (1) month’s written notice to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central prior to the commencement of any Base Removal Works, such notice to be accompanied by the following details:

a) The proposed demolition / removal methodology, including sequence and timing;

b) Duration of works and hours of operation;

c) Measures to manage environmental effects, including (but not limited to) dust, construction noise, and construction traffic effects;

d) For the removal of Bases C-G, plans detailing the site surface and boundary treatment: and

e) For the removal of Base B, plans detailing the design of Hobson Wharf, which shall include the following:

(i) Make-good and treatment of the wharf surface with a consistent concrete surface similar to that of the Halsey Wharf Extension, suitable for activities permitted by the Auckland Unitary Plan;

(ii) Any retention of existing or any proposed services; and

(iii) Any public realm element, for example furniture, lighting and handrails.

7. No less than 50% of Wynyard Wharf infill shall be removed no later than ten (10) years following the commencement of consent (Infill Removal Works). The purpose of the Infill Removal Works is to ensure that Wynyard Wharf reverts to the character of a wharf rather than that of a surface contiguous with the land on Wynyard Point while ensuring the retained infill portions align with future east-west lanes in Wynyard Point.

7A. The consent holder shall give at least one (1) month’s written notice to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central prior to the commencement of any Infill Removal Works, such notice to be accompanied by the following details:

a) The proposed demolition / removal methodology, including sequence and timing;

b) Duration of works and hours of operation;

c) Measures to manage environmental effects, including (but not limited to) dust, construction noise, and construction traffic effects;

1182

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 8

d) Plans detailing the 50% of the wharf infill to be removed to achieve the purpose set out in Condition 7; and

e) Provision for management of any public access.

8. All Base Removal Works and/or Infill Removal Works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified details in Conditions 6A and 7A respectively.

Access to the Site 9. The servants or agents of the Council shall have access to all relevant parts of the site at

all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples.

Monitoring 10. The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge

of $10,000.00 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the consents.

11. The $10,000.00 (inclusive of GST) charge shall be paid prior to the commencement of construction and the consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid as required by the invoice.

Review Condition 12. Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, the conditions of the consent may be reviewed by the

Council (at the consent holder's cost):

At any time during the construction period in relation to activities and structures that are subject to the provisions in sections 15 and 16 of the RMA and where the best practicable option may be necessary to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the environment;

At any time during the construction period, and thereafter in the month of November annually for 10 years, and thereafter at 5 yearly intervals, in relation to altering any monitoring requirements as a result of monitoring results and/or in response to changes to the environment, and/or changes in engineering and/or scientific knowledge; and

Within six (6) months from the date the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central is notified of completion of the final stage of construction work (in accordance with Condition 44), and thereafter in the month of November annually for 10 years, and thereafter at 5 yearly intervals, to deal with any adverse effect(s) on the environment which may arise from the exercise of the consent.

Development in Accordance with Plans 13. Construction and the activities authorised by these consents shall be undertaken in

general accordance with the drawings and all information submitted with the application, as detailed in Annexure A, referenced by the Council as BUN60318372.

14. In the event of inconsistency between the plans and documents referred to in Condition 13 and the conditions of this consent, the conditions shall prevail.

1183

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 9

Management Plan Certification Process 15. Conditions 16 to 21 shall apply to all Management Plans required by these conditions.

16. Management Plans shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification in writing. Management Plans shall be submitted at least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of Construction unless otherwise specified in the conditions.

Advice Note: Any preliminary works, which do not need resource consent / are permitted activities can be undertaken prior to any Management Plan(s) being certified.

17. Management Plans may be submitted in parts or in stages to address particular activities or to reflect a staged implementation of the Project, and when provided in part or for a stage shall be submitted at least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of Construction of that part of stage unless otherwise specified in the conditions. Management Plans submitted shall clearly show the linkage with plans for adjacent stages and interrelated activities.

Advice Note: Under Condition 32, the consent holder is required to address in the CEMP construction works programming, including confirmation of the proposed staging and sequence of construction of the Project.

17A. Where consultation on a Management Plan is required by a condition of these consents including any change to a Management Plan contemplated by Condition 20, the consent holder shall provide the following to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central when submitting the Management Plan for certification:

a) A summary of consultation during preparation of the Management Plan;

b) Any feedback on the final Management Plan from the party or parties that the condition requires consultation with; and

c) A response to that feedback indicating the matters that were not implemented and the reasons why.

18. Should the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central refuse to certify a Management Plan, or a part or stage of a Management Plan, in accordance with Condition 16 above, the consent holder shall submit a revised Management Plan for certification as soon as practicable. The certification process shall follow the same procedures as outlined in Condition 15 above.

19. Any certified Management Plan may be amended if necessary to reflect any minor changes in design, construction methods or management of effects. Any amendments are to be discussed with and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for confirmation in writing prior to implementation of the change, unless the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central determines in his or her discretion that those amendments once implemented would result in a materially different outcome to that described in the original plan.

20. Any changes to a certified Management Plan involving a materially different outcome under Condition 19 shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central to certify that they comply with the applicable requirements of these conditions. Any material change must be consistent with the purpose of the relevant Management

1184

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 10

Plan and the requirements of the relevant conditions of these consents. Where a Management Plan was prepared in consultation with affected parties, any material changes to that Plan shall be prepared in consultation with those same parties.

21. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified Management Plans.

Pre-construction Conditions Community Liaison Group 22. No later than one (1) month following the commencement of this consent under section

116 of the RMA, the consent holder shall establish a Community Liaison Group (CLG).

22A. The members of the CLG will include representative(s) of the consent holder, representative(s) of the Auckland Council and CCOs, and shall be open to interested submitters and s274 parties, and body corporates of the apartments in the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts.

22B. The objectives of the CLG are to:

a) Provide a means for all parties to give and receive regular updates on progress with the Project, Operations and Events;

b) Provide a regular forum through which information about the Project, Operations and Events can be provided to the community;

c) Enable opportunities for concerns and issues to be reported to and responded to by the consent holder; and

d) Provide feedback on the development of the CEMP, CTMP, CNVMP, EMP and ETMP.

22C. The consent holder shall: a) Consult with the CLG on the development and content of the CEMP, CTMP,

CNVMP, EMP and ETMP;

b) Provide reasonable administrative support for the CLG including:

i. Organising meetings at a local venue;

ii. Inviting all members of the CLG;

iii. Distributing an agenda to each CLG member no less than ten (10) working days prior to meetings;

iv. The taking and dissemination of meeting minutes;

c) Appoint one or more persons to provide administrative assistance to the CLG and ensure the CLG operates effectively;

d) Ensure that the CLG meets at least every two (2) months and more often as required during construction of the Project and during Events, and at least annually at other times, or as otherwise agreed by the CLG;

e) Provide an update at least every two (2) months (or as otherwise agreed by the CLG):

1185

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 11

i. During construction of the Project on compliance with consent conditions and the CEMP;

ii. During Events on compliance with the consent conditions and the EMP;

f) The CLG shall continue for the duration of the 10-year period of the consent, and until the requirements of Conditions of 6 to 7C have been complied with.

Base Design - Buildings, Structures and Yard Area 23. Prior to construction of Base Buildings B-G, the Consent Holder shall submit detailed

design drawings and supporting information to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the buildings, signage/branding and yards achieve the Wynyard Hobson Building and Public Space Design Requirements in Annexure C. In all cases the drawings shall demonstrate compliance with the following envelope requirements:

a) Base building height shall not exceed a maximum of 15m above finished wharf or finished ground level;

b) The base building footprint at ground / wharf level shall comply with the Building Footprint areas shown on Beca Civil Drawing Number 3233847-CA-4101 Rev C in Annexure A; and

c) The yard areas shall not extend beyond the Syndicate Base Boundary shown on Beca Civil Drawing Number 3233847-CA-4101 Rev C in Annexure A.

24. Prior to the commencement of external alteration works to Base A, the Consent Holder shall submit detailed design drawings and supporting information to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the signage/branding and yard achieves the Wynyard Hobson Building and Public Space Design Requirements in Annexure C.

Advice Note: For the avoidance of doubt, Base A will occupy the existing VEC with minor external alterations which are authorised by Condition 13 of this Consent.

Public Space Design 25. No later than three (3) months prior to the first Event, the Consent Holder shall submit

detailed design drawings and supporting information to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the design of public spaces for the Project achieves the Wynyard Hobson Building and Public Space Design Requirements in Annexure C.

25A. Public Space design features as outlined in the Wynyard Hobson Building and Public Spaces Design Requirements in Annexure C shall be implemented prior to the first Event.

25B. Prior to submission of plans to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification under Conditions 23-25, the following process will occur:

a) The design of the buildings, signage/branding, yards and/or public spaces, including any supporting information required by the conditions, will be presented to Panuku Development Auckland’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG);

1186

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 12

b) TAG will undertake design review, and provide comment including recommendations for any design changes necessary to give effect to the Wynyard Hobson Building and Public Space Design Requirements (Requirements);

c) Designs may be required to be re-submitted to TAG to ensure that appropriate design changes have been made to achieve the Requirements and receive landowner approval;

d) Once TAG has concluded that the buildings, signage/branding, yards and/or public spaces achieve the Requirements, the consent holder shall provide a report to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central, in addition to any other supporting information that may be provided, that describes the TAG process undergone for the design for which certification is sought and the recommendations or conclusions provided by TAG specifying how the proposal achieves the Requirements; and

e) The Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central shall have regard to the TAG report when determining whether to certify that the Requirements have been achieved.

Roading Design and Layout 25C. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the construction of vehicle, pedestrian and

cyclist access to the Wynyard Point bases, Hamer Street footpath and the internal Access Lane of Bases C-G the consent holder shall submit a detailed design of these areas to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that it will provide for safe movement of pedestrians and people on bicycles through that area. The detailed design shall be in general accordance with Beca Drawing 3233847-CA-4201, Revision B, Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 1, General Arrangement Plan, and McIndoe Urban Boffa Miskell Drawing Wynyard Point Bases Public Realm Integration, Date 13 April 2018, Revision A as referenced in Annexure A. The design of the Access Lane shall have specific input from a road safety engineer who has experience in the design of shared zones.

25D. The vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist access to the Wynyard Point bases, Hamer Street footpath and the internal Access Lane of Bases C-G shall be built in accordance with the detailed design certified under Condition 25B.

25E. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the construction of the Northern Connector Road the consent holder shall submit a detailed design of this private road to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification that it addresses the Auckland Transport Code of Practice. The detailed design shall be in general accordance with the concept design given in Figure 4-4 of the Beca Traffic and Transport Technical Report, April 2018 report as referenced in Annexure A, except that it shall include the following changes:

a) The right turn movement from the Northern Connector Road into the Access Lane serving the bases has to give way to westbound through traffic on the Northern Connector Road; and

b) Pedestrian and cyclist connections shall be retained between Daldy Street/Jellicoe Street and North Wharf/Silo Park through the provision of appropriate facilities, and onward to join Hamer Street and the Access Lane.

1187

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 13

25F. The Northern Connector Road shall be built in accordance with the detailed design certified under Condition 25D.

25G. All vehicle crossing to the bases over the Hamer Street and Northern Connector Road footpaths shall be designed and constructed to the same levels as the footpaths, using the same materials, kerbing, paving, patterns and finish as the footpath, on each side of the crossing.

Detailed Engineering Drawings and Details 26. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of Construction for the relevant

Project stage (excluding site investigations, demolition and removal of buildings and structures, relocation of services and establishment of site entrances and fencing), the consent holder shall submit detailed engineering designs and drawings of structures in the CMA (including dimensioned cross sections, elevations, site plans of all areas of permanent and temporary structures) to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central, to be prepared in accordance with the documents in Document DS5 as referenced in Annexure A.

27. The consent holder shall ensure that new wharf piles are designed:

For a future 1m increase in the height of the wharf deck that can be staged over several increments over the next 100 years; and

To recognise the marine environment risk factors of corrosion due to chloride attack.

As-Built Drawings 28. Within three (3) months of Completion of Construction for each stage of construction

(wharves, services and buildings on each base), the consent holder shall supply a complete set of As-Built Drawings to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central. The As-Built Drawings shall show the location, dimensions and typical cross-sections of structures and services.

28A. Within twenty (20) working days of the completion of construction activity in the CMA, the consent holder shall supply a copy of the ‘as built’ plans to the New Zealand Hydrographic Authority (Land Information New Zealand, Private Box 5501, Wellington 6011 or customersupport@linz.govt.nz). The As-Built drawings shall relate to all activities in the CMA, including finished dredged depths, wharves, breakwaters and other and structures that are appropriate for inclusion on Hydrographic Charts.

Construction Environmental Management Plan 29. The consent holder shall prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan

(CEMP) for the Infrastructure construction and works in consultation with the CLG in accordance with Condition 22. The consent holder shall submit the CEMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the CEMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 30 and complies with the requirements in Conditions 31 to 36. The CEMP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

30. The objectives of the CEMP are to:

(a) Ensure that the construction works remain within the limits and standards approved under the consent and set out the management procedures and construction

1188

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 14

methods to be undertaken in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects arising from construction activities; and

(b) Give effect to the objectives in the management plans listed in Condition 31.

31. The CEMP shall incorporate or refer to the following management plans and documents:

a) Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA (MPDPM);

b) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP);

c) Remediation Action Plan (RAP);

d) Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP);

e) Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP);

f) Construction Staff Travel Plan (CSTP);

g) Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP);

h) Construction Lighting Management Plan (CLMP);

i) Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP);

j) Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP);

k) Navigation and Safety Management Plan (NSMP); and

l) Project Geotechnical Design Report (PGDR). 32. The CEMP shall provide details of the responsibilities, reporting frameworks, coordination

and management required for effective site management. The CEMP shall provide information on the following matters:

a) Construction quality assurance;

b) Construction works programming including:

(i) An outline construction programme;

(ii) Confirmation of the proposed staging and sequence of construction;

c) Site management;

d) Wharf, breakwater, berthage and building construction;

e) The geotechnical-related earthworks matters addressed in Condition 135Bb);

f) Consultation and communications, including the methods for communicating and consulting with the CLG (Conditions 22 to 22C);

g) For each stage the open area of earthworks and detail on the erosion and sediment control measures to be used with reference to the measures confirmed for the wider site in the ESCP in Conditions 70 to 74.

Construction Quality Assurance 33. This part of the CEMP requires the establishment of management frameworks, systems

and procedures to ensure quality management of all on-site construction activities and compliance with the conditions of this consent. This section shall provide details on the following:

a) Contact details of the contractor’s site supervisor or project manager and the consent holder’s Project Liaison Person (phone, postal address, email address);

1189

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 15

b) Confirmation of the construction methodology, including for permanent and temporary structures;

c) System for Hot Work Permits and Underground Services Work Protocols/Permits in general accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan Draft Table of Contents in Appendix B, America’s Cup 36 Physical Infrastructure Technical Report (Beca, April 2018) (for information only) as referenced in Annexure A;

d) Location of construction site infrastructure including site offices/amenities, contractors’ yard access, equipment unloading and storage areas, construction access to the CMA, contractor car parking and security;

e) Methods and systems to inform and train all persons working on the site of potential environmental issues and how to avoid remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects;

f) Procedures for ensuring that residents, businesses, network utility operators and road users in the immediate vicinity of construction areas are given prior notice of the Commencement of Construction and are informed about the expected duration and effects of the work;

g) Procedures for responding to complaints about construction activities;

h) Means of providing for the health and safety of the general public;

i) Measures to be adopted to maintain the CMA and land affected by the works in a tidy condition in terms of disposal / storage of rubbish, storage and unloading of construction materials and similar construction activities;

j) Procedures for controlling sediment run-off, dust and the removal of soil, debris, demolition and construction materials (if any) from public roads or places adjacent to the work site/s;

k) Contingency plans in case of unexpected sediment discharges to the CMA during works;

l) Proposed temporary or permanent fencing or other structures along the boundary of the construction areas with adjacent sites in order to delineate site boundaries, maintain site security, prevent unauthorised access, ensure the safe and practical operation of adjacent sites, and to avoid intrusion of construction works beyond the construction area;

m) Measures to manage the potential impacts of construction on Council street trees and vegetation;

n) Measures to manage the potential impacts of construction lighting on residents, businesses and on local fauna;

o) Methods to ensure that barges and equipment used in the CMA are clean and certified as free of invasive species identified by the Ministry of Primary Industries;

p) Procedures for the refuelling, cleaning, maintenance and storage of plant and equipment, methods to be used to minimise the need for these activities in the CMA, and measures to avoid discharges of contaminants from these activities in the CMA;

q) Measures to address the storage of fuels, lubricants, hazardous and/or dangerous materials, along with contingency procedures to address emergency spill response(s) and clean up;

1190

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 16

r) Procedures for incident management;

s) Site clean-up following completion of works, including removal of construction materials, temporary structures; and

t) Measures to monitor and minimise discharges of dust so that any offensive or objectionable effects are immediately identified and are mitigated.

Construction Works Programme 34. This part of the CEMP is to ensure that the consent holder has prepared a programme of

works that will enable the Infrastructure and all other associated land based works, to be constructed in a manner that is timely, adequately co-ordinated and minimises the adverse effects of construction on existing users of the affected land and water space. This section shall, among other matters, provide details of the programme for the construction works throughout all stages of the Infrastructure development process.

Site Management 35. This part of the CEMP is to ensure that procedures are in place to ensure that the site is

managed safely and in a tidy condition throughout the entire construction process. This section shall provide details on the following:

The measures to be adopted to maintain the construction zone and adjacent parts of the CMA in a tidy condition in terms of storage and unloading of materials, refuse storage and disposal and other activities;

The provision of any site office, parking for workers’ vehicles and workers’ conveniences (e.g. portaloos);

The location of construction machinery access and storage during the period of site works, including any temporary mooring of the barge(s);

The procedures for controlling sediment run off into the CMA, and the removal of any debris and construction materials from the CMA; and

The provision of any artificial lighting associated with construction works and the effects of any such lighting.

36. [Not used]

Implementation 37. All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of the requirements contained in

the CEMP. A copy of the certified CEMP shall be held on each of the project sites at all times while any activity associated with construction is occurring. The certified CEMP shall be implemented and maintained throughout the entire period of the works.

38. No construction activity in the CMA (or the affected part of the CMA if staged) shall start until the CEMP is certified by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central and all measures identified in that plan as needing to be put in place prior to the start of works are in place.

39. The consent holder shall notify the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central in writing of the proposed date of Commencement of Construction at least twenty (20) working days prior to the proposed start date.

1191

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 17

40. Within fifteen (15) working days prior to Commencement of Construction, the consent holder shall arrange a pre-start meeting that:

Is located on the subject site;

Is scheduled not less than five (5) working days before the anticipated Commencement of Construction;

Includes Council representatives and representatives of Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Limited, relevant network utility operators and the Harbourmaster’s Office;

Includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works; and

Includes an invitation to ACMWKF (Condition 5). 41. The prestart meeting shall discuss the works methodology generally (including

contaminants, water and wastewater services, erosion and sediment control measures, and earthworks methodology) and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and are familiar with the conditions of the resource consents.

Advice Note: All new and temporary public water and wastewater infrastructure including connection points to the existing systems will require an approval from Watercare Services and an Engineering Plan Approval from Auckland Council. All new and temporary private wastewater infrastructure will require a Building Consent from Auckland Council. The Consent Holder is reminded of the need to consult with Watercare Services (as per the Watercare review, Referenced 72816).

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

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

Resource consent conditions, and

Any Erosion and Sediment Control Plans that are available. 43. In the case that any of the invited parties, other than the representative of the consent

holder, do not attend this meeting, the consent holder will have been deemed to have complied with this condition, provided reasonable notice of ten (10) working days is given to the parties listed above.

44. The consent holder shall notify the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central in writing of the date of completion within ten (10) working days of the completion of the last activity relating to works in any CEMP.

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-start meeting please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central to arrange this meeting on monitoring@aucklandcouncilgovt.nz, or 09 301 01 01. The conditions of consent should be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council should be provided two (2) working days prior to the meeting.

Accidental Discovery Condition 45. In the event that works associated with the construction of Infrastructure for the America's

Cup Wynyard Hobson project reveal protected New Zealand objects as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975 the consent holder shall implement the Protected Objects Protocol in Annexure D.

1192

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 18

45A. The accidental discovery rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part continue to apply for the discovery of other sensitive material, including human remains and kōiwi, archaeological sites, Māori cultural artefacts/taonga tuturu and lava caves greater than 1m in diameter.

45B. Any object that is encountered that sits outside Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act or Protected Objects Act legislation shall be offered to the New Zealand Maritime Museum (in the first instance) by the project archaeologist. If the offer of the object is not accepted and the object is of sufficient material stability, the Consent Holder will give consideration to the retention of this object in a location within the Wynyard Precinct area. If a location cannot be identified within the application area, the Consent Holder will give consideration to whether the object can be safely stored until such time as an agreed location becomes available.

Advice Note: This condition applies separately and in addition to the requirements of the Protected Objects Act 1975 and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

Navigation and Safety Notifications and Documentation 46. Prior to Commencement of Construction, the consent holder shall consult the Auckland

Harbourmaster to identify the appropriate location, number and types of navigational aids and lighting required for the Infrastructure (including for the temporary and/or permanent structures in the CMA). The navigational aids and lighting as approved by the Harbourmaster will be provided and maintained by the consent holder at its cost, and in accordance with Maritime New Zealand guidelines, and the Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code.

46A. The consent holder shall establish a Navigation Safety Management Plan for on-water construction activities (NSMP). The objectives of the NSMP are to:

a) Provide for efficient operation of the waterspace affected by construction;

b) Provide a safe environment for all water users;

c) Ensure water users are appropriately notified of construction activities and any changes to the operation of the waterspace affected by construction;

d) Maintain safe navigation to berths to enable continued operations by Sealink (Wynyard Terminal), Sanford and wider commercial fishing fleet (AFPL) prior to their respective relocation; and

e) Maintain safe navigation for and access to other berth holders and water space users.

46B. The NSMP shall include information/procedures on how navigation access shall be maintained for vessels using berthing facilities within the construction area, including the maintenance of navigation access to and from the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space. The NSMP shall also include requirements such as: the showing of day mark; placement of buoys and temporary beacon lights; the shielding or use of other means to prevent glare and reflection or confusion with navigation lights from construction related lights and area flood lighting; as well as operational communications. The NSMP shall be prepared in consultation with the Harbourmaster, and a final draft NSMP shall be submitted to the Harbourmaster for approval at least twenty (20) working days prior to

1193

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 19

the Commencement of Construction. The Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central is to be informed of the Harbourmaster’s approval.

47. The consent holder shall notify the Auckland Harbourmaster, and Ports of Auckland Ltd Harbour Control, of the location of the marine works and the proposed date of Commencement of Construction in the CMA at least twenty (20) working days prior to the proposed start date.

48. The consent holder shall request, as part of the notification in Condition 47, that the Harbourmaster issue a Temporary Notice to Mariners, advising the location of the marine works, to yachting and boating clubs and the Auckland Coastguard at least five (5) working days prior to the commencement of the marine works.

49. The consent holder shall notify the Auckland Harbourmaster, Ports of Auckland Ltd Harbour Control, and the Land Information NZ (LINZ) Hydrographic Office in writing of the date of completion of works in the CMA within ten (10) working days of the completion of the last activity involving wharves and pontoons.

50. The consent holder shall provide to the LINZ Hydrographic Office a hydrographic survey of the dredged areas within three months of dredging.

Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA

Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA 51. The consent holder shall prepare a Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of

Mudcrete in the CMA (MPDPM). The consent holder shall submit the MPDPM to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the MPDPM gives effect to the objectives in Condition 52 and complies with the requirements in Condition 53. The MPDPM shall be in general accordance with the Draft Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA as referenced in Annexure B.

52. The objectives of the MPDPM are to ensure that:

a) Ensure that appropriate environmental practices are utilised;

b) Identify roles and responsibilities for preparation and implementation of the MPDPM; and

c) Ensure that adequate vessel draft depths are achieved.

53. The MPDPM shall include the following matters:

Details of the equipment and methods to be used for dredging and mixing and placement of mudcrete in the CMA;

Details of the locations, quantities and timing of dredging and placement of mudcrete in the CMA;

Details of the physical characteristics of the dredged material, based on visual observation, to be provided to the Council throughout the physical works period;

Monitoring and reporting (refer to Conditions 55 to 64);

Roles and responsibilities of the personnel involved; and

Method/s of disposal and location of disposal site/s for dredged material.

1194

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 20

54. [Not used]

Water Quality Monitoring for Dredging of North Wharf and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA - Sampling 55. The consent holder shall undertake one-off comprehensive water quality monitoring

during the initial phase of the dredging of the North Wharf area and placement of mudcrete in the CMA. The purpose of this monitoring during the initial phase is to confirm the mixing zone and proposed trigger level specified in Condition 62. Water quality samples shall be collected:

For a neap tide;

At an up-drift control site located approximately within the Waitemata Harbour main channel (for ebb tide) and at least 500 m beyond the operations (for flood tide);

At dilution gradient sites 10m, 20m and 50m down-drift of the operations aligned approximately along the centreline of the Waitemata Harbour main channel; and

At a compliance site 200m down-drift of the operations aligned approximately along the centreline of the Waitemata Harbour main channel.

56. Following the initial phase of dredging and placement of mudcrete in the CMA, the consent holder shall undertake water quality monitoring once per week whilst dredging and any placement of material in the CMA is underway. Water quality samples shall be collected:

On an ebb tide;

At an up-drift control site located at least 500m beyond the operations;

At a dilution gradient site 50m down-drift of the operations aligned approximately along the centreline of the Waitemata Harbour main channel; and

At a compliance site 200m down-drift of the operations aligned approximately along the centreline of the Waitemata Harbour main channel.

57. During each sampling run carried out in accordance with Conditions 55 and 56, records shall be kept of:

Sampling date and time;

Weather conditions;

Sea state;

Sampling location;

Water depth;

Time that dredging and placement of dredged material in the CMA commenced; and

Time of low and high tide on day of sampling.

58. Water samples collected in accordance with Conditions 55 to 56 shall be individual samples from the surface (approximately 0.5 m below surface) and at depth (approximately 0.5m above the seabed) at each site.

59. Water samples shall be collected on a day that dredging is occurring.

1195

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 21

60. Dilution gradient and compliance site samples shall be representative of the plume generated by the operations (i.e. not collected before the plume has had a chance to develop upon the start of the operations and not after the plume has had a chance to dissipate upon completion of the operations), and shall be collected as close as practicable to mid-tide to capture the maximum extent of any plume.

61. Samples for water quality monitoring of dredging shall be analysed for total suspended solid levels (TSS). Samples for water quality monitoring of mudcrete placement in the CMA shall be analysed for total suspended solid levels (TSS) and pH.

62. Unless amended in accordance with Condition 65, the proposed trigger level for total suspended solids shall be 25g/m3 above TSS at the control site; and for mudcreting, a pH of 8.5.

63. Following two months of weekly sampling, and subject to written certification by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central, the monitoring programme may be amended, for example compositing of surface and depth samples, and reduction of the frequency (e.g. to fortnightly / monthly).

64. Within three months of completion of all the dredging works, the consent holder shall provide the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central with the best available estimates of the in-situ volumes of:

Material dredged; and

Material placed as mudcrete in the CMA.

Water Quality Monitoring for Dredging and CMA Mudcrete – Trigger Levels and Contingency Plan 65. The consent holder shall review the proposed TSS trigger level of 25g/m3 and pH trigger

level of 8.5 set out in Condition 62 against the results of the one-off comprehensive monitoring undertaken during the initial phase of the dredging operations. The consent holder shall provide a report to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central confirming the above trigger level(s) or proposing alternative trigger level(s) with the basis for the alternative(s). The report shall be provided within twenty (20) working days of the receipt by the consent holder of the analytical results for the one off comprehensive water sampling required in Condition 55. The alternative trigger level(s) may be used for regular monitoring subject to certification in writing by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

66. During regular monitoring, an exceedance shall be:

For dredging and for mudcrete placement: a TSS level in any sample collected at the compliance site that exceeds the trigger level plus the TSS level measured in the updrift control sample collected during the same sampling run. The TSS level shall be identified from the analytical results of the water quality samples in accordance with Conditions 56 to 61; and

For mudcrete placement: a pH in any sample collected at the compliance sites that exceeds the pH trigger level. The pH shall be identified from the analytical results of the water quality samples in accordance with Conditions 55 to 61.

1196

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 22

67. In the event of an exceedance the consent holder shall prepare a Contingency Plan which sets out the actions to be undertaken. These shall include further monitoring measures, in the first instance, or a site specific effects assessment, and practical modifications to the relevant activities where further monitoring identifies repeated exceedances. Such modifications may include suspending or altering the dredging approach, reducing production rates, focusing dredging activities around slack tide, and using silt fences or other containment approaches. The Contingency Plan shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central no later than five (5) working days after the exceedance occurs.

Aerial Photography Monitoring for Dredging 68. The consent holder shall take aerial photographs of the extent of any plume during the

dredging. Where water quality for dredging is also being undertaken, the photograph shall be completed at the same time as the sampling runs. Aerial photography sites shall be selected to correspond only to those areas where dredging or placement of dredged material in the CMA is occurring, to confirm sediment plume distribution and aid sampling.

Reporting for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA 69. The consent holder shall provide monitoring reports to the Team Leader Compliance

Monitoring – Central and the Mana Whenua Groups that participate in the preparation of the ACKEP as follows:

At completion of the one-off comprehensive water quality monitoring; and

Every six weeks for the duration of dredging and placement of mudcrete in the CMA for routine water quality monitoring.

Advice Note: The consent holder may seek written confirmation from the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central to modify the regularity of monitoring reports if no exceedances occur.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 70. The consent holder shall prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in

consultation with the ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5D. The consent holder shall submit the ESCP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the ESCP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 71A and complies with the requirements in Condition 72. The ESCP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

71. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented throughout land-based Construction Works. They shall be constructed and maintained so as to operate and perform in accordance with Auckland Council GD2016/005: Erosion Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region and any amendments to this document, except where a higher standard is detailed in the conditions below in which case the higher standard shall apply.

71A. The objectives of the ESCP are to: a) Minimise potential erosion effects; and

b) Minimise discharge of sediment beyond the boundaries of the site and into the CMA.

1197

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 23

72. The ESCP shall include but is not limited to, the following information as appropriate to the scale, location and type of earthworks:

Drawings showing location and quantities of earthworks and any mudcrete placement on land, contour information, catchment boundaries and erosion and sediment controls (location, dimensions, capacity);

Supporting calculations for erosion and sediment controls;

Reference to details of measures for contaminated land;

Details of construction methods to be employed, including timing and duration;

Dewatering and pumping methodology (if applicable);

Details of the proposed water treatment measures, devices and appropriate trade waste permits (if applicable);

Specific location of stockpile areas (if applicable);

Detail of adjacent cesspits to be protected or capped (if applicable);

Final details and specifications of the coffer dam or temporary seawall;

The geotechnical-related earthworks matters addressed in Condition 135B(b);

A programme for managing exposed area, including progressive stabilisation considerations;

Roles and responsibilities under the ESCP and identification of those holding roles including the suitably qualified person; and

Monitoring, maintenance and record-keeping requirements.

73. Prior to any earthworks commencing, a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced person shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central, to certify that the erosion and sediment controls have been constructed in accordance with the certified ESCP and Auckland Council Guideline GD2016/005.

74. Certified controls shall include but not be limited to the dewatering and treatment devices, stabilised construction entrances, cesspit protection and clean and dirty water diversions. The certification for these and any subsequent measures shall be supplied immediately upon completion of construction of those measures. Information supplied if applicable, shall include:

Contributing catchment area;

Treatment capabilities and capacities;

Shape and capacity of structure (dimensions of structure);

Position of inlets/outlets;

Stabilisation of the structure; and

A statement regarding the appropriateness of the device with respect to Auckland Council Guideline GD2016/005.

1198

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 24

75. The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures required by the ESCP shall be maintained throughout the duration of earthworks activity, or until the site is permanently stabilised against erosion.

76. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and maintained in general accordance with Auckland Council Guideline GD2016/005; Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region and any amendments to this document, except where a higher standard is detailed conditions of this consent or in the documents referred to the ESCP, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

77. Earthworks shall be managed to avoid deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any road or footpath beyond the subject site resulting from earthworks activity on the subject site. In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall be immediately removed. In no instance shall roads or footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters.

Advice Note: In order to prevent sediment laden water entering waterways from the road, the following methods may be adopted to prevent or address discharges should they occur:

• Provision of a stabilised entry and exit(s) point for vehicles;

• Provision of wheel wash facilities;

• Ceasing of vehicle movement until materials are removed;

• Cleaning of road surfaces using street-sweepers;

• Silt and sediment traps; and

• Catchpit protection.

In no circumstances should the washing of deposited materials into drains be advised or otherwise condoned.

It is recommended that the consent holder discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who may be able to provide further guidance on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Council Guideline GD2016/005, Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

78. The sediment and erosion controls at the site of the works be constructed and maintained in accordance with the certified ESCP and shall be shall be inspected on a regular basis and within 24 hours of each rainstorm event that is likely to impair the function or performance of the erosion and sediment controls. A record shall be kept of the date, time and any maintenance undertaken in association with this condition, and shall be forwarded to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central on request.

79. The site shall be progressively stabilised against erosion at all stages of the earthwork activity and shall be sequenced to minimise the discharge of sediment to surface water.

1199

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 25

Advice Note: Earthworks shall be progressively stabilised against erosion during all stages of the earthwork activity. Interim stabilisation measures may include:

• The use of waterproof covers, geotextiles, or mulching;

• Top-soiling and grassing of otherwise bare areas of earth; and

• Aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a normal pasture sward.

It is recommended that the consent holder discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who may be able to provide further guidance on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Council Guideline GD05, Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

80. Upon completion or abandonment of earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central.

Advice Note: Should the earthworks be completed or abandoned, bare areas of earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion. Measures may include:

• The use of mulching;

• Top-soiling, grassing and mulching of otherwise bare areas of earth;

• Aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a normal pasture sward; and

The on-going monitoring of these measures is the responsibility of the consent holder. It is recommended that the consent holder discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who will guide you on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Council Guideline GD05, Erosion and Sediment Control Guide for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region.

81. Notification shall be given to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central within twenty (20) working days of completion of earthworks.

82. [Not used]

83. [Not used]

84. [Not used]

Contaminated Land Management

Detailed Site Investigation and Remediation Action Plan 85. Prior to any excavation or soil disturbance in areas of known or potentially contaminated

land, the consent holder shall engage a Suitably Qualified Environmental Practitioner (SQEP) to undertake additional soil and groundwater testing for the assessment of contamination within the areas proposed for soil disturbance. The investigation shall be undertaken in general accordance with Ministry for Environment (MfE) Contaminated

1200

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 26

Land Management Guidelines No. 5: Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils (Revised 2011) and any amendments to this document. A Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) Report is to be prepared and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification.

86. At least five (5) working days prior to excavation or disturbance in areas of known or potentially contaminated land, the consent holder shall update the Draft Remediation Action Plan (RAP) as referenced in Annexure B. The updated RAP shall be prepared and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the RAP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 87 and complies with the requirements in Condition 88.

87. The objectives of the RAP are to:

a) Minimise harm from any potential human exposure from contaminants;

b) Manage environmental risk from contaminated material; and

c) Identify any unknown contaminated material.

88. The RAP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Remediation Action Plan as referenced in Annexure B, and shall include:

Any soil, groundwater and gas (if required) investigations undertaken to characterise potential hazards associated with works in those areas and to inform development of the RAP;

The measures to be undertaken in the handling, storage and disposal of all contaminated material excavated during Construction Works;

The soil verification testing that will be undertaken to determine the nature of any contamination in excavated material and the potential reuse or disposal options for that material;

Measures to be undertaken in the event of unexpected contamination being identified during construction activities, including measures to:

(i) Assist with identification of unknown contaminated material; and

(ii) Stop work or isolate the area once any such material is identified.

The measures to be undertaken to manage contaminated land to:

(i) Protect the health and safety of workers and the public;

(ii) Control stormwater run-on and run-off; and

(iii) Remove or manage any contaminated soil.

f) Measures to monitor and mitigate discharges of odour, volatile organic compounds and asbestos (if required) during excavations, including criteria/action levels for triggering specific control and contingency measures;

g) Measures to manage the placement of dredge material on the site addressing:

(i) Description of the methodology of the proposed placement of the dredge material within the site, and its management;

1201

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 27

(ii) The management of the associated contaminant discharges and the relevant effects on the receiving environment;

(iii) Description of the contingency plan procedures for the management of unexpected contamination within the placed dredge material.

89. The RAP shall be implemented and maintained throughout the entire construction period.

89A. If the DSI required by Condition 85 identifies the presence of vapours from contaminants in the ground a vapour risk assessment shall be undertaken to:

a) Confirm the potential contaminants, pathways and receptors who may be impacted by vapours including construction workers and building occupants;

b) Undertake a risk assessment to identify if additional mitigation measures are required for the protection of workers or occupants on any enclosed buildings or structures; and

c) Identify appropriate mitigation measures for incorporation into the RAP or into the design of any proposed buildings or structures.

Placement of Dredge Material on Land

89B. The discharge of contaminants to land and water from the reuse and stockpiling of cement stabilised dredge material shall be carried out in accordance with the updated Remediation Action Plan referenced in Condition 88.

89C. Any dredge material that has not been cement-stabilised and is placed within the site shall be adequately bunded and covered to avoid the generation of contaminant discharges. Any seepages from the unstabilised dredge material shall be considered potentially contaminated, and shall either:

a) Be disposed of by a licenced liquid waste contractor; or

b) Pumped to sewer, providing the relevant permits are obtained; or

c) Discharged to ground provided testing of the discharge has been undertaken and any potential effects assessed and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

Site Management 90. All sampling and testing of contamination on the site shall be overseen by a suitably

qualified and experienced practitioner. All sampling shall be undertaken in general accordance with MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5 Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils (Revised 2011) and any amendments to this document.

91. Where contaminants are identified that have not been anticipated by the RAP, works in the area containing the unexpected contamination shall cease until the contingency measures outlined in the certified RAP have been implemented, and the discovery and contingency measures undertaken have been notified to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

1202

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 28

92. Excavation or soil disturbance in areas of known or potentially contaminated land shall be managed to minimise the generation of dust, asbestos, odour and volatile organic compounds and be carried out in accordance with the certified RAP.

Groundwater

Damage Avoidance 93. All excavation, stabilisation and works associated with the diversion or taking of

groundwater, shall be designed, constructed and maintained so as to avoid damage to buildings, structures and services on the site and adjacent properties, outside that considered as part of the application process unless otherwise agreed in writing with the asset owner.

Alert Levels 94. The activity shall not cause any groundwater changes greater than the Alert Level

thresholds specified in Schedule A. Alert Levels are triggered when the following thresholds are exceeded:

These levels may be amended as part of the Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP) certification process under Condition 96, and, after the receipt of pre-dewatering monitoring data and recommendations from a suitably qualified person, but only to the extent that avoidance of damage to building, structures and services can still be achieved.

Advice Note: There are conditions below that must be complied with when the Alert Levels are exceeded. These include actions that must be taken immediately including seeking the advice of a suitably qualified person.

Alert Level actions 95. In the event of any Alert Level being exceeded the consent holder shall:

Notify the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central within 24 hours;

Re-measure all Monitoring Stations within 50 m of the affected monitoring location(s) to confirm the extent of apparent movement;

Ensure the data is reviewed, and advice provided, by a suitably qualified person on the need for mitigation measures or other actions necessary to avoid further

Schedule A: Groundwater Alert Levels

Movement Alert Level 1 Alert Level 2

The distance below the pre-dewatering Seasonal Low Groundwater Level, or the distance above the pre-dewatering Seasonal High Groundwater Level at AC36_PZ01

0.2 m 0.5 m

The distance below the pre-dewatering Seasonal Low Groundwater Level, or the distance above the pre-dewatering Seasonal High Groundwater Level at AC36_PZ02 and AC36_PZ03

0.5 m 1.0 m

1203

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 29

deformation. Where mitigation measures or other actions are recommended those measures shall be implemented;

Submit a written report, prepared by the suitably qualified person responsible for overviewing the monitoring, to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central within five (5) working days of Alert Level exceedance. The report shall provide an analysis of all monitoring data relating to the exceedance, actions taken to date to address the issue and recommendations for future remedial actions necessary; and

Measure and record all Monitoring Stations within 50 m of the location of any Alert Level exceedance every two (2) working days until such time the written report referred to above has been submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan 96. At least wenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of Dewatering/Stabilisation,

the consent holder shall prepare a Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP) in consultation with the ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5D. The consent holder shall submit the GWMCP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the GWMCP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 96A and complies with the requirements in Condition 96B. The GWMCP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be in general accordance with the Draft Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

96A. The objectives of the GWMCP are to:

a) Minimise potential settlement of surrounding properties and structures; and

b) Ensure any changes in groundwater levels are monitored and appropriate contingency actions are provided.

96B. The GWMCP shall set out the practices and procedures to be adopted to monitor any changes in groundwater levels as a result of works, and provide for contingency actions if Alert Levels are exceeded, and shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

A monitoring location plan showing the location and type of all groundwater monitoring bores based on Figure 5 of the report America’s Cup Groundwater Technical Report for Resource Consent Application, Wynyard Hobson as referenced in Annexure A. In any case where the location of a Monitoring Station differs substantively from that shown on Figure 5 of the report America’s Cup Groundwater Technical Report for Resource Consent Application, Wynyard Hobson as referenced in Annexure A a written explanation for the difference shall be provided at the same time that the GWMCP is provided;

Final completed Schedule A (as per Condition 94) and Schedule B for the groundwater monitoring programme (including any proposed changes to the monitoring frequency) as required by conditions below;

All groundwater level monitoring data undertaken to date, and required by conditions below;

1204

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 30

A bar chart (such as a Gantt chart) showing the timing and frequency of monitoring required by this consent, and, a sample report template for the required 2 monthly monitoring;

All Alert Levels (including reasons if changes to such are proposed; for example as a result of data obtained from pre-dewatering monitoring); and

Details of the contingency actions to be implemented if Alert Levels are exceeded.

97. All construction, dewatering, monitoring and contingency actions shall be carried out in accordance with the certified GWMCP. No bulk excavation (that may affect groundwater levels) or other dewatering activities shall commence until the GWMCP is certified by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

Groundwater Monitoring 98. The consent holder shall install and maintain groundwater monitoring boreholes at the

sites shown in Figure 5 of the report America’s Cup Groundwater Technical Report for Resource Consent Application, Wynyard Hobson as referenced in Annexure A. The consent holder shall install the monitoring bores at least 2 months prior to commencement of any in-situ stabilisation.

99. Groundwater level monitoring is to be undertaken in accordance with Schedule B below: Schedule B: Groundwater Monitoring FrequencyBore Name NZTM Location Groundwater level monitoring frequency (to an

accuracy of 10mm) From bore construction until one month before Commencement of Dewatering / Stabilisation

One month before Commencement of, and until Completion of Dewatering / Stabilisation

From Completion of Dewatering / Stabilisation until 6 months later

Easting Northing

AC36-PZ01 1756583 5921416 Monthly Weekly Monthly AC36-PZ02 1756673 5921538 Monthly Weekly Monthly AC36-PZ03 1756742 5921606 Monthly Weekly Monthly

The monitoring frequency may be changed as part of the certification process by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central. Any change shall be specified in the GWMCP. In addition, the 6 month monitoring period post Completion of Dewatering/Stabilisation may be extended, by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central, if measured groundwater levels are not consistent with inferred seasonal trends or predicted groundwater movement.

Advice Note: If groundwater level measurements show an inconsistent pattern immediately prior to the Commencement of Dewatering/Stabilisation (for example varying more than +/-200mm during a month), then further readings may be required to ensure that an accurate groundwater level baseline is established before dewatering commences.

1205

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 31

Contingency Actions 100. If the consent holder becomes aware of any damage to buildings, structures or services

potentially caused wholly, or in part, by the exercise of this consent, the consent holder shall:

Notify the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central and the asset owner Immediately upon becoming aware of the damage;

Seek access permission from the building, structure or asset owner, together with the request that a suitably qualified person is engaged by the consent holder at their its cost, to prepare a report that: describes the damage; identifies the cause of the damage; identifies methods to remedy and/or mitigate the damage that has been caused; identifies the potential for further damage to occur; and describes actions that will be taken to avoid further damage; and

Provide a copy of the report, prepared under b) above, to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central and the asset owner within ten (10) working days of notification under a) above.

Reporting 101. At two monthly intervals a report containing all monitoring data required by conditions of

this consent shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central. The report shall include a construction progress timeline, a summary interpretation of the monitoring data recorded in that period, and, a comparison of that data with previously recorded data and with the Alert Levels for each groundwater bore.

Notice of Completion 102. The Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central shall be advised in writing within ten

(10) working days of when stabilisation and dewatering has been completed.

Construction Traffic

Construction Traffic Management Plan 103. The consent holder shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for

each stage of the Project. The CTMP for the Infrastructure construction shall be prepared in consultation with the CLG in accordance with Condition 22 The consent holder shall submit the CTMP for each stage of the Project to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central at least twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of Construction of each stage for certification that the CTMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 104 and complies with the requirements in Condition 105. The CTMP for the Infrastructure construction shall be in general accordance with the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

104. The objectives of the CTMP are to:

a) Provide for the safety of everyone at all times;

b) Ensure maintenance of access for all modes of transport to / from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct at all times;

1206

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 32

c) Minimise disruption from construction traffic on occupants in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct;

d) Minimise adverse effects on amenity caused by construction traffic in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct;

e) Avoid Full Road Closures and minimise any Partial or Managed Road Closures;

f) Manage integration with other construction projects and Auckland Transport projects;

g) Provide for prior engagement with stakeholders when access to properties will be affected by construction traffic; and

h) Provide a mechanism for addressing queries and responding to complaints.

105. The CTMP shall include:

Provision of the new Northern Connector Road to the north of proposed Base C providing access during construction between Brigham Street and Hamer Street, specifically in advance of the closure of Brigham Street. If Brigham Street needs to be temporarily closed (Partial or Managed Road Closures) before it is permanently stopped a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared by the consent holder and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification in consultation with Auckland Transport. This TMP shall identity diversion routes, signage and other measures to advise of the temporary closure and to ensure safety for all modes of transport, and to mitigate any effects of the closure;

For each Project stage and/or construction area, clearly address the traffic management measures that will be required to be implemented;

A mechanism and nominated stakeholder manager responsible for receiving, addressing and monitoring queries and responding to complaints in relation to the construction works;

For Wynyard Point bases, include specific construction site traffic management measures (for example ensuring sufficient space is maintained on construction site(s) to prevent vehicles queueing on the street) to ensure that construction traffic does not affect the efficiency and safety of other vehicles, pedestrians and people on cycles on Hamer Street including the flow of vehicles to and from the Firth site;

For Halsey Wharf, include a Traffic Management Plan for the Marine and Fishing Industry, which shall be completed in consultation with the Regional Facilities Auckland (Viaduct Events Centre “VEC”) and the marine and fishing industry (including Sanford Limited and Auckland Fishing Port Limited) and shall be based on the VEC Traffic Management Plan, which was prepared as a condition of consent for the VEC;

For Hobson Wharf base, include specific construction site traffic management measures to ensure that continued vehicle access is provided to the Eastern Viaduct and to Te Wero;

Provision of appropriate ingress and egress routes to/from the different sites for the construction vehicles, including confirmation of appropriate heavy vehicles layover

1207

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 33

areas and over-dimensional vehicle routes. The operation of the heavy vehicles layover area on Brigham Street shall not impede the travel of passing vehicles and cyclists;

For each Project stage and construction site, confirmation of typical numbers of heavy vehicle movements throughout the day;

Coordination with Auckland Transport regarding other construction sites and streetworks in the vicinity of the Wynyard Precinct and the Viaduct Precinct, including works on Quay Street;

Restricting parking for workers on construction sites, with parking prioritised for minor trades (i.e. those needing to bring tools for specialist activities), car / van pooling, staff working outside standard hours and mobility impaired staff / visitors;

No heavy vehicle movements/ deliveries to and from the construction sites within the Wynyard Precinct via the Fanshawe Street intersections on weekdays (excluding public holidays) between 7am and 9am and between 4pm and 6pm unless included as part of a CTMP;

No heavy vehicle movements / deliveries to and from construction sites shall be made via Viaduct Harbour Avenue or Customs Street West (only that part west of Lower Hobson Street) at any time;

The movement of heavy vehicles shall be managed to avoid queuing or parking from occuring on adjacent roads that may affect access to and from adjacent properties including Auckland Theatre Company drop-off and pick-up on Madden Street and Halsey Street;

Minimising heavy vehicle movements between 10.30pm and 6.00am via Halsey Street and Madden Street;

Maintaining safe and efficient vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist accesses from Brigham Street during construction for remaining activities / properties, which may include temporary access for BST, and Sealink and Auckland Seaplanes via the southern part of the Sail NZ / ASB car park site;

No heavy vehicles shall use Daldy Street unless specifically required for large infrequent deliveries, which shall occur between midnight and 6am;

Monitoring of landscaping and pavements located on construction routes and provide remediation of any damage resulting from Project construction traffic;

Monitoring and remediation of any damage to landscaping and pavements on construction routes within Wynyard Precinct north of and including Madden Street and all of Halsey Street;

Providing safe access for pedestrians and people cycling to Project construction sites;

In coordination with Auckland Transport, implement measures to raise awareness of pedestrians walking and people cycling east-west on North Wharf and Wynyard Crossing shared path and zebra crossing to construction and heavy vehicle drivers travelling on Hamer Street, Karanga Plaza and Brigham Street (until it is stopped);

1208

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 34

Specific measures to provide for the safe movement of pedestrians and people cycling through high pedestrian and cycle demand areas and in the vicinity of site access points;

Specific measures to ensure that construction traffic minimises disruption of movement of all modes of traffic through Wynyard and Viaduct Harbour Precincts to and from existing businesses and maintains access to and from sites;

Restricting or preventing public access to parts of Halsey Wharf, Wynyard Wharf and Hobson Wharf where required for public safety;

Educating construction staff of the safety needs of pedestrians and people cycling; and

Confirmation that no heavy vehicles will reverse to or from public roads within Wynyard Precinct, Viaduct Harbour Precinct and Lower Hobson or Quay Streets.

Construction Staff Travel Plan 106. The consent holder shall prepare a Construction Staff Travel Plan (CSTP) for the

Infrastructure construction. The consent holder shall submit the CSTP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the CSTP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 107 and complies with the requirements in Condition 108. The CSTP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Construction Staff Travel Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

107. The objectives of the CSTP are to encourage and promote travel by public transport, walking and cycling and to minimise private vehicle travel associated with construction.

108. The CSTP shall include:

Provision of any car or van pooling from outside the Wynyard Precinct or City Centre;

Providing staff with information on preferential parking locations and rates for those ride sharing;

Providing construction staff with information about recommended cycle and pedestrian routes to/from the construction sites;

The provision of secure cycle parking and storage facilities (for personal items) on the construction sites; and

Providing staff with information on public transport to and from the construction sites.

108A. Six (6) months and the twelve (12) months following the commencement of the construction, a report evaluating the CSTP shall be prepared and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central. The report shall identify:

a) The number of staff on each site, the measures that have been put in place to facilitate and encourage staff not to drive to and from work;

b) The outcomes of the implementation of the CSTP including the number of staff travelling on various modes to and from the sites, and the use of on-street parking provision by staff within Wynyard Precinct.

1209

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 35

108B. Should the report required by Condition 108A identify that more than 30% of staff are travelling by single occupancy car and parking within Wynyard Precinct, the consent holder shall within one month prepare an amendment to the CSTP that includes further measures to actively discourage driving to and from work and submit the amended CSTP by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification.

Construction Noise and Vibration 109. Construction noise shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of

New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics - Construction Noise” and comply with the following Project Standards unless otherwise provided for in the CNVMP (refer Condition 110).

Day Time LAeq (30min) LAFmax

Monday to Saturday 0700 to 2230 75 90

Sunday 0900 to 1900 65 80

All other times 60 75

109A. Vibration arising from construction activities which may affect people and buildings shall be measured in accordance with ISO 4866:2010 Mechanical vibration and shock – Vibration of fixed structures – Guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on structures, and shall comply with the Category A vibration standards in the table below:

Receiver Time Category A Category B

Occupied dwellings, hotels and motels

Night 2230h - 0700h

Day 0700h - 2230h

0.3mm/s PPV

2mm/s PPV

1mm/s PPV

5mm/s PPV

Other occupied buildings All times 2mm/s PPV 5mm/s PPV

All buildings All times 5mm/s PPV Tables 1 and 3 of DIN4150-3:1999

109B. Vibration from construction activities shall comply with the Category A standards in Condition 109A unless otherwise provided for in the CNVMP (refer to Condition 110).

109C. Vibration may only exceed Category B standards at existing buildings located on Hobson Wharf, and only subject to compliance with the management procedures set out in the CNVMP required by Condition 110.

110. The consent holder shall prepare a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) for the Infrastructure construction in consultation with the CLG in accordance with Condition 22. At least five (5) working days prior to Commencement of Construction of the Infrastructure for the Project, the consent holder shall submit the CNVMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the

1210

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 36

CNVMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 110A and complies with the requirements in Condition 110B. The CNVMP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

110A. The objectives of the CNVMP are to:

a) Identify and implement the Best Practicable Option (BPO) for the management of all construction noise and vibration effects;

b) Define the procedures to be followed where the noise and vibration standards (Conditions 109 & 109A) are not met (following the implementation of the BPO);

c) Set out the methods for scheduling works to minimise disruption;

d) Ensure engagement with affected receivers and timely management of complaints; and

e) Protect wellbeing of marine mammals.

110B. The CNVMP shall include:

A description of the works;

Hours of operation, including a specific section on works at night (2230h - 0700h), incorporating clear definitions of the works undertaken at night;

Contact details for staff responsible for implementation of the CNVMP;

The construction noise and vibration performance standards for the project;

Minimum separation distances from receivers for plant and machinery where compliance with the construction noise and vibration standards is achieved;

Identification of affected sensitive receivers where noise and vibration performance standards apply;

A specific section setting out the predicted noise and/or vibration levels, mitigation, monitoring and management measures (including communication with stakeholders) that will be adopted for works which cannot comply with the project standards specified in Conditions 109 and 109A. This section shall include the information above for each activity that cannot practicably comply. This section may be in the form of site specific plans which would require certification from the Council before the works can proceed, in a manner that would achieve the objectives outlined in Condition 110A;

Management and mitigation options to manage the underwater noise effects on marine mammals from impact and vibratory piling methods, including defined marine mammal management zones, marine mammal observation procedures, measurements of underwater noise at the commencement of vibratory and impact piling to calibrate underwater noise model, and procedures to adopt when marine mammals are present inside the management zones;

Methods and frequency of monitoring and reporting. This shall include monitoring during the first occurrence of impact piling, bored piling, vibro piling, other activities that are predicted to exceed the project standards in Condition 109 and the

1211

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 37

Category A standards in Condition 109A, and repeated if different equipment is utilised to undertake these activities;

Communication, consultation and complaints response protocol including specific provisions for determining the times that receivers are sensitive to noise and vibration and the extent to which high noise and vibration works can be scheduled around those times where practicable (including residential, office, hospitality and tourism activities);

A section requiring that impact and vibratory piling within 30m of occupied buildings (including on Hobson Wharf) shall be scheduled between 8am and 10am unless otherwise agreed with the building occupants;

A section requiring that all impact piling within 100m of any occupied building on Princes Wharf is restricted to between the hours of 7am and 7pm, unless the Council certifies that impact piling outside of these hours is consistent with the BPO; and

A section requiring that impact piling and concrete cutting may only be undertaken during the daytime periods defined in Condition 109.

110C. In all cases, piling work may not commence until the absence of marine mammals inside the effects management zones identified in the CNVMP is confirmed visually. All piling work shall cease in the event that a marine mammal is detected within the effects management zones identified in the CNVMP.

110D. In the event of a noise and/or vibration complaint, monitoring shall be undertaken where the activity and methodology has not already been shown to be compliant with the Project Standards in Conditions 109 – 109C at that location. Council may waive the requirement for further monitoring where it would not better inform the complaint.

Construction Lighting Management Plan 111. The consent holder shall prepare a Construction Lighting Management Plan (CLMP)

for the Infrastructure construction. The consent holder shall submit the CLMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the CSTP gives effect to the objective in Condition 112 and complies with the requirements in Condition 113. The CLMP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Construction Lighting Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

112. The objective of the CLMP is to minimise potential impacts of construction lighting required by the works including to minimise adverse effects on amenity caused by construction lighting on residential and visitor accommodation in the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts.

113. The CLMP shall include:

Details of construction lighting columns and luminaires, that shall be selected, tilted and/or aimed to ensure that spill light and glare to light sensitive areas is controlled to ensure:

(i) Spill light at the boundary with dwellings shall be no more than the limits in AUP:OP rule E24.6.1(6);

1212

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 38

(ii) Glare to dwellings shall be no more than the limits in AUP:OP rule E24.6.1(8); and

(iii) Other potentially light sensitive areas, where the AUP:OP lighting rules do not apply shall also be protected from unnecessary lighting glare effects as reasonably practical. In particular, this refers to non-dwelling residential uses such as hotels and commercial outdoor dining, such as the eateries along North Wharf and Princes Wharf.

Confirmation that no lights being directed towards the night sky;

A map of the surrounding light sensitive areas;

Design to comply with the E24.6.1 General Standards in the AUP:OP;

Planning and setup measures to minimise spill light and glare; and

Other measures such as construction vehicle headlight sweep, construction vehicle warning lights/beacons, construction vessel lights.

Biosecurity Management Plan 114. Prior to the installation of any structures in the CMA or undertaking any dredging, the

consent holder shall prepare a Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP) in consultation with the ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5D. The consent holder shall submit the BMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification that the BMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 115 and complies with the requirements in Condition 116. The BMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be in general accordance with the Draft Biosecurity Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B. The consent holder shall also lodge an updated BMP for re-certification prior to the decommissioning of any America’s Cup Infrastructure located in the CMA.

115. The objectives of the BMP are to:

a) To avoid the spread of any unwanted/biosecurity risk species to and from the site to other locations by construction vessels during construction works, construction decommissioning and post-event decommissioning;

b) To ensure that decommissioning of America’s Cup Infrastructure is carried out in a manner that minimises the risk of any threats from unwanted/biosecurity risks species and / or the transfer of those threats off-site; and

c) To ensure that any operators of any vessels visiting the event are aware of their obligations to avoid the spread of any unwanted/biosecurity risk species to Hauraki Gulf or offshore islands.

116. The BMP shall include:

Identification of any unwanted/biosecurity risk species present;

Identification of the potential for transfer of threat species off-site; and

Measures to avoid or minimise transfer of unwanted/biosecurity species, during construction works, construction decommissioning and post event decommissioning of Infrastructure in the CMA; and

Measures to ensure that any operators of any vessels visiting the event are aware of their obligations to avoid the spread of any unwanted/biosecurity risk species to Hauraki Gulf or offshore islands.

1213

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 39

Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan 117. The consent holder shall prepare an Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental

Management Plan (IVHEMP) in consultation with the ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5D. The consent holder shall submit the IVHEMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification that the IVHEMP gives effect to the objective in Condition 118 and complies with the requirements in Condition 119. The IVHEMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be in general accordance with the Draft Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

118. The objective of the IVHEMP is to provide for monitoring of water quality within the Inner Viaduct Harbour water space to identify any ecological changes to the environment of the Inner Harbour from works authorised by this consent.

119. The IVHEMP shall include:

a) An environmental monitoring programme that shall include:

(i) Water quality monitoring on a monthly basis at sites within the Inner Viaduct Harbour and the Wynyard South Waterspace and in Freemans Bay. The samples are to be collected on a monthly basis and analysed for the constituents as set out in the Golder report “Assessment of Coastal Environmental Effects Associated with the Development of America's Cup Facilities for the Wynyard Hobson Option” as referenced in Annexure A;

(ii) In addition to the sites identified in (i), on a monthly basis, additional sites for the observation of aesthetic effects (identification of sheens, floatables, rubbish) with photographic records being kept;

(iii) Sediment quality sampling on an annual basis at the water quality monitoring sites in the Inner Viaduct Harbour. The samples collected at each site are to be photographed and examined for grain size, total organic carbon, redox and concentration of copper, lead and zinc;

(iv) Benthic ecological sampling collected annually, at the same time as the sediment quality sampling is undertaken, to provide information on the infauna at sediment quality sampling sites;

(v) Intertidal and subtidal ecological monitoring on structures (pontoons, piles and walls) from at least three locations within the Inner Viaduct Harbour. Data will be collected annually from permanent photo-quadrats and for wall and pile sites, quadrats are to be established at surface and approximate mid and bottom water depths;

(vi) Water quality sampling is to be carried out following a minimum of three storm events, with the sampling being taken at the Karanga Steps within the Inner Viaduct Harbour, and examined for enterococci and the field information as collected under (i) above

b) The following matters as they relate to the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space:

1214

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 40

(i) The extent to which there are any new, untreated stormwater discharges from surrounding development into the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space;

(ii) Provisions for waste management, including flotsam removal, litter collection from adjacent quays; and

(iii) Any wider Council group initiatives for the Freemans Bay catchment stormwater improvement.

119A. Water quality monitoring required by Condition 119a) shall be carried out for a period of 12 months following the completion of the construction period. At the completion of the 12-month period the consent holder shall submit a report prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central which summarises all environmental data collected during the monitoring period and provides an assessment on the following matters:

a) Whether there have been any environmental or ecological changes within the Inner Viaduct Harbour that may have been influenced by possible changes in flushing within the Inner Viaduct Harbour;

b) Whether water quality in the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space is suitable for contact recreation; and

c) Whether stormwater discharge to the Inner Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Wharf South Water Space results in identifiable water quality changes.

119B. The report required by Condition 119A shall include a recommendation as to whether the monitoring shall cease or if it is to be continued for an additional period and if so for what period for further review and reporting.

Trees 120. Conditions 121 to 135A apply to Trees 1, 15, 16, 17 and 18 as identified in the report

‘Arboricultural Assessment Report America’s Cup 36 – Wynyard Hobson’ provided by Stuart Barton of Arbor Connect Limited dated 12 April 2018 (Application Document 18) as “trees to be retained” to mitigate potential adverse effects of the proposal on those trees. A copy of the tree protection methodology in Conditions 121 to 135A shall be held on site at all times.

121. A suitably experienced, arborist (“Appointed arborist”) shall be employed by the consent holder, at the consent holder’s expense, to monitor, supervise and direct all works within the drip line or in the vicinity of the trees to be retained, for the duration of the works.

121A. The appointed arborist shall provide advice during the detailed design phase and development of the construction methodologies and enabling works to be undertaken in Hamer Street to ensure the potential effects on trees and the number of tree removals required are minimised.

122. An integral requirement for the protection of the retained vegetation within the site will be the continued and documented monitoring of conditions during the construction process. The Appointed arborist shall maintain a log of visits to the site and works undertaken on those visits.

1215

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 41

123. Prior to any site works (including demolition works) commencing that affect the trees to be retained, a pre-commencement site meeting shall be held so that the tree protection methodology that pertains to those trees can be explained by the Appointed arborist to all contractors or sub-contractors who will be working on site within the root zone of, or adjacent to, any of the trees to be retained.

124. The pre–commencement meeting may also be attended by Council’s Arborist. The consent holder shall give the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central and the Council’s Arborist at least ten (10) working days prior notice of the intended date of the meeting.

125. Prior to construction, the consent holder shall provide a report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist setting out the methodology for the relocation of any Trees 1, 16, 17 and 18 identified to be transplanted and their successful establishment to satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central. These works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist.

125A. All reasonable care shall be taken during the works to ensure that the trees within Hamer Street that are growing outside the project area are retained in a safe and healthy condition. Only in instances where the Appointed Arborist (taking into consideration the tree species, age, condition and tolerance to damage, root zone disturbance and pruning) can demonstrate to the satisfaction of Council’s Arborist that the stability and / or long-term health of a tree is likely to be compromised by the works may the tree be removed.

125B. If feasible and proportionate to the value of the tree (in the opinion of the Appointed Arborist), any tree to be removed may be transplanted to another location or stored and replanted back within the vicinity of the project area, subject to the confirmation of Council’s Arborist.

126. Any demolition, including the removal of asphalt surfaces, or excavation works within the root zone of any tree to be retained shall be undertaken under the supervision of the Appointed arborist.

127. All roots encountered during excavations that require severance shall be cleanly cut back to the excavation face using handsaw or secateurs, by the consent holder’s nominated arborist. All exposed roots and root ends shall be covered to prevent them from drying out by a covering of Hessian (or acceptable alternative) that is to be kept damp until the excavated area can be backfilled. Roots that will come into contact with wet concrete shall be covered by plastic prior to the concrete being poured.

128. Temporary protective fencing to protect the trees to be retained shall be installed prior to any site works, including demolition, commencing on site. The purpose of the temporary protective fencing is to provide an area around the retained trees that will facilitate their successful retention during the construction process. The exact extent and location of the temporary protective fencing shall be finalised on site before works begin, by the consent holder’s nominated arborist. Although temporary, the fence shall be constructed so that it is not easily moved.

129. The area within the temporary protective fencing is to be considered a total exclusion zone as follows:

1216

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 42

No storage of diesel, cement, building materials, site huts, spoil etc within the delineated area;

No spillages of substances likely to be injurious to tree health within seepage distance of the delineated area;

No alteration to the dimensions of the delineated area without prior confirmation by the nominated arborist; and

No access into or works within the delineated area without prior confirmation by the Appointed arborist.

130. The consent holder is responsible for maintaining the condition of the temporary protective fencing. The condition, repair and location of the temporary protective fencing shall be regularly inspected as part of the routine tree-monitoring programme.

131. The Appointed arborist shall undertake all remedial pruning works necessary, including the pruning of tree roots uncovered during excavations, in accordance with documented arboricultural standards.

132. During the construction process the Appointed arborist may make recommendations on the installation of irrigation systems, mulch or remedial pruning works, if they are required to improve the health of the trees.

132A. All works required to install services within Jellicoe Street shall be undertaken outside the below-ground rain garden structures.

133. Replacement planting shall be carried out for each protected tree that is removed and not transplanted. Within the planting season following the completion of work within Brigham Street, the consent holder shall plant a minimum of 5.0m high replacement trees on a one for one basis for those removed.

134. Replacement planting shall be carried out in accordance with correct arboricultural practices in locations that provide for the trees’ long-term growth and development and shall be maintained in accordance with correct arboricultural practices for a minimum period of 2 years after planting.

135. Any replacement or transplanted tree that dies within the 2 year maintenance period shall be replaced like-for-like.

135A. The consent holder shall supply a completion memorandum to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central upon completion of all works on site. This memorandum shall include minutes of the pre-commencement meeting that is required as a condition of consent, a log of all site visits and actions undertaken by the Appointed Arborist, confirmation of the number, size, species and location of all replacement or transplanted trees, and confirmation that all required tree protection measures were adhered to for the duration of the works.

Advice note: The consent holder is advised to consult with Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Arborist (delegated by Auckland Transport to manage trees in streets) at the earliest opportunity to gain his or her approval for the works affecting trees under Community Facilities’ management.

Geotechnical Conditions 135B. The following geotechnical requirements shall apply to the Project:

1217

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 43

(a) The consent holder shall submit a Project Geotechnical Design Report (PGDR) to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central no later than twenty (20) working days before the Commencement of Construction. The PGDR shall include analysis and design to address specific natural hazards likely to affect the development and shall include but not be limited to:

i. Detailed geotechnical assessment and design of structures and earthworks fill which demonstrates stability and appropriate performance in accordance with the Auckland Council ‘Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision’ for the specific intended design life, considering the destabilising effects of natural hazard.

Works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified PGDR.

(b) The trenches, retaining walls and building foundations shall be supervised by a suitably qualified engineering professional. In supervising the works, the suitably qualified engineering professional shall ensure that trenches for the purpose of drainage (manholes and drains), fill and foundations (if any), have been provided with adequate support and protection so they will not lead to instability.

(c) All geotechnical-related earthworks shall be managed to ensure that they do not lead to any uncontrolled instability or collapse either affecting the site or adversely affecting any neighbouring properties. In the event that such collapse or instability does occur, it shall immediately be rectified.

Advice Note: All new and temporary public water and wastewater infrastructure including connection points to the existing systems will require an approval.

Post Construction Requirements Industrial and Trade Activities

Stormwater Treatment Devices 136. Stormwater treatment devices for the ITAs shall be provided as set out in Condition 148.

137. Stormwater treatment devices for the ITAs shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the ITA HSEMPs.

Industrial and Trade Activities Environmental Management Plans 138. At least twenty (20) working days prior to any Industrial and Trade Activities occurring on

any one of the syndicate bases, the consent holder shall prepare an Industrial and Trade Activities Hazardous Substances and Environmental Management Plans (ITA HSEMP) for that syndicate base in consultation with the ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5D. The consent holder shall submit the ITA HSEMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification that the ITA HSEMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 139 and complies with the requirements in Condition 141.

139. The objectives of the ITA HSEMPs are to:

a) Ensure Best Practicable Options (BPOs) are utilised to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects arising from ITA’s and Hazardous Substance storage and use; and

1218

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 44

b) Enable flexibility in the location of hazardous substance storage and use areas.

140. The consent holder shall ensure that each base is operated and managed in accordance with the certified ITA HSEMP for the duration that the ITA continues and / or any hazardous substance is stored or used at that base.

141. The ITA HSEMP shall include the following:

a) Site location, activities, layout and drainage plans;

b) Identification of potential contaminants associated with the activities conducted on the site/s, methods to avoid, control and treat discharges of these from the site/s, and methods to manage environmental risks from site activities as far as practicable;

c) Identification of hazardous substances on site;

d) Identification of treatment devices proposed to be utilised

e)` Operation and maintenance procedures for treatment devices, which may be contained in a separate plan cross referenced in the ITA HSEMP as required by Condition 150 (design report for stormwater treatment);

f) If the syndicate bases are to use detergents the consent holder shall prepare and submit additional details for the management of wash water that are to include but are not limited to:

(i) A description of the detergent, the quality and frequency of use, and the combined amount of wash water;

(ii) The procedure during application to contain the washwater so that it avoids entering the stormwater treatment device; and

(iii) Confirmation of acceptance by Watercare of any subsequent discharge to the public wastewater system.

h) Roles and responsibilities associated with the ITA HSEMP;

i) Methods for providing and recording staff training on the ITA HSEMP;

j) A programme for auditing site performance against the ITA HSEMP provisions; and

k) Reporting and review of the ITA HSEMP.

Industrial and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response Plans 142. Prior to occupation of each syndicate base, the consent holder shall prepare an Industrial

and Trade Activities Emergency Spill Response Plan (ITA ESRP) for the syndicate base in consultation with the ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5D. The consent holder shall submit the ITA ESRP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification that the ITA ESRP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 143 and complies with the requirements in Condition 151.

143. The objectives of the ITA ESRPs are to:

a) Ensure appropriate operational procedures are identified to mitigate risk of spills; and

1219

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 45

b) Ensure appropriate management systems are identified to mitigate risk of spills;

144. The ITA ESRP shall apply to, and be kept on site and accessible on each site for the duration that the ITA continues at that site.

145. The ITA ESRPs shall include the matters in Appendix A to the America’s Cup Stormwater and Services Technical Report prepared by Beca, as referenced in Annexure A.

Reporting 146. The consent holder shall submit a report to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring –

Central annually in a month to be agreed following the date that ITAs and/or hazardous substance handling or storage commenced at the sites. The report shall include:

The performance of the sites against the ITA HSEMP provisions, including the results of any audits required under Condition 141;

Inspection and maintenance records for the stormwater treatment devices;

Results and interpretation of the stormwater device monitoring programme;

Records of any spills or incidents which occurred within the previous reporting period and the response undertaken; and

Any updated sections of the ITA HSEMP resulting from the review required under Condition 141.

147. The consent holder shall report to the Auckland Harbourmaster or the Auckland Council’s 24 Hour Water pollution Hotline (09 377 3107) all spills of Hazardous Substances of Classes 1 to 6, 8 and 9 over 20 litres and all spills of other substances over 50 litres that have entered the stormwater system or a water body from the ITA sites.

Stormwater Management

Stormwater Systems and Treatment Devices 148. The following stormwater management works shall be constructed for the following

catchment areas and design requirements, and shall be completed prior to discharges commencing from the site:

Catchment Works Design requirement(s)

Wynyard Wharf permanent infill sections – trafficked areas

Stormwater360 Stormfilter or similar approved device

75% TSS removal Hobson wharf extension – trafficked areas

Wynyard point bases – trafficked areas

149. In the event that any modifications to the stormwater management system are required, that will not result in an application pursuant to section 127 of the RMA, the following information shall be provided:

a) Plans and drawings outlining the details of the modifications; and

1220

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 46

b) Supporting information that details how the proposal does not affect the capacity or performance of the stormwater management system.

All information shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification prior to implementation of the modifications.

150. At least twenty (20) working days prior to construction of the proposed stormwater systems and treatment devices, the consent holder shall submit a design report to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification, including detailed engineering drawings, specifications, and calculations for the stormwater treatment devices. The details shall include:

Confirmation that the design achieves the requirements of Condition 148;

Contributing catchment size and boundaries and impervious percentage;

Specific design and location of stormwater treatment devices; and

Supporting calculations for stormwater treatment devices, including capacity and suspended solid removal efficiency.

151. [Not used]

152. [Not used]

153. [Not used]

154. [Not used]

Pre-construction meeting 155. A pre-construction meeting shall be held by the consent holder, prior to commencement

of the construction of any stormwater devices onsite, that:

Is arranged five (5) working days prior to initiation of the construction of any stormwater devices on the site;

Is located on the subject area;

Includes representation from the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring - Central; and

Includes representation from the site stormwater engineer and contractors who will undertake the works and any other relevant parties.

156. The following information shall be made available prior to, or at the pre-construction meeting

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

Contact details of the site contractor and site stormwater engineer; and

Construction plans certified (signed/stamped) by an Auckland Council Development Engineer.

Post-construction meeting 157. A post-construction meeting shall be held by the consent holder, within twenty (20)

working days of completion of the stormwater management works, that:

Is located on the subject area;

1221

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 47

Includes representation from the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring - Central; and

Includes representation from the site stormwater engineer and contractors who have undertaken the works and any other relevant parties.

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-construction or post-construction meeting required by this consent, please contact the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central on phone 09 3010101 or monitoring@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

As-Built Drawings 158. No later than thirty (30) working days after the practical completion of the project or of any

project stage which is subject to separate practical completion, the consent holder shall supply As-Built Drawings for the stormwater systems and treatment devices to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central.

159. The As-Built Drawings shall be signed off by a Chartered Professional Engineer on behalf of the consent holder and shall include:

a) The as-built locations of stormwater reticulation, treatment devices and outfalls expressed in terms of the New Zealand Transverse Mercator Projection and Chart Datum to the nearest 0.1 m for location and 0.01m for level;

b) Stormwater treatment device details including dimensions, design capacity, treatment efficiencies, inlet/outlet levels and discharge rates;

c) Photographs at all stormwater outfall locations; and

d) Documentation of any discrepancies between the certified design plans under Condition 150 and the As-Built Drawings.

Operation and Maintenance Plan 160. An Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance

Monitoring - Central five (5) working days prior to the post-construction meeting required by this consent for certification.

161. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall set out how the stormwater management system is to be operated and maintained to ensure that adverse environmental effects are minimised. The plan shall include:

Details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure which will support this process;

A monitoring programme to determine maintenance frequency;

A programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;

A programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;

A programme for post storm inspection and maintenance;

A programme for inspection and maintenance of the outfalls;

General inspection checklists for all aspects of the stormwater management system, including visual checks

1222

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 48

162. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be updated and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification, upon request.

Maintenance Contract 163. A written maintenance contract for the on-going maintenance of the proprietary device(s)

shall be entered into with an appropriate stormwater management system operator, prior to the operation of any proprietary stormwater management device(s). A written maintenance contract shall be in place and maintained for the duration of the consent.

164. A signed copy of the contract required shall be forwarded to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring - Central five (5) working days prior to the post-construction meeting required by this consent.

165. A copy of the current maintenance contract shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central upon request throughout the duration of the consent.

Maintenance Report 166. Details of all inspections and maintenance for the stormwater management system, for

the preceding three years, shall be retained.

167. A maintenance report shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central on request.

168. The maintenance report shall include the following information:

Details of who is responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management system and the organisational structure supporting this process;

Details of any maintenance undertaken; and

Details of any inspections completed.

Pre-Occupation and Event Conditions Noise 168A. Noise, excluding Noise Events as provided for in Condition 183Q and the operational

requirements of any vessel, shall comply with: a) Parts (2) and (5) of Rule I214.6.4 for activities on land in the Wynyard Precinct;

b) Rule E25.6.8 for activities on land in the Business – City Centre Zone not in Wynyard Precinct;

c) Rule E25.6.22 for all activities in the CMA, where the noise limits of the receiving zone shall apply to all receivers on land on the south side of the Waitemata Harbour;

d) Rule E25.6.14 for all activities in the CMA where the noise is received on any site in a residential zone on the northern side of the Waitemata Harbour; and

e) The following noise limits for any activities at Base B (other than amplified sound) where the noise is measured and assessed as the incident level on the facade of any building on Princes Wharf occupied by an activity sensitive to noise:

7am to 11pm 65 dB LAeq

1223

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 49

11pm to 7am 60 dB LAeq

75 dB LAFmax

f) The following noise limits for amplified sound at Base B where the noise is measured and assessed as the incident level on the façade of any building on Princess Wharf occupied by an activity sensitive to noise:

7am to 11pm 65 dB LAeq

11pm to 7am 55 dB LAeq

65 dB at 63 Hz Leq 1/1 Octave Band

60 dB at 125 Hz Leq 1/1 Octave Band

75 dB LAFmax

168B. Prior to the use of any distributed loudspeaker system designed for playing commentaries, interviews, promotional material or any other amplified sound to the public (excluding Noise Events), the consent holder shall provide a report from a suitably qualified acoustics expert setting out sufficient detail to demonstrate that the speaker system(s) have been calibrated by noise measurements in accordance with NZS6801:2008 Acoustics – Measurement of environmental sound to ensure that the cumulative noise level from the operation of the speakers and all other Operations (excluding crowd noise) will be compliant with the noise limits in Condition 168A at all times. The speakers may not be used for any purpose other than the calibration until the report is certified by the Council.

Wynyard Point Bases Design and Management

Location of Base Buildings 169. The location of the Base Buildings C-G shall be in accordance with plans in Condition 13,

including the location and layout of the hardstand areas for each base.

Detailed Design 170. Bases C-D shall be designed by a chartered engineer to ensure that there is sufficient

time for an alarm and evacuation to occur without structural compromise or ignition of the building occurring and if necessary shall include:

a) A requirement that occupiers of Base Buildings C-D cannot fit mechanical ventilation systems (such as air conditioning units) that draw air from outside the building unless the system can be automatically shut down in an emergency;

b) Location of entrances, access points to the bases and fencing fronting Hamer Street; and

c) Design details of the emergency access route along the eastern side of the Base Buildings including openable gates to ensure unimpeded access southwards during an emergency.

170A. Any ground vapour mitigation measures required to protect occupants of enclosed structures as determined by the detailed site investigation report and vapour risk assessment shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the land or buildings.

1224

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 50

Occupant Numbers 171. The total number of people at any one time at Bases C to G shall not exceed 500 persons

per base.

Pedestrian Access 172. In addition to the absence of footpaths or any activities or amenities that would attract

people to the area on Hamer Street and Brigham Street north of Base C, the consent holder shall ensure (as part of the design submitted for certification under Condition 25) that the detailed design of the public realm strongly discourages pedestrian access to these areas.

173. The consent holder shall put in place measures to restrict public access to the Wynyard Wharf east breakwater when a dangerous goods tanker is berthed at Wynyard Wharf.

Emergency Evacuation Plan 174. Prior to the occupation of Base Buildings C-G, the consent holder shall prepare and

submit a comprehensive Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) for Bases C-G to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the achieves the matters in Condition 175.

174A. The consent holder shall put in place measures to restrict public access to the Wynyard Wharf east breakwater during events with the purpose of ensuring the breakwater can be safely evacuated in the event of a toxic vapour release from Stolthaven North. The proposed measures shall be reviewed and confirmed by a suitably qualified expert and included in the EMP required by conditions 183H and 183J.

175. The EEP shall include provisions to cater for an emergency which may arise from a fire, explosion, or the release of toxic vapour occurring on the Stolthaven Wynyard (north) hazardous substances facility or their external product lines to Wynyard Wharf. The EEP shall also:

a) Include an evacuation scheme prepared in accordance with the Fire and Safety Evacuation of Buildings Regulations 2006 or any amendment to this document which shall also take into account any additional items which may arise and are considered appropriate in respect of any hazardous incident associated with a fire, explosion, or the release of toxic vapour occurring on the Stolthaven Wynyard (north) hazardous substances facility or its external product lines to Wynyard Wharf. In particular, consideration shall be given to:

(i) Alarm systems;

(ii) Evacuation and egress times;

(iii) Emergency services access;

(iv) Provision of appropriate information;

(v) Information on direction of egress; and

(vi) Induction and training of staff. b) Ensure continuous evacuation routes from the Bases, which should be via a choice

of alternative routes via the Syndicate Base yards, the Northern connector road and Hamer Street, or through the base yards to Brigham Street entrance;

1225

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 51

c) Include a provision requiring the EEP to be reviewed at a minimum of 12 month intervals, commencing from the date of first occupation of the Bases. This shall take into account any learnings from the implementation of the EEP in the prior 12 months in response to a hazardous incident occurring;

d) Be consistent with the guidance in the Emergency Evacuation Plan: Jellicoe Street, Silo Park & Gateway Plaza, Wynyard Quarter Auckland (by Holmes Fire Safety, 25 May 2011 Rev B); and

e) The EEP shall be reviewed by a suitably qualified expert to ensure that the Base design and evacuation procedures are sufficient to ensure evacuation in the event of a toxic vapour release from the Stolthaven Wynyard (north) facility. The review shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central at least thirty (30) working days prior to occupation of the bases.

Wynyard Wharf South Water Space area 176. Prior to the berthage of super yachts in the Wynyard Wharf South Water Space area, the

current emergency plan for North Wharf (Emergency Evacuation Plan: Site 14 Redevelopment, Wynyard Quarter Auckland (by Holmes Fire Safety, 25 May 2011 Rev B)) shall be updated to ensure egress / evacuation arrangements are included for super yachts berthed in this area that could be potentially affected by an ammonia release from the nearby Sanford facility or a toxic vapour release from the Stolthaven Wynyard (North) facility.

Advice Note: The consent holder and Auckland Transport is advised they will need to ensure adequate access for emergency service vehicles to the Wynyard Wharf South area is maintained for the duration of the occupation of the bases. In particular, the consent holder and Auckland Transport are advised of the following safety-related implementation actions:

• Management of public access onto Hamer Street north of Base C and onto the Wynyard east breakwater during the Event (through the Event Management Plan) by establishing access cordons at the access points to these areas;

• The Event parking and any public parking is limited to land areas in Wynyard Precinct that are south of Jellicoe Street, or are located outside the Precinct.

Servicing, Delivery and Guest Transport Plans 177. Prior to occupation of any syndicate base or superyacht facilities on Wynyard Point and

Hobson Wharf, the consent holder shall prepare Servicing, Delivery and Guest Transport Plans (SDGTPs) for the syndicate base. The consent holder shall submit the SDGTP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central for certification that the SDGTP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 178 and complies with the requirements in Condition 179a) and 179b) as applicable.

178. The objectives of the SDGTPs are to:

a) Ensure servicing and deliveries and associated parking are provided for whilst minimising impacts on the transport network and occupants within Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct;

1226

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 52

b) Ensure guest transport traffic movements and associated parking during an Event are provided for whilst minimising impacts on the transport network and occupants within Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct;

c) Provide for the safety of all users with particular regard to pedestrians and people cycling; and

d) Provide advance notification of the SDGTP measures to affected parties.

179. The SDGTPs shall, as applicable to the operations they address, shall include the following:

a) For Wynyard Point a plan to address servicing and delivery and to communicate to guests of hosted events the transport management arrangements, including the following measures:

(i) Vehicles associated with the pick-up and drop-off of guests at the Wynyard Point bases shall be minimised within Wynyard Quarter between 4pm and 6pm on weekdays (except Public Holidays). This includes taxis and private vehicles;

(ii) During guest hosting at the syndicate bases, on-site pick-up and drop-off arrangements within the Access Lane will be appropriately configured to manage taxi/private hire demand within the Wynyard Point site;

(iii) Identify alternative pick-up and drop-off zones in the wider area in consultation with Auckland Transport, and communicate the identified location to guests;

(iv) During the event phases, parking for base guests shall be limited to up to a total of no more than 20 spaces, excluding pick-up and drop-off arrangements during guest hosting at the bases;

(v) Guests who choose to use private vehicles to attend events at bases will be encouraged through communication to park in public car parks outside of Wynyard Quarter;

(vi) The public transport options close to Wynyard Point bases will be communicated to guests;

(vii) Taxi and private hire operators shall will be informed of the timing restrictions and alternative pick and drop off points noted above and of on-site drop-off and pick-up arrangements;

(viii) The on-street parking for private vehicles on Hamer Street and Brigham Street will be temporarily suspended on racing days during the Event phase and will not be available for public parking (excluding the ‘Goods Vehicle Only’ spaces);

(ix) No servicing, rubbish collection and deliveries shall occur between 4pm and 6pm unless it involves unless it involves essential deliveries, necessary to avoid delay to racing; and

(x) Communicate servicing, rubbish and delivery contractors and drivers of arrangements for access, including where loading docks are located.

b) For Hobson Wharf (i.e. Base B) a plan to address servicing and delivery and to communicate to guests of hosted events the transport management arrangements and to provide coordination of the servicing/ deliveries to the NZ Maritime Museum and Eastern Viaduct, including the following measures:

1227

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 53

(i) No parking on Hobson Wharf for guests attending an event at the base or in a superyacht;

(ii) Guests who choose to use private vehicles to attend events at Base B will be advised to park in public car parks outside of Wynyard and Viaduct Precincts;

(iii) The public transport options close to the base will be communicated to guests;

(iv) Identify any temporary pick-up and drop-off zones in the wider area in consultation with Auckland Transport, and communicate the identified location to guests;

(v) Inform taxi firms and private-hire operators that no on-site drop-off and pick-up arrangements shall be permitted on Hobson Wharf with the exception of disabled passengers on Hobson Wharf;

(vi) No servicing, rubbish collection and deliveries shall occur between 4pm and 6pm unless it involves unless it involves essential deliveries, necessary to avoid delay to racing. The essential deliveries will be escorted by a nominated person, if required;

(vii) Manage entry and exit of servicing and delivery vehicles at vehicle access control points on Eastern Viaduct and Hobson Wharf to ensure safety for all people;

(viii) Any vehicle turning areas on the Wharf will be demarcated;

(ix) Vehicle speeds on the wharf will be no more than 10km/hour and reinforced with appropriate design measures and signage; and

(x) The overall design of the access route will encourage a low speed environment for vehicles.

Event Management Plan 180. The consent holder shall prepare an Event Management Plan (EMP) in consultation with

ACMWKF in accordance with Condition 5 and the CLG in accordance with Condition 22. At least sixty (60) working days prior to the commencement of an Event, the consent holder shall submit the EMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the EMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 181 and complies with the requirements in Condition 182. The EMP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Event Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

In addition to the specific matters identified in Conditions 181 and 182, the EMP shall include an Event Transport Management Plan (as required by Conditions 183 to 183G), an Emergency Management Plan (as required by Conditions 183H to 183J), a Lighting Management Plan (as required by Conditions 183K to 183M) and a Noise Management Plan (as required by Conditions 183N to 183P).

181. The objectives of the EMP are to:

a) Enable a successful Event that positively showcases Auckland and New Zealand to the world, including provision of appropriate cultural expression by ACMWKF;

b) Provide for and manage large numbers of spectators;

c) Provide a safe and secure environment at all times;

1228

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 54

d) Provide for a range of event scenarios (with associated management measures) based on forecast daily visitor numbers;

e) Provide for on and off water sports activities, activation, merchandising, entertainment and associated activities throughout each Event;

f) Provide for a range of plans and management plans as identified in Condition 183 that address event transport, public transport, pedestrians and people on cycles, traffic, emergencies, lighting and noise;

g) Ensure maintenance of access for all modes of transport to and from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct, noting that managed access may be required for safety or operational reasons;

h) Minimise disruption from event related traffic and gathering of crowds on occupants in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct including the dispersal of crowds after events;

j) Avoid Full Road Closures and minimise any Partial and / or Managed Closures;

k) Methods and procedures to minimise public within Wynyard Point north of Silo Park during events, and avoiding any public events or activities which encourage people to congregate in this area while the Stolthaven North facility is still occupied;

l) Ensure appropriate emergency egress, lighting and noise measures are provided;

m) Manage integration with other construction projects and Auckland Transport projects;

n) Provide for the active monitoring of the event transport to inform the management of the event on the day, as well the planning and management of future events; and

o) Provide for prior engagement with stakeholders when access to properties will be affected by the event and a mechanism for addressing queries and complaints.

182. The EMP shall be in effect at all times during an Event. The EMP shall include the following:

a) An indicative event concept plan that identifies structures and activities;

b) An indicative event schedule;

c) A range of event scenarios, which may differ according to location, duration, timing and occupancy;

d) Provisions made to address risk, safety and security measures (as appropriate);

e) Reference and align with the ‘Key Principles for Delivering Events’ from Auckland Council’s Events Policy;

f) Measures to ensure access to properties within Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct including any managed access measures;

g) Procedures for the removal of temporary structures after each Event; and

h) Processes to provide for feedback and enable the review and amendment of the EMP and the plans/measures identified in Conditions 183 to 183F.

1229

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 55

Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP) 183. The consent holder shall prepare an Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP) in

consultation with the CLG in accordance with Condition 22. At least sixty (60) working days prior to the commencement of an Event, the consent holder shall submit the ETMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the ETMP gives effect to the objectives in Conditions 181 (as applicable), 183B, 183D and 183F and complies with the requirements in Conditions 183A, 183C, 183E and 183G. The EMP shall be in general accordance with the Draft Event Transport Management Plan as referenced in Annexure B.

183A. The objectives of the ETMP are the transport-related objectives included in Condition 181. The ETMP shall include the details/measures/plans identified in Conditions 183 to 183G, including the following matters:

a) Marshalling and management of pedestrian, cycle and vehicle access to the Eastern Viaduct, Princes Wharf, Hobson Wharf, Halsey Wharf and Wynyard Point (north of Base C) to ensure safety for all people;

b) On-site marshalling and management of vehicle access and bays on the Wynyard Point site, implemented also through the Servicing, Delivery and Guest Transport Plan (refer to Condition 179a));

c) An effective communication strategy to guests attending functions at bases to raise awareness of using active and public modes of transport to and from the events;

d) Methods to manage public access within Wynyard Point and Wynyard wharf (including the breakwater) during events;

e) Effective communication strategy to guests attending functions at bases to raise awareness that no parking will be available in the bases or on the Wharf, restricted parking on local streets, carparks, location of drop-off and pick-up locations and existing taxi ranks;

f) Marshalling and management of vehicle access to Brigham and Hamer Streets, as well as temporary parking restrictions on Hamer and Brigham Streets on racing days during the Event to ensure safety for all people;

g) Marshalling and management of vehicle access to sections of Beaumont, Daldy, Jellicoe, Halsey and Quay Streets, depending on the event scenario implemented, as well as temporary parking restrictions in this area to ensure safety for all people;

h) Identify public bus service routes and stops, including any temporary diversion of existing scheduled bus services and associated temporary bus stop relocations;

i) Identify temporary private bus and coach pick-up / drop-off locations, as well as temporary pick-up / drop-off location/s for taxis and private hire vehicles including a temporary pick-up drop-off zones;

j) Identify potential management measures, as necessary, to address any impacts on or in the vicinity of Wynyard Crossing to maintain the safety of pedestrians and people cycling, which will be informed by more detailed pedestrian modelling and the Pedestrian and Cycling Management Measures;

1230

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 56

k) Provide active monitoring of the event transport. This will inform the management of the event on the day, as well the planning and management of future events; and

l) The management measures in Conditions 183B to 183G.

183B. Event and Public Transport Management Measures (EPTMM). The objectives of the EPTMM are to: a) Reduce private vehicle trips to the Event and promote alternative transport modes;

b) Successfully communicate alternative transport modes to the public;

c) Enable a large number of visitors to the Event via public transport;

d) Provide for and communicate public transport options to the public; and

e) Provide active monitoring of the event transport.

183C. The EPTMM shall include the following matters:

a) A Travel Demand Strategy to discourage driving and this will need to be clearly communicated to the public along with the promotion of sustainable modes of travel;

b) Any relevant matters from condition 182;

c) A strategy for taxi and coach pick up and drop off;

d) Any changes to the SGDTPs for activities during the Scenario 1 / 1+ event;

e) Any changes to the SSTP for activities during the Event;

f) Identifying and delivery of additional services for buses, trains and ferries;

g) Identify temporary new and existing park and ride facilities;

h) Any relevant matters from condition 183;

i) Identifying the any temporary diversion of existing scheduled bus services;

j) Identifying and implementation of temporary bus stops;

k) Establishing the Major Events Operations Centre (MEOC) to provide active monitoring of the event and to inform future event management; and

l) Any relevant plans showing the above matters.

183D. Pedestrian and Cyclist Management Measures (PCMM). The objectives of the PCMM are to:

a) Encourage pedestrians and people on cycles to the Event;

b) Provide positive experiences for pedestrians and people on cycles; and

c) Provide for the safe movement of pedestrians and people who cycle.

183E. The PCMM shall include the following matters:

a) Identify pedestrian routes between the public transport facilities and the Event (i.e. the “Last Mile” routes);

b) Implement clear wayfinding and signage for visitors to and within the Event;

c) Manage safe pedestrian and cycle access to the wharves and breakwaters;

d) Provide convenient, secure temporary cycle parking for the public;

1231

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 57

e) Enable safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists along the shared path through Silo Park and Karanga Plaza and within areas, to the south and west of Wynyard Point bases;

f) Provide a detailed management plan for Wynyard Crossing in the event that detailed pedestrian modelling reveals insufficient capacity of the bridge in any Event scenarios;

g) Any relevant matters from condition 183;

h) Identify diversion routes for pedestrians and cyclists wanting to bypass the Event;

i) The PCMM’s shall be informed by further detailed pedestrian modelling; and

j) Any relevant plans showing the above matters.

183F. Traffic and Parking Management Measures (TPMM). The objectives of the TPMM are to:

a) Ensure safe and efficient traffic management measures for the Event;

b) Ensure maintenance of access for all modes of transport to and from properties in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct, noting that managed access may be required for safety or operational reasons;

c) Minimise disruption from event related traffic on occupants in Wynyard Precinct and Viaduct Harbour Precinct;

d) Ensure integration with other construction projects and Auckland Transport projects.

183G. The TPMM shall include the following matters:

Measures to manage the circulation of vehicle and parking movements in combination with the Event Transport Plan. Implement clear wayfinding and signage for visitors to and within the Event;

Any relevant matters from condition 183;

Site-Specific Traffic Management Plan (SSTMPs), which shall address any Full, Partial and / or Managed Road Closures, as well as temporary parking restrictions during the event;

Minimise disruption to access to properties and businesses within Wynyard and Viaduct Precincts;

Enable access to residents and businesses, where necessary on a restricted basis to provide for pedestrian / crowd safety, particularly for their servicing and deliveries;

Enable efficient circulation of vehicle movements around Wynyard Precinct;

Provide clear communication on any changes to the operation of roads and parking to stakeholders;

Provide for loading and unloading of goods;

Identification of pick up and drop off areas;

Provide appropriate accessible parking options;

Enable the safe operation of Fanshawe Street intersections; and

Any relevant plans showing the above matters.

1232

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 58

Emergency Management Plan 183H. The consent holder shall prepare an Emergency Management Plan (EmMP) in

consultation with Auckland Emergency Management. At least sixty (60) working days prior to the commencement of an Event, the consent holder shall submit the EmMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the EmMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 183I and complies with the requirements in Condition 183J.

183I. The objective of the EmMP is to ensure provision is put in place to deal with potential emergencies.

183J. The EmMP shall include the following matters:

Incorporate operational and emergency management plans, including evacuation requirements that are integrated with other local evacuation plans;

Identify public address and communications plans for the event site;

Provide signage and wayfinding;

Establish an operational and emergency control rooms;

Methods and procedures to evacuate the site and surrounding areas in the event of an ammonia release from the nearby Sanford facility or a toxic vapour release from the Stolthaven Wynyard (north) facility; and

In relation to tsunami risk:

Identify the emergency management response for tsunami hazards for the areas associated with the Americas Cup Infrastructure and Event(s);

Identify roles and responsibilities for the management of tsunami risk including integration with Regional Emergency Management Planning;

Identify emergency management responses including but not limited to physical signage, warning systems and messaging, platforms or signage, and evacuation areas, routes, egress times and safe location; and

Be consistent with EEP associated with the Hazardous facilities risk and any other Emergency Management Plans as identified in Condition 174.

Lighting Management Plan 183K. The consent holder shall prepare an Event Lighting Management Plan (ELMP). At

least sixty (60) working days prior to the commencement of an Event, the consent holder shall submit the ELMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the ELMP gives effect to the objective in Condition 183L and complies with the requirements in Condition 183M.

183L. The objective of the ELMP is to ensure that event lighting minimises adverse effects on amenity.

183M. The ELMP shall include the following matters:

a) A map of surrounding light sensitive areas;

b) Design principles and a monitoring regime for the event lighting installation to ensure compliance with E24.6.1 General Standards and to minimise obtrusive lighting effects to the light sensitive areas and visitor accommodation;

c) Design to be in accordance with CPTED principles;

1233

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 59

d) A requirement for a suitably qualified lighting specialist to undertake a walkover of the surrounding light sensitive areas, prior to the event with the lighting switched on, to ensure that the event lighting satisfies standards at Condition 183Mb);

e) Location, control, orientation and the number of LED screens, feature lighting and lighting for hospitality features;

f) Identification of outside broadcast area location(s);

g) Details regarding shut down periods for temporary additional event lighting, which shall involve only light for crowd dispersal, operational and safety purposes being used after 10.30pm; and

h) Positioning or control of big screens to minimise obtrusive light effects, either by directing screens away from light sensitive areas and visitor accommodation where practical or by achieving compliance with rule E23.6.1.(3) in the AUP:OP.

Noise Events Management Plan 183N. The consent holder shall prepare a Noise Events Management Plan (NEMP) At least

sixty (60) working days prior to the commencement of an Event, the consent holder shall submit the NEMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the NEMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 183O and complies with the requirements in Condition 183P.

183O. The objectives of the NEMP are to: a) Ensure that the consent holder identifies the number of Noise Events needed out of

the total permitted number of Noise Events each year in accordance with Rules I211.6.1(1) and I214.6.4(4) and to communicate this to the Council for record keeping;

b) Provide methods and procedures to ensure that the noise limits in Condition 183Q are complied with including sound system calibration and noise level monitoring processes with reference to low frequency noise;

c) Ensure that effective engagement with affected receivers is undertaken prior to each Noise Event, and to communicate details such as dates, timing, effective complaints handling procedures and expected noise levels;

d) Identify the BPO for the management of noise from sources associated with the Event such as pack-in and pack-out, crowd noise management (particularly late at night), refuse and recycling collections, servicing of venues during night time hours and electricity generation; and

e) Provide procedures to ensure that all contractors, staff and production crews responsible for generating and/ or managing noise are briefed and trained about the contents and objectives of the NEMP.

183P. The NEMP shall:

Set out procedures for the calibration of all sound systems prior to each Noise Event to ensure compliance with the noise limits in Condition 183Q at all times for all Noise Events;

Address all requirements of Rule I211.6.1 for Noise Events in the Viaduct Harbour Precinct, and Rule I214.6.4(4) for Noise Events in the Wynyard Precinct (except that

1234

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 60

the noise limits in those rules shall be replaced with those set out in Condition 183Q);

Provide contact details for the person on site responsible for noise management; and

Establish procedures for monitoring and recording the frequency and number of Noise Events within the Event area and the provision of this information to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central.

Noise Events 183Q. Noise from activities taking during the Event period shall comply with the levels in

Condition 168A except where provided for below:

a) Medium Noise Events:

(i) No more than twelve (12) Medium Noise Events may take place within a calendar year in each of the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts;

(ii) A Medium Noise Event shall not exceed 6 hours in duration and may only take place between the hours of 12:00 pm and 10:30 pm;

(iii) The noise from all Medium Noise Events (excluding crowd noise) undertaken outside a building shall comply with:

72 dB LAeq and 80 dB LA01

76 dB Leq at 63 Hz

76 dB Leq at 125 Hz

(iv) The noise limits must be complied with when measured and assessed as the incident level, 1 m from the façade of any building with an activity sensitive to noise (as defined in Chapter J of the AUP) not authorised by this consent that is occupied during the event.

b) High Noise Events

(i) No more than three (3) High Noise Events may take place within a calendar year in each of the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts;

(ii) A High Noise Event shall not exceed 3 hours in duration and may only take place between the hours of 12:00 pm and 10:00 pm;

(iii) The noise from all High Noise Events (excluding crowd noise) shall comply with:

82 dB LAeq and 90 dB LA01

86 dB Leq at 63 Hz

86 dB Leq at 125 Hz

(iv) The noise limits must be complied with when measured and assessed as the incident level, 1 m from the façade of any building with an activity sensitive to noise (as defined in Chapter J of the AUP) not authorised by this consent that is occupied during the event.

183R. There shall be no amplified music before midday on any day during the Event periods.

1235

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 61

Syndicate Staff Travel Plans (SSTPs) 184. The consent holder shall prepare a Syndicate Staff Travel Plan (SSTP) for each

syndicate base. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the occupation of each base, the consent holder shall submit a SSTP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the SSTP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 185 and complies with the requirements in Condition 186.

185. The objectives of the SSTP are to encourage and promote travel by public transport, walking and cycling, and to minimise private vehicle travel associated with base activities.

186. The SSTP shall include:

For Wynyard Bases – no more than 20 on-site parking may be provided for staff working at Bases C – G during the operational phase. These onsite parking may be made available as guests parking during the event phase;

For VEC ETNZ Base A – no more than 18 on-site parking shall be provided for staff working at the base during the operational and events phases. There shall be no onsite parking for guests at any time;

For Hobson Wharf Base B – there shall be no onsite parking for staff or guests at any time;

Measures to encourage carpooling from team hotels or accommodation;

Identification of the locations for allocated parking for staff car / van pooling;

Provision for cycle parking;

Provision of information regarding the public transport options and walking and cycling routes; and

Provision for drop-off and pick-up locations depending on space requirements. 186A. Six (6) months prior to the commencement of an Event, a single report evaluating the

SSTPs for all syndicate bases shall be prepared by the consent holder and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central. The report shall identify:

The number of staff on each syndicate base, the measures that have been put in place to facilitate and encourage staff not to drive to and from work; and

The outcomes of the implementation of the SSTPs including the number of staff travelling on various modes to and from the sites, and the use of on street parking provision by staff within Wynyard Precinct.

186B. Should the report identify that more than 30% of staff are travelling by single occupancy car and parking within Wynyard Precinct, the Consent Holder shall promptly prepare and submit an amendment to the SSTP for certification by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central that will actively discourage driving to and from work;

186C. An additional SSTP evaluation report may be required by the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central on reasonable notice during any Event. Any further evaluation report required shall be prepared and submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central in accordance with the requirements of Conditions 186A and 186B above.

Wynyard Point Traffic Measures 187. [Not used]

1236

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 62

188. Clear signage shall be provided at the access to each of the five Wynyard Point bases to enable easy legibility of the access strategy.

189. A footpath shall be provided on the eastern side of Hamer Street for the full length of Bases C-G, to be agreed with Auckland Transport based on further consultation. The footpath shall serve the Wynyard Point America’s Cup syndicate Bases C-G and be coordinated with any provision made for footpaths on the western side of Hamer Street.

VEC Syndicate Base Traffic Management Plan 190. The consent holder shall prepare a VEC Syndicate Base Traffic Management Plan

(VEC SB TMP) for Base A. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the occupation of Base A, the consent holder shall submit a VEC SB TMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the VEC SB TMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 191 and complies with the requirements in Condition 191A.

191 The objectives of the VEC SB TMP are to:

a) Update the current Viaduct Event Centre Traffic Management Plan to respond to change of use of the building to a syndicate base;

b) Ensure servicing and deliveries and associated parking are provided for whilst minimising impacts on the transport network and occupants within Wynyard Precinct;

c) Ensure guest transport traffic movements and associated parking during an Event are provided for whilst minimising impacts on the transport network and occupants within Wynyard Precinct; and

d) Provide for the safety of all users with particular regard to pedestrians and people cycling.

191A. The VEC SB TMP shall include: a) Vehicles including taxis and private/hired vehicles associated with the pick-up and

drop-off of guests at the base and for superyachts shall be minimised within Wynyard Precinct between 4pm and 6pm on weekdays (except public holidays);

b) Parking on Halsey Wharf shall be limited to up to 18 staff parking spaces;

c) No parking or pick-up/drop-off by taxis or private/hired vehicles on Halsey Wharf for guests attending an event at the base or on a superyacht;

d) Guests who choose to use private vehicles to attend events at the base or on superyachts shall be encouraged through communication to park in public car parks outside the Wynyard Precinct;

e) The public transport options close to the ETNZ VEC base will be communicated to guests;

f) Identify pick-up/drop-off zones in the wider area in consultation with Auckland Transport, as part of the wider ETMP, and communicate the identified locations to guests;

g) Inform taxi firms and private hire operators that no drop-off/pick-up arrangements shall be permitted on Halsey Wharf with the exception of disabled passengers;

1237

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 63

h) Managed entry and exit of servicing and delivery vehicles at vehicle access control point on the western edge of Halsey Wharf;

i) No servicing, rubbish collections and deliveries shall occur between 4pm and 6pm on weekdays (excluding public holidays), unless it involves essential deliveries, necessary to avoid delay to racing. The essential deliveries will be escorted by a nominated person, if required;

j) Communicate to servicing, rubbish collection and delivery contractors and drivers, the arrangements for access, including where loading docks are located;

k) Any vehicle turning areas on the Wharf will be demarcated;

l) Vehicle speeds on the wharf will be no more than 10km/hour and reinforced with signage;

m) The overall design of the access route will encourage a low speed environment for vehicles; and

n) No vehicle entry/exit from the eastern edge of Halsey Wharf via Karanga Plaza except for emergency vehicles and occasional large vehicles, i.e. for moving masts or other large yacht parts.

VEC Syndicate Base Marine and Fishing Industry Management Plan 192. The consent holder shall prepare a VEC Syndicate Base Marine and Fishing Industry

Management Plan (VEC SB MFIMP) for Base A. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the occupation of Base A, the consent holder shall submit a VEC SB MFIMP to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that the VEC SB MFIMP gives effect to the objectives in Condition 193 and complies with the requirements in Condition 194.

193. The objectives of the VEC SB MFIMP are to:

a) Address the matters in the current MFIMP as applicable to the conversion of the VEC to a syndicate base and reflecting the use of the building and yard on Halsey Wharf as a syndicate base for ETNZ.; and

b) Provide for the safety of all users with particular regard to pedestrians and people cycling.

194. The VEC SB MFIMP shall address the efficient and safe accesses for vehicles, pedestrians and people on cycles during the operational phase.

Public Access 195. In the event that Bases C-G (inclusive) are not occupied during the ten year consent

period, the consent holder shall provide a minimum 10m wide pedestrian and cycle connection between North Wharf and Brigham St except where closure required for temporary events and marine and port operations.

196. Public access shall be maintained along the western side of Halsey Wharf at all times except where closure is required during construction for safety and operational reasons.

197. Public access shall be maintained to the upper level viewing deck of the Viaduct Events Centre at all times except where required during construction for safety and operational reasons.

1238

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 64

197A. During the ten year consent period public access shall be provided to the eastern side of Halsey Wharf when Base A is not occupied and to the southern edge of Hobson Wharf for a minimum width of 10m when Base B is not occupied, except where closure is required for temporary events and marine and port operations.

Use of and Buildings on Wharf Extensions and Infill 198. Wharf extensions and infill (Hobson and Wynyard) shall not be used for public car parking.

198A. In the event that the building on Base B is removed under Condition 6, the extension to Hobson Wharf shall remain free of buildings for the 10-year period of the consent other than as required for temporary events or for marine and port activities. For the avoidance of doubt, this condition does not prevent a replacement base being constructed under this consent and in accordance with all conditions in the event that the Cup is won again overseas and hosted back in Auckland during the ten year period.

Legacy Use Options 198B. The Consent Holder shall prepare a Legacy Use Options Plan. The purpose of the

Legacy Use Options Plan is to identify options for future use that retain the ability for events of similar scale to be hosted in Auckland in the future without requiring new Infrastructure (including but not limited to wharfs) to be constructed in the Waitemata Harbour. The Legacy Use Options Plan is to be prepared in consultation with the Crown, and mana whenua and the CLG. For the avoidance of doubt, the area to be considered by the Legacy Use Options Plan is not restricted to the area subject to this consent.

198C. The Consent Holder shall submit the Legacy Use Options Plan to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central at the earlier of:

a) Six (6) months prior to the expiry of the ten (10) year consent(s);

b) Three (3) months prior to a consent holder initiated plan change or proposed plan being notified for the area of Wynyard Quarter north of Jellicoe Street and/or Hobson Wharf;

c) Three (3) months prior to lodgement of any resource consent application by the Consent Holder enabling the redevelopment of the area occupied by Bases B – G that would restrict the ability for events of a similar scale to the America’s Cup.

d) As soon as reasonably practicable after any plan change or resource consent application is lodged or filed with the Council (by any party other than the consent holder) relating to the area of Wynyard Quarter north of Jellicoe Street and/or Hobson Wharf that would restrict the ability for events of a similar scale to the America’s Cup.

198D. At the time the Legacy Use Options Plan is submitted to Council, the Consent Holder shall also provide:

a) A summary of consultation during preparation of the Legacy Use Options Plan;

b) Any feedback on the final Legacy Use Options Plan from the Crown, mana whenua and the CLG (Condition 22); and

c) A response to that feedback indicating the matters that were not implemented and the reasons why.

1239

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 65

199. [Not used]

200. [Not used]

201. [Not used]

Illuminated Signage 202. The following requirements shall apply to any signage involving internally illuminated signs

and LED digital signs (in addition to any other requirements in the conditions of this consent):

For permanent signage (throughout the 10-year consent period):

A lighting report shall be submitted to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification that any internally illuminate signage will achieve rule E23.6.1.(3) in the AUP:OP; and

The lighting report shall be accompanied by a lighting assessment by a suitably qualified lighting specialist and shall be implemented as certified.

For temporary signage (for the duration of the Event):

(i) The lighting design shall satisfy permitted activity requirements in the AUP:OP, including rules within sections E23 & E24.

BAU Lighting 203. Business as usual lighting (i.e. other than construction or event lighting) shall comply with

the following requirements:

Exterior lighting on new bases shall be zero tilt luminaires with no light projected above the horizontal or shall be selected, oriented and/or screened such that any obtrusive light effects satisfy the permitted activity limits in the AUP:OP section E24.6.1;

Pole mounted lighting is to have zero tilt luminaires with no light projected above the horizontal;

Design of lighting is to be in accordance with CPTED principles; and

Lighting must comply with the E24.6.1 General Standards in the AUP:OP.

1240

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

ANNEXURE A Drawings and Documents (refer to condition 13)

1241

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Annexure A: Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

Plan title and reference Author Rev Dated

Engineering Plans

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4001; ‘General Civil Drawing 1- Overall Existing Layout Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4002; ‘General Civil Drawing 2- Overall Development Layout Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4003; ‘General Civil Drawing 3- Existing Occupation Consents Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4004; ‘General Civil Drawing 4- Proposed Occupation Consents Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4101; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 1- Overall General Arrangement Layout Plan’

Beca C 07/08/18*1

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4102; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 2- Halsey Wharf Breakwater – General Arrangement’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4103; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 3- Halsey Wharf Breakwater-Typical Sections’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4104; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 4- Hobson Wharf Extension- General Arrangement’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4105; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 5- Hobson Wharf Extension- Typical Sections’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4106; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 6- Wynyard Wharf South Extension- General Arrangement’

Beca B 10/04/18

*1This Plan has been revised to reflect the changes discussed and supported in the Evidence of Panuku’s Experts. Other Plans within the plan set reference in Annexure A may require updates to reflect this amended plan.

1242

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Annexure A: Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

Plan title and reference Author Rev Dated

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4107; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 7- Wynyard South Extension- Typical Sections’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4108; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 8- Dredge Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4109; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 9- Wave Panel Arrangement’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4110; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 10- Bathymetry Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4111; ‘Marine Works Civil Drawing 11- Hobson Wharf Wave Panels- Typical Sections’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4201; ‘Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 1- General Arrangement Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4202; ‘Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 2- Proposed Contour Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4203; ‘Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 3- Typical Sections’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4204; ‘Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 4- Stormwater Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4205; ‘Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 5- Indicative Pavement Cut and Fill Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4206; ‘Wynyard Point Works Civil Drawing 6- Earthworks Layout Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

1243

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Annexure A: Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

Plan title and reference Author Rev Dated

Drawing No. 3233847-CA-4207; ‘Wynyard Point Civil Works Drawing 7- Indicative Extent of Ground Improvement’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4401; ‘Existing Services Drawing 1- Services Key Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4402; ‘Existing Services Drawing 2- Services Plan Sheet 1 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4403; ‘Existing Services Drawing 3- Services Plan Sheet 2 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4404; ‘Existing Services Drawing 4- Services Plan Sheet 3 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4405; ‘Existing Services Drawing 5- Services Plan Sheet 4 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4406; ‘Existing Services Drawing 6- Services Plan Sheet 5 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4407; ‘Existing Services Drawing 7- Services Plan Sheet 6 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4451; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 1- Services Key Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4452; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 2- Services Plan Sheet 1 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4453; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 3- Services Plan Sheet 2 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4454; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 4- Services Plan Sheet 3 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

1244

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Annexure A: Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

Plan title and reference Author Rev Dated

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4455; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 5- Services Plan Sheet 4 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4456; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 6- Services Plan Sheet 5 of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-CU-4457; ‘Proposed Services Drawing 7- Services Plan Sheet 6 out of 6’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-GE-4501; ‘Geotechnical Drawing 1- Rock Contour Plan’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-GE-4502; ‘Geotechnical Drawing 2- Cross Sections Sheet 1 of 5’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-GE-4503; ‘Geotechnical Drawing 3- Cross Sections Sheet 2 of 5’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-GE-4504; ‘Geotechnical Drawing 4- Cross Sections Sheet 3 of 5’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-GE-4505; ‘Geotechnical Drawing 5- Cross Sections Sheet 4 of 5’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing No. 3233847-GE-4506; ‘Geotechnical Drawing 6- Cross Sections Sheet 5 of 5’

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing 3233847-FE-4601; ‘Fire Safety Drawing 1 FENZ Access and Facilities”

Beca B 10/04/18

Drawing 3233847-FE-4602; ‘Fire Safety Drawing 2 Provisions for Egress’

Beca B 10/04/18

Urban Design Figures

Figure 8; “Wynyard Point Bases - Public Realm Integration”

McIndoeUrban/Boffa Miskell A 13/04/2018

1245

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Annexure A: Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

Plan title and reference Author Rev Dated

Figure 20; ‘Water Use – Event Mode’ McIndoeUrban/Boffa Miskell A 13/04/2018

Architectural Plans

Drawing No. A1-13; ‘Team Base A- Viaduct Event Centre Proposed Indicative Floor Layout- L1’

Moller Architects A 13/04/27

Drawing No. A1-14; ‘Team Base A- Viaduct Event Centre Proposed Indicative Floor Layout- L2’

Moller Architects A 13/04/27

Drawing No. A1-15; ‘Team Base A- Viaduct Event Centre Proposed Indicative Floor Layout- L3’

Moller Architects A 13/04/27

Drawing No. A2-10; ‘Exterior Elevations- Team Base A North & East’

Moller Architects A 13/04/18

Drawing No. A2-11; ‘Exterior Elevations- Team Base A South & West”

Moller Architects A 13/04/18

Document Number Title Author Date

4 Assessment of Environmental Effects Unio Environmental 13/04/18

9 Physical Infrastructure Technical Report for Resource Consent Application, Wynyard Hobson

Beca Ltd 04/18

14 Quantitative Risk Assessment Sherpa

Consulting Pty Ltd

06/04/18

16a Coastal Processes and Dredging Technical Report, Appendix A Sedimentation Analysis and Appendix B Hydraulic Modelling Report

Beca Ltd and Tonkin +

Taylor Ltd

04/2018

16b Appendix C Tonkin Taylor Hydraulic Modelling Report

Tonkin + Taylor Ltd

04/2018

16c Appendix D Wake and Wave Reports prepared by Cardno

Beca Ltd (Cardno)

10/04/2018

1246

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Annexure A: Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

Document Number Title Author Date

16d

Continuation of Appendix D, Appendix E Wave Tranquillity Performance Criteria, Appendix F Wave Reflection and Transmission Coefficients, Appendix G Sediment Plume and Fate Analysis

Beca Ltd (Cardno, Tonkin +

Taylor Ltd)

Appendix D – 10 April 2018

Appendix E – 20 November 2017

Appendices F and G - 12

January 2018

17

Assessment of Coastal Environmental Effects Associated with the Development of America’s Cup Facilities for the Wynyard Hobson Option

Golder Associates 04/18

18 Arborcultural Assessment Report Arbor Connect Ltd 12/04/18

21a Traffic and Transport Technical Report Beca Ltd 04/2018

21b Appendices A to F of Traffic and Transport Technical Report

Beca Ltd 04/2018

25 Geotechnical Report Beca Ltd 04/18

26 Groundwater Technical Report Beca Ltd 04/2018

28 Stormwater and Services Technical Report Beca Ltd 04/18

1247

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

ANNEXURE B Management Plans to be referenced

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Remediation Action Plan (RAP)

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)

Groundwater Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GWMCP)

Management Plan for Dredging and Placement of Mudcrete in the CMA (MPDPM)

Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP

Construction Staff Travel Plan (CSTP)

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)

Construction Lighting Management Plan (CLMP)

Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP)

Inner Viaduct Harbour Environmental Management Plan (IVHEMP)

Navigation and Safety Management Plan (NSMP)

Project Geotechnical Design Report (PGDR)

Event Transport Management Plan (ETMP)

Event Management Plan (EMP)

1248

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

ANNEXURE C America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design

Requirements

1249

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 1

ATTACHMENT 2 AMERICA'S CUP WYNYARD HOBSON

Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements

McIndoe Evidence Version 7 August 2018 Explanation to the McIndoe Evidence Version 1. This document is developed from the version agreed by the urban design and landscape experts and

addressed in the JWS. 2. Recommended changes are to provide additional flexibility in response to submissions from ETNZ,

America’s Cup Event Ltd and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron. I have not discussed the detail of these proposed changes with the submitters.

3. The content is exactly the same as the Urban Design and Conferencing version 6 August 2018, except where:

• New text is identified in red font;

• Text to be deleted is struck-through and identified in red; and

• Dimensions for which controlled flexibility is intended to be allowed are changed to underlined bold font. I have also highlighted these in yellow for easy identification in evidence.

INTERPRETATION 1. The Moller Architects’ designs are an example of base buildings that achieve

the Design Requirements. Refer to Parts A and B of the Architectural Drawing Set 36 America’s Cup: Wynyard Hobson. 13 April 2018.

2. The bases are identified in figure 1 below.

3. Variations to the areas and dimensions underlined and in bold font within

these requirements may be considered, contingent on the effects of these variations not being materially different from the defined requirement.

Figure 1: Base locations

1250

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 2

Section 1 GENERAL DESIGN OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES

This general design objective and the overarching design principles apply to all building, yard and public open space design.

General Design Objective The purpose of this document is to ensure that the design of the bases and associated yard and public open spaces achieve the following:

a. A successful Americas Cup Event; b. A high-quality environment and experience for the wider public, locals and

spectators; c. Reinforcement of the maritime character of the Wynyard and Viaduct

Harbour Precincts; and d. Recognition and celebration of Mana Whenua values.

Overarching Design Principles

Design coherence 1.1. Each base is to embody an overarching design idea or concept; relate

sensitively to its specific context, including other buildings and public open spaces; and demonstrate design coordination and integration so as to avoid outcomes being a piecemeal assemblage of unrelated design responses.

1.2. Public open space design is to embody an overarching design idea or concept; relate sensitively to its specific context, including buildings, yards and other public open spaces; and demonstrate design coordination and integration so as to avoid the outcome being a piecemeal assemblage of unrelated design responses.

1.3. The principles and requirements within this document are to be considered individually and in combination to achieve an integrated, high quality design outcome that will meet the general design objective. Te Aranga Māori Design Principles

1.4. Recognise Te Aranga Māori Design Principles as determined through the Mana Whenua Engagement Plan process. The Te Aranga Māori Design Principles, including their intended outcomes, are:

a. Mana Rangatiratanga: Authority The status of iwi and hapū as mana whenua is recognised and respected.

b. Whakapapa: Names and Naming Māori names are celebrated.

c. Taiao: The natural environment The natural environment is protected, restored and/or enhanced.

d. Mauri Tu: Environmental health Environmental health is protected, maintained and/or enhanced.

e. Mahi Toi: Creative expression Iwi/hapū narratives are captured and expressed creatively and appropriately.

f. Tohu: The wider cultural landscape

1251

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 3

Mana whenua significant sites and cultural landmarks are acknowledged.

g. Ahi Kā: The living presence Iwi/hapū have a living and enduring presence and are secure and valued within their rohe.

Design with consideration of context

1.5. In applying these requirements recognise these are short-term temporary maritime-industrial and event buildings, and also the characteristics of physical setting:

a. Base B will be prominent in view from all four sides and define a new east-facing public open space. Public access is also provided for around its northern and western wharf edges. While it will be designed to provide fit-for-purpose temporary maritime industrial facilities for the event, because of its visual exposure it must also be of a high aesthetic quality.

b. Bases C-G will be prominent in view from the south and east and present a frontage to both Hamer Street and the interim and temporary open space planned there, as well as to the Wynyard Wharf South water space. They are in a generally industrial context including boat yards, concrete plant and fuel tanks but will also be in view from the North Wharf and Silo Park areas. There is potential to use pop-up and demountable building types on these sites including elements such as shipping containers. This would be subject to suitable design which remains consistent with all applicable parts of these Design Requirements.

Section 2 GENERIC BUILDING AND YARD DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

These generic requirements apply to the design of all buildings for Bases B-G, and yards for Bases A-G.

Building edge activation

2.1. Locate any publically accessible facilities within each base at ground level where they will best contribute to the quality and activation of adjacent public spaces.

Scale and visual interest 2.2. Buildings shall be designed to be visually interesting and manage the effects of

visual bulk. This will be through the use of a variety of design elements assembled in an architecturally coherent way, while recognising these are temporary maritime-industrial and event buildings. A combination of fit-for-purpose techniques shall be used comprising for Base B a-d and at least three of e-j, and for Bases C-G at least two of a-d and at least three of e-j:

a. expression of primary and secondary building volumes with modulation of height or form;

b. roof form modulation; c. provision of human scale, fine-grained detail and richness at all

edges that the public will view at close range, and larger forms and elements to respond to mid and long-range viewing distances;

1252

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 4

d. visual expression of building entries; e. offsets of facade planes; f. integration of wall openings and windows; g. variation in materials; h. repetition of elements and treatments to achieve visual rhythm; i. projections of secondary components and forms over related

wharf and public/yard spaces; and j. use of colour, texture and lighting.

Base signage and branding

2.3. Signage for teams and their sponsors is anticipated as a positive attribute and will be positioned within the building envelope and sized to positively complement the architectural qualities of the building to which it relates. No freestanding or other signage is provided for, except for as provided in the Event Management Plan or specified below.

2.4. All signage on base buildings and yard enclosures, including corporate branding and logos, shall:

a. cover not more than 40% of the area of any building façade; b. cover not more than 40% of the roof surface; c. not project beyond or above the roof envelope; and d. be integrated with the façade composition by relating to

openings, alignments and forms in a coherent way; and e. signage on yard enclosure fences shall be limited to the 10 30%

maximum solid area of any fence as detailed later in these requirements.

2.5. In addition to the above, illuminated and luminated (back-lit) signage shall comply with the following:

a. not more than one third of the total area of signage may be of an illuminated type and to an extent consistent with the Wynyard Hobson conditions of consent for lighting; and

b. luminated (back-lit) and all variable message or LED screen signage will be covered by the Event Management Plan or subject to separate resource consent or signage bylaw approval.

2.6. No more than two flag poles are permitted for each base (on the base building

or its associated yard area), with each: a. extending to not more than 20 metres above finished ground or

wharf level; and b. able to accommodate a flag with a total area of not more than 30

square metres. Amenity Lighting

2.7. Establish lighting that contributes to: a. the identity and quality of the event; b. the amenity and character of Wynyard Point and the Viaduct

Harbour Precincts; c. enhances the legibility of buildings and wayfinding to them; and d. provides for public safety.

1253

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 5

2.8. To achieve the above, amenity lighting must be provided and designed to: a. complement the architectural features of each building; b. avoid potential adverse lighting effects including glare; and c. minimise light spill towards the Waitematā Harbour, and external

Viaduct Basin and Wynyard Point Precincts (excluding the basins and water space).

Waste, recycling and service storage provision

2.9. Provide facilities for service storage, and temporary storage of waste and/or recycling. This excludes the equipment and other maritime industrial activity associated with the syndicates which is not required to be screened in this way.

2.10. Ensure these facilities are located to be visually discreet, and screened within the yard enclosures and/or integrated within the base buildings:

a. when within yards such facilities must be in screened enclosures, or in portable containers or storage pods, not more than 3m high and which provide for storage but not occupation; and

b. if located on the external façade of the building, storage spaces for waste and recycling must be designed in a way that the contents cannot be seen from the adjacent public space, except when the space is being accessed.

Section 3 BUILDING AND YARD-SPECIFIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

These apply to Base B and bases C-G in addition to the generic building design requirements.

Base B, Hobson Wharf Extension

Figure 2: Hobson Wharf Base B building and yard footprint (dimensions are in metres)

Building form

3.1. Buildings must be designed to be contained within the building envelope established by the building footprint identified in Figure 2 with a maximum

1254

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 6

building height of 15 metres above the wharf surface, except as provided for below.

3.2. The building must be designed to have a roof form and profile that contributes to an interesting and varied skyline when viewed from both wharf level and elevated locations in the surrounding area and that is an integrated part of the overall building concept. To ensure this, the building must include expression of building top being no less than 20% of the total area of all elevations. This may include obvious roof forms and/or other façade components.

3.3. Locate the building so that the building line at ground / wharf level abuts at

least 50% of the eastern boundary line of the footprint as identified in Figure 2 above.

3.4. Should the design for Base B result in a reduced building footprint (excluding

minor recesses and voids relating to architectural expression and entrances) this footprint reduction must occur primarily at the western end so as to increase the width of public access along the western wharf edge.

3.5. Any projections beyond the identified footprint in Figure 2, must only occur at

upper building levels on the eastern and northern sides of the building subject to the following:

a. These will not extend more than 4m from the façade and will not be less than 5m above the wharf surface;

b. The maximum volume of projection for the eastern elevation is 865m³ and for the northern elevation 520m³;

c. No projection on the northern elevation shall be closer than 4m from the western end of the façade; and

d. The total volume of any projection(s) shall be compensated for by an equal volume of reduction within the building envelope as defined in requirement 3.1. This is to ensure that the overall scale of building will not increase as a result of additional projections.

3.6. Plant including all mechanical and electrical equipment must be within the

maximum building envelope, integrated into the overall building and rooftop form and if projecting beyond any façade or roof surface, designed as a complementary architectural element.

Façade design

3.7. The main pedestrian entrance to Building B must be located within the eastern facade and be prominent in view from the adjacent public open space.

3.8. Clear glaze at least 60 30% of the ground floor eastern façade to allow two

way views between indoors and outdoors.

3.9. The northern facade must be designed to provide passive surveillance from within the building of the public space to the north. The façade must contain at least three openings with clear glazing at eye level, two of which must have an area of at least 1 square metre and the third connecting to the boat shed(s) of at least 20 square metres in area to provide public views of the inside of the

1255

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 7

boat shed.

Materials 3.10. Materials on all wall elevations must:

a. be physically robust and resistant to potential impact; b. be sufficiently corrosion resistant to maintain their appearance

for the intended maximum 10 year service life of the building; and c. incorporate texture in the surface and/or expression of fine-

grained modularity along the ground level façade sufficient to provide visual interest.

3.11. Avoid mirror glass and highly reflective wall surfaces (all elevations).

Amenity lighting

3.12. Given its visual prominence in its immediate context, the lowest practicable lux-level is to be used to achieve a subtle glow-type lighting of the building.

Bases C-G, Wynyard Point

Figure 3: Wynyard Point Base C-G Building and yard footprint (dimensions are in metres)

Building form

3.13. Buildings must be designed to be contained within the building envelope established by the building footprint identified in Figure 3 with a maximum building height of 15 metres above finished ground level, except as provided for below.

3.14. Locate the building so that the building line at ground level abuts at least 50% of the western boundary line of the footprint as identified in Figure 3 above.

3.15. Any building setback from the western boundary of the footprint must not

be used for car parking and/or permanent waste storage.

1256

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 8

3.16. Canopies over doors, and boat shed door portals that provide architectural and shelter elements may project beyond the specified maximum building envelope as follows:

a. Any portals around boat shed doors are not to extend more than 1 metre from the defined footprint area in Figure 3; and

b. Entrance canopies must be visually light weight and shall not extend more than 2.5m from the defined footprint area in Figure 3.

3.17. There may be open cantilevered balconies extending not more than 2

metres beyond the identified footprint on the east and west facades of the buildings. The total area of any such balcony projections must not exceed a cumulative total of 70 square metres per base. Façade design

3.18. Clear glaze at least 60 20% of the ground floor western façade to allow two-way views between indoors and outdoors.

3.19. The south facade of the Base G building must be designed to provide passive surveillance from within the building of the public space to the south, with at least three openings with clear glazing at eye level, two of which must have an area at least 1 square metre, and the third must at least 20 square metres in area.

3.20. The north facade of the Base C building must be designed to provide

passive surveillance from within the building of the adjacent public footpath space, with at least three ground floor clear glazed openings at eye level, each of which has an area of at least 1 square metre.

Inter-base boundary fencing between bases C-G

3.21. Yard fencing between each base C-G is not required, but where proposed this must:

a. be located at the boundary of each yard; b. have a maximum height of 2.0 2.4m; c. be of a single type with consistent materials and construction for

all of these inter-base yard boundaries but which allows for variation in height, gates and other openings;

d. visual permeability of a minimum of 80% of the area of the fence in elevation over at least 90 70% of its length;

e. be solid for no more than 10 30% of the length per elevation (per base); and

f. not use overtly defensive materials such as electric, barbed or razor wire.

For completeness, public interface fencing around yard perimeters is addressed in section 4.

3.22. Locate outdoor storage for Base G on the northern edge of the yard in order to maintain views in from the public space at the south, unless there is an operational reason that necessitates storage at the southern end of the yard.

1257

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 9

Section 4 GENERIC PUBLIC OPEN SPACE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

The following apply to the design of all public open spaces identified in Figure 4, and to all new public interface yard enclosures and safety barriers on wharf edges.

Figure 4: Areas where the Public Space Design Requirements apply

Public open spaces in general 4.1. Provide a unifying concept for the design of the areas shown on

Figure 4. Each area shall: a. be based on an idea that relates to the wider context of

existing wharf and public space composition, design and treatments;

b. apply a consistent and aesthetically coherent approach to surface treatments, details and finishes;

c. accommodate the functions of the marine industry and events; and

d. provide for the safe viewing of marine activities from public areas.

Wharf and breakwater edges 4.2. The design of all new wharf and breakwater edges is to be visually

compatible with those existing adjacent edges. a. Maintain consistency of treatment along any wharf edge

or breakwater, and with all new wharf edge treatments. b. Ensure wave panels are set back a minimum of 500mm

from the outer edge of the wharf and breakwaters to create a shadow line and visually express the wharf edge.

Public interface yard enclosures 4.3. Fences along the edges of the Base yards for A, B, C (northern end), G (south-

western end), and at the lanes between bases C-G shall: a. be aesthetically compatible with the wharf edge safety

barriers;

1258

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 10

b. be of a consistent design across all of these identified interface areas;

c. be a maximum 2 2.2m high; d. be not less than 80% visually permeable over 90 70% of

the length; with not more than 10 30% of the length along each elevation (per base) being solid;

e. include gates where necessary, with a consistent design to the fence; and

f. not include overtly defensive materials such as electric, barbed or razor wire.

4.4. Provide for emergency and managed event access to and/or as necessary

through the yards for Bases A and B, and include fail-safe 24 hour emergency public egress from the outer parts of wharf promenade through these yards with capacity calculated to provide for anticipated crowd numbers.

Furniture

4.5. Incorporate public realm elements, infrastructure and furniture to support public use and occupation of the wharf areas and associated land spaces. These include lighting, flagpoles, service connections, bicycle parking, seating, shelter elements and safety rails as required. These elements shall be designed with a character which supports the marine industrial and working wharf setting.

Wharf edge safety barriers

4.6. Where wharf edge safety barriers are required to provide safety from falling they shall:

a. be readily installed and removed according to need for general and event crowd safety and wharf edge operations;

b. be at least 80% visually permeable and minimise visual impact on views from the waterfront axis out into the harbour;

c. achieve as far as possible visual continuity and aesthetic consistency in each area of wharf edge in which they are located; and

d. avoid highly reflective finishes; and e. be constructed from robust materials.

Section 5 LOCATION-SPECIFIC PUBLIC OPEN SPACE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

These apply to the areas identified in Figure 4 and are in addition to the generic open space design requirements.

Hobson Wharf 5.1. Replace the existing barrier arm with removable bollards to control vehicle

access while inviting public pedestrian movement.

5.2. Provide a surface treatment at the southern end of the existing wharf that signals a connection with the pedestrian access along the waterfront axis promenade and conveys to users that it is public space.

5.3. Provide lighting, and signage that provides easy wayfinding to Base B and the

open space at the eastern side of the Hobson Wharf Extension.

1259

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 11

Halsey Wharf 5.4. Provide lighting and signage to assist wayfinding to the public viewing

platform at the north end of the Viaduct Events Centre.

5.5. Allow for a flagpole on Halsey Wharf that: a. extends up to not more than 30 metres above wharf level; b. accommodates a flag or flags with a total area of not more than

90 square metres; and c. is located between the northern end of the Viaduct Events Centre

and the existing northern edge of Halsey Wharf, and not more than 60 metres from its western edge.

5.6. Allow for no more than three flagpoles at the eastern end of the Halsey Wharf which:

a. extend to not more than 20 metres above wharf level; and b. are able to accommodate a flag with a total area of not more than

30 square metres.

Wynyard Point 5.7. Design the temporary and interim public open space on the Hamer Street

frontage and north of the Silo Park gantry (as indicated on Figure 4) to provide for public access, use and enjoyment during the event; provide access to the bases; and support for America’s Cup activity. This space shall include the following characteristics:

a. surface finishes that are fit-for-purpose, simple and economical and provide for a range of predominantly public uses;

b. multi-purpose hard surfacing that provides both for the identified amount of carparking accessed from the north south lane and identified in the conditions and public and event uses;

c. public realm elements including lighting, seating, and other furniture items including bicycle racks and flagpoles;

d. potential for temporary public art installations; e. provision for flexibility of use including sub-spaces to function in a

range of ways and in various combinations for everyday use and a range of minor events;

f. integration of trees and other planting to assist with spatial separation from the street and to enhance the amenity of these spaces;

g. design to cater for a range of public activities; h. design for public safety incorporating Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design (CPTED) principles; i. public connections including a new footpath within the road

reserve along the edge of Hamer Street, with crossings to provide access to the bases; and

j. lighting and services to support the intended uses. 5.8. Provide a 10 metre wide lane along the western side of Bases C-G including a

4 metre wide pedestrian only path along the western frontage of the base buildings, and a shared surface lane which allows for vehicle movement and base drop-off and servicing.

.

1260

Urban Design and Landscape JWS Conferencing Version America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements. 7Aug2018 McIndoe Evidence Version 12

5.9. Provide no more than three multi-purpose poles (for lighting, services provision, event branding and wayfinding purposes) on the Hamer Street open space. Each:

a. extends to not more than 20 metres above finished ground level; and

b. can accommodate a flag or flags and/or banners with a total area of not more than 10 square metres.

END

1261

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018

ANNEXURE D Protected Objects Protocol

1262

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 2

Purpose

1. The purpose of this protocol is to provide procedures to be followed in the event that works

associated with the construction of infrastructure for the America's Cup Wynyard Hobson

project reveal protected New Zealand objects as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975.

2. This protocol does not apply to any requirements of the Protected Objects Act 1975 or the

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 but instead overrides the accidental

discovery rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part in so far as they relate to

protected New Zealand objects. Resource consent has been sought for disturbance of

contaminated land, so the accidental discovery rules relating to contaminated land are also

excluded.

3. The Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part accidental discovery rules continue to apply for

the discovery of other sensitive material, including human remains and kōiwi, archaeological

sites, Māori cultural artefacts/taonga tuturu and lava caves greater than 1m in diameter. The

provisions of the Protected Objects Act 1975 and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

Act 2014 continue to apply in relation to any requirements under that legislation.

Protocol

4. The Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI) includes the following entries that

may be affected by the site preparation and piling works associated with the America's Cup

Point: Halsey application (although the specific location of the objects is unknown):

(a) CHI 401, hulk, Chelmsford;

(b) CHI 18609, industrial, Vos boatbuilding yards;

(c) CHI 404, hulk, Kaniere.

5. In the event of discovery of the above items, or any protected New Zealand object as defined

in the Protected Objects Act 1975 for the purposes of Rules E11.6.1 and E12.6.1 of the

Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part, the procedures in this Protocol shall apply instead

of the accidental discovery standards and procedures set out in Rules E11.6.1 and E12.6.1

of the Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part.

6. The consent holder shall employ at its expense a qualified archaeologist (the Project

Archaeologist) who shall:

(a) carry out regular inspections of the works area during site preparation and piling at

Wynyard Point;

(b) provide records of site inspections to the Council [Heritage department];

(c) be available on call to inspect any discoveries of any objects that might be

protected New Zealand objects encountered during excavation or piling works, and

to enable identification of any objects;

(d) advise the Council in writing within 24 hours if any protected New Zealand objects

have been discovered;

(e) advise the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in writing within 28 days if any taonga

tūturu have been discovered.

1263

America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Applicant’s Proposed Conditions of Consent 7 August 2018 3

7. Any discoveries of protected New Zealand objects, such as hulls of ships, shall be recorded,

including to identify the location and expected source of the object. Where practicable,

damage to these objects will be minimised.

8. For the avoidance of doubt, works are not required to stop on the discovery of a protected

object, except as necessary for the Project Archaeologist to carry out the above procedures.

1264

2

ATTACHMENT B – ANALYSIS OF AGREED MATTERS

1265

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

Trees The removal of street trees on the western side of Brigham St greater than 3m in height and within 20m of MHWS requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E15.4.1 (A21)).

The removal of street trees along Brigham and Hamer St greater than 4m in height or 400mm in girth requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E17.4.1(A10)).

Works within the rootzone of street trees on Hamer St where confirmation of compliance with permitted activity standards cannot be confirmed requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E17.4.1(A8)).

Chapter E15 – Vegetation Management and Biodiversity.

Chapter E17 – Trees in Roads.

The Tree Council1 - sought to approve the proposal subject to Tree Number 1 being transplanted to a suitable location.

Councils specialists notes in his report2 that transplanting and/or suitable replacement planting will provide adequate mitigation for any local loss of tree cover and recommends minor amendments to the conditions of consent, recommending that the proposed tree works are supported on this basis.

We note that the Tree Council has not become a s274 party to these proceedings and that no Joint Witness conferencing has been identified as necessary in relation to arboriculturally matters.

This matter was not raised as a topic for mediation.

The AEE3 (sections 10.7 and 11.4) includes an assessment of effects and the statutory framework relating to trees. The methodology applied to the management of trees within the application area is to retain if possible, remove and transplant and if not feasible to transplant then replace the trees with suitable specimens within the application area.

Conditions to implement this methodology are proposed by the Panuku (as conditions 120-135A (Attachment A to our evidence). Specifically Condition 125, which requires a suitability qualified arborist to set out the methodology for transplanting Tree 1 to the satisfaction of Council. we consider this achieves the outcome sought by the Tree Council to the extent that transplanting of the tree is achievable.

Council’s specialist is satisfied with the proposed tree works (4refer 9.7) subject to amendment to the changes to the conditions, which have been adopted by Panuku.

Considering the proposed conditions of consent, we consider that the potential adverse effects on the identified trees will be appropriately managed throughout the construction period and will be no more than minor. And the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies in E15 and E17 of the AUP for the reasons set out in the AEE.

Land disturbance & Contamination Effects

Earthworks greater than 2,500m² within the Sediment Control Protection Area require consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E11.4 (A9)).

Earthworks over an area exceeding 2500m2 with a volume greater than 2500m3 requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E12.4.1(A6) and (A10)).

The earthworks will infringe rule E12.6. by being located within the coastal yard and involving contaminated soil, which requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity (C1.9 (2)).

The discharges of contaminants into air, or into water, or onto or into land not meeting the controlled activity Standard E30.6.2.1 require consent as a Discretionary activity under rule E30.4.1(A7). The soils disturbed as part of the enabling works (ground improvement works and installation of services) are known to be potentially contaminated due to the material used in the reclamation of the area, former uses of the area and documented contaminated material spills and no Detailed

Chapter E11 and E12 – Land Disturbance – District and Regional.

Chapter E30 – Contaminated Land.

Chapter E1 and E2 in as much as this relates to management of water quality associated with contaminates and sediment.

E14 with respect to the potential for discharges to Air associated with disturbance of contaminated materials.

I214 Wynyard Precinct provisions with respect to remediation of land.

In so far much as the activity involves freshwater the NZPSFWM is also considered relevant and

Submitters did not raise any issues concerning land disturbance or contamination (noting concerns in relation to construction activities we deal with separately in the body of our evidence).

No matters of disagreement are recorded for water and sediment quality in the joint witness statement. We understand there is agreement between experts in relation to the measures to manage contaminated materials including the use of dredge material both in the CMA and on land, and the provision of vapour barriers for the base buildings dependent on the more detailed findings of the Detailed Site Investigation. These measures are all reflected in the various management plans, including the CEMP, ESCP, MPDPM and RAP. We note that these plans, forming part of the suite of construction management plans will be consulted on further through the CLG forum and in relation to the MWEP.

The AEE provides an assessment of effects associated with land disturbance and contamination5 while sections of the assessment related to coastal processes, sedimentation and ecology effects 6. These assessments conclude that the actual and potential effects associated with the land disturbance activities (and disturbance and use of contaminated land) will be negligible both in terms of water quality and discharges to the environment and in relation to human health effects.

The statutory framework relating the land disturbance and contamination activities has been comprehensively considered in the AEE7 which concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policy direction.

The mitigation measures forming part of the proposal are implemented through the conditions and associated management (Attachment A to our evidence).

Council’s earthworks, air and contamination specialists8 are satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures, subject to minor wording changes to the conditions, which have been the subject to further discussion between experts and adoption in to the proposed conditions at Attachment A to our evidence.

We consider, when taking into account the proposed conditions of consent, that the potential adverse effects arising from land disturbance on public health and water quality will be no more than minor. In our opinion the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies in E11, E12, E14 and E30 of the AUP and to the extent which they are applicable to the land disturbance activities the activities are also consistent with chapters E1 and E2 and I214.

1 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 83 2 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 153 3 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0220 to 0223 4 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 83 5 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0274 to 0275 6 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0232 to 0238 7 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0287 to 0325 8 Ms Harte, Mr Van de Munkckhof, Mr Crimmins and Ms Jukic (Common Bundle Volume D, Documents 145, 146, 152 and 154)

1266

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

Site Investigation of the particular area has been undertaken at this time.

Earthworks and the construction, maintenance and repair of public roads and railways not meeting the general permitted activity standards requires consent subject to rule E14.4.1(A83) as a restricted discretionary activity. Consent is conservatively sought due to the potential for objectionable odours to be released as a result of works in contaminated soils.

the proximity to the coast invokes consideration of the NZCPS.

Groundwater Diversion Effects

As identified in the AEE9, the ground improvement enabling works which will occur along the eastern portion of Wynyard Point involve excavations below groundwater levels which do not achieve the permitted standards in the AUP as a result consent is sought as a restricted discretionary activity subject to Rule E7.4.1(A28).

Subsequently the proposal involves groundwater level control associated with groundwater diversion required for the ground improvement. As such consent is sought as a restricted discretionary activity subject to rule E7.4.1(A20).

Chapter E7 of the AUP includes specific assessment criteria which assist with a consideration of the relevant effects associated with groundwater interfaces and level control. The objectives and policies of Chapters E1 and E2 are also considered in relation to groundwater diversion.

In so far as the activity involves freshwater the NZPSFWM is also considered relevant and the proximity to the coast invokes consideration of the NZCPS.

Following lodgement of the consent Council’s expert identified some discrepancies in the manner in which the conditions 93- 100 as included in the Application material10. Agreed amendments were made to these conditions as identified in the further information11 provided to council and have subsequently been incorporated in the updated conditions appended as Attachment A to our evidence.

No particular issues have been raised in submissions in relation to the proposed interface with the groundwater, similarly no s274 notices, JWC or mediation processes have identified this as a topic for decision or further clarification.

In accordance with the proposed conditions a management plan is required to be developed with the objective of minimising potential settlement of surrounding properties and structures; and ensure any changes in groundwater levels are monitored and appropriate contingency actions are provided. This management plan has been circulated for review in draft form and will be subject to further consultation and review through the CLG and MWEP processes.

The AEE considered the effects associated with the proposed groundwater diversion with reference to the specialist’s assessment provided in the Geotechnical and Groundwater

reports12. Section 10.18 concludes that, taking into account the

proposed mitigations any effects can be appropriately mitigate to ensure that there is negligible effect on the environment or surrounding buildings and services from the outlined ground improvement options.

Similarly, the s87F report concluded on the basis of the

application material and supporting council specialists report13

that the effects on stabilisation and buried services will be less

than minor14.

With respect to the relevant planning provisions both the

AEE15 and the 87F report16 conclude that the proposal is

consistent with the provisions in the AUP as applicable at Chapter E2.

The applicants proposed conditions in relation to groundwater are included as conditions 93-102 in Attachment A to our evidence.

We consider that the effects associated with groundwater diversion are appropriately avoided, remediated and mitigated through the proposed methodology confirmed through a management plan approach required by conditions of consent. As such the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the AUP and consequently with those of the relevant national policy statements, to the extent to which these are applicable.

Ecology (terrestrial ecology, marine ecology

The proposal involves multiple structures and associated activities located within the coastal marine area including:

Chapter E15- Vegetation and Biodiversity

Limited submissions raise concerns specifically in relation to ecological matters. Several submitters17identify concerned about the effects of construction activities and

The AEE includes an assessment of effects in relation to ecology23 and addresses the relevant statutory framework relating to coastal ecology24.

Taking into account the proposed conditions of consent and associated management plans we

9 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0170 and 0171 10 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 8 (Proposed Draft Consent Conditions), page 0562 and 0566 11 Common bundle Volume B, Document 48 (Email K Cook) page 2605. 12 Common Bundle Volume A, Documents 30 and 31 13 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 149 14 Common Bundle, Volume D, Document 135 (N Broadbent Planning) page 3526. 15 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0309 to 0312 16 Common Bundle, Volume D, Document 135 (N Broadbent Planning) page 3562 17 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 52, 104 and 111 23 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0236 to 0239 24 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0287 to 0325

1267

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

including avifauna, marine mammals, sediment and water quality associated with stormwater)

- Dredging activities; - Wave attenuation devices; - Works to hard protection structures; - Piling activities; - Wharf structures; - Works to and partial demolition and

removal of existing lawful CMA structures with respect to works on Wynyard wharf.

These structures require consent under the provisions of the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts and under chapter F2 where rules default to the General Coastal Marine Zone. They involve effects related to discharge and diversion, disturbance and underwater noise.

On land consents are required in relation to Discharge and diversion of stormwater associated with new areas of hardstand and the redevelopment of existing impervious areas and the management of Industrial and trade activities involving the bases.

As noted above the removal of trees has been considered separately and as noted in the ecological assessment there are no other significant terrestrial ecological resources which are located within the proposal area which involve the need for resource consent.

Chapter F2 General Coastal Marine Zone (F2.3 Depositing and disposal of material, F2.4. Dredging, F2.5. Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, F2.11. Discharges, F2.13. Discharges from bio-fouling and vessel maintenance, F2.14. Use, development and occupation in the coastal marine area, F2.16. Structures, F2.18. Underwater nois)

Chapter E8 Stormwater- diversion and discharge.

Chapter E33 Industrial and trade activities

Chapter B7 – Natural Resources.

In as much as the activity involves freshwater ecology we consider the NZPSFWM is relevant and the proximity to and within the general coastal marine area requires us to consider the proposal in relation to the NZCPS.

pile driving on marine life. Mr Kennedy (on behalf of Panuku) and Dr Sivaguru (councils’ expert) consider that the proposal includes appropriate mitigation to manage actual and potential effects of the construction period, including with reference to the assessment of Mr Styles and Mr Pine for Council18 and Mr Fitzgerald for Panuku, effects of underwater noise.

The Westhaven Marina Users Association19 seek the relocation of the leopard seal prior to any construction works. This matter is considered by Dr Sivaguru who concludes that if the leopard seal is encountered the Department of Conservation should be informed of any sightings who would manage the issue in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1955 and Marine Mammal Protection Act 1982.

Submissions20 also identify an interest in the IVHEMP and seek the ability for bases to utilise detergent for the servicing of race boats (involving discharges to the environment in a coastal location) this matter has been the subject to expert discussion and appropriate management techniques have been agreed by experts in the JWS appended to Mr Priestley’s EIC.

Several mana whenua groups21 identify that the Waitemata harbour is of great spiritual, cultural and historical significance. Mr Kennedy has considered these matters in his EIC and concludes that the physical changes to the harbour are minor and have no flow on environmental effects that are more than minor. A CVA is anticipated to be received following the submission of our evidence statement. this matter is addressed in greater detail in the body of our evidence.

Overall, we note that Council’s expert consider that any potential adverse effects on marine ecology including avifauna, marine mammals, sediment and water quality resulting from the proposal would, subject to adherence to the conditions of consent be minor in nature22.

The s274 notices do not raise any additional or more specific ecological concerns in relation to the application.

No matters of disagreement are recorded for ecology or associated activities in the Joint Witness Statements or particular matters raised at mediation.

The assessment of effects on ecological values is supported by the coastal ecological effects report, the coastal processes report and the assessment of construction noise and vibration to the extent that this relates to underwater noise. The effects of lighting are also considered in terms of effects on ecology25.

Several management plans and a monitoring program is proposed to ensure that effects are appropriately managed. This involves management of dredge activities, water quality monitoring in relation to the Inner Viaduct Harbour, Biosecurity management and management of dredge materials both in the CMA and their removal to land. The CNVMP also includes measures to manage effects on marine mammals resulting from underwater noise.

The relevant mitigation measures are supported and required by conditions as appended at Attachment A to our evidence).

We note also that Council’s coastal ecologist concludes that “any potential adverse effects on marine ecology including avifauna, marine mammals, sediment and water quality resulting from the proposal would be minor”. Ms Broadbent adopts this assessment and similarly concludes that effects are acceptable and the proposal accords with the relevant objectives and policies or the AUP, and as relevant higher order planning documents.

consider that the potential adverse effects arising from the proposed activities on marine ecology including avifauna, marine mammals, sediment and water quality will be no more than minor. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies in AUP and the relevant higher order planning provisions in the Regional and National Policy direction.

18 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 143 and 137 19 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 117 20 Emirates Team New Zealand, America’s Cup Event Limited, Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, Challenger of Record America’s Cup 36 (Common Bundle Volume C, Document 126, 127, 128 and 131) 21 Ngati Whanaunga Incorporated Society, Ngati Whatua Orakei, Ngati Tamaoho Trust, Ngati Maru Runanga Trust, Ngati Tamatera, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Trust, Te Akitaia Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporation, Te Patukirikiri Iwi Trust (Common Bundle Volume C, Documents 88, 89, 91, 101, 105, 107, 109, 113) 22 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 137 and to the extent applicable 138. 25 Common Bundle Volume A, Documents 17-21, 27 and 33

1268

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

Coastal processes (water quality, tidal flows and currents, waves and wake reflection, sediment processes and sedimentation effects)

The proposal involves multiple structures and associated activities located within the coastal marine area including:

- Dredging activities; - Wave attenuation devices; - Works to hard protection structures; - Piling activities; - Wharf structures; - Works to and partial demolition and

removal of existing lawful CMA structures with respect to works on Wynyard wharf.

These structures require consent under the provisions of the Viaduct Harbour and Wynyard Precincts and under chapter F2 where rules default to the General Coastal Marine Zone. They involve effects related to discharge and diversion, disturbance and underwater noise.

We note that a number of structures and activities within the CMA are provided for as permitted, controlled and restricted discretionary within this area of the waterfront. Including capital dredging, marine and port facilities and accessory structures and services and the demolition and removal of CMA structures. We acknowledge however that the scale of infrastructure proposed generally requires consent as a discretionary activity.

Chapter F2 – General Coastal Marine zone (various sections)

Chapter B7 – Natural Resources.

In as much as the activity involves freshwater ecology we consider the NZPSFWM is relevant and the proximity to and within the general coastal marine area requires us to consider the proposal in relation to the NZCPS.

Several submitters raised concerns regarding the effects of the proposal on the coastal environment26. We consider the actual and potential effects on coastal processes are comprehensively considered in the application material (Volume A of the Common Bundle) which concludes that effects will be no more than minor.

Auckland City Centre Residents Group27 do not support 75m extension of Hobson Wharf and raise the options of infilling an area behind current breakwater west of Hobson Wharf as an alternative.

Sail World New Zealand Ltd28 consider that the proposed breakwaters will not provide the calm waters required.

Councils Expert Mr Morgan has considered both the Application material and submissions and identified that subject to the application of conditions of consent the proposal will result in no more than minor effects. This is affirmed by Mr Priestley in his EIC.

We note there are no points of disagreement identified in the JW statements in relation to coastal processes and the communications between Mr Priestley and Richard Gladwell on behalf of Sail World New Zealand Ltd confirm that he will not be giving evidence on the performance of breakwaters.

No further discussion on coastal processes has arisen at mediation or through the JW caucusing sessions.

The AEE includes an assessment of water quality, tidal flows and currents, waves and wake reflection, sediment processes and sedimentation effects. Concluding overall that the effects are subject to management and monitoring concluded to be no more than minor29.

An assessment of the proposal in relation to the statutory framework relating to coastal processes is included at section 11 of the AEE30 and a consideration of the higher order planning provisions and HGMPA are also undertaken at sections 11.1, 11.3 and 11.4.131.

Ms Broadbent similarly concludes that she is, based on the expert assessment satisfied that effects associated with coastal processes will be will be acceptable, and that the proposal will not detract from the quality of the Waitemata Harbour as the receiving environment32.

The mitigations inherent in the proposal including the management of construction effects, dredge activities, biosecurity measures and water quality monitoring are included in management plans and supported by conditions of consent as included in Attachment A to our evidence.

Taking into account the proposed conditions of consent, we consider that the potential adverse effects of the proposal on coastal processes will be minor. We consider the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies in B7 and F2 of the AUP and with those higher order policy documents.

Natural Hazards and Climate change

Locating buildings and structures within the coastal erosion hazard area requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E36.4.1(A4)).

The ground improvement works on the coastal edge have an effect of maintaining the stability of the coastal edge, and the existing seawalls located on the eastern side of the reclamation consent is therefore conservatively sought for

Chapter B10 Environmental Risk

Chapter E36 – Natural hazards and flooding.

The NZCPS- in particular objective 5 and policies

One submitter33 raised concerns regarding how the proposal manages effects on natural hazards and climate change.

No matters of disagreement are recorded in relation to coastal or flood hazards and climate change in the joint witness statement nor were matters raised in relation to this matter through mediation or in s274 notices.

The AEE includes an assessment of natural hazards and climate change effects at section 10.1634 and an assessment of the relevant statutory considerations at section 11.4. We also note this matter is considered in relation to the NZCPS at section 11.335 and in relation to our Part 2 assessment36.

The Council’s expert Mr Khan37 supports the approach to management of natural hazards and councils’ coastal processes expert38 notes that sea level rise will not be an issue during the

Taking into account the proposed conditions of consent, we consider that the potential adverse effects of the proposal in relation to natural hazards and climate change will be appropriately avoided or

26 The effects on ecology are considered above and those in relation to character, amenity and landscape are addressed in the body of our evidence. and we consider here effects on coastal processes only 27 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 66 28 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 102 29 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0223 to 0236 30 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0287 to 0325 31 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0279 to 0294 32 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 135 page 3555 33 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 62 34 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0267 to 0274 35 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0279 to 0283 36 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0336 to 0339 37 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 147 38 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 138

1269

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

these structures as hard protection structures. Resource consent is required for this as a restricted discretionary activity (E36.4.1(A20)) and subject to F2 as relevant.

Works within the overland flow paths require resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity (E36.4.1(A42)).

24, 25, 26 and 27 in relation to coastal hazard risks.

Part 2 (section 6(h)) for the RMA, noting that section 6(h) was enacted after the AUP natural hazard provisions were made operative in part.

We note that emergency management responses to coastal tsunami hazards have been subject to further refinement and inclusion in the proposed conditions and will be appropriately responded to in the emergency management planning associated with the events.

We also identify that matters in relation to geotechnical stability have been the subject to discussion between experts in the JW caucusing. Agreement has been reached regarding the provisions of a geotechnical design report as an element of the construction management process. We consider this a relevant inclusion in this section as this is associated with land stability.

course of the proposed AC36 event (or any subsequent events held during the 10 year period). Ms Broadbent adopts these findings and concludes the future structures will not be susceptible to natural hazards, and will not exacerbate any hazard for adjoining land and with respect to the statutory framework concludes that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies.

The relevant mitigation measures proposed are confirmed through conditions of consent, specifically condition 27, in relation to the raising of wharf deck levels and condition 135B in relation to geotechnical matters (Attachment A to our evidence). .

mitigated applying an adaptive approach and when considering the temporal nature of the proposal. We consider the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of E36 of the AUP and the policy direction of the NZCPS.

Historic heritage and special character

The proposal does not involve works to or within the extent of place of any scheduled historic heritage items identified in the AUP which triggers a requirement for resource consent. While the reclamation area of the point post dates 1900 there are several objects understood to be located within the point (as part of the reclamation material) which may trigger a consideration under the protected Objects Act. As a result, the accidental protocols included as standards under chapters E11, E12 and E26 are sought to be infringed resulting in a restricted discretionary activity status.

Rule E26.7.5.1(2)(d) relating to the accidental discovery protocol, which requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

Standard E11.6.1. (clause 2(d)) and E12.6.1. (clause 2(d)), which requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

Chapter B4 – Natural Heritage.

Chapter D17 – Historic Heritage Overlay.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga39 submitted raising concerns regarding the vires of the approach proposed to Protected Objectives and materials subject to the PTHNZ Act. They also sought further clarification of the need for a heritage assessment

Other submitters40 (Robert H Brown and Peter J McCurdy) seek that sufficient berthing space be made available for large heritage vessels.

Councils Specialist Ms Evans undertook an assessment of the proposal in relation to effects on historic heritage. Ms Evans sought that in the absence of a heritage impact assessment that conditions of consent be applied requiring recording and provision for any objects encountered through the proposal which fall outside the jurisdiction of the Protected Objects Act or Heritage New Zealand Act. Ms Broadbent considers that these conditions were not unreasonable and recommended they be adopted in order to mitigate effects.

No JW Conferencing has been undertaken in relation to this matter and this was not raised in general as a concern through the mediation process.

Meetings were held with HNZPT to discuss their concerns prior to the close of the s274 period. Amendments were agreed with the submitter to the wording of the conditions to clarify that the relevant legislative tools continue to apply. Panuku have also agreed the adoption of a version of the council proposed condition. HNZPT has not chosen to become a s274 party.

The concerns raised by other submitters regarding provision for berthage of heritage vessels has also been subject to further consideration and investigation. We understand that Panuku is in negotiations with both the Maritime Museum (the custodians of the Rapaki) from whom written approval has been obtained and the Tug

Section 10.6 of the AEE41 provides an assessment of the effects on historic heritage and special character. The report concludes that there will be no resulting adverse effects on historic heritage.

Further development of the proposal methodology has enabled further clarification that the depth of earthworks associated with the syndicate bases will be generally shallow in nature further minimising the risk of encountering any items buried in the reclaimed fill. Works required in relation to ground improvements will also be more limited, although a final methodology is yet to be confirmed for these works.

Our assessment of the statutory framework relating to heritage and special character are included in section 11.4 of the AEE, this assessment identifies the lack of identified heritage affected by the proposal. We conclude that the proposal is however consistent with the policy direction particularly and conservatively through the adoption of conditions of consent in this regard.

Subject to the Applicant accepting the conditions discussed in Ms Broadbent’s s87F report42, Ms Broadbent considers that the proposal’s effects on historic heritage matters will not be any greater than minor.

Considering the interaction of the proposal with identified heritage items and the proposed conditions of consent, we consider that the potential adverse effects of the proposal on historic heritage are conservatively and thoroughly managed and effects cannot be considered to be any more than minor. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the AUP.

39 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 114 40 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 76 and 77 41 Common Bundle Volume A, Document 4 (Assessment of Environmental Effects), page 0219 42 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 135 page 3551

1270

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

William C Daldy Preservation Society (also a s274 party) regarding the future berthage arrangements or provision for heritage vessels.

Hazardous Substance Risk (Environmental risk associated with hazardous substance and human health and safety)

The provisions of the Wynyard precinct identify risk areas associated with the hazardous industry located within the Point and the Sandford fish processing facility (which stores/uses ammonia). This includes specific rules related to population or people intensive activities consent is sought subject to:

Entertainment facilities (in this case the corporate events associated with the syndicate bases) in Sub-precinct F require consent as a non-complying activity (I214.4.1(A8))

We concur with Ms Broadbent that consent is more appropriately sought subject to rule I214.4.1(A12) as opposed to (A11) as a non-complying activity for events which attract more than 1000 people at one time, or which have a duration greater than 21 days. In this instance, an event period of 6 months is proposed with attendance figures anticipated to exceed 1000 people at a given time43.

Additional Ms Broadbent has correctly identified that Public amenities on Wynyard Wharf, such as landscaping and a kiosk as shown on the plans at the southern end of Wynyard Wharf, require consent as a non-complying activity pursuant to I214.4.1(A26), as hazardous industries within sub-precinct F have not ceased operating. We note that consent is also sought for this activity/development as a component of the application.

Chapter B10 – Environmental Risk.

Chapter E31 - Hazardous substances.

Chapter I214 Wynyard precinct.

Several submitters44 seek that condition 171 be amended to enable up to 500 people at one time (an increase from 410 people per base).

The St Mary’s Bay Association Inc45 sought confirmation that risks associated with the tank farm are being suitably managed.

Councils expert Mr van de Munckhof has considered the Risk assessment and HSNO assessment provided with the application and concluded that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal was acceptable from a societal risk perspective.

In order to further consider the matters raised in submissions (where an increase in base occupancy numbers was sought) Mr Van de Munckhof and Panuku’s Risk Expert Ms Polich engaged in JW conferencing. This process confirmed that 500 persons per base could be accommodated.

No matters of disagreement are recorded in the Joint Witness Statement in relation to hazardous substances and risk. However, we do note that following the JW statement being concluded we have discussed with Ms Polich the outcome sought by the conditions proposed by herself and Mr Van de Munckhof and we include some refinements on the condition wording and location as set out in Attachment A.

Risk and hazardous substances was not a matter discussed specifically through the mediation process and the s274 notices do not raise any new material in this respect.

The AEE includes (at section 11.2) a consideration of the expert risk assessments provided and the likely and potential effects on the environment and public health and safety associated with the proximity of the proposal to the remaining hazardous substance industry. It is noted that this is one of the key matters which results in the application being considered as a non-complying activity, due to the Stolthaven north facility being assumed to remain operational for the initial AC36 event.

We note that the proposal has been designed to respond to the risks associated with the Stolthaven north facility and buffer areas, emergency procedures and built design elements are proposed along with the management of pedestrians associated with the event. These measures are set out in the AEE where the conclusion is reached that potential adverse effects of the proposal on public safety will be avoided or mitigated such that they will be minor. And as such in relation to Policy I214.3(26) of the Wynyard Precinct it is considered that the proposal will be designed and managed to avoid unacceptable levels of risk.

Additional assessment of the proposal in relation to the policy direction in B10 and E31 confirms that the proposal accords with the policy direction contained here also.

Ms Broadbent also concludes that based on the information provided and considering the comments from Mr Van de Munckhof, the proposed development, including the operation of the syndicate bases, and the events themselves, can occur without increasing the risk to individuals or society.

Conditions of consent are included at Attachment A to our evidence which confirm the implementation of the measures discussed through restrictions and incorporation of suitable measures in management plans and through built design.

Taking into account the proposed conditions of consent, we consider that the potential adverse effects of the proposal in relation hazardous substance risk will be minor. As such the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies B10, E31 and I214 of the AUP.

Stormwater and Servicing (Stormwater, Industrial Trade Activity, and the use and storage of Hazardous Substances)

To enable the storage of flammable liquid substances of a volume exceeding the specified thresholds for the General Coastal Marine zone and Business City Centre Zone, consent is required as a discretionary activity (E31(A7).

The proposal involves the diversion and discharge of stormwater from impervious areas associated with the new wharf structures

Chapter B3 Infrastructure, Transport & Energy.

Chapter B7 Natural Resources.

Chapter F2 – General Coastal Zone.

St Mary’s Bay Association Inc46 (Submission 82) concerned with stormwater discharge and risk to water quality.

Vector47 seek to protect Vector’s assets and infrastructure during all stages of the proposal. It was further understood through mediation that this include the ability for any works required in relation to these assets to be undertaken. Panuku have considered this

Several sections of the AEE address servicing Primarily this is addressed at section 10.15 and at section 10.9 in relation to effects of stormwater on ecology. This assessment concludes that the proposal can be suitably serviced in relation to power, wastewater, stormwater and potable water, including the provision of firefighting water supply. Management of hazardous substances associated with the syndicate bases is also discussed and concluded to be appropriately managed in

Taking into account the proposed conditions of consent and associated management plans, we consider that the potential adverse effects of the proposal in relation to stormwater and servicing

43 We note, as highlighted by Ms Broadbent (Common Bundle Volume D, Document 135 page 3513), once those industries cease, the requirements in E40 Temporary activities will apply to events, but until then the requirements set out in the Wynyard Precinct apply to all

events located in (among other areas) sub-precinct F. - NOTE: Reference 44 on previous page

44 Emirates Team New Zealand, America’s Cup Event Limited, Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, Challenger of Record America’s Cup 36 (Common Bundle Volume C, Document 126, 127, 128 and 131) 45 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 133 46 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 133 47 Common Bundle Volume C, Document 56

1271

ATTACHMENT B: Planning Evaluation

Theme Planning context Consents required

Statutory framework

Issues Raised Submissions (CB Volume C) Councils s.87F Reporting (CB Volume D) Section 274 Notices Joint Witness Conferencing Mediation

Analysis Assessment of Environmental Effects (CB4) Councils s87F Report (CB135) Conditions and Management Plans

Comment/Summary

and landside activities, which requires consent as a discretionary activity (E8.4.1(A10).

Note: no reasons for consent are specifically identified in relation to service connections although it is noted that earthworks controls and management of contaminated land is applicable to thee works.

Chapter E1 – Water quality and integrated management.

Chapter E2 – Water quantity, allocation and use.

H31 Hazardous substances

H33 Industrial and trade Activities.

requirement and based on the information available consider that all relevant (known) aspects of servicing required to enable the proposal are included in the scope of this application.

JW conferencing occurred enabling discussion between Mr Priestley on behalf of Panuku and a number of councils experts48 in relation to the infrastructure proposed, management of stormwater, and potential contaminates associated with the syndicate based (ITAs and hazardous substances). Agreement regarding amendment to conditions associated with servicing, and the management of detergents has been agreed between experts and adopted in an appropriate format into the proposed conditions (in particular condition 141) appended as Attachment A.

relation to environmental and public health and safety. The corresponding objectives and policies of the chapters identified in this table have also been considered and we consider the proposal consistent with this policy direction.

The stormwater aspects of the proposal have been assessed by Council’s experts, who consider “the proposed stormwater quality regime to be feasible for the site and the effects of stormwater discharging to the receiving environment will be suitably mitigated, and due to the location of the site directly adjacent to the harbour no downstream adverse effects from any increases in flow or volume will occur.” Ms Broadbent concludes49 that the proposal can be appropriately serviced and is consistent with the objectives and policies of the relevant chapter in the AUP.

Management plans and conditions of consent will confirm that the outcomes anticipated are achieved. This includes the development of an ITA Environmental Management Plan designed to manage the use and storage of potential contaminates associated with the syndicate bases.

Key conditions related to the management of effects associated with stormwater, discharges and hazardous substances are included at 136 to 168B at Attachment A to our evidence.

We also note that conditions (29-44 at Attachment A) relating to the preparation of the CEMP enables consultation with relevant service providers. Including Watercare services limited and Vector as necessary.

(including the management of hazardous substances and ITAs) will be less than minor. We also consider the proposal is considered to be consistent relevant policy direction of the AUP.

48 Sam Morgan, Gemma Chuah, Hillary Johnson, Ahad Kahn and Ross Roberts 49 Common Bundle Volume D, Document 135 page 3541 and 3567.

1272