hearing agenda volume one 50 western ...temp.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/aboutcouncil/meetings...50...

I hereby give notice that a hearing by commissioners will be held on: Date: 15 and 16 December 2015 Time: 9.30am Meeting Room: Council Chamber Venue: Ground Floor, Town Hall 301 - 303 Queen Street, Auckland

HEARING AGENDA

VOLUME ONE

50 WESTERN SPRINGS ROAD

WESTERN SPRINGS

AUCKLAND COUNCIL PARKS COMMISSIONERS Chairperson Cherie Lane Commissioners David Mead William Kapea

Sanjana France DEMOCRACY ADVISOR HEARINGS Telephone: 09 890 2102 or 021 858 737 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a

decision of Council. Should Commissioners require further information relating to any reports, please contact the Democracy Advisor Hearings.

WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING

At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson will introduce the Commissioners sitting on the hearing panel and council staff and he/she will briefly outline the procedure for the hearing. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the panel. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair. If any party intends to give written or spoken evidence in Maori, the Democracy Advisor - Hearings must be informed of this at least five working days prior to the Hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided. Catering is not provided at the hearing. Scheduling submitters to be heard Approximately one week prior to the hearing, a timetable for all submitters who have returned their hearing attendance form will be prepared. Please note that during the course of the hearing, changing circumstances may mean that the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing to be heard are therefore requested to ensure that they can be available to attend the hearing and present their evidence, as and when they may be required. The Democracy Advisor - Hearings will advise submitters, at the earliest possible opportunity, on any changes to the timetable. The Hearing Procedure The usual procedure for a Hearing (as specified in the Resource Management Act) is:

• The applicant will be called upon to present his/her case. The applicant may be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses in support of the application. After the applicant has presented his/her case, members of the Hearing Panel may ask questions to clarify the information presented.

• Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. Each speaker may be questioned in turn by the Hearing Panel. The council officer’s report will identify any submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be asked to address the panel on why their late submission should be accepted. Only if the Hearing Panel accepts the late submission can the late submitter speak.

• Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your application or your submission please ensure you provide the number of copies as indicated on your notification letter previously sent to you.

• Only members of the Hearing Panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. You may suggest questions for the panel to ask, however the panel does not have to ask them. No cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions – is permitted at the hearing.

• After the applicant and submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification.

• When all those who lodged submissions and who wish to be heard have completed their presentations, the applicant or his/her representative has the right to summarise the application and reply to matters raised by submitters. Members of the Hearing Panel may ask further questions of the applicant at this stage.

• The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, submitters and their representatives leave the room. The Hearing Panel will then deliberate “in committee” and make its decision.

• Decisions are usually available within 15 working days of the hearing.

A NOTIFIED NON-COMPLYING ACTIVITY RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION BY AUCKLAND COUNCIL PARKS

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

Reporting Officer’s Report 9 - 62

Attachment 1 Application material – Not reproduced, refer to http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/hearings/Pages/resourceconsenthearings2015.aspx

Attachment 2 Specialist Reports 63 - 118

Attachment 3 Submissions – Refer to Volume Two of Agenda Material 185 - 624

Attachment 4 Table of Submissions 119 - 128

Attachment 5 Additional Information 129 - 184

Reporting Officer: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama

Reporting on an application to upgrade the lighting and upper field at Fowlds Park at 50 Western Springs Road, Western Springs. The reporting officer is recommending, subject to contrary or additional information being received at the hearing, that the application be CONSENTED to, subject to certain conditions.

APPLICANT: AUCKLAND COUNCIL PARKS SUBMITTERS: Page 185 David P C Smith 20 Springfield Road Western Springs

Page 187 Simon Williams 29A Western Springs Road Western Springs

Page 189 Andrew Holmes 28 Wolseley Street Mt Albert

Page 191 Samuel Icke 5/2 Mountain View Road Western Springs

Page 193 Su Fung Lim 2A Linwood Avenue Mt Albert

Page 195 Paul Ketko 17 Malvern Road Mt Albert

Page 197 Briar Green 115 Western Springs Road Morningside

Page 199 Nicholas McHarg 3/32 Mountain View Road Western Springs

Page 201 Klaus & Anne Lengauer 18 Malvern Road Mt Albert

Page 203 Phillip Kiernan 32 Renfrew Avenue Sandringham

Page 205 Sione A Tukia 38 Cardigan Street Western Springs

Page 207 Jo Sutherland 201/64 Surrey Crescent Grey Lynn

Page 209 The Tree Council PO Box 28272 Remuera

Page 214 Jacqueline Peterson 11/29 Rossmay Terrace Mt Eden

Page 216 Marise Henry 5/669 New North Road Morningside

Page 218 Marianne van der Haas 39/59 Sackville Street Grey Lynn

135 Albert Street | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | aucklandcouncil.govt.nz | Ph 09 301 0101

Jonathan Turner 74 Malvern Road Western Springs

Page 222 Chris Hansen 15 Lawrence Road

RD2 Mangawhai

Page 224 Ann L Mitcalfe 4 Hadfield Terrace Kelburn

Page 227 Emma E Chapman 57 Finch Street Western Springs

Page 229 James E Hosking 51 Dryden Street Grey Lynn

Page 231 Philip J Hurdle 26 Sylvan Avenue Mt Eden

Page 233 Franziska Poeschl 9 Ayr Street Parnell

Page 235 Natalie Clark 77 Dryden Street Grey Lynn

Page 237 Rose Meyer 613 New North Road Morningside

Page 239 Dorothy Bauld 6A Alice Avenue Orewa

Page 241 John & Susan McMillan 11 Brewster Avenue Mt Albert

Page 244 Malcolm Nuttall 63 First Avenue Kingsland

Page 246 Jacqueline R Dunn 41B Leslie Avenue Sandringham

Page 248 Siting Pan 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 250 Yaohui Huang 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 252 Josiah Dodson 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 254 Nigel C Williams 24 Brewster Avenue Mt Albert

Page 259 Heather Windsor 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 261 Michaela Finis 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 263 Jasmine M Dodson 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 265 Natalie J Rogers 709 New North Road Mt Albert

Page 267 Stephanie A Forde 701D New North Road Mt Albert

Page 269 Joan F & CB Panting 10 Warwick Street Western Springs

Page 271 Dorina Jotti 18 Wairere Avenue Mt Albert

Page 273 Philip Gasparini 93A Western Springs Road Western Springs

Page 275 Jennifer Barrett 29 Lawrie Avenue Pukekohe

Page 277 Maddy Schafer 10 Omega Street Newlands

Page 279 Seonaid C Abernethy 295C Mt Eden Road Mt Eden

Page 281 Fern M Mercier 21 Francis Street Grey Lynn

Page 283 Ron McMillan [email protected]

Page 285 Dervla O'Kane [email protected]

Page 286 Niall Hartigan [email protected]

Page 287 Damien McKenna [email protected]

Page 288 Blair G Giles 69 Malvern Road Mt Albert

Page 289 Janet Bogle 6 Gladfield Lane Te Atatu Peninsula

Page 291 Maurice Deevy

[email protected]

Page 292

Gerard Connor

C/- The Fletcher Construction Company Ltd

PO Box 12229

Page 293 Marie Harris 113 Western Springs Road Morningside


Lisa Kemp [email protected]

Page 296 Colin Treacy [email protected]

Page 297 Donal Ahern [email protected]

Page 298 Gayle O'Flanagan [email protected]

Page 299 David Semp 81 Western Springs Road Western Springs

Page 304 Steve and Helen Coyte 26 Brewster Avenue Morningside

Page 307 Auckland Softball Association PO Box 26599 Epsom

Page 309 Stefanie Trutanic 67A Alexander Street Cockle Bay

Page 311 Cameron Smith 67A Alexander Street Cockle Bay

Page 313 Barbara Croawell 21 Athenry Place Dannemora

Page 315 Dean Josephs 2/8 Bechmark Drive Massey

Page 317 Rose Moreland 23 Earlsworth Road Mangere East

Page 319 Glenda Lamb 1/29A Taumata Road Sandringham

Page 321 Jin Tai 81 Western Springs Road Western Springs

Page 326 Sherrilyn Cook [email protected]

Page 328 Shannen Kroon [email protected]

Page 330 Ashley Kroon [email protected]

Page 332 Sally-Ann Honai 661 Mt Wellington Highway Otahuhu

Page 334 Mara Fisher 26 Pine Street Mt Eden

Page 336 Mt Albert Ramblers Softball Club Inc [email protected]

Page 338 Aileen Bradley [email protected]

Page 339 Wiremu Campbell 2A/163 Portland Road Remuera

Page 341 Karen McCrindle 12 Quibray Place Botany Downs

Page 343 David Sorenson 27 Waimarie Road Whenuapai

Page 345 Margaret Tolhopf 4 Raddock Place Farm Cove

Page 347 Sherif Ibrahim 16B Wolseley Street Morningside

Page 349 Yvonne Kaeppeli 20 Brewster Avenue Morningside

Page 351 Joylene Malofie [email protected]

Page 353 Christie R Arnot 7 Sainsbury Road Mt Albert

Page 356 Auckland Softball Scorers Association [email protected]

Page 358 Blair Bourgeois [email protected]

Page 361 Angus M De Lange 7 Brewster Avenue Mt Albert

Page 367 Barbara M De Lange 7 Brewster Avenue Mt Albert

Page 379 Ruth Cobb 73 Wairere Road Manurewa

Page 381 Roger Marshman Naylor Love Construction

PO Box 36 143 Northcote

Page 383 Julie Richards 57 Lynwood Road New Lynn

Page 385 Mercedes O'Connor

[email protected]

Page 386 Jana Makar [email protected]


Ngati Whatua Orakei 32-34 Mahuhu Crescent Auckland CBD

Page 397 Doire Reid 17 Pendlebury Street Green Bay

Page 398 Kathryn and Graham O'Neill 25 Wolseley Street Morningside

Page 400 Friends of Fowlds Park Incorporated Society Helen Jermyn 33 Western Springs Road Kingsland

Page 402 Auckland Rugby League Inc PO Box 112234 Penrose

Page 404 Dirk McGregor 327 Hillsborough Road Hillsborough

Page 409 Michelle Little 7 Balmer Lane Mt Eden

Page 410 John Booth [email protected]

Page 411 Mark McLeay [email protected]

Page 412 Mark Beford [email protected]

Page 413 Mark Wilson 9 Malvern Road Morningside

Page 421 Liam O'Keeffe 99 Isabella Drive Pukekohe

Page 423 Susan Berman 17 Malvern Road Morningside

Page 424 Katherine Poi [email protected]

Page 425 S McAra & A Croucher 6/21A Malvern Road Morningside

Page 428 Jeremy Gray [email protected]

Page 429 Jeremy Galvin 3 Brewster Avenue Western Springs

Page 431 Aeron Petrie 2A Springfield Road Morningside

Page 433 Florence Hassall 20 Burnley Terrace Mt Eden

Page 435 Glenn Bell 1/667 New North Road Morningside

Page 437 Chris & Arthur Berman

Apt B Waitakere Gardens 15 Sel Peacock Drive Henderson

Page 438 Daphne A Lawless 2/26 Mountain View Road Morningside

Page 440 Matthew D McMenamin 22 Wolseley Street Morningside

Page 442 Cristina Billett 2 Parkhill Road Mt Albert

Page 444 Jennifer Anyan & John Gabriel 6 Rocky Nook Avenue Mt Albert

Page 446 Michael Leonard 37 Malvern Road Mt Albert

Page 448 Ross West 9 Westmoreland Street West Grey Lynn

Page 450 Valerie E Carter 9 Lancaster Street Karori

Page 453 Sinead Ennis 4 Freemont Street Parnell

Page 455 Auckland Gaelic Athletic Association Brian Walsh PO Box 6519 Wellesley Street

Page 456 Joan Callis 13 Richbourne Street Kingsland

Page 458 V Grbic, T Hoskins & R Grbick-Hoskins 3 Wolseley Street Morningside

Page 460 Phil Crump [email protected]

Page 462 Alicia E Bailie 3 Malvern Road Mt Albert

Page 466 Ian J Bailie 3 Malvern Road Mt Albert

Page 468 Eileen D Burton 1/21A Malvern Road Mt Albert


Julia Thomson Friends of Fowlds Park

7/3 Wallingford Street

Grey Lynn

Page 472 Steve Buckingham Asplundh PO Box 14-501 Panmure

Page 473 Richard J Howarth 8D/20 Oriental Terrace Oriental Bay

Page 476 New Zealand Tag Football Inc [email protected]

Page 477 Katherine Ryan 8 Parkhill Road Morningside

Page 482 Carolyn Mary Lewis 19 Brewster Avenue Morningside

Page 484 Sarah Anne Berman 56 Rauhori Road RD 3

Page 485 Gavin Murphy 38/2 Cawley Street Ellerslie

Page 486 Auckland Volcanic Cones Society Inc 29 Mt Saint John Avenue Epsom

Page 489 Lynette & Dudley Bell 27C Shaw Road RD 7

Page 491 Michael Moriarty [email protected]

Page 492 Mary Tallon 40 Western Springs Road Western Springs

Page 497 Selyn Pearson- Rugby League Development Foundation PO Box 112234 Penrose

Page 499 Audrey Van Ryn 5C, 28 Wellesley Street East Auckland CBD

Page 500 Patricia Milligan 218A Point Chevalier Road Point Chevalier

Page 502 Dorothy Una Maddock 75A Methuen Road Avondale

Page 506 Kane Norton PO Box 41115 St Lukes

Page 563 Wendy Lorraine Donald 677 New North road Morningside

Page 565 Andrew Neal McCully 3/7 Hampstead Road Sandringham

Page 566 Anna Lockyer & Jonathan Boow 679 New North Road Morningside

Page 576 Elsa Ellen Carter 27 Malvern Road Morningside

Page 578 Friends of Fowlds Park Incorporated 26 Brewster Avenue Mount Albert

Page 581 Brian Hugh Paterson Carter 27 Malvern Road Mount Albert

Page 591 Angus MacLean de Lange 7 Brewster Avenue Morningside

Page 597 Barbara MacLean de Lange 7 Brewster Avenue Morningside

Page 618 Laurie Ross 71C Woodglen Road Glen Eden

Page 620 Jennifer R Carryer [email protected] LATE SUBMITTERS: Page 587 Mathew Maiden 30 Bannerman Road Western Springs

Page 589 Mary Egan 606/28 College Hill Road Freemans Bay

Page 615 Ruth Puka AJ Park PO Box 565

Page 616 Grant Brosnan 23 Puketitiro Street Glen Eden

Page 619 Thomas McLoughlin [email protected]

Page 623 Lorraine Clark 1A Mountain View Road Western Springs


Report on Notified Application for Resource Consent(s) under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

Non-Complying Activity under the Operative District Plans.

Non-Complying Activity under the PAUP.

To: Independent Hearing Commissioners

TO: Resource Consent Hearings Commissioners

FROM: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama

Planner, Resource Consents

Central Consenting and Compliance

DATE: 17 November 2015

NOTE: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner. This report has yet to be considered by the Panel of Commissioners delegated by the Council to determine this application. The recommendation is not the decision on this application. A decision will only be made after the Commissioners have considered the application and heard the applicant and any submitters.

9

2 Planner's report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners 50 Western Springs Road, Auckland Central- R/LUC/2015/896 & R/LUC/2015/897

1. Application Description Application and Property Details

Application Numbers: R/LUC/2015/896.

Reporting Officer: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama.

Site Address: 50 Western Springs Road, Western Springs.

Legal Description: Allotment 177 SBRS OF Auckland SECT 10 & Pt Allotment 176 SBRS OF Auckland.

Site Area: 11.8406 hectares.

Applicant’s Name: Auckland Council Parks, Sport and Recreation.

Lodgement Date: 13th March 2015.

Notification Date: Monday 15th June 2015.

Submissions Closed Date: Monday 13th July 2015.

Number of Submissions Received: in support: 59 (3 late)

Neutral: 2

In opposition: 97 (3 late)

Total: 160

Note: there are duplicated submissions. The total submissions received excluding the duplicates are 158.

Operative Plan Auckland Council Operative District Plan: Isthmus Section 1999.

Zone Open Space 3.

Limitations - View Protection – Volcanic Cones Affected Areas.

- Unsuspected Weak Ground.

- Contaminated Land.

- Flood Plain.

- Overland Flow Path.

PAUP Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation.

Overlays - Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas - A11, Mt Albert, Extent of Volcanic Viewshafts.

- Natural Heritage: Viewshaft Contours.

- Natural Heritage: Aquifer - Western Springs Volcanic Aquifer.

10


Locality Plan

11


Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents) The package of application documents and plans is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

Adequacy of Information It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis:

a) The nature and scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 (“District Plan”), the Auckland Air Land and Water Regional Plan (“AWLP”) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”);

b) The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment; c) Persons who may be adversely affected; and d) The requirements of the relevant legislation.

Report and Assessment Methodology The application is appropriately detailed and comprehensive, and includes a number of expert assessments. Accordingly, no undue repetition of descriptions or assessments from the application is made in this report.

I have made a separate and independent assessment of the proposal, with the review of technical aspects by independent experts engaged by the council, as needed.

Where there is agreement on any descriptions or assessments in the application material, this is identified in this report.

Where professional opinions differ, or extra assessment and/or consideration is needed for any reason, the relevant points of difference of approach, assessment, or conclusions are detailed. Also - the implications for any professional difference in findings in the overall recommendation is provided.

The assessment in this report also relies on reviews and advice from the following specialists:

- Mr Graham Warren- Acoustic Specialist, Marshall Day Acoustics;

- Mr Russ Kern- Lighting Specialist, Kern Consultant;

- Mr Pravin Dayram and Mrs Jacinda Harris- Traffic Engineer’s, T2 Engineers Limited;

- Mrs Bridget Gilbert- Landscape Architect, Bridget Gilbert Landscape Architects;

- Mr Paul Hansen- Arborist, Auckland Council;

- Mr Scott Paton- Development Engineer, Auckland Council;

- Mr Bodo Hellberg- Senior Specialist Advisor, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Auckland Council;

- Mrs Renate Schutte- Technical Officer, Land & Water Quality, Andrew Stewart Limited;

- Mr Ruben Naidoo- Technical Officer, Land & Water Quality, Auckland Council; and

- Mrs. Larrissa Wilkinson- Specialist Advisor, Natural Resources and Specialist Input, SouthernSkies Limited.

These assessments are attached in Attachment 4 of this report:

12


2. Executive Summary Auckland Council: Parks has applied to Auckland Council for resource consents to upgrade the lighting and upper field at Fowlds Park. The proposal includes the replacement of 6 existing lighting columns on the upper fields and the conversion of the upper field from grass to artificial turf surface in order to facilitate additional play on the subject and reduce park closures.

The subject site is zoned Open Space 3 (Organised Recreation). Consent is required for the proposed buildings (lighting poles) in the Open Space 3 zone, artificial lighting that will exceed 150 lux, and maximum height that will exceed 10m and to exceed the volcanic viewshaft height limit. The proposed development is a non-complying activity under both the Operative Isthmus District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

The proposal was notified by on 15 June 2015 with submissions closing 13 July 2015. 160 submissions were received with 59 (3 late) in support 97 (3 late) opposing and 2 neutral. Six of these submissions were received late.

Having reviewed the application material, the submissions received, and the specialist assessments, it is my opinion that the proposal will result in actual and potential environmental effects that are acceptable; and that the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives, policies and assessment criteria relevant to the proposal. Furthermore, it is also consistent with other relevant matters to be considered. Therefore, subject to new or contrary evidence presented at the hearing, it is my recommendation that the application for resource consent be granted, subject to conditions.

3. The Proposal, Site and Locality Description Proposal An accurate description of the proposal is provided the Assessment of Environmental Effects titled: ‘Fowlds Park, 50 Western Springs Road, Morningside: Proposed Sports Field Upgrade’, prepared by Matthew Kerr-Ridge, dated March 2015. This is contained in section 3, pages 6-8 of the applicant’s report under Attachment 1.

In brief and to facilitate reading, the proposal includes:

The installation of six new 17m high lighting columns supporting a combination of wide and medium beam 2kW metal halide luminaries to replace the existing 16m high columns. The proposed lighting columns will have two modes of luminance, one to facilitate training (50 Lux) and one to facilitate competition games (200 Lux).

The replacement of the upper field (field 3) and warmup/netball courts to artificial turf.

The new artificial field will be fenced with a 1.2 meter high fence, which will extend around the periphery of the artificial turf. A 10 metre backstop fence is to be erected around the northern-eastern corner of the field to facilitate multisport use of the upper field.

A new handstand area will be established between the turf and the clubhouse. It will be used for informal sporting.

Widening the upper field by 6 metres. The standard width for Rugby League/Rugby fields is 68 metres however the upper field at Fowlds Park is currently 62 metres.

The construction of a 3.5 metres high retaining wall along the southern portion of the proposed artificial turf. To mitigate the visual effects associated with the retaining wall, the applicant proposes to cover it with a ‘taramesh’ (landscaped) surface.

A total of 7,300m3 of earthworks (600m3 of cut and 6,700m3 of fill).

13


The removal of 18 generally protected trees, and works within the dripline of four generally protected trees. The applicant proposes mitigation planting (refer to landscape plan in attachment 5).

Site, Locality, Catchment and Environs Description The applicant’s AEE describes the site and surrounding environment on pages 6-7 in a form and manner that is accepted by Auckland Council. Having undertaken a site visit on the 19 March 2015, I concur with the description of the proposal and the site and have no further comment to add. This can be found in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) titled: ‘Fowlds Park, 50 Western Springs Road, Morningside Proposed Sports Field Upgrade’

Background The applicant has provided a useful background to the proposal and the reasons surrounding the selection of Fowlds Park and this can be found on page 13 of their AEE (Attachment 1). I have not sought to replicate this information however add the following comments:

Resource Consent Process

The applicant lodged the application on the 13 March 2015 and requested public notification.

A section 92 letter was sent on the 2 April 2015. Further information relating to transport, stormwater drainage, sediment and earthworks, landscaping, contamination and acoustic matters was required (refer to attachment 5). All section 92 matters have been satisfied and this information is attached in Attachment 5.

The application was notified on the 15 June 2015.

Following notification Landscape Architect Mrs Gilbert raised concerns about the proposed mitigation planting and their maintenance. Following the close of submissions the application was put on hold at the applicants request while further landscaping and visual assessments were undertaken.

The applicant provided a draft-planting plan and design statement on the 16 October 2015. The application was subsequently taken off hold on the 16 October 2015.

Mrs Gilbert was not satisfied with the detail of the landscape report provided. Mrs Gilbert noted further details about the paving materiality, fencing styles and exterior finish of the lighting poles needed to be provided before she could make an assessment on the proposal.

The applicant has indicated that further clarification will be provided at the hearing.

4. Reasons for the Application Resource consent is required under the Resource Management Act 1991 as follows:

Land Use Consents (s9) – R/LUC/2015/896 Operative District Plan – Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)

The floodlights will produce an luminance of up to 200 Lux for competition game. The Operative Isthmus District Plan only permits up to 150 Lux within the open space 3 zone,

14


an infringement of 50 Lux. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to 9.7.1 of the Operative Isthmus District Plan.

The proposal involves the installation of floodlights which by definition is a building, as it is over 1 meter in height. This is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 9.7.1 of the Operative Isthmus Plan.

It is proposed to undertake a total of 7,300m3 (600m3 of cut and 6,700m3 of fill) of earthworks on the site. Pursuant to rule 9.7.1 of the Operative District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) under taking more than 5m3 of earthworks within the Open Space 3 zone is a Non-Complying activity.

The proposal includes the removal of 18 generally protected trees on the site. The removal of generally protected trees is a restricted discretionary consent pursuant to Rule 5C.7.3.3C(i) of the Operative Isthmus Plan.

The proposal includes works within the dripline of 4 generally protected trees on the site. The removal of generally protected trees is a restricted discretionary consent pursuant to Rule 5C.7.3.3C(i) of the Operative Isthmus Plan.

The volcanic viewshaft overlay intersects through the middle of the subject site. The height limits ranges from 1.5 metres to 15 metres in height. One of the 17 meter floodlights is proposed within the volcanic viewshaft where the height limit is 9 metres, an infringement of 8 metres. This is a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 5C.7.6.5 of the Operative Isthmus Plan.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

Tree altercation or tree removal of any tree greater than 4 meters in height or greater than 400mm in girth carried out by Council or its agent is a restricted discretionary pursuant to Rule H3.1.1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

The proposal includes a total of 1.2 hectares of earthworks (6,000m2 of cut and 6,700m2 of fill). Earthworks greater than 2,500m2 and/or 2,500m3 within an open space zone are a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H.4.2.1.1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

The volcanic viewshaft overlay intersects through the middle of the subject site. The height limits ranges from 1.5 metres to 15 metres in height. One of the 17 meter floodlights is proposed within the volcanic viewshaft where the height limit is 9 metres, an infringement of 8 metres. This is a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule J.6.3.1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (“NESCS”)

The site is noted as being subject site contaminated fill. Soil disturbance of land which has been subject to a HAIL activity is a controlled activity pursuant to Clause 9 of the NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health.

Stormwater Permits (s14 & s15) – R/REG/2015/897 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

The proposal includes a total of 2,165m2 impervious area. Pursuant to Rule 5.5.2 of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water an impervious area greater than 1,000m2 but less than or equal to 5,000m2 is a controlled activity.

15


Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control

The proposal includes a total of 1.2 ha of earthworks (6,000m2 0f cut and 6,700m2 of fill). Earthworks exceeding 0.25 hectares in area where the land has a slope greater than or equal to 15o is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 5.4.3.1 of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The proposal includes a total of 2,165m2 of impervious area. Stormwater discharge from impervious area greater than 1,000m2 is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H.4.14.1. of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

5. Status of the Applications The proposal involves multiple resource consents under different plans. In this instance reasons for consent range from controlled to non-complying. Where there is an overlap between the consents and / or the effects of the activities – so that consideration of one could affect the outcome of another – the appropriate practice is to treat the applications together.

In this instance the consents required, and the matters controlled under the operative plans, are considered to overlap in the following regards:

Accordingly the application for consent(s) under the operative plans were considered together for notification as a non-complying activity status.

The applications under the PAUP involve multiple resource consents, and all are non-complying activities. These consents are considered to overlap and are considered to be non-complying activity.

6. Notification and Submissions

Notification Background

The application was publicly notified on 15th of June 2015 at the request of the applicant in accordance with s95A(2)(b) of the RMA 1991.

Submissions When the submission period ended, a total of 160 submissions were received and 6 submissions were received late after the close of the submission period. A recommendation on the late submissions is outlined below.

Of the submissions received:

58 in support 2 neutral 98 opposing

A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought by the submitters is set out below.

Please note that this table is only a summary of the key issues raised in submissions. Please refer to the full set of submissions as required. These are attached in Appendix 4 to this report.

16


The following summary identifies the following:

the issues raised in submissions in terms of the key issues below details any relief sought by the submitter whether the submitter(s) wish(es) to be heard at the hearing.

Summary of Submissions in Opposition: Issues Raised (number of submissions):

1. There are two alternative options which Council could explore instead of artificial turf. (68)

2. The six 17 meter high flood lights will result in dominance and adverse visual effects. One of which will cut through the volcanic viewshaft to Mount Albert. (20)

3. Traffic effects will be unacceptable. (3)

4. The landscape character of Fowlds Park will be destroyed as a result of the proposal. (51)

5. The removal of 18 mature trees. (55)

6. The proposal will result in adverse light spill effects on neighbouring properties. (9)

7. Noise effects associated with the extended use of the park will result in a loss of tranquillity and serenity for park users and neighbouring properties. (13)

8. The proposal does not comply with relevant District Plan controls, Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Fowlds Park Management Plan 1992. (67)

9. The proposal will increase the impermeable surfaces on site this has the potential to result in adverse stormwater run-off effects. (1)

10. Contamination and leaching from the materials used in artificial turf. (24)

11. There are no conditions which could possibly mitigate the proposal to an acceptable level. (11)

12. Loss of natural heritage. (6)

13. Extensive earthworks are proposed with the potential to result in adverse stormwater run-off and sedimentation. (12)

14. The construction process will be long and will result in disturbance effects beyond what is considered acceptable. (1)

15. The proposal will tip the balance between providing for active sports and recreation and other passive users. (26)

16. Shadowing effects created by the retaining wall. (1)

17. The crime rate will increase as a result of the proposal. (1)

18. Lack of facilities for disabled and wheelchair individuals. (1)

19. Increased litter and general disturbance. (1)

20. No specific reason stated. (1)

17


Summary of Submissions in Support: Issues Raised (number of submissions):

21. Support the taramesh retaining wall. The taramesh wall will help to reduce the visual impact of the retaining wall, providing visual continuity. (1)

22. The extended hours will not result in anti-social behaviour i.e. graffiti and crime. The element that creates disruptions such as noise litter and alcohol induced incidents have nothing to with the club and members who play at the field. (1)

23. There is only a small increase in height from the existing lighting poles from those proposed 17 metres versus 16 metres currently. (1)

24. Efficient use of the park. The park closures are often because of the weather. The proposal will provide a multi-purpose field all year around. (41)

25. The whole community will benefit from the proposal, providing an asset for all to use. (15)

26. A safer traffic environment- 3 new proposed pedestrian crossings. Raised speed bumps will slow down the traffic environment. (1)

27. Promote physical exercise and increase participation in sports activity. (39)

28. The proposed restrictions on the use of the park will regulate the intensity. (2)

29. A cost effective option- reduced maintenance required. (4)

Summary of Submissions who are Neutral: Issues Raised (number of submissions):

21. Mitigation of the removal of the trees (2)

22. Earthworks- the proposed works is located close to sites of significance to mana whenua (1)

23. Rubbish bins (1)

24. Hours be limited (1)

25. Liquor ban (1)

Relief Sought (number of submissions) A. Approve resource consent. B. Approve resource consent subject to conditions. C. Support, Specific relief sought was not stated. D. Decline resource consent and seek alternative options. E. Not stated.

Please refer to attachment 4 for the submitter’s summary table.

18


Late Submissions At the start of the hearing, the independent hearing commissioners must decide whether to extend the closing date for submissions. For this decision, the considerations under s37 and 37A of the RMA in making this decision are:

o the interests of any person who, in the council’s opinion, may be directly affected by the waiver;

o the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal; and

o the council’s duty under s21 of the Act to avoid unreasonable delay.

Of the submissions received late (151, 152, 155, 156, 158 and 160) no new issues were raised.

A recommendation on the above late submissions is included in section 15 of this report.

Written Approvals The applicant has not obtained the written approval from any persons.

Pre-hearing Meeting No pre-hearing meeting has taken place or has been scheduled at the time of writing this report.

Amendments to the Application Following Notification Following the submission process, the application remained on hold waiting on section 92 information to provided (Tuesday 7 April 2015). On 16 October 2015, the applicant provided the additional information contained in Attachment 2 of this application.

This information forms part of the application and has been considered in this review. The information is considered to fall within the scope of the original application, and therefore re-notification of the application was not required.

The changes made to the application are summarised as follows:

Mitigation planting plan and design statement: Mr. Gilbert raised concerns about the removal of trees from the site and requested a landscape plan (s92) be provided. In response to the s92 request the applicant provided a mitigation planting plan and a design statement report following the close of submissions.

Seating Plan: the applicant within their correspondence dated 11 November 2015 has confirmed that they will provide an amended seating plan at the hearing to address the viewshaft concerns expressed by Mrs Gilbert. The amended seating plan may result in additional vegetation being removed. On this basis matters of application scope where considered however as the proposal involves vegetation removal and as the detail of this has not been revealed at this time, it is considered prudent to proceed to a hearing on the assumption that any changes would be minor in scale and within scope of the original application.

Notwithstanding this, the commissioners are advised to consider the matter of scope with any changes offered by the applicant at the hearing.

19


7. Consideration of the Application(s) Statutory Considerations Resource Management Act 1990

When considering an application for resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity the council must have regard to Part 2 (“purpose and principles” – sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104B, 104D, and where relevant sections 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

In considering any application for resource consent and any submissions received, the council must have regard to the following requirements under s104(1) – which are subject to Part 2 (the purpose and principles):

o any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;

o any relevant provisions of national policy statements, New Zealand coastal policy statement; a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan, a National Environmental Standard (NES), or any other regulations; and

o any other matter the council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

When considering any actual or potential effects, the council may disregard any adverse effects that arise from permitted activities in a NES or a plan (the permitted baseline). The council has discretion whether to apply this permitted baseline.

For a discretionary activity or non-complying activity the council may grant or refuse consent (under s104B). If it grants the application, it may impose conditions under s108.

As a non-complying activity, it is subject to the ‘threshold test’ under s104D. The council may only grant consent to a non-complying activity if satisfied that the adverse effects on the environment are minor, or that the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan. If the proposal satisfies either of the limbs of the test then the application only then can be considered for approval, subject to consideration under s104.

Sections 105 and 107 address certain matters (in addition to the matters in s104(1)), relating to discharge permits where the proposal would otherwise contravene s15 (or ss15A or 15B).

Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and sets out the kind of conditions that may be imposed.

All considerations are subject to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), which sets out the purpose and principles that guide this legislation. This means the matters in Part 2 prevail over other provisions of the RMA or provisions in planning instruments (e.g. regional plans) in the event of a conflict. S5 states the purpose of the RMA and sections 6, 7 and 8 are principles intended to provide additional guidance as to the way in which the Acts purpose is to be achieved.

The application of s5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The RMA’s use of the terms “use, development and protection” are a general indication that all resources are to be managed in a sustainable way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, while sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying and mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. The enabling and management functions found in s5(2) should be considered of equal importance and taken as a whole.

20


Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance. No matters of national importance are considered relevant to the assessment of this proposal for resource consent.

Section 7 of the Act identifies a number of ‘other matters’ to be given particular regard by a council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. The efficient use of land that is zoned for this recreational use is a relevant consideration.

Section 8 of the Act requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the principles of the Treaty.

8. Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment – s104(1)(a) Effects that must be disregarded Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted Baseline assessment

The permitted baseline refers to permitted activities on the subject site. In this case, I consider that the application of a permitted baseline is a relevant consideration. Under section 6.1.2.1 (Page 60) of the application document (Attachment 1), the applicant has discussed a permitted baseline that has been agreed upon with the Council in previous applications of this type. It has been agreed that organised sport and recreation is a permitted activity in the Open Space 3 zone, artificial lighting less than 150 Lux is permitted as would be lighting poles less than 10m in height.

To this end, as of right the application could construct a 9.9 meter high lighting columns (that are defined as a ‘building’ by the district plan and are hence a permitted activity) with attached lights emitting light at a complying 149 Lux to achieve evening training. In my opinion this baseline provides a useful comparison in consideration of the lighting poles and luminance levels of the activity proposed.

This constitutes the permitted baseline and these adverse effects may be discounted as the level of adverse effects arising from those permitted activities is deemed to be acceptable. It is only any other or further adverse effects arising from the proposal over and above the permitted baseline which are to be assessed.

Receiving Environment

The park has been used by the Mount Albert Rugby League Club since the early 1930’s. It is therefore fair to conclude that the League’s long standing presence with its competition games and training sessions on the subject site has become part of the local and existing environment. This existing environment includes the associated activities and their effects, such as noise, traffic and intensity. This is set out in section 3 ‘Site, Locality, Catchment and Environment Description’ of this report.

The site has a lawfully established clubroom which has been approved through Council consents (B/1956/734 and B/1989/2007). It is therefore, considered that the overall mass, scale and bulk of the existing building is legally established and as such any visual amenity, dominance, shadowing, and character effects associated with the existing buildings will be disregarded in the following assessment.

There are no unimplemented resource consents on the subject site which need to be considered as part of this consent.

21


Assessment of Effects

Having regard to the above and after analysis of the application (including any proposed mitigation measures), undertaking a site visit, reviewing Council records, reviewing the submissions received and taking advice from appropriate experts, the following effects that require specific consideration in respect to this application have been identified.

Duration (intensity)

The new artificial surface of the upper field has the potential to increase activity within this part of the park compared to landscape grass cover. Currently no more than 10 hours a week can be played on the upper fields during winter, due to wet weather conditions. This makes training and competition games heavily weather dependent during winter. The applicant notes on page 16 of their AEE, that the artificial turf and lighting is expected to provide up to 30 hours of additional play a week. This will increase the hours of play from 10 hours to 40 hours per week. This will allow for a more efficient use of the park and for training sessions and competition games to be less weather dependent.

The park is currently used by Mount Albert Rugby League Club for evening training sessions between the hours of 4.00-9.00pm Monday to Friday, which will remain unchanged as a result of the development. The Rugby Club does not intend to use the park beyond these hours and the applicant has provided a condition which will restrict hours of play to 7.00am to 9.30pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 6.00pm on Sunday’s. The field lighting will be on an automated timer system which will ensure that the lights are switched off by 9.30pm while the field is in use. Sports teams will not have the ability to extend the use of the lighting beyond 9.30pm. I recommend that this be a condition of consent, should consent be granted.

A number of submitters have raised concerns about the related adverse disturbance/nuisance effects associated with the extended use of the park (13) and the potential for increased criminal activity. The submitters note that sports teams who use the park in the evenings tend to linger well after 9.30pm and play excessively loud music. The submitters feel the 9.30pm time restriction will do little to kerb the use of park late into the evening. Having reviewed the property file there are a number of incidents relating to excessively loud music coming from the park. It’s very difficult to quantify these assertions, as the park is a public with no access restrictions. However in saying that it is recommended that should consent be granted, that the club take all practical steps to ensure their members and their visitors act in an appropriate manner and leave the park in a reasonable timeframe after night training and games. A condition is recommended to support this.

I agree with the submitters, that the proposal will allow for increased use of the park. However I am of the opinion that the scale of the activity in terms of patronage and disturbance from people arriving, using the fields for sports and departing from Fowlds Park is envisaged by the Operative Isthmus District Plan. The District Plan does not provide restrictions on the number of competitions games or training sessions that can occur from the subject site and similarly there is no restriction on the number of people, which can be present on the subject site at any given time. Therefore the general principle of holding evening competition games and providing extended play for training at the intensity proposed on the subject site is deemed acceptable by the District Plan and arguably part of the permitted baseline. I am therefore of the opinion that the adverse effects associated with the intensity and duration proposed will be acceptable in context of the planning framework and the existing character of the park.

Notwithstanding the above the increased duration/intensity proposed has the potential to result in adverse amenity related effects. This is especially important given the site is frequently used for competition games which attracts a large number of people to the site. The applicant wishes to continue the use of the subject site for competition games with the potential to extend this to include evening competition games under lights (200 Lux) on both Friday and Saturday nights. Currently competition games occur during the day and held during the weekend, as the current

22


lighting on the upper field limits evening use. The applicant has advised evening competition games will be limited to no more than two per week.

Given Mount Albert Rugby League Club’s long-standing history on the site, competition games and training sessions are considered within the local environment and relatively expected on the subject site. The expansion of these activities is considered within the existing environment and permitted baseline of the park and the proposed restrictions on frequency of competition games to no more than two will ensure the adverse duration effects associated with the proposal will be acceptable. In addition the 9.30pm cut off will ensure the activities do not extend into unreasonable hours. On this basis, I am of the opinion that the intensity (duration) effects associated with the proposed development will be acceptable subject to conditions.

Noise effects

The proposal will allow for the extended use of the upper field, which has the potential to result in adverse noise effects both within and beyond. The existing lighting on the upper field limits the duration of play in the evenings. The proposed new lighting will allow play until 9.30pm during winter months.

The applicant provided an acoustic report prepared by Jon Styles of Styles Group, dated 10th September 2014. Mr Styles report notes that noise associated with a busy day of training and match play on the subject site will comply with the associated permitted noise standards of the Operative plan (55Db LA10) at the residential boundary of the site.

Graham Warren of Marshall Day reviewed the application documents and submissions on behalf of Auckland Council. Mr. Warren noted that he concurred with the Mr. Styles report and the proposal would comply with the noise limits of the Operative Isthmus Plan for the Open Space 3 zone (55Db LA10) citing:

“use of artificial lighting will be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 9.30pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 6.00pm on Sundays, accordingly, organised sport activities are not anticipated to occur beyond these hours, and will therefore comply with the more restrictive noise limit of 40 dBA L10 between 10pm – 7am (Mon-Sat) and before 9am and after 6pm on Sundays and Public Holidays”.

Mr. Warren further concluded that “any noise effects from daytime operational activity at the Park would be readily compliant and noise effects be of no appreciable significance to residents in the vicinity”.

Taking the above into account, I adopt Mr. Warren’s assessment and I am of the opinion that the adverse noise effects associated with the proposal will comply with the Operative Plan and therefore result in acceptable effects.

However similar to the duration effects above, the adverse noise effects has the potential to result in adverse amenity related effects. This is a concern which is shared by a number of submitters. A number of submitters raised concerns about the loss of ‘tranquillity’ associated with the proposal (13). The submitters are concerned the extended use of the park by organised sports teams will result in a loss of amenity for more passive users of the park. I am of the opinion that the restriction on hours, frequency and seasonal aspects of the sports involved will mitigate these effects.

I agree with the submitters that the proposal will result in extended use of the upper field, which has the potential to result in adverse noise amenity related effects. However similar to the duration effects above, given Mount Albert Rugby League Club’s long-standing history on the site, competition games and training sessions is considered within the local environment and relatively expected on the subject site. The adverse noise and associated amenity effects with these uses is therefore also considered within the existing environment and permitted baseline of the park.

23


Additionally the lower fields, the field adjacent to Melvern Road, the playground and walkway trails will remain unchanged as a result of the proposal. These areas will be available for passive users of the park and when the upper field is not in use, it will also be available to members of the public.

Overall, I am of the opinion that the adverse noise and related amenity effects associated with the proposed development will be acceptable subject to conditions.

Lighting effects

The proposal will include replacing the existing 16 and 18 metre high lighting columns on the upper field with 17 metre high lighting columns. The upgrade of the upper field lights is necessary as the existing lights are of an older style and do not provide for an adequate level of lighting to allow for the field to be used efficiently during the evening. The use of the field lighting will be restricted to the hours of 6.00am-9.30pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 6.00pm on Sundays.

The proposed new lighting columns will have two different modes. For training purposes the lights will emit up to 50 Lux and for semi-professional competition games up to 200 Lux, this has the potential to result in adverse light spill and glare effects.

The applicant provided a lighting report prepared by Leslie Eckard of Opus Limited, dated 7 October 2015. The report notes that the proposed lighting will comply with the bylaw requirements, including spill lighting, hours of operation, and glare, citing:

“achieves less than the allowed 10 Lux spill light (vertical and horizontal) at the site boundary of any adjoining site. The design is therefore a permitted activity under the District Plan rules”.

Lighting specialist Russ Kern of Kern Consultants reviewed the application documents and submissions on behalf of Council. Mr Kern did not raise any concerns and concurred with the assessment and conclusions of Mrs Eckard’s report. Mr. Kern stated that:

“…the proposed lighting will meet all applicable lighting standards and Council requirements and will have less than minor effects on neighbouring residential properties and the environment… Spill light luminance does not exceed the 50-Lux requirement on the adjacent roadway kerbing and is acceptable”.

Overall, I adopt with the applicant's and Mr Kern’s assessment and consider the 102 metre setback from the properties to the south, and 83 metre setback from those properties to the east will ensure the adverse light spill and glare effects are acceptable.

Notwithstanding the above the lighting upgrade has the potential to result in adverse amenity related effects within the boundary of the park. A number of submitters (9) are concerned the floodlights will adversely effects the tranquillity and ‘natural character’ of the subject site.

Lighting is an integral part of this park/open space and is considered within the existing environment and is relatively expected on the subject site. Auckland Council: Parks have advised that during the summer months the upper fields will continue to accommodate softball, touch and tag (both competitive and training (but lights will not be required during this time). The proposed floodlights will only be used during winter months outside of daylight savings hours to provide for extended play. Taking into account the sunsets approximately between 5pm and 6pm outside of daylight saving hours (i.e. April-September) the use of the floodlights will be at most between 3.5-4.0 hours Monday to Saturday. On Sunday the use of the floodlights will be limited to 9.00am-6.00pm. I am of the opinion that given the compliance with light spill and glare as outlined by the lighting experts, the additional 4 hours of play per night during the winter months will result in acceptable visual amenity effects, as it will be generally within the established park character and will not extend beyond reasonable hours.

24


Additionally given the lights will only be lit when in use, on some nights the weather may restrict play and the lights will be switched off. I recommend a consent condition that the lights will be switched off when the fields are not in use.

When balancing the existing environment, the compliance with the light spill standards, the limited season and duration of the training, I consider that the adverse lighting effects on the amenity of the park and the wider environment will be acceptable.

Traffic generation, parking and safety effects

Traffic Generation

The proposal has the potential to result in additional adverse traffic generation effects. The application documents and submissions were reviewed by Traffic Engineers Jacinda Harris and Pravin Dayaram of Traffic & Transportation Engineers Limited (T2). Mrs Harris and Mr Dayaram concluded that the proposed changes would result in less than minor adverse traffic effects on the surrounding road network. This is because no new or additional sports fields are proposed. Intensity per training and games is anticipated to remain the same on any given night and whilst over spill occurs within the surrounding environment, the local network absorbs this traffic and it is part of the existing environment.

I adopt the conditions of Mrs Harris and Mr Dayaram. Overall, whilst the effects of the traffic generation will be felt at a higher frequency within the surrounding streets, the overall intensity of the activity on any given night will not increase and the existing capacity within the surrounding area is sufficient to ensure only less than minor adverse traffic generation effects will result on the safety and efficiency of the road network.

Overall based on the above advice I am of the opinion that the adverse trip generation effects are acceptable.

Parking

To accommodate the increased field size and retaining walls, the existing carpark located north of the rugby league building will need to be altered. The existing carpark exit is to be realigned approximately 2 metres to the west of its current location and the eastern most parking spaces are to be removed.

The proposed works will result in the reduction of 9 parking spaces from the existing car park which is located adjacent to the club rooms. A total of 92 parking spaces will remain, which is in an excess of 54 spaces from that required under the Operative Isthmus Plan. There is also off-street car parking available along Fowlds Park Drive.

The applicant did not provide a Traffic Assessment but notes on page 28 of their AEE that while the proposed field will facilitate an increased duration of use for the upper field, the upgraded field will not provide an intensification of the park. The applicants anticipate that the parking for the proposal will be accommodated on site. The training sessions will operate on a booking system and so there is the ability to control the numbers if parking problems do arise.

Advice was sought from Traffic Engineers Mrs Harris and Mr. Dayaram regarding the proposed parking situation. Mrs Harris and Mr Dayaram noted that given the proposal did not result in additional sports fields the peak parking demand is not expected to increase on the subject site. The proposal also complies with the parking standards under the Operative Isthmus Plan.

A number of submitters have raised concerns that the extended hours of use for the development will cause carparking shortages and congestion, as they indicate this already exists. However based on the advice received from both Mrs Harris and Mr Dayaram the proposal is not expected to increase parking demand on or off the site on any single night.

25


Based on the above advice I am of the opinion that the adverse parking effects will be acceptable.

Pedestrian Safety

The site has a lack of pedestrian connectivity between the fields/ clubrooms and the parking spaces on the northern side of Fowlds Park Drive, a problem, which only worsen with the proposed development on the upper field. To rectify this issue, three new pedestrian crossings have been proposed along Fowlds Park Drive. The additional crossings will provide increased connectivity across the park and improve the safety of users of the park.

The applicant provided a Pedestrian Safety Improvements study prepared by Mr Parvez Sheikh and John Neil of Opus. The report noted:

“It is concluded that the proposed improvements are the most appropriate to improve traffic operation and pedestrian safety within Fowlds Park. The improvement measures are expected to improve amenities for vulnerable road users and provide better connectivity between the existing footpath and the playing fields”.

Mrs Harris and Mr. Dayaram reviewed the report and noted subject to conditions the adverse pedestrian safety effects will be acceptable. In particular they wish to see conditions requiring:

The pedestrian crossings should be marked (i.e. warning signage, road markings and belisha discs);

The pedestrian crossings should be adequately lit;

Pedestrian Crossing 1 should include an appropriate length of broken yellow lines either side of the crossing to maximise the crossing sight distance; and

Pedestrian Crossing 3 should include a kerb extension on the northern side of the road to achieve minimum crossing sight distance.

I consider these conditions responsible and believe that these will appropriately mitigate and avoid effects on pedestrian safety. Therefore, subject to these recommended conditions, I consider that the effects of the proposal on pedestrian safety to be less than minor and acceptable overall.

Visual Amenity

There are a number of matters for consideration in relation to adverse visual amenity effects associated with the proposal. For the purpose of this report it has been separated into key headings; lighting poles, volcanic view shaft, artificial turf and retaining wall and fencing.

Lighting poles

The proposal includes replacing the existing 16 metre and 18 metre high lighting columns on the upper field with 17 metre high lighting columns. The design of the proposed lighting structures is generally the same style as the existing lighting installed on the subject site. This style consists of a slim galvanised pole (approximately 16.8m in height) with halide lights mounted above.

For the majority of the park users these structures will not appear out of character given their relative scale to existing lights present on the site and dispersed location across Fowlds Park. However a number of submitters have raised concerns about the adverse visual effects associated with the proposed new lighting columns, particularly that the lights will take away from the natural character of the park and will be dominant on the park landscape.

26


I agree with the submitters, that the proposed artificial lighting column is not ‘natural’ in character. However I am of the opinion that given their relative scale to existing lights on the subject site and their slender form, the adverse effects associated with the new lighting columns will be no different to the exiting situation on the subject site.

Additionally the proposed columns will be approximately 102 metres away from those residential properties to the south which will help to mitigate their dominance effects when viewed from these properties. The residential properties to the east are considered to be adequately screened by the Rocky Nook Bowling Club.

Overall, when balancing the existing environment and the slender form and scale of the proposed lighting columns any associated adverse amenity effects will be negligible.

Volcanic Viewshaft

The volcanic viewshaft overlay of Mount Albert runs through the centre of the subject site. The height limit ranges from 9 metres to 15 metres. One of the proposed 17 metre high lighting columns is located within the centre of the volcanic viewshaft, where the height limit is 9 metres.

A number of submitters have raised concerns about the proposed 8 metre volcanic viewshaft infringement. The submitters are concerned that the proposal will adversely affect the view and legibility of Mount Albert from the subject site (20).

The applicant provided a brief assessment of the viewshaft on page 27 of their AEE stating:

“as the viewshaft begins within the site, the actual effect of these structures within the viewshaft is negligible as they will not impact views along the viewshaft from outside of the site”. I disagree with the agent’s comment that the exceedance of the volcanic viewshaft height restriction will result in negligible effects because in my opinion I believe that it will.

Landscape Architect Bridget Gilbert reviewed the application documents on behalf of Auckland Council. Mrs Gilbert also raised concerns about the visual assessment provided by the applicant and lack of mitigation provided. In response to these concerns the idea of integrating a seating plan into the proposed development that enables a clear and unobstructed view of Mount Albert was suggested as mitigation. As discussed above in ‘amendment to the application following notification’ (page 11) the applicant has indicated that they will provide an indicative location of this seating plan as an option to be considered at the hearing.

In response to this Mrs. Gilbert stated in her specialist report (Attachment 2):

“Balancing each of these considerations, in my opinion (and assuming the lighting column cannot be relocated or reduced in height), for the viewshaft infringement to be acceptable, the proposed development should integrate a formalised seating area that enables a clear and unobstructed view of the maunga, together with interpretative signage explaining the geological, cultural and historic significance of the maunga and viewshaft. This new formalised view should be clearly identified and described in the Fowlds Park Reserve Management Plan and should be configured to ensure that the District Plan height restrictions of viewshaft A11 that coincide with land that is outside Fowlds Park remain valid”.

I agree with Mrs Gilbert that the seating plan will provide further mitigation however, the applicant has not addressed the adverse viewshaft effects in any detail. This will be an important matter to explore further at the hearing. Based on the advice of Mrs Gilbert and the applicant’s willingness to provide an alternative seating plan, it is considered possible that changing the primary viewing points will mitigate the effects on the pole on the view of Mount Albert to an acceptable level.

27


Artificial turf

The proposal includes converting the upper field from grass cover to artificial turf (a total of 9,450m2). As discussed above the artificial turf will provide 30 hours of additional play on the subject site.

The applicant did not provide a visual assessment of the proposal but did note on page 27 of their AEE:

“it is considered that the installation of a single artificial field (over the footprint of an existing sports field) with high quality landscaping around the fringes will not significantly compromise any of these values… The area associated with the artificial turf will cover an area of approximately 1.2ha. The total area of the Park is 11.84ha, therefore the proposed field upgrade will encompasses approximately 8% of the total area of the Park. The park includes large areas which are dedicated to passive use. In addition, the lower fields are to remain as grass turf surfaces”.

Advice was sought from Landscape Architect Mrs Gilbert who noted that she did not agree the park needed to remain unchanged as Fowlds Park is not specifically identified as being worthy of formal protection. However any proposed changes at Fowlds Park should be in keeping with the wider aesthetic of the park landscape. Mr Gilbert further concluded: “the confinement of the change in parkland character to a portion of the park which is partially covered by paved netball courts and modified by terracing, in combination with the retention of the majority of Fowlds Park as a more traditional grassed and low key parkland landscape, contribute to an appreciable moderating effect”.

I agree with Mrs. Gilbert and in part with the submitters that whilst the park is zoned for active sports and recreation, it is critical the proposed changes are in keeping with the character of the park. From reviewing the application documents I am of the opinion that given the large natural areas of the park that will be retained, the adverse visual effects will be acceptable. In time the proposed tree planting along the south side of the sportsfield will help to soften the additional hard surfaces proposed. Additionally as noted by Mrs Gilbert the proposed development will be confinement to a portion of the park which has already been heavily modified and covered by hard surfaces i.e. netball courts, the clubhouse, Rocky Nook Bowling Club and the Auckland Irish society building. This will ensure the remaining park will retain its more traditional grassed parkland landscape.

A number of submitters have raised concerns about the loss of the parks ‘natural character’ with the proposed introduction of artificial turf and they feel the applicant has not explored alternative surface material options, which will provide for additional play whilst retaining the natural character of the park. I cannot speculate on the applicant’s reasons for this, and it may be something that they will expand on at the hearing. Based on the proposal in front of me, whilst I agree that the proposal will introduce a hard surface on the subject site, the adverse visual amenity effects associated with the proposal are considered to be mitigated to an acceptable degree.

Overall on balance I am of the opinion that the adverse effects of the artificial turf will be acceptable subject to consent conditions.

Retaining wall and fencing

The standard width for Rugby League/Rugby fields is 68 metres however the upper field at Fowlds Park is only 62 metres. To allow for competition games to occur on the upper field the applicant proposes to widen the upper field by 6 metres. To accommodate the reshaping of the field, retaining walls will be constructed along the southern (3.5 metres in height) and northern boundaries (2 metres in height) of the upper field.

To mitigate the adverse dominance effects associated with the retaining walls the applicant has proposed a taramesh (landscape) surface along the southern elevation of the 3.5 metre high

28


retaining wall. The applicant notes the green taramesh wall will mimic the sloping bank, providing a visual continuity from the grassed lower fields to the artificial surface above.

Mrs Gilbert reviewed the application documents and submissions. Mrs Gilbert noted:

“The Green Terramesh retaining system is encouraged in principle. The scale of this structure and importance of its success in mitigating the adverse effects of the proposed retaining in this highly visible location within the park, demands confidence around the successful establishment and maintenance of this green wall system”.

Mrs Gilbert further concluded that it would be very useful if the applicant provided more detail with respect to other examples of the successful establishment and maintenance of ‘taramesh (landscaped) surface’ in New Zealand that is of a similar scale and slope profile at the hearing.

A number of submitters raised concerns about the adverse visual effects associated with the retaining wall and fencing and the loss of the ‘natural character’ of the park. In particular a number of submitters raised concerns about the loss of the sloping green bank and how that had become a unique fixture of the subject site.

I agree with the submitters that the retaining wall and fencing will introduce an element, which is not ‘natural’ in form. However I am of the mind that the applicant has sufficiently mitigated the adverse effects associated with the retaining walls with the green taramesh wall and when this is considered within the context of the large natural area of the park that is to be retained, the effects will be negligible. Moreover given the presence of fencing on the subject site, I am of the opinion the proposed fencing will not be dissimilar to what already exists on site and that the adverse visual effects will be acceptable.

In addition the site has been reshaped throughout its 80 year history as a sports and recreational reserve (1930’s). This modification includes periods of quarrying and levelling of surfaces to facilitate the development of the playing fields. Therefore the proposed reshaping will be relatively minor within this context and will not notably alter the existing form of the site. Mrs Gilbert noted that Fowlds Park did not have any special landscape significant warranting formal scheduling under the District Plan.

Based on the above assessment, I assess subject to conditions any adverse visual amenity effects as being acceptable in an overall sense.

Park Character and amenity

The proposed floodlights and artificial turf will facilitate extended play on the subject site and reduce park closures. This has the potential to result in adverse character and amenity effects as it will allow for increased use of the park by organised sports teams.

A number of submitters have raised concerns about the loss of informal recreation use of the park. The submitters feel the proposal will create greater conflict between passive users and organised sports teams.

The applicant discusses this potential conflict between passive and active users of the park on page 27 of their AEE. The applicant notes;

“The proposed upgrade of the existing upper field from grass to artificial turf will result in a longer duration of use of the field for organised sporting activities. As such, the offset for this prolonged use is less time during which the site field can be passively used by other users. Auckland Council Parks understands that there is a balance that needs to be maintained when developing the city’s sportsparks and that landscape amenity, ecology and passive recreation values of the park also need protecting and enhancing. However, it is considered that the installation of a single artificial field (over the footprint of an existing sports field) with high quality landscaping around the fringes will not significantly compromise any of these values”.

29


I agree with the applicant and in part the submitters that the proposal will allow for extended play and reduce park closures for organised sports teams. However I am of the opinion that the proposed development will not result in a conflict between the passive users of the park and organised sports team. The proposal only looks to artificial turf one of the four existing fields present within the park. The two lower fields and the field located along the western property boundary (adjacent to Malvern Road) will remain unchanged as a result of the proposal, as will other facilities on the site i.e. playground, walking tracks which are available to the public for general use and more passive recreation. Given the site is zoned for active recreation and being an existing part of its character, such activities are anticipated on the subject site.

In addition the upper field will not be for the sole use of the Rugby League club, but will be open to the public for use. Groups who have booked the upper field (artificial turf) for sports practices and games will have priority during their allocated time slot. However, the field will be available to the general public when not in ‘formal use’. This will ensure both passive and active users will benefit from the upgraded facilities.

Overall, I consider the adverse park character and amenity effects from the proposal on the park character and amenity will be acceptable.

Landscaping

The proposal will require the removal of 18 generally protected trees and work within the dripline of 4 generally protected trees on the subject site. These trees are located around the perimeter of the proposed fields, with the majority of the tree removals occurring north of the fields. The trees are a mix of native and exotic species.

The applicant submitted an Arboricultural assessment titled ‘Fowlds Park Morningside’ prepared by Gerard Mostert of Peers Brown Miller Limited, dated 4th December 2014. Mr Mostert notes:

“The effect of removing the trees north of the fields will be muted by the backdrop of much larger trees that will remain on the northern side of the road through the Park, at least when viewed from the south. Views from the road towards the fields will change. The removal of the more isolated trees will have less discernible effect due to the relatively small visual bulk of these trees. The development of the sports pitch is consistent with the broad objectives and policies of the Open Space 3 zone, as it encourages organized sport and multiple recreational use of the site”.

The proposal and application documents were reviewed by Council Arborist Paul Hansen. Mr. Hansen stated:

“Overall, the group provides significant visual amenity to the park. In my opinion, their location and contribution to amenity are a distinguishing feature. The fact that they screen the sports fields from the main road in and out of the park is what makes them so valuable to the setting. If the trees are removed, entering the park will be very much like entering any other, open, exposed and predictable…I do not support the proposal”.

The applicant provided a draft mitigation planting plan and a planting design statement. Mr Hansen reviewed both the plan and the design statement and concluded he was agreeable with the proposed removal and agreed with the selection of replacement planting.

Advice was also sought from Mrs Gilbert who noted the proposed planting along the north and southern side of the sportsfield will, in time, mitigate the loss of trees in these locations from a purely landscape and visual effects perspective.

As discussed above in the ‘Amendment to the Application Following Notification’ (page 11) the applicant has indicated that they will provide an indicative location of a seating plan to mitigate the adverse effects associated with the viewshaft infringement. The applicant has signalled that the seating plan may result in the removal of additional trees along the northern portion of the

30


site. The number of trees has not been confirmed by the applicant. This seating plan will be discussed further at the hearing. .

Based on the above assessment and advice from Mrs Gilbert and Mr Hansen I consider that any adverse landscaping effects are acceptable.

Shading and dominance

The lighting poles and the southern (3.5m) retaining wall are proposed at an adequate setback from the site’s external boundaries to ensure they will comply with the building in relation to boundary control (i.e. approximately 102 metres from the southern boundary and approximately 83 metres from the eastern boundary).

The poles will have a slender profile that will not shade or dominate residential properties in the surrounding area. Additionally the proposed lights will be of a similar height to the existing lights on the upper field. I am of the opinion that the adverse dominance effects associated with the new 17 metre high floodlights will be similar to the existing situation on the subject site.

A submitter (no. 44) raised concerns about the potential adverse shading and dominance effects associated with the 3.5 metre high retaining wall and the 1.2 metre safety fence. I am of the opinion that any adverse shading and dominance effects associated with the retaining wall and proposed floodlights will be internalised within the subject site and suitably mitigated. To this end, I consider that any adverse shading and dominance effects are acceptable.

Flooding

There is a flood plain located on the southern portion of the subject site and there are a number of overland flow-paths, which traverse through the site and the location of the proposed works. The proposal has the potential to divert the existing flow paths and exacerbate flooding issues on the subject site.

The applicant submitted a stormwater design memo, prepared by James Reddish of Opus, dated 18 December 2014. The report notes that the development works are outside the flood plain and therefore will not alter the flood plain dynamics on the subject site.

Council Senior Development Engineer Mr Scott Paton reviewed the application documents and submissions. Mr Paton advised that he concurred with the conclusions made within the stormwater design memo by Mr Reddish and that in his opinion the development works are unlikely to affect the flow-paths on the subject site. Mr Paton further concluded the entry and exist points will remain unchanged as a result of the development, and therefore will not adversely affect surrounding properties.

I adopt Mr Paton’s assessment, and I am of the opinion that the proposal will not exacerbate adverse flooding effects on the subject site and any adverse flooding effects will be negligible.

Stormwater run-off and infrastructure

The proposed development includes approximately 10,045m2 of additional impervious area

(9450m2 of artificial turf and approximately 2165m2 of footpath and hard standing area), which has the potential to result in adverse stormwater run-off effects.

The applicant provided a stormwater design memo prepared by James Reddish of Opus, dated 18 December 2014. The report noted:

“The proposed development consist of approximately 1 hectare of artificial turf and approximately 2165m2 of footpath and hard standing area around the perimeter. The artificial turf is considered a pervious surface on the basis stormwater infiltrates through the surface

31


and discharges to ground (refer Section 3 below). Although redevelopment of the site includes removal of approximately 1570m2 of existing impervious surface (existing netball courts and a small area of the carpark), there is a net increase in impervious surface (590m2). This increase in impervious surface is attenuated on site so there is no net increase in surface water runoff up to and including the 1 in 100 year ARI storm event”.

Senior Council Natural Resources specialist Bodo Hellberg reviewed the application documents and submissions. Mr. Hellberg noted that the adverse effects of the diversion and discharge of stormwater from the additional impervious areas have been assessed to be less than minor. Mr. Hellberg further concluded that water quality treatment, other than required by the Auckland City Soakage Design Manual, was not required, as the proposed impervious areas (sports field and footpaths) would not likely yield high pollutant contaminants.

Overall based on the advice received above I am of the opinion that any stormwater run-off and infrastructure effects will be acceptable.

Land Instability

The site is subject to weak/filled unstable ground. Advice was sought from Council Development Engineer Mr Scott Paton who noted that these works are away from boundaries and therefore unlikely to adversely affect stability of adjacent sites. Mr Paton recommended a consent condition requiring engineering certification of the proposed retaining walls at building consent stage.

Overall based on the advice received, I am of the opinion that the adverse land instability effects will be acceptable.

Effects on Human Health (NES) - Soil Contamination

The subject site was once used as a landfill and is therefore noted on the Hazardous Activity Industries list (HAIL). As the proposal includes earthworks, it has the potential to result in adverse contamination effects on people if not managed appropriately.

The applicant provided a site investigation report titled ‘Fowlds Park Artificial Sports Field’ prepared by Mr Roger High of Opus, dated 20/06/2014. The report notes “levels of all tested contaminants in all materials to be encountered during excavation works do not exceed the SCS (Soil Contaminant Standard) or SGV (Soil Guideline Value) of the NES. Therefore the tested contaminants are unlikely to present a significant hazard to the health and safety of construction workers involved in construction of the artificial turf sports field”.

Consultant Mrs. Renate Schütte of Andrew Stewart Ltd reviewed the application documents on behalf of Council. Mrs. Schütte noted subject to the implementation of the Council approved Site Management Plan (SMP) and the recommended conditions of consent the adverse effects on human health of workers, neighbouring residents and the public will be appropriately managed. Based on the advice received, I am of the opinion that any adverse effects on human health during the construction process of the proposal will be acceptable.

A number of submitters raised concerns about the toxicity of the materials used in the manufacture of artificial turf, specially the ‘crumb rubber’. A number of submitters raised concerns about the carcinogenic properties of the turf material and the potential adverse effects on the user of the park.

Advice was sought from Council Environmental Health Specialist Mr. Naidoo on the carcinogenic properties of the turf material. Mr Naidoo reviewed the application documents and submissions, Mr. Naidoo who stated:

“The potential toxicity of the artificial turf is outside of the TOR of Renate’s agreement in terms of reviewing consents from an NES perspective. The potential adverse effects of artificial turf

32


is better addressed in terms of the Health Act… However, reviewing the limited research available the major concerns stem from the infill material that is derived from scrap tyres. Tyre rubber crumb contains a range of organic contaminants and heavy metals that can volatilize into the air and/or leach into the percolating rainwater, thereby posing a potential risk to the environment and human health. A limited number of studies have shown that the concentrations of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in the air above artificial turf fields were typically not higher than the local background, while the concentrations of heavy metals and organic contaminants in the field drainages were generally below the respective regulatory limits within the US.

Health risk assessment studies suggested that users of artificial turf fields, even professional athletes, were not exposed to elevated risks. Preliminary life cycle assessment suggested that the environmental impacts of artificial turf fields were lower than equivalent grass fields.”

Based on both Mrs Schütte and Mr Naidoo’s assessment, I am of the mind that the proposal will result in acceptable effects on human health (NES).

Odour

The artificial turf has the potential to result in adverse odour effects. A number of submitters have raised concerns about the potential adverse odour effects associated with the turf material.

The odour effects were not assessed by the applicant in their AEE, nor were any supporting documents provided. The applicant is invited to address this at the hearing.

Notwithstanding the above Mr. Naidoo reviewed the application documents and the submissions and verbally advised that the adverse odour effects associated with artificial turf material is temporary and short in duration. The adverse odour effects, was associated with newly installed turf. Mr. Naidoo confirmed the adverse odour effects would not result in adverse effects on human health.

Mr. Naidoo advised the applicant provide a manufacturers certification report confirming the potential odour effects associated with the material used. In the absence of this report, the applicant is invited to present evidence at the hearing addressing the potential odour effects of the proposal.

In addition the nearest residential properties are located approximately 108 metres away to the south and 83 metres to the east. I am of the opinion that this separation distance will mitigate any odour effects on surrounding properties to an acceptable degree.

Based on Mr. Naidoo’s assessment I am of the opinion that the adverse odour effects will be acceptable.

Earthworks

Earthworks are required to facilitate the works on the site. The construction of the proposed artificial turf will require a total volume of earthworks 600m3 of cut and 6700m3 of fill.

The applicant submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) (Sheet No. 50) with the application at lodgement. The ESCP has been prepared in accordance with ‘Technical Publication No. 90 ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region’ (TP90) guidelines. The applicant notes that these measures are to be implemented throughout the course of earthworks.

Consultant Mrs Laura Wilkinson of Southernskies Limited reviewed all the application documents and submissions on behalf of Council and stated:

“It is agreed that the erosion and sediment controls proposed will be in accordance with TP90 when considered in the context of the recommended conditions. Consequently, applicant’s

33


assessment is considered to adequately identify the potential effects resulting from the proposal, concluding that they be less than minor”.

Based on Mrs Wilkinson’s assessment I am of the opinion that any adverse effects arising from the earthworks on the site will be acceptable.

Construction

The applicant considers that the construction period on the subject site would be temporary in nature, with no excessive noise and can be appropriately managed via a condition of consent that requires the provision of a Construction Management Plan for council approval, and through standard construction hours between 7.00am to 6.00pm on weekdays, and 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays.

The applicant states on page 22 of their AEE that they will prepare a Construction Management Plan (CMP) prior to the commencement of works to ensure public health and safety particularly that of park users, is maintained during the course of works. The applicant also notes that the CMP will also include protocols to ensure construction noise and vibration will comply with the limits specified by the New Zealand Standards 6801:1991 Measurement of Sound and NZS 6802:1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound. A condition of consent requiring this is provided prior to the commencement of works has been recommended.

In my view the construction effects will only occur for a temporary period and will be of a nature that is anticipated by the District Plan. Construction noise will comply with District Plan construction noise controls and a suitable level of aural amenity will be maintained throughout this period. Moreover there is sufficient parking available onsite to accommodate all construction vehicles and machinery. Therefore, although this construction will result in noisier activities, the adverse effects will be acceptable.

I am of the opinion given the temporary nature and the mitigation measures proposed any adverse construction effects will be acceptable.

Cultural: Mana Whenua

As noted above in Section 3 ‘Background’ of this report the applicant carried out extensive consultation with iwi prior to lodgement, of which a number of iwi groups expressed interest in the proposal. A number of iwi groups raised concerns about the removal of 18 generally protected trees on the subject site and the level of earthworks proposed.

Ngati Whatua o Orakei made a submission that was neutral however it indicates that they would support the proposal subject to conditions. The applicant has endorsed Ngati Whatua’s conditions and the recommendations which include conditions requiring; cultural monitoring, an accidental discovery protocol and a pre-start meeting with Ngati Whatua o Orakei representatives and all contractors involved with excavation works. Overall I am of the opinion given the consultation with iwi the adverse mana whenua effects will be acceptable.

Cultural Heritage

There is a noted midden (R11/ 21, CHI 5768) located just inside the stone gateway arch to Fowlds Park from Rocky Nook Avenue. It consisted of pipi, cockle, mudsnail and some scallop and fish bones. The site has been virtually destroyed by historical quarrying and later by landscaping and clearing for the park.

The applicant did not provide a cultural heritage assessment but notes on page 41 of their AEE:

“The site has been modified by early 20th century quarrying and the construction of the present playing fields. Accordingly, it is considered unlikely that the proposed works would uncover any

34


sites of archaeological values or significance. In the unlikely event that archaeological evidence is exposed during the course of earthworks, work must cease in immediate vicinity of the remains and the Historic Places Trust must be contacted, in accordance with normal accidental discovery protocols”.

A submitter raised concerns about the subject site having cultural heritage significance to the local community and how the proposal was going to destroy this. The site is not formally scheduled under the Operative Plan for landscaping or cultural heritage matters. In addition as discussed above any cultural heritage significance has been virtually destroyed by historical activity on the site.

Overall I am of the opinion that any adverse cultural heritage effects will be acceptable.

Positive effects

Section 3 of the Act relates to the meaning of effect and sets out that the term ‘effect’ includes positive effects. In my view, the proposal will result in positive effects as it will allow extended use of the facilities at Fowlds Park and assist with the shortfall in the capacity of Auckland’s sports fields to provide for sports training and games opportunities for the community in addition as the surrounding residential area intensifies it will be important that high quality parks and sports facilities are created.

The proposal will also promote greater physical exercise and provide an asset that the local community can benefit from.

Other issues raised by submitters

Submitters have also raised the following issue that does not fall easily under any of the above effects assessment headings:

Submitters have commented that the proposal will lead to people loitering in the park especially around existing seating. In response to this as the park is open to the public at night and during the day and lighting exists, the replacement lighting, that will be timed off after 9.30pm, is considered neutral.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the proposal’s actual and potential effects on the environment are acceptable and justify resource consent being granted. I am of the opinion that while the proposal will result in adverse effects these will be adequately mitigated by factors inherent within the proposal and by the proposed conditions.

These factors when combined with the positive effects will ensure that overall the actual and potential effects will be acceptable and appropriate.

9. Relevant Statutory Documents - s104(1)(b) The following are not applicable to the current resource consent application:

35


Section 104(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Relevant Provisions of National Environmental Standards and Other Regulations The subject site was once used as a landfill and is therefore noted on the Hazardous Activity Industries list (HAIL). The proposal is considered a controlled activity under the NES.

The applicant provided an environmental Site investigation report prepared by Opus, dated 2014 was provided with the application. The report notes “levels of all tested contaminants in all materials to be encountered during excavation works do not exceed the SCS (Soil Contaminant Standard) or SGV (Soil Guideline Value) of the NES. Therefore the tested contaminants are unlikely to present a significant hazard to the health and safety of construction workers involved in construction of the artificial turf sports field”.

The proposal was assessed and reviewed by Mrs. Renate Schütte of Andrew Stewart Ltd on behalf of Council and stated “It is considered that application for resource consent for soil disturbance as a controlled activity under Regulation 9 of the NES Soil is appropriate subject to conditions”.

Therefore the relevant provisions of Regulation 9 (controlled activities) of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES) have been considered and it is concluded the proposal is consistent with the NES because the applicant has endorsed the recommended conditions.

Section 104(1)(b)(iii) Relevant Provisions of National Policy Statements There are no National Policy Statements relevant to this application.

Section 104(1)(b)(iv) Relevant Provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) The NZCPS is not applicable to this application.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – s104(1)(b)(iv) The Hauraki Gulk Marine Act 2000 (HGMPA) recognises the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments. The objectives of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act are intended to protect, maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the life supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands.

The proposal is within a catchment of the Hauraki Gulf and therefore the HGMPA has relevance however as the applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which was developed accordance of Auckland Regional (TP90) guidelines this will ensure all stormwater run-off will be contained within the site, and the intent of sections 7 & 8 of the HGMPA are not offended.

Section 104(1)(b)(v) Relevant Provisions of the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement The Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement ("ACRPS") is a strategic document which sets out the direction of managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. This document became operative in 1999.

36


The strategic objectives and policies of the ARPS provide a framework to achieve the integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the Region’s resources.

The strategic framework of the ACRPS acknowledges the significance park reserves (infrastructure) play within the Auckland Region. The Plan discussed the need to maintain, expand, replace or upgrade existing park reserves in order to increase its capacity to accommodate growth pressures. The proposal is consistent with this strategic framework as it provides for extended use of an existing open space facility which is being used to capacity and it is reasonable to expect that with intensification, the pressure on Fowlds Park for active recreation uses will likely increase.

Notwithstanding the above the ACRPS discusses the significance of volcanic viewshafts and the need to protect them. The proposal will result in a viewhsaft infringement which is not fully consistent with the objectives and policies of the ACRPS however I am of the opinion that the proposal will not detract from the profile of Mount Albert. The slender form of the proposed lighting pole will still allow the profile of Mount Albert to be visible from the subject site.

The applicant has proposed a seating plan to mitigate the adverse effects associated with the viewshaft infringement. This will discussed further at the hearing.

On balance taking the above assessment into account the relevant provisions of the ACRPS have been considered and it is concluded the proposal is consistent with the strategic framework of ACRPS because it will provide for extended play whilst adequately mitigating the adverse effects on the viewshaft.

Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Relevant Provisions of the Relevant Regional and District Plan(s) Objectives, Policies and Rules

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

The following objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999) are considered relevant:

Part 9.6.3 Open Space Objectives and Policies

The Open space 3 zone seeks to provide sufficient land for open space for a wide range of recreational opportunities to serve the present and future needs of the Auckland District. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Open Space 3 zone for the following reasons:

The proposal will maintain and enhance the use of Fowlds Park, as it will provide opportunities for extended use.

The proposal provides for the current needs for sporting facilities in the central Auckland area (where there is an existing shortfall) and is also intended to provide for future anticipated needs. With intensification, the pressure on Fowlds Park for active recreation uses will likely increase.

The proposal will facilitate a wide range of activities, which will cover both summer and winter sports codes which will benefit both active and passive users of the park.

Adverse effects on the wider environment and specific persons are considered to be adequately avoided or mitigated.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with these provisions of the District Plan because the proposal will ensure the future needs for organised football are adequately catered for while maintaining the park amenity for neighbouring property owners and the general public.

37


Part 5C 7.3 Generally Protected Trees

The objectives and policies of Part 5C.7.1 seek to protect mature trees and groups of trees which contribute to the district's amenity. The proposal is considered to be not contrary with the objectives and policies of Part 5C.7.3 however the mitigation planting and maintenance proposed will ensure the landscape amenity of the park is maintained. The applicant also proposes to plant native trees, which will help to improve the diversity of plant species on the subject site. In addition a Council Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has deemed the proposal to be acceptable.

Overall in accordance with the conclusion of the Council Arborist and the mitigation measures imposed by the applicant, the proposal is considered not contrary to the objectives and policies of Part 5C.7.3, as overall the landscape amenity of the park is retained.

Part 5C.7.6.3: Volcanic cones

The objectives and policies of Part 5C.7.6.3 seek to protect significant views of the City’s volcanic cones by preventing the visual intrusion of buildings and structures into the viewshafts.

The proposal has the potential to be contrary with the objectives and policies of 5C.7.6.3 as it includes a lighting pole within the viewshaft. However subject to the applicant providing an indicative seating plan as mitigation, Council Landscape Architect Bridget Gilbert is of the opinion that the viewshaft infringement will be mitigated to an acceptable degree. This proposed seating plan will be addressed further through the hearing process.

Overall, and subject to a suitable seating plan the proposed will be not contrary to the intent of the objectives and policies.

Conclusion of Objectives and Polices Assessment

On balance it is considered that the proposal is not contrary with the above-mentioned provisions of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) and the PAUP because the proposed development will provide for the future needs for organised sports while maintaining the park amenity for neighbouring property owners and the general public.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Part 2. Chapter C 5.2. Earthworks

The objectives and policies of Part 2 Chapter C.5.2 seek to ensure that earthworks are undertaken in a manner that protect people and the environment. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of Part 2 Chapter C.5.2, for the following reasons:

The proposed earthworks will be managed and undertaken in a manner, which minimises sediment run-off and protects people and the environment.

The applicant has prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) (Sheet No. 50). The ESCP was prepared in accordance with ‘Technical Publication No. 90 ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region’ (TP90) guidelines. Natural Resource Specialist Laurissa Wilksinon confirmed that the proposed earthworks will be managed and undertaken in a manner which minimises sediment run-off and protects people and the environment.

38


Part 2. Chapter C.4.1 Trees in Street and public Open Spaces

The objectives and policies of Part 2 Chapter C.4.1 seek to increase the quality and number of trees planting within public reserves and ensure their cultural amenity; landscape and ecological values are protected. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of Part 2 Chapter C.4.1, for the following reasons:

The proposed mitigation planting will adequately mitigate the loss of trees on the northern portion of the site.

The proposal will result in the planting of more native species, which will improve the quality of specimens present on the subject site.

Part 2.Chapter D.2.3 Public Open Space- Sports and Active Recreation Zone

The objectives and policies of Part 2.Chapter D.2.3 seek to provide for quality public open spaces that meet the community’s need whilst maximising the use of the park for sport and active recreation.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives and policies of Part 2.Chapter D.2.3, for the following reasons:

The proposal will maximise the open space and recreational opportunities of the park by allowing for extended use, providing 30 hours of additional play per week. The proposal will also reduce field closures during winter months.

Adverse effects such as noise, glare, traffic and visual effects have been assessed above and deemed acceptable.

The applicant has provided a condition, which will restrict hours of play to 7.00am to 9.30pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 6.00pm on Sunday’s. This will ensure the intensity of the proposed artificial lighting will be controlled to an acceptable degree.

The amenity of residential areas is protected from unreasonable or unnecessary noise, particularly at night.

The location, scale and design of the proposal will complement the character of Fowlds Park as it will retain a level of spaciousness and maintain a reasonable level of amenity for other users.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the outcomes that the PAUP objectives and policies for the Public Open Space-Sport and Active Recreation zone, as the proposed development provides for both active and passive recreation.

Weighting assessment

For this resource consent application, the relevant provisions of both the operative plan and any proposed plan must be considered. The relevant objectives and policies of Auckland Council Operative District Plan and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) have been outlined above.

It is noted that in this case the proposal is generally consistent with the proposed provision of the operative District Plan as well as the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Weighting only becomes relevant in the event different outcomes arise from assessment of objectives and policies under both the operative and proposed plans. Outcomes under both plans are similar because they both aim to encourage active recreation on the subject site whilst maintaining the character and amenity of the area. Accordingly, no weighting is required.

39


Conclusion of Objectives and Policies Assessment

On balance, it is considered that the proposal is not contrary with the above-mentioned provisions of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section) and the PAUP because the proposed development will encourage multi-sport use whilst ensuring an appropriate degree of open space character and visual amenity is maintained.

Relevant Rules and Assessment Criteria

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

Part 4.3.1.2B (Development Control Modification)

The development controls adopted in the Plan have been devised to control the effects of activities on the environment and amenity of the district. The controls are those, which are generally appropriate for particular areas and neighbourhoods. The proposal results in the infringement of development controls relating to height, artificial lighting, and earthworks with the Open Space 3 zone.

The proposal has been assessed against the above assessment criteria and is deemed consistent for the reasons:

The height of the new lighting columns is appropriate within the locality and given the presence of other lighting columns of a similar height and form on the subject site it is deemed appropriate.

The applicant has prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) (Sheet No. 50). The ESCP was prepared in accordance with TP90 guidelines. The proposed earthworks will be managed and undertaken in a manner which minimises sediment run-off and protects people and the environment.

Although maximum light levels proposed (200 Lux). The proposed lighting will comply with the bylaw requirements, including spill lighting, hours of operation, and glare. Lighting expert noted the proposed lighting will meet all applicable lighting standards and Council requirements.

Part 5C.7.6.3: Volcanic cones

The relevant assessment criteria for volcanic cones requires consideration of the objectives and policies of the Plan, the necessity of the infringement and effects on cultural iwi values.

The proposal has been assessed against the above assessment criteria and is considered to be not contrary for the following reasons:

The lighting pole will not completely obstruct or compete with the view of Mount Albert. The slender form of the proposed lighting pole will allow the profile of Mount Albert to be clearly legible from the northern portion of the artificial turf. Notwithstanding this the proposal was reviewed by Mrs Gilbert who raised concerns about the lack of mitigation proposed and noted for the viewshaft infringement to be acceptable in her opinion, the proposed development should integrate a formalised seating area that enables a clear and unobstructed view of Mount Albert.

The silhouette of Mount Albert, including the lower slopes will not be obstructed.

Iwi have not raised concerns about the proposed viewshaft infringement.

Overall subject to the seating plan the proposal will be generally consistent with the assessment criteria under Part 5C.7.6.3 of the Operative Isthmus Plan.

40


Part 5C 7.3 Generally Protected Trees

The relevant assessment criteria for trees requires consideration of the function the trees may have in conservation of water and soil.

The proposal has been assessed against the above assessment criteria and is considered to be not contrary for the following reasons:

The Open Space 3 zone provides for organised sports and recreation activities while retaining an open space character so as to provide a degree of visual amenity onsite. I am of the opinion that the proposal achieves this. The proposed development encourages the multi-sport use of the upper field while the planting proposed will ensure an acceptable level of visual landscaped amenity is retained.

The proposed mitigation planting of native specimens along the north and southern side of the sportsfield will, in time, adequately mitigate the loss of trees.

Council Arborist Paul Hansen reviewed the proposal and deemed the proposal to be acceptable and he concurred with the selection of replacement plants.

Proposed Unitary Plan

Part 3.Chapter H.3.1 Trees in Street and public Open Spaces

The assessment criterion of Part 3.Chapter H.3.1 looks to protect the amenity values of trees and whether provision for mitigation and tree management has been provided.


The applicant has proposed mitigation planting along the northern portion of the site, to mitigate the adverse effects associated with the proposed removals. The replacement planting will ensure any loss of amenity will restored to an acceptable degree.

The applicant has proposed a landscape plan which has been reviewed by a Council Arborist and deemed acceptable.

Part 3. Chapter H.4.2.3 Earthworks

The assessment criterion of Part 3.Chapter H.4.2.3 looks to avoid adverse effects of disturbance and sedimentation on waterbodies, road and other property. In addition the assessment criteria seek to ensure adequate management of dust, noise and vibration.


The applicant has prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) (Sheet No. 50). The ESCP was prepared in accordance with ‘Technical Publication No. 90 ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region’ (TP90) guidelines. This will ensure the proposal will avoid adverse effects of disturbance and sedimentation on water bodies, public utilities, roads and other properties.

The applicant proposes to carry out the earthworks within the 205/2016 earthworks season.

41


-

Summary Assessment Criteria

In addition to the objectives and policies themselves, it is noted that the relevant assessment criteria are a mechanism for achieving the intent of the District Plan. Having regard to the assessment of effects of the proposal and the assessment of relevant objectives and policies above, I conclude that the proposal achieves the intent of the relevant assessment criteria. As such, the proposal is considered generally consistent with the relevant assessment criteria of the Operative Plan.

Section 104(1)(c): Any Other Matters Considered Relevant and Reasonably Necessary to Determine the Application Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this case the following matters are considered relevant.

Fowlds Park- Management Plan

Fowlds Park is not subject to the Reserves Management Act, however, it is noted in a Fowlds Park Management Plan that “The Auckland City Council has prepared this reviewed Management Plan in accord with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977”.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the management plan which look to encourage both passive and active recreation on the site while minimising adverse effects on surrounding land-uses. As illustrated above the proposal will result in acceptable adverse effects on adjacent properties and persons.

On balance I consider the proposal is consistent with the Fowlds Management Plan.

Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan (the Plan), which was adopted by the Council in March 2012, is a plan formulated under the Local Government Act that will guide Auckland’s future over the next 30 years. The vision of the Plan is to make Auckland the world's most liveable city and is a single plan to deliver this vision for all of Auckland and its people. To achieve this goal for Auckland, the Plan sets out a number of strategic directions that are summarised within part 8.8 of the applicant's AEE.

The Auckland Plan seeks to provide quality opportunities for people to participate in recreation and sport and to optimise existing sports and facilities and open spaces. The Auckland Plan specifically identifies new technologies such as artificial turf, could be used to improve the usability of sports grounds. I therefore concur with the applicant and considered that the proposal is consistent with the outcomes expressed within the Auckland Plan.

Longdill and Associates Supply/Demand Report (2011, 2014)

The Longdill and Associates supply/demand report (2011 and 2014) was submitted with the application. The applicant has used this report to assist the proposed development at Fowlds Park.

The 2011 Supply and Demand Report prepared by Longdill and Associates notes that the demand for playing fields within the Mount-Albert Morningside area far exceeds the supply. The Longdill and Associates report notes that currently there is a shortfall of approximately 50 hours of play per week which is not accommodated for within the area. This is projected to increase to

42


158 hours of training and 3 hours for competition games by the year 2021 (noted on page 5 of 2011 report). The 2014 Longdill report notes that this projection will increase to 45 hours per week for competition games and 119 hours for training session by the year 2025 (noted on page 4 of 2014).

The report concludes that upgrading soil based fields to artificial turf surface will provide an incremental increase in capacity of around 30 hours of play time per week. Auckland Council Parks have used this report to form the basis for the upgrade of the upper field to artificial turf at Fowlds Park.

A number of submitters (68) have raised concerns about the validity of this report and have asked Auckland Council Parks to consider alternative turf material options. These submitters have recommended Auckland Council Parks explore using either sand carpeting or fibre reinforce grass turf material. This is a matter that the applicant should address at the hearing.

Submissions

All of the submissions received by Council in the processing of this application have been reviewed and considered in the overall assessment of effects in this report. Council’s specialists have also reviewed the relevant submissions as required and incorporated comments into their assessments accordingly. Many of these submissions raised similar issues and have been dealt with generically in the body of this report. Those that have raised specific resource management matters and points of clarification have been specifically addressed in the assessment of actual and potential effects contained in Attachment 3.

Monitoring

In granting consent to an application, a council may impose conditions to offset any adverse effects associated with the land use. In addition, a council is required to monitor the exercise of resource consents under section 35 of the Act and may fix a charge under section 36 of the Act payable by the consent holder in order to carry out monitoring functions. The amount that can be charged is based on actual and reasonable costs associated with monitoring and covers such tasks as site inspections, carrying out tests and administration.

The main components of this consent that will require monitoring are ensuring that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans and other information. It is therefore anticipated that a monitoring fee of $1,000.00 (exclusive of GST) will be appropriate in this case. A condition requiring payment of this fee is recommended.

Council Consolidated Bylaw 13 - Environment Protection

The proposal has been designed to comply with the provisions of the bylaw. Therefore I am of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with Bylaw 13- Environmental Protection.

Designations/limitations

The site is subject to flooding, land instability and potential contamination. All these site limitations have been reviewed by specialists and have deemed the proposal will not exacerbate these site constraints or result in adverse effects onto the wider environment and adjacent sites.

Local Government Act 2002 – Development contributions

43


The proposal does not result in any additional development as defined in the Auckland Council Development Contributions Policy. Therefore, no development contribution is applicable on this application.

10. Particular restrictions for non-complying activities – s104D Under s104D a non-complying activity must pass at least one of the tests of either s104D(1)(a) or s104D(1)(b) before a decision can be made to grant or decline a resource consent application under s104B.

If an application fails both tests of s104D then it must be declined.

Section 104D conclusion The proposal satisfies the threshold test of s104D because the adverse effects on the environment identified above will be minor and the proposal will not be contrary with the objectives and policies of the Open Space 3 zone of the Operative Isthmus and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plans as concluded above.

The application therefore meets both of the tests of s104D and the application can be assessed against the provisions of s104B and a substantive decision made.

Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA The purpose of the RMA under Section 5 is the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment. Based on the assessment provided by the applicant, specialists and my own assessment above, I consider that the proposal achieves the Act’s purpose. I consider that the proposal will enable people to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing through establishing and operating lighting and extending the hours of use for organised sport and recreation at Fowlds Park. The proposal will result in fewer closures during the winter. The proposal will also avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment and in particular on neighbouring residents.

Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for, and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage. No matters of national importance are considered relevant to the assessment of this proposal for resource consent.it should be noted that the proposal does include the removal of generally protected native trees from the subject site. The applicant has proposed mitigation planting and will maintain them in perpetuity.

Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. This is the key intention of this application, as it seeks to provide an artificial pitch with floodlights, which will allow for the extended use of the park and can be regarded as being an efficient use of land that is zoned for this purpose. The applicant has addressed the effects this would cause for neighbours and has incorporated mitigation measures such that residential amenity values of neighbouring sites and visual amenity values of the area are considered to be maintained by the proposal.

44


Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Ngati Whatua o Orakei made a submission that was neutral however indicated that they would support the proposal subject to conditions. The applicant has endorsed Ngati Whatua’s conditions and these form part of the consent recommendation. Therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with the principles of the Treaty.

Overall the application is considered to meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as the proposal achieves the purpose of the RMA being sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Lapsing of Consent Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within five years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it automatically lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension. In this case, it is considered five years is an appropriate period for the consent holder to implement the consent due to the nature and scale of the proposal.

Review of Consent Conditions Section 128 of the RMA provides for the Council to review the conditions of a resource consent at any time specified for that purpose in the consent. A consent may specify a time for review of the conditions of a consent for the following purposes.

to deal with any adverse effects on the environment which may arise from the exercise of consent and which are appropriate to deal with at a later stage, or

to require holders of discharge permits or coastal permits which could otherwise

contravene ss15 or 15B of the Act to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce any adverse effect on the environment, or

for any other purpose

It is recommended that, if consent is granted, a condition providing for a review of the activity in regards to the noise levels, hours of use and parking is included with a review period during the first football season after the facilities are installed.

Conclusion Overall, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable for resource consent to be granted. The proposal has a number of actual and potential effects; in particular noise effects; lighting effects; traffic and parking effects; visual amenity effects; park character effects; shading and dominance effects; and construction effects that have been suitably mitigated by the applicant and by the proposed conditions. The proposal has a number of positive effects for sports related activities in the locality. In addition the proposal is considered not contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, while all other relevant matters, including monitoring, development contributions and Council bylaws have been assessed and do not present a barrier to resource consent being granted.

45


11. Recommendation Recommendation 1

Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended, under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, that the time limit for the receipt of submissions be waived to accept the late submission(s) of Mathew Maiden (submission 151), Mary Egan (submission 152), Ruth Puka (submission 155), Grant Brosnan (submission 156), Thomas McLoughlin (submission 158) and Lorraine M Clark (submission 160) for the following reasons:

The submissions were received within 7 days of the close of submissions and therefore have been considered by the Council specialists and as part of this assessment.

The applicant has been served a copy of all these submissions and has delayed presenting their case to a hearing in order to review submitters requirements. It is considered that granting a waiver will be consistent with the participatory intention of the Act.

Recommendation 2:

Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended that under sections 104D, 104, 104B and 108 of the RMA, consent is granted to the non-complying activity application by Auckland Council (Parks, Sport and Recreation) to authorise the conversion of the upper field (field 3) to be concerted to artificial turf as well as to construct and operate lighting poles and floodlights to provide for these activities at 50 Western Springs Road being Allotment 177 SBRS OF Auckland SECT 10 & Pt Allotment 176 SBRS OF Auckland (Consent Application (R/LUC/2015/896)).

The reasons for this decision are as follows:

(a) In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the Act, the actual and potential effects of the proposal are acceptable for the following reasons:

The proposal will allow the efficient use of Fowlds Park for organised sport and recreational activities. This will provide for training and games opportunities that will alleviate a shortfall in the capacity of Auckland’s sports fields.

Adverse effects arising from the proposal can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through the imposition of the proposed conditions. In particular the effects relating to adverse visual, noise, lighting and landscaping effects are mitigated by the proposed design and location of the development and conditions. Overall, the adverse effects are balanced by the provision of a high quality sportsfield that will allow for extended play on the upperfield. For these reasons the actual and potential effects are considered acceptable provided the artwork is built in accordance with the plans and the construction management plan is implemented and monitored as required.

The proposal is consistent with the Auckland Regional Policy Statement by as it provides for extended use of an existing open space facility which is being used to capacity.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, particularly relating to earthworks and tree removal.

The proposal results in no more than minor adverse effects and will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plans and therefore it passes both of the gateway tests of section 104D of the RMA.

In accordance with Section 104(1)(c) the proposal is consistent with the relevant non statutory documents, including the Auckland Plan and Fowlds Park Management Plan.

46


In terms of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the proposal meets the sustainable management purpose of the Act as it represents good management of a resource that will enable the community to provide for their social needs while avoiding and mitigating potential adverse effects on the environment. Accordingly the purpose of the Act is satisfied.

12. Conditions Under section 108, I recommend any grant of these resource consents is subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions These conditions apply to all resource consents.

1. The proposed activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed below, and all referenced by the Council as consent number R/LCU/2015/896.

Application Form, and Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared by Matthew Kerr-Ridge, dated March 2015.

Ref Plan Title Author Rev Dated

1-95496 Fowlds Park Western Springs Artificial Fields (Existing Site Plan)

Opus International

-

March 2015

1-95496 Fowlds Park-Western Springs Artificial (Draft Concept Plan)

Opus International

-

March 2015

1-95496 Drawing Index and Locality Plan

Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Existing Features Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 plan - New Features Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Plan - Layout Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Plan - Carpark Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Plan - New Pedestrian Crossing 1

Opus International

R1 22/12/2014


Opus International

R1 22/12/2014


Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Cross Sections Opus International

RD 22/12/2014

6134 Typical Details Opus International

RD 22/12/2014

6134 Typical Fence Details Opus International

RD 22/12/2014

6134 Flood Light Foundation Details

Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Dug-out Details Opus International

RD 22/12/2014

6134 Terramesh Retaining Wall Opus RD 22/12/2014

47


- Details International 6134 Typical Wall Details Opus

International R1 22/12/2014

6134 Water Foundation Details Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Plan - Drainage Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Drainage Longsections - Sheet 1

Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Drainage Longsections - Sheet 2

Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Stormwater Typical Details Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Plan - Water Supply Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Erosion and Sediment control plan

Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Vegetation Plan Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Affected Totara Trees Opus International

R1 22/12/2014

6134 Rugby League Field Dimensions

Opus International

RD 22/12/2014

6134 Other Field Dimensions Opus International

RD 22/12/2014

13199 Sportsfields Mitigation Planting Plan 01

LA 4 Landscape Architects

- 15.10.2015

Report reference Report title Author Rev Dated 1-95496 Fowlds Park-Stormwater

design James Reddish

- 18 December 2014

1-95496 Lighting Effects Report for Sports Fields at Fowlds Park: Western Springs Auckland

Leslie Eckard - 7 October 2014

OAS 2014-68 MR Fowlds Park- Pedestrian Safety Improvements Study

Parez Sheikh Version 1

June 2014

- Aborists Assessment: Fowlds Park Morningside

Gerard Mostert

- Revised 29 October 2015

1-95496/ GS14/068

Fowlds Park Artificial Sports fields

Roger High - 20/06/2014

- Proposed New Artfifical Sports Fields, Fowlds Park, Morningside: Archaeological Assessment

Russell Foster and Associates

- June 2014

- Fowlds Parks Sportfield mitigation Planting: design statement

Jason Hogan of LA4 Landscape Architects

- 15.10.2015

Other additional information Author Rev Dated

48


Artificial Turf Care Code Auckland Council - Not dated Terms of Use for Council Sports Fields Auckland Council - Not dated Albert Eden Local Board: Open Minutes Auckland Council - Wednesday 4

June 2014 Albert Eden Local Board: Open Minutes Auckland Council - Wednesday 6

August 2014 Albert Eden Local Board: Open Minutes Auckland Council - Wednesday

15 October 2014

Fowlds Park Community Liaison Group Meeting

Auckland Council - 24 September 2014


Auckland Council - 26 November 2014


Auckland Council - 26 February 2015

S92 Response titled ‘50 Western Springs Road- Fowlds Park Artificial Sports Fields Application R/LUC/2015/896’

Opus - 2 June 2015

Note for Hearings Panel: Depending on the information supplied at the hearing regarding the revised plans, a condition may be necessary requiring the consent holder to submit a full suite of revised plans for the approval of Council that detail the changes described in these preliminary revised plans).

1. This consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been paid in full:

a. All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and

b. All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application, which are beyond challenge.

c. All development contributions relating to the development authorised by this consent, unless the Manager Resource Consents has otherwise agreed in writing to a different payment timing or method.

2. The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section 36 of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same, provided that, in the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA that are subject to challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is determined by that process to be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant decision.

Advice Note: Development contributions levied under the Local Government Act 2002 may be payable in relation to this application. The consent holder will be advised of the development contributions payable separately from this resource consent decision. Further information about development contributions may be found on the Auckland Council website at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

3. Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses five years after the date it is granted unless:

49

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/


a. The consent is given effect to; or

b. The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

4. The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $1,000.00 (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 conditions attached to this consent.

Advice Note: The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent holder.

Specific Conditions – Land-use Consent (s9)-LUC/2015/896 Pre-development Conditions Contamination

5. Prior to any earthworks, a Contaminated Site Management Plan (herein referred to as the CSMP) shall be documented to ensure the health and safety of workers on the site, and members of the public in the vicinity. The CSMP shall be provided to the Team Leader Monitoring, Central Resource Consenting, Auckland Council for review and approval at least one month prior to commencement of any earthworks. The CSMP shall include, but not be limited to the following:

Contingency plans for the accidental discovery of contamination (including asbestos);

Protocols for the identification, handling, transportation and disposal of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater;

Dust management;

Stormwater management and erosion/sediment controls; and

Training and Health and Safety.

Earthworks

6. The earthwork activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application and under section 92, outlined below and all referenced by Council as R/LUC/2015/896.

Report

‘Fowlds Park, 50 Western Springs Road, Morningside, Proposed Sports Field Upgrade, Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Effects on the Environment’ prepared by Opus International Consultants Ltd and dated March 2015.

Plans

‘Auckland Council – Western Springs Artificial Field, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan’, Drawing No 1/1167/54/6134,Rev A, Prepared by Opus Consultants International Ltd, dated 22 December 2014.

50


Advice Note: In the event that minor amendments to the erosion and / or sediment controls are required, any such amendments should be limited to the scope of this consent. Any amendments which affect the performance of the controls may require an application to be made in accordance with section 127 of the RMA. Any minor amendments should be provided to the Team Leader, Central Monitoring prior to implementation to confirm that they are within the scope of this consent.

7. Prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity, the consent holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that:

a) is located on the subject site

b) is scheduled not less than 5 days before the anticipated commencement of earthworks

c) includes all relevant Council staff as deemed appropriate by the Team Leader Central Monitoring.

d) includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works, the consent holder’s Project Geologist, Project Appointed Arborist, Project Stormwater Engineer

The following matters shall be discussed at the meeting:

Management measures and protocols for accidental discovery of midden.

The meeting shall discuss the erosion and sediment control measures, the earthworks methodology and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent.

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

Resource consent conditions

Approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

A pre-start meeting shall be held prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity in each period between October 1 and April 30 that this consent is exercised.

Advice Note: To arrange the pre-start meeting required by Condition (7) please contact the Team Leader, Central Monitoring on [email protected] or 09 3010101 . The conditions of consent should be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council should be provided 2 days prior to the meeting.

Development in Progress Conditions: Contamination

8. All necessary action shall be taken to prevent dust generation and sufficient water shall be available to dampen exposed soil, and/or other dust suppressing measures shall be available to avoid dust formation. The consent holder shall ensure that dust management during the excavation works generally complies with the Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, MfE (2001).

9. In the event of the accidental discovery of contamination, including asbestos material, and including any visible change in the nature of sub-surface material, works shall cease until such time that a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Professional (SQEP) has assessed the situation (including possible sampling and testing) and decided on the best option for managing the material.

a) A site-specific health and safety plan shall be in place at all times

b) Good practice hygiene measures shall be adopted during site works and adequate decontamination and wash-up facilities shall be provided.

51


c) Erosion and sediment controls shall be put in place to ensure that the generation of potentially contaminated sediment and stormwater is minimised and managed, according to the site specific erosion and sediment control plan.

d) Stockpiling shall be avoided if possible. If required, stockpiles will be placed within the excavation footprint. Stockpiles shall be completely covered with polythene or equivalent impermeable material and anchored at the edges when not being worked on.

e) Excavated material that is not re-used on site shall not be disposed of as cleanfill but at an appropriate facility licensed to accept the levels of contamination identified.

f) All imported material shall be demonstrated to meet the definition of “cleanfill” as per the Guide to the Management of Cleanfills (MfE, 2002) and tested at a rate of 1 sample per 500m3 of material imported.

10. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan referenced in condition 6 unless an amendment to the plan is approved by the manager. Each control shall comply with Auckland Regional Council’s Technical Publication 90; Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region and any amendments to this document, except where a higher standard is detailed in the documents referred to in conditions above, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

11. All perimeter and erosion sediment control measures shall be installed prior to other earthworks commencing on site

Lighting

12. The use of any temporary construction floodlighting shall be minimised. When such lighting is used, it shall be aimed to minimise potential glare effects to occupants of nearby residential buildings.

Noise

13. Noise from construction activities shall not exceed the limits recommended in, and shall be measured and assessed in accordance with, New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics – Construction Noise”.

Archaeological Features

14. If, at any time during site works, potential koiwi (human remains), archaeology or artefacts are discovered, then the following discovery protocol is to be followed:

All earthworks will cease in the immediate vicinity (at least 10m from the site of the discovery) while a suitably qualified archaeologist is consulted to establish the type of remains.

If the material is identified by the archaeologist as human, archaeology or artefact, earthworks must not be resumed in the affected area (as defined by the archaeologist). The Consent Holder must immediately advise the Team Leader Central Monitoring, Heritage New Zealand and Police (if human remains are found) and arrange a site inspection with these parties.

If the discovery contains koiwi, archaeology or artefacts of Maori origin, representatives from Ngai Tai and Ngati Whatua Orakei are to be provided information on the nature and location of the discovery.

52

http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/plan/Book.aspx


The Consent Holder shall not recommence works until approved by the Team Leader Central Monitoring.

15. The Ngai Tai and Ngati Whatua Orakei are to be given the opportunity to monitor the earthworks and conduct karakia and other such religious or cultural ceremonies and activities as are appropriate.

Advice Note:If any archaeological features are uncovered on the site, works should cease and the Team Leader Central Monitoring and Heritage New Zealand (09 307 9920) should be notified immediately. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 provides for the identification, protection, preservation and conservation of the historic and cultural heritage of New Zealand. It is an offence under this Act to destroy, damage or modify any archaeological site without an authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. An archaeological site is defined as a place associated with pre-1900 human activity where there may be evidence relation to history of New Zealand. Archaeological features’ may include old whaling stations, ship wrecks, shell middens, hangi or ovens, pit depressions, defensive ditches, artefacts, or koiwi tangata (human skeletal remains), etc. For guidance and advice on managing the discovery of archaeological features, contact the Team Leader Cultural Heritage Implementation on 09 301 0101.

Transportation, Access, Traffic and Parking

16. The pedestrian crossings should be marked as per ATCOP standard, including warning signage, road markings and belisha discs.

17. The pedestrian crossings should be lit to the standards specified for pedestrian crossings in ATCOP.

18. Pedestrian Crossing 3 (refer to drawing #1/1167/54/6134 Sheet 12 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 3’) should include a kerb extension on the northern side of the road to achieve minimum crossing sight distance. If minimum crossing sight distance cannot be achieved, further mitigation measure should be considered to improve visibility for both pedestrian and drivers approaching the crossing.

19. Pedestrian Crossing 1 (refer to drawing #1/116/154/6134 Sheet 10 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 1’) should include an appropriate length of NSAAT broken yellow lines either side of the crossing to maximise the crossing sight distance.

Post Development Conditions Lighting

20. Within 30 days of completion of the new sports lighting, the Consent holder shall submit a report from a suitably qualified lighting practitioner acceptable to Auckland Council, confirming the installed sports lighting meets Council requirements and applicable standards for spill light and glare control at residential boundaries.

21. The use of the artificial lights located on the upper field are not be used beyond the following specified hours:

7.00am to 9.30pm, Monday to Saturday and

9.00am to 6.00pm on Sundays and public holidays.

53


Noise

22. The noise levels from activities on the site shall not exceed the following limits when measured on any residentially zoned site:

Monday to Saturday 7.00am – 10.00pm

55 dB LA10

Sundays and Public Holidays

9.00am – 6.00 pm

At all other times 40 dB LA10

75 dB LAmax

23. Noise levels shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the requirements of New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:1991 “Measurement of Sound” and NZS 6802:1991 “Assessment of Environmental Sound”.

Competition Games

24. The consent holder shall ensure that competition games held on Friday or Saturday nights, will be limited to no more than two competitive games per week.

Park Management

25. The consent holder shall include guidelines within the ‘Artificial Turf Care Code’ to ensure the sports club managers take all practical steps to ensure park users leave the subject site promptly after 9.30pm to reduce the potential for disturbance on adjacent properties and persons.

Specific Conditions – Stormwater Discharge/Diversion (s15)-R/REG/2015/897 26. Stormwater diversion and discharge permit shall expire on (date to be inserted by lead planner;

35 years from decision date) unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.

27. The following stormwater management works are constructed for the following catchment areas and design standards and they are completed prior to construction of further impervious surfaces.

Works to be undertaken

Catchment area Design specifications

Artificial turf sports field As per s92 response by Opus International Consultant Ltd, dated 2 June 2015

Connection of all new impervious areas to the soakage holes and infiltration trenches

All impervious surface Soakage design manual Auckland City

54


Certification of Construction Works

28. Within 20 days of practical completion, As-Built certification and plans of the stormwater management works, which are certified (signed) by a suitably qualified registered surveyor or engineer as a true record of the stormwater management system, shall be provided to the Team Leader – Central Monitoring.

29. The As-Built plans shall include, but not be limited to:

a) Location and dimensions of stormwater treatment device (soakage bore); b) Soakage test protocol in accordance with the Auckland City Soakage Design manual. c) Documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the As-Built plans.

Operation and Maintenance

30. An Operation and Maintenance Plan for the stormwater management and treatment system shall be developed and sent to the Team Leader – Central Monitoring Within 20 days of practical completion.

31. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall set out how the stormwater management and treatment system is to be operated and maintained to ensure adverse environmental effects are minimised. The plan shall include, but not be limited to:

a) A programme for regular maintenance and inspection of the stormwater management system;

b) A programme for the collection and disposal of debris and sediment collected by the stormwater management devices or practices;

c) A programme for post storm maintenance; d) General inspection checklists for all aspects of the stormwater management system,

including visual checks; e) Details of who will hold responsibility for long-term maintenance of the stormwater

management system;

32. The stormwater management and treatment system shall be managed in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan.

Maintenance report

33. A maintenance report shall be provided to the Team Leader – Central Monitoring on request. The maintenance report shall include but not be limited to the following:

a) Details of who is responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management system; b) Details of any maintenance undertaken; and c) Details of what inspections were completed over the preceding twelve months.

34. Details of all inspections and maintenance for the stormwater management system for the preceding three years shall be retained.

Overland flow paths

35. For stormwater flows in excess of the capacity of the primary drainage systems, major secondary flow paths shall be provided and kept free from significant obstructions such as buildings and solid fences to allow surplus stormwater from critical storms to discharge with the minimum of nuisance and damage.

55


3. Advice notes 1. Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by Council (in accordance with section

35(d) of the RMA). The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter confirming compliance on request of the consent holder.

2. The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those under the Building Act 2004, and comply with all relevant Council Bylaws. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the approval of this resource consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously issued building consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be required.

3. A copy of this consent shall be held on site at all times during the establishment and construction phase of the activity

4. The consent holder is requested to notify Council, in writing, of their intention to begin works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencement. Such notification should be sent to the Team Leader, Monitoring- Central (email: [email protected]): a) name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner b) site address to which the consent relates c) activity to which the consent relates d) expected duration of works

5. This consent does not relieve the consent holder of his/her responsibility to apply for any other

consents which may be required by the Heritage New Zealand. This consent is issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 and does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act), regulations, Bylaws, and rules of law.

6. The scope of this resource consent is defined by the application made to Auckland Council and all documentation supporting that application.

7. If you disagree with any of the above conditions, or disagree with the additional charges relating to

the processing of the application you have a right of objection pursuant to sections 357A or 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991. Any objection must be made in writing to Council within 15 working days of notification of the decision.

8. A road safety audit should be undertaken at the detailed design stage to identify any outstanding

safety issues with the proposed design.

9. Installing the proposed pedestrian crossing on speed tables should be considered at the detailed design stage to further enhance safety for pedestrians and slow vehicle speeds through the park.

10. If appropriate, other measures such as vegetation trimming should be considered to improve visibility for pedestrians and drivers approaching the pedestrian crossings.

11. A Road Safety Audit is to be undertaken at the detailed design stage.

56


This report and recommendation prepared by:

Name: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama

Title: Intermediate Planner

Signed:

Date: 17 November 2015

This report and recommendation approved for release to the Independent Hearing Commissioners by:

Name: Antony Yates

Title: Team Leader

Signed:

Date: 17 November 2015

57


ATTACHMENT 1: APPLICATION DOCUMENTS & DRAWINGS

58


ATTACHMENT 2: AUCKLAND COUNCIL SPECIALIST REVIEWS

59


ATTACHMENT 3: COPIES OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

60


ATTACHMENT 4: SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY TABLE

61


ATTACHMENT 5: CHANGES AND / OR EXTRA INFORMATION MADE AFTER THE CLOSE OF SUBMISSIONS

62

ATTACHMENT 2 SPECIALIST REPORTS

84 Symonds Street

PO Box 5811 Wellesley Street

Auckland 1141 New Zealand

T: +64 9 379 7822 F: +64 9 309 3540

www.marshallday.com

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited

Lt 001 R01 201503dp GFW150324 Fowlds Park, Western Springs - Peer Review.docx 1

3 June 2015

Auckland Council

Private Bag 92303

Auckland 1142

Attention: Charlotte Hamilton - Pama

Dear Charlotte

Fowlds Park, Western Springs

Peer Review of Acoustic Assessment - R/LUC/2015/896

Introduction

Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) has been engaged by the Auckland Council to peer review the acoustic

assessment report of Styles Group (Styles), and a S92 response from Opus International Consultants (Opus)

relating to a proposal to upgrade the sports fields at Fowlds Park, Western Springs.

This peer review report is a desk top study only and has not involved any site inspection or noise

measurement.

The Proposal

The Auckland Council proposes to upgrade the existing upper field and netball courts with an artificial playing

surface together with the installation of field lighting.

Styles Group Acoustic Report

Styles Group Acoustic and Vibration Consultants (Styles) has undertaken an acoustic assessment for the

proposed upgrading of Fowlds Park and this is set out in a letter entitled “Fowlds Park – Compliance with

Permitted Activity Noise Limits” dated 10 September, 2014. This letter addresses the relevant operational

acoustical issues of; permitted activity noise levels, noise level predictions and conclusions. These matters

are addressed individually as follows.

Permitted Activity Noise Limits

The Styles letter accurately identifies the relevant limits of the Isthmus Section of the District Plan for Open

Space zones (Rule 9.8.1.5) as being 55 dB LA10 between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm Monday to Saturday, and

9.00am to 6.00 pm Sundays and Public Holidays.

MDA considers that this limit is appropriate for the intended activities on the upgraded park facility and for

the protection of residents in the vicinity against the impact of unreasonable noise levels.

Predicted Noise Levels

Styles has undertaken the prediction of noise levels from the playing fields by means of computer modelling

for a busy training day and match play. The results of this modelling are set out in a noise level contour plan

in Appendix 1 of the Styles letter, which shows that the 55 dB LA10 limit is readily complied with, with a

comfortable safety margin, for all residences in the vicinity.

MDA considers that the computer modelling methodology is appropriate for predicting noise levels of this

type and concurs with Styles that there is full compliance with the 55 dBA L10 limit of the Operative District

63



Plan for activity during the hours of 7.00am – 10.00 pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00 am – 6.00 pm Sundays

and Public Holidays.

It was initially noted that compliance with the 40 dB LA10 night-time limit applying 10.00 pm to 7.00am

Monday to Friday, 10.00 pm Saturdays to 9.00am Sundays, and 6.00 pm to 7.00am the following day for

Sundays and Public Holidays, would not be achieved. However, in response to a S92 request for further

information relating to this issue, Opus in its S92 response letter dated 2 June 2015 has advised that;

“Use of artificial lighting will be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 9.30pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00am

to 6.00pm on Sundays”, “Accordingly, organised sport activities are not anticipated to occur beyond these

hours, and will therefore comply with the more restrictive noise limit of 40 dBA L10 between 10pm – 7am

(Mon-Sat) and before 9am and after 6pm on Sundays and Public Holidays.”

MDA considers this arrangement would be satisfactory and demonstrates that organised sporting activity

should not result in non-compliance.

Construction Noise

Construction noise will be generated by the installation of the artificial turf and this activity will involve the

use of earthmoving machinery. This matter is not addressed in the Style acoustic assessment for this project.

MDA considers that provided the construction activity is confined to normal working hours, that the relevant

limits of the Construction Noise Standard, NZS 6803:1999 “Acoustics – Construction Noise” will be complied

with due to the distance between the locations of activity and nearest residences.

Opus in its S92 response has confirmed that; “The contractor will be required to comply with the New Zealand

Standard NZS 6803:1999 ‘Acoustics - Construction Noise’

Conclusions

MDA has examined the acoustic assessment report of Styles relating to the proposed upgrading of the

Fowlds Park facilities and is in agreement with the findings of Styles that there will be compliance with the

relevant 55 dB LA10 limit which applies to operational activity at the Park during the specified daytime periods.

MDA considers that any noise effects from daytime operational activity at the Park would be readily

compliant and noise effects be of no appreciable significance to residents in the vicinity.

Construction noise can comply with the relevant limits of the Construction Noise Standard provided this

activity takes place during normal working hours.

It is recommended that the following noise conditions of consent relating to both operational and

construction noise be imposed on any consent granted.

(i) The noise levels from activities on the site shall not exceed the following limits when

measured on any residentially zoned site:

Monday to Saturday 7.00am – 10.00pm

Sundays and Public Holidays 9.00am – 6.00 pm 55 dB LA10

At all other times 40 dB LA10

75 dB LAmax

(ii) Noise levels shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the requirements of New

Zealand Standard NZS 6801:1991 “Measurement of Sound” and NZS 6802:1991 “Assessment

of Environmental Sound”.

(iii) Noise from construction activities shall not exceed the limits recommended in, and shall b e

measured and assessed in accordance with, New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999

“Acoustics – Construction Noise”

64



Yours faithfully

MARSHALL DAY ACOUSTICS LTD

Graham Warren

Senior Associate

65

Project 2730 - March 2015 Page 1

27

th March 2015

Central Resource Consenting and Compliance Auckland Council Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Attention: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Email: [email protected] Dear Charlotte, re: - 50 Western Springs Road, Fowlds Park, Western Springs - Proposed Park Lighting Council Reference - R/LUC/2015/896 Introduction 1. Information has been received that was prepared by Opus as part of the application for Resource Consent to provide sports lighting on two fields at Fowlds Park. 2. The following documents have been reviewed:

• Opus lighting effects report for sports fields dated 7th October 2014 prepared by Leslie Eckard

including horizontal and vertical calculation summaries, an obtrusive light compliance report

• Opus Calculation drawings 1/1167/50/7103 Sheets 501/RB, 550/RB, 551/RB, 552/RB, 553/RB, 554/RB and 555/RB.

Site Description - Fowlds Park (Sports Fields 2 and 3 Training & Competition Flood Lighting)

3. The existing sports fields are located at 50 Western Springs Road known as Fowlds Park. The Park comprises a number of sports fields and No. 2 & 3 sports fields are to have new floodlights and columns.

4. There are 6 existing columns at Fowlds Park that will be removed as part of the project. 5. There are residential properties immediately adjacent to the Park, located on Western Springs

Road, Wolseley Street, Rocky Nook Avenue, Malvern Road and Brewster Avenue, 6. As noted in the Opus assessment, there are other adjacent sports fields that will not be lit under this application.

67


Lighting Design 7. The Opus documentation addresses horizontal and vertical spill light at the boundaries of the

closest residential properties located on Brewster Avenue. Horizontal and vertical spill light values at these boundaries are stated as being 0.26-lux horizontal and 2.3-lux vertical.

8. Specific items outlined in the Opus assessment identify column height, aiming angle above

horizontal, hours of operation and spill light. 9. Thirty two new 2000 Watt sports lighting fixtures and six columns have been proposed for Sports

Fields #2 and #3. 10. The maximum height of column and floodlight is 17m with luminaires mounted at various tilts

ranging from zero to 4.5 degrees. 11. Auckland Council Operative District Plan (Isthmus Section) provides assessment criteria for

Discretionary Activities and the Opus report has included a brief assessment of each item including design, aiming, location, spill light and to ensure glare is not directed to adjacent sites. Auckland Council Sports Field Lighting Guidelines Section 3.4 Environmental Considerations provides further direction on information required.

Summary 12. The Opus assessment addresses spill light limits that would apply to the Fowlds Park adjacent

residential properties. The limit of 10 lux between the hours of 10pm and 7am on the following day has been met. Illuminance calculations have been presented to confirm this.

13. Spill light illuminance does not exceed the 50-lux requirement on the adjacent roadway kerbing

and is acceptable. 14. There would generally be no reason for temporary lighting to be used during the construction

process, however if it is required, measures should be implemented to avoid nuisance to neighbouring residential properties.

Conclusion 15. The lighting assessment of environmental effects prepared by Opus provides sufficient specific

design information as noted above. Additional information and clarification is not required as the proposed lighting will meet all applicable lighting standards and Council requirements and will have less than minor effects on neighbouring residential properties and the environment.

16. Controls have been included in the lighting control panel to ensure the floodlights cannot operate

after 10.00pm on any night in order to satisfy curfew lighting requirements on adjacent properties. Proposed Conditions 17. Recommended Draft Conditions on the application are presented for No. 2 & 3 sports field

lighting. These Conditions are to be actioned once the new lighting is commissioned and put into service:

18. Construction The use of any temporary construction floodlighting shall be minimised. When such lighting is

used, it shall be aimed to minimise potential glare effects to occupants of nearby residential buildings.

68


19. On Completion Within 30 days of completion of the new sports lighting, the Consent holder shall submit a report

from a suitably qualified lighting practitioner acceptable to Auckland Council, confirming the installed sports lighting meets Council requirements and applicable standards for spill light and glare control at residential boundaries.

The information provided is sufficient to confirm spill lighting will be less than minor from proposed sports field lighting on the two surface. Please give me a call should you need to discuss any aspects of the above report.

Yours faithfully Kern Consultants Ltd

Russ Kern MIES

69

Traffic & Transportation Engineers Ltd

Level 2, 12 O’Connell Street, Auckland 1010 | PO Box 495, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 P (09) 921 4190 | E [email protected] | W www.t2engineers.co.nz

13 July 2015 Auckland Council Central Resource Consenting and Compliance Private Bag 92300 Victoria Street West Auckland 1142

Our Ref: \3201177\150713 50 Western Springs Rd Traffic Assessment Peer Review

Attention: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama

Dear Charlotte

PROPOSED SPORTS FIELD UPGRADE – FOWLDS PARK, 50 WESTERN

SPRINGS ROAD

Traffic and Transportation Engineers Limited (T2) has been commissioned by Auckland Council (Council) to undertake a peer review of the traffic effects related to the application for the sports field upgrade of Fowlds Park at 50 Western Springs Road, Western Springs.

This review is based on the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) dated March 2015 prepared by Opus International Consultants Limited (Opus), the Pedestrian Safety Improvements Study dated June 2014 prepared by Opus and the s92 response dated 2 June 2015 prepared by Opus.

The proposal has been assessed against the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section) (District Plan). All relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan have been identified in the information provided.

1.0 Proposal

The proposal is to upgrade the Fowlds Park sports ground through the construction of a new artificial turf sports field. Pedestrian connectivity between the parking areas and the sports grounds are also proposed to be improved through the installation of three new pedestrian zebra crossings within Fowlds Park.

2.0 Parking

The proposal will result in an overall loss of nine parking spaces, with 92 spaces remaining. The s92 response provided by Opus provides a breakdown of the parking requirements against the District Plan. The loss of nine parking spaces does not result in a shortfall of parking against District Plan requirements.

It is also reported that the upgrade to the sports field turf and pedestrian facilities is not expected to provide for additional use of the park during peak demand periods. This is because no new or additional sports fields are proposed. Therefore, it is not expected that peak parking demand within Fowlds Park will increase.

71

Auckland Council 50 Western Springs Road Resource Consenting and Compliance Traffic Assessment Peer Review

\3201177\150713 50 Western Springs Rd Traffic Assessment Peer Review

Page 2 of 4

3.0 Loading

No loading spaces are provided on site, therefore there is a shortfall of one loading space against the requirements of the District Plan. This is an existing situation and it is likely that service deliveries will only be made during off-peak periods and when there are no games being played at the park. It is expected that any loading requirements can be accommodated within the regular on-site parking areas.

4.0 Trip Generation

It is not expected that trip generation will change as a result of this proposal as no new sports facilities are proposed.

5.0 Access

The accesses to Fowlds Park are existing and are not proposed to change as a result of this proposal.

6.0 Pedestrian Facilities

There are three new pedestrian crossings that will be constructed as part of this proposal. These pedestrian crossings will provide better connectivity between the carparking areas and sports fields and are expected to be well utilised during peak times.

All of the proposed new pedestrian crossings should be installed in accordance with the Auckland Transport Code of practice (ATCOP) standards, including all necessary road markings, belisha discs and warning signage. Each crossing should also be lit to the appropriate ATCOP standards so that pedestrians are visible particularly in the winter months when it is dark in the early evenings.

The minimum crossing site distance (CSD) at the crossings has been calculated using the NZTA Pedestrian Planning Guide: Chapter 15. The minimum cross sight distance of 65m was based on a 40km/h vehicle design speed and average walking speed of 1.2m/s.

There are some concerns with the design that was provided in that sight distance for pedestrians at the proposed crossing north west of the clubroom carpark (refer to drawing #1/1167/54/6134 Sheet 12 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 3’) will be significantly restricted if vehicles are parked in the

adjacent car parks. Visibility of pedestrians by drivers of on-coming vehicles will also be significantly restricted.

Similarly, crossing sight distance is insufficient at the proposed pedestrian crossing to the south east of the proposed netball courts (refer to drawing #1/116/154/6134 Sheet 10 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 1’).

This is a significant safety concern for pedestrians and mitigation measures should be undertaken.

72



Page 3 of 4

It was suggested in the Pedestrian Safety Improvements Study report that a kerb build out on the northern side of the Pedestrian Crossing 3 could be provided to improve the visibility and achieve minimum crossing sight distance. However, this is not shown in the plans provided. It is recommended that the kerbs are extended in this crossing location, particularly on the northern side, to improve visibility for both pedestrian and drivers approaching the crossing. This will be recommended as a condition of consent.

Mitigation measure should also be undertaken to maximise the crossing sight distance at Pedestrian Crossing 1. This should include installing ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (NSAAT) broken yellow lines either side of the crossing to prevent parked vehicles from obscuring visibility. This will be recommended as a condition of consent.

It is also recommended that installing the pedestrian crossings on speed platforms is considered, as this will further slow vehicle speeds and enhance visibility of the crossing and pedestrians. This should be considered further at the detailed design stage.

Other mitigation measures should also be considered, including vegetation trimming where appropriate.

No safety audit has been undertaken for the preliminary design of the project. However, it is reported that a safety audit will be undertaken at the detailed design stage. It is recommended that this audit is undertaken to identify any outstanding safety issues with the proposed design.

7.0 Conclusions

It is concluded that the Fowlds Park upgrades can be accommodated on the surrounding road network with traffic effects that are less than minor.

There is therefore no traffic-related reason why resource consent should not be granted subject to the following conditions:

The pedestrian crossings should be marked as per ATCOP standard, including warning signage, road markings and belisha discs.

The pedestrian crossings should be lit to the standards specified for pedestrian crossings in ATCOP.

Pedestrian Crossing 3 (refer to drawing #1/1167/54/6134 Sheet 12 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 3’) should include a kerb extension on the northern side of the road to achieve minimum crossing sight distance. If minimum crossing sight distance cannot be achieved, further mitigation measure should be considered to improve visibility for both pedestrian and drivers approaching the crossing.

Pedestrian Crossing 1 (refer to drawing #1/116/154/6134 Sheet 10 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 1’) should include an appropriate length of NSAAT broken yellow lines either side of the crossing to maximise the crossing sight distance.

73



Page 4 of 4

It is also recommended that the following advice notes are included in the resource consent:

A road safety audit should be undertaken at the detailed design stage to identify any outstanding safety issues with the proposed design.

Installing the proposed pedestrian crossing on speed tables should be considered at the detailed design stage to further enhance safety for pedestrians and slow vehicle speeds through the park.

If appropriate, other measures such as vegetation trimming should be considered to improve visibility for pedestrians and drivers approaching the pedestrian crossings.

A Road Safety Audit is to be undertaken at the detailed design stage.

Traffic and Transportation Engineers Ltd

Jacinda Harries

Pravin Dayaram

Transportation

Consultant

Principal Transportation

Consultant

74

Request for Expert Advice – Landscape and Visual Effects Page 1 Fowlds Park

LANDSCAPE SPECIALIST REPORT

To: Charlotte Hamilton- Pama

Central Resource Consenting and Compliance, Auckland Council From: Bridget Gilbert, (Consultant) Landscape Architect

Auckland Design Office, Auckland Council Date: 20 October 2015 Subject: Request for Expert Advice –Landscape and Visual Effects

Artificial Sports Fields, Fowlds Park, Western Springs Application #: R/LUC/2015/896

Dear Charlotte,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the resource consent application to enable the

development of an artificial sports field at Fowlds Park, Western Springs.

The following information has been reviewed in relation to this assessment:

AEE prepared by Opus, dated March 2015;

Development Drawings and Site Plans prepared by Opus, dated March 2015

(Development Plans);

Landscape and Visual Effects assessment and appendices prepared by LA4 Landscape

Architects, dated May 2015 (LA4 Report);

Arborist’s Assessment prepared by Peers Miller Brown, dated December 2014

(Arborist Assessment); and,

Landscape Mitigation Plans and Sportsfield Mitigation Planting Design Statement,

prepared by LA4 Landscape Architects, dated 15 October 2015 (Mitigation Plans).

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 The applicant lodged the application in March 2015. No Landscape and Visual Effects

Assessment was provided with the application. At that time the reporting planner

contacted me to seek advice as to whether I thought an assessment in this regard was

required as part of the Council’s Request for Further Information under s92 of the RMA.

1.2 I undertook a preliminary review of the application documentation and made a site visit.

My advice to Council was as follows:

75


In my opinion a Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment (LVA) is required due to the potential for the development to generate more than minor adverse visual effects in relation to:

a. the Volcanic Viewshaft infringement; b. the change to the character of the park; and, c. the amenity of dwellings that overlook the reserve.

In my opinion the LVA should clearly address (although not necessarily be confined to) the following matters:

1. the visual amenity effects for dwellings that overlook the park; 2. the visual amenity effects for park users; 3. the landscape effects of the development including effects in relation

to vegetation removals, earthworks and the general park character; 4. an appraisal of the development against the relevant District Plan

objectives and policies; 5. an appraisal of the development against the Fowlds Park Reserve

Management Plan; and, 6. the effects of the development on the viewshaft (noting that the viewshaft

mapping at Figure 2.3 of the AEE is inconsistent with the District Plan mapping of the viewshaft)

Finally, the arborist references the potential for ‘targeted replacement planting’ to mitigate the vegetation removals. If such replacement planting is relied in the LVA, a Landscape Plan is also required as part of the s92 Response (The Landscape Plan should show the location of vegetation to be retained and proposed plantings including species, sizes at the time of planting and proposed spacings).

1.3 The LA4 Report and Mitigation Plans referenced above address the landscape related

component of the s92 Request for Further Information.

2 ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION

2.1 I have undertaken an audit of the landscape related material to appraise whether there

is sufficient information to enable a thorough understanding of the landscape and visual

effects of the proposed development.

2.2 In my opinion there is insufficient information to allow a clear understanding of the

landscape and visual effects of the proposed development for the reasons set out in the

following discussion.

3 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

3.1 I confirm that the effects assessment methodology that has been applied in the LA4

Report is consistent with landscape assessment best practice.

3.2 I also agree with the description of the existing environment as described in that report

(and the application documents).

76


3.3 The LA4 Report finds that the landscape and visual effects of the proposal are ‘low’. In

summary, this is the consequence of the visual compatibility of the proposed

development within the context of a public park that is zoned for Active Recreation and

the limited visibility of the development area from the surrounding residential

environment.

3.4 I agree that the park is relatively limited in terms of its visibility from the surrounding

residential environment as a consequence of mature plantings throughout the park (and

surrounding area) and/or fencing along the park boundaries.

3.5 It is however currently an attractive ‘traditional’ parkland landscape deriving from a

pleasing arrangement of trees and mown grass set within a distinctive volcanic landform

setting. As such, Fowlds Park offers a significant ‘green space’ for the local residential

community and at a more strategic level, the park forms one of the key ‘breathing

spaces’ in this part of the city fringe landscape. With the increasing intensification

anticipated for the city, it is reasonable to expect that the importance of Fowlds Park as

a ‘breathing space’ is likely to be amplified in the future.

3.6 Fowlds Park is also home to a range of active sports clubs and has seen substantial

modification of the landform (terracing, paved surfaces) and landscape (buildings,

roading and lighting) over the years. Again it is reasonable to expect that with

intensification, the pressure on Fowlds Park for active recreation uses will likely

increase.

3.7 Whilst it is fair to say that the character of the proposed development can be reasonably

expected to occur within a public park that is zoned for Active Recreation, the change

from a grassed sports field environment to an artificial turf will see the introduction of a

largescale element that is considerably more engineered and structured (or ‘contrived’)

by comparison to the balance of the park, which currently exhibits a relatively ‘low key’

active recreation character.

3.8 This change in character is in my opinion a consequence of:

a. the contrasting visual appearance of the artificial turf when compared to the

predominantly grassed character of the other sportsfields (excluding the netball

courts);

b. the ‘cordoned off’ character of this part of the park primarily as a consequence

of the fencing proposals that form part of the development in combination with

the proposed retaining structures; and,

c. the ‘specificity of use’ dictated by an artificial turf by comparison to the more

‘multi use’ character of a grassed sportsfield.

3.9 The removal of the existing relatively dense vegetation between the park access road

and the new sportsfield will heighten the awareness of this change to the park’s

landscape.

3.10 As the LA4 Report observes, whether such a change is considered to be adverse is

largely a question of ‘the eye of the beholder’. For some, the change from a grassed

parkland landscape to a fenced off area of artificial turf (with associated infrastructure)

77


in this part of Fowlds Park may read as a negative change, whilst for others (for example,

the artificial turf users), the change is likely to be perceived as overwhelmingly positive.

3.11 I note that parts of the park are already ‘fenced-off‘ for specific active recreation uses

(e.g. the softball diamond and the bowling greens), so this aspect of the development is

not in itself, entirely incongruous.

3.12 It is assumed that the existing softball fencing would be removed rendering this part of

the park available for passive recreation. This would go some way to mitigating the loss

of existing informal/passive recreational space associated with the proposal.

3.13 To my mind, the scale of Fowlds Park and location of the proposed sportsfield are of

importance in determining the level of adverse effects with respect to the landscape

character of the park.

3.14 The confinement of the change in parkland character to a portion of the park which is

partially covered by paved netball courts and modified by terracing, in combination with

the retention of the majority of Fowlds Park as a more traditional grassed and low key

parkland landscape, contribute an appreciable moderating effect.

3.15 The proposed planting of pohutukawa specimens along the north side of the sportsfield

will, in time, mitigate the loss of trees in these locations from a purely landscape and

visual effects perspective. As previously mentioned, they do however suggest a very

different streetscape character (i.e. more open) for this part of the road through the

park.

3.16 Similarly the proposed tree planting along the south side of the sportsfield will in time,

mitigate the loss of tree specimens from a landscape and visual effects perspective.

3.17 Whilst I support an approach of gradually replacing the gum trees on the north bank

with more long term, indigenous plantings, I have not had the opportunity to make a

site visit to confirm the practicality of this aspect of the proposal (noting the Landscape

Plan was received on 16 October 2015).

3.18 I am also concerned about the appropriateness of a number of more detailed aspects of

the proposal. This relates to either a paucity of information with respect to the

development proposal or a mix of materials that is assessed to be unnecessarily

complicated and likely to detract from the character of the park.

3.19 Specifically it is recommended that the Landscape Plan should also address:

a. Paving materiality (exposed aggregate concrete with black oxide).

b. Rationalisation of the fencing styles. It is currently proposed to have a mix of

1.2m high pool fencing and 1.2m high chain mesh fencing which is considered to

be unnecessarily complicated. It is likely that sports uses dictate the necessary

fencing style and this fencing style should ideally be used consistently

throughout the new sportsfield area.

c. Clarification of the exterior finish of all fencing (e.g. black powder coat).

d. Clarification of the lighting column exterior finish.

78


e. Clarification with respect to the ‘look’ of the Strong Stone concrete block wall

(2m high) along the western end of the northern perimeter of the new sports

fields. A simple internet search of this product has yielded a number of visual

outcomes of varying aesthetic quality. Further, the applicant is encouraged to

consider the use of scoria or basalt cladding to any solid masonry retaining

structures in this location due to the volcanic heritage of the area (and as

described in the LA4 Report).

3.20 The recommended conditions at the end of this report seek to address these various

matters.

3.21 The Green Terramesh retaining system is encouraged in principle. The scale of this

structure and importance of its success in mitigating the adverse effects of the proposed

retaining in this highly visible location within the park, demands confidence around the

successful establishment and maintenance of this green wall system.

3.22 It would be helpful if the applicant could provide more detail with respect to other

examples of the successful establishment and maintenance of such a system in NZ that

is of a similar scale and slope profile.

4 VIEWSHAFT INFRINGEMENT

4.1 The LA4 Report assesses the volcanic viewshaft infringement as negligible.1

4.2 I disagree and expect that the effects of introducing 17m high column2 into the central

portion (or apex) of the viewshaft, in close proximity to the viewshaft origin point will be

more than minor.

4.3 One existing column would appear to be located within the viewshaft, however this is

located to the far left ‘edge’ of the vista and does not interfere with the legibility of the

profile of the maunga or visually compete with it.

4.4 The proposed lighting column will sit squarely in the centre of the viewshaft at relatively

close range. Whilst lighting columns are an accepted visual component of the Fowlds

Park landscape, such an element is not anticipated within a viewshaft, as the operative

Auckland Plan (Isthmus section) does not provide exemptions for lighting columns in

height sensitive areas, and height infringements are assessed as a non-complying

activity.

4.5 The distinctly utilitarian form of a lighting column, its close proximity to the viewpoint

origin and the scale of infringement (5m), means that the lighting column will introduce

clutter into the view of the maunga that interferes with the legibility of the profile of the

maunga and distracts from the outlook, despite its slender form.

4.6 The recent reassessment of the Fowlds Park viewshaft (as part of Plan Change 339),

which saw the narrowing of the viewshaft from a stretch of the road through the park to

a single viewpoint origin, could be argued to have increased the importance of this

specific view i.e. whereas previously the view to Ōwairaka (Mt Albert) was protected

1 LA4 Report page 18

2 Note: the proposed lighting column is 5m higher than the maximum permitted height (12m) in this

part of the viewshaft

79


from a larger portion of the park, it is now confined to a very limited portion of the

park.

4.7 This is likely to have been in part a pragmatic response to vegetation patterns and to the

active uses within Fowlds Park that necessitate a range of structures and

buildings. However it also points to the need for extra care in the considerably reduced

portion of the park to which the viewshaft controls now apply.

4.8 It is also my understanding that the PAUP provides for street lighting columns in

viewshafts as a Permitted activity (regardless of height), suggesting a tolerance of the

sort of structure anticipated by the current application within volcanic viewshafts. I am

advised that no determination has been made with respect to the merits of enabling

street lighting columns as a Permitted activity in the PAUP.

4.9 Further I am aware that the Viewshafts are currently under review as part of the PAUP

process (as directed by the Auckland Unitary Plan Hearing Panel Interim Guidance dated

17 July 2015) to potentially determine a viewshafts ‘hierarchy’ within the region. This

may have both ‘significance’ and ‘policy’ implications for the Fowlds Park viewshaft in

question. It is possible that more information with respect to this matter may be

available at the hearing.

4.10 Returning to the current application, I have been advised that the technical lighting

requirements of the sports field dictate the current lighting arrangement and there is no

potential for the lighting column to be relocated to the edge (or outside) of the

viewshaft, or reduced in height, without significantly adversely impacting on the use-

ability of the sportsfield. It is recommended that the applicant clearly explains this

technical limitation at the hearing.

4.11 In my opinion, unlike many other viewshafts within the city, a clearly legible view of

Ōwairaka is available from many locations within the Fowlds Park public space. It is

however possible that the way we use our public spaces may change over time and in

the absence of formal protection, such views would not be given specific consideration

in the assessment of future development applications.

4.12 The proposed development will enable clear views of the maunga from a number of

locations along the north side of the artificial turf , and it is plausible that a similar

quality of view to the maunga could be safe guarded from this part of Fowlds Park that

avoids the proposed lighting columns. However, it is my understanding that to formally

change the location of the viewshaft would require a plan change which is beyond the

scope of the current application.

4.13 It does however seem feasible that the Fowlds Park Reserve Management Plan could be

updated to specifically reference the protection of a formalised view of the maunga

from this side of the park that excludes the proposed lighting columns. Given that any

future development within the park needs to be assessed against the reserve

management plan, this would flag consideration of such effects on the view to the

maunga that is intended to be protected from the eastern end of the park via the

volcanic viewshaft. I acknowledge that the location of the formalised viewpoint would

need to be in close proximity to the existing viewshaft origin point, ‘to make sense’ of

the District Plan height restrictions that apply to the land between the park and maunga.

80


4.14 Balancing each of these considerations, in my opinion (and assuming the lighting column

cannot be relocated or reduced in height), for the viewshaft infringement to be

acceptable, the proposed development should integrate a formalised seating area that

enables a clear and unobstructed view of the maunga, together with interpretative

signage explaining the geological, cultural and historic significance of the maunga and

viewshaft. This new formalised view should be clearly identified and described in the

Fowlds Park Reserve Management Plan and should be configured to ensure that the

District Plan height restrictions of viewshaft A11 that coincide with land that is outside

Fowlds Park remain valid.

5 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

5.1 Public submissions of relevance to landscape and visual effects raise concern with

respect to :

a. adverse effects in relation to the viewshaft;

b. adverse effects with respect to visual amenity values; and,

c. adverse effects in relation to aesthetic values of the park as a designed public

space.

5.2 My previous discussion addresses concerns with respect to the viewshaft infringement

and visual amenity values.

5.3 With respect to the adverse effects on the park as a designed public space, whilst I

recognise the importance of Fowlds Park as an example of one of New Zealand’s early

landscape architectural projects, I do not agree that the park needs to remain

‘unchanged’ and note that Fowlds Park has not been specifically identified as a public

landscape that is worthy of protection per se.

5.4 It is however critical that any proposed changes at Fowlds Park fit with the wider

aesthetic of the park landscape and for these reasons, further detail is required with

respect to a Landscape Plan for the proposal along the lines mentioned earlier.

5.5 It also seems fitting that Council takes the opportunity as part of this current phase of

redevelopment within the park to introduce signage that acknowledges the design

history of the park.

5.6 Further, I have a certain sympathy with submissions that suggest an alternate fibre

reinforced sand carpet solution to enable increased usage of the park for sports whilst

maintaining a ‘natural grass’ impression.

5.7 Whilst I acknowledge that such a proposal is outside the scope of the current

application, from a landscape and visual effects perspective, a ‘natural grass’ solution

would better maintain the existing relatively ‘low key’ and more traditional green

parkland character that is an important component of the identity of the Fowlds Park

landscape. Such a design approach suggests an appreciable benefit in terms of adverse

landscape and visual effects associated with the project.

81


5.8 To my mind (and acknowledging the ‘options analysis’ provided in the AEE that

addresses the merits of a ‘sand turf’ solution which I understand to be different to a

fibre reinforced sand carpet solution ), it would be beneficial for the applicant to clearly

explain why an artificial turf is preferred over a fibre reinforced sand carpet solution in

this location at the hearing. I do however appreciate that strictly speaking, my

assessment is confined to the artificial sportsfield scheme that has been proposed by

the applicant and that there is no obligation on their part to provide this information.

6 CONCLUSION

6.1 Overall, in my opinion, there is insufficient detail in the application to enable a

conclusion with respect to the adverse landscape and visual effects of the proposed

development.

6.2 The matters requiring further clarification at the hearing include:

a. Clarification of the visual appearance of the Strong Stone concrete block wall

to enable an evaluation of whether this aspect of the development will sit

comfortably within the existing parkland setting.

b. Clarification with respect to the establishment and maintenance of the Green

Terramesh retaining system.

c. Clarification with respect to the practicality of planting native species

throughout the gums along the northern edge of the park.

d. Clarification with respect to the technical limitations of the location and height

of the proposed lighting columns.

e. Clarification as to why an artificial turf is preferred (or required) over a ‘natural

grass’ reinforced turf solution at Fowlds Park (acknowledging that the applicant

is under no obligation to provide this information and this matter is a

suggestion only).

f. A scaled Landscape Plan detailing paving materials, a coordinated palette of

fencing styles/finishes, lighting column finishes and a formalised viewing point

of the maunga that is unobstructed by lighting columns (including the

reference to interpretive signage as described earlier).

g. Recommendations with respect to the potential for the Fowlds Park Reserve

Management Plan to be amended to reference the new formalised view of the

maunga that is unobstructed by lighting columns.

Should Council be minded to grant consent to the application in its current form, it is my

recommendation that the following conditions are incorporated:

1. A Landscape Plan shall be prepared by the consent holder for review by

Auckland Council’s Landscape Architect. The Landscape Plan shall show the

location and layout of all hard and soft landscape elements, including the

82


species, sizes and the time of planting and spacing of all tree and shrub

plantings.

2. All fencing shall comprise a consistent style where practicable, and be finished

in a black powder coat (or two pot, black epoxy) finish.

3. All lighting columns shall be finished in a colour to match the existing lighting

columns in Fowlds Park.

4. All paved areas shall be formed in exposed aggregate concrete with charcoal

oxide added.

5. All retaining structures shall be clad in scoria or basalt.

Should you wish to discuss the content of this memorandum or discuss anything further on

this application please contact me.

Yours sincerely, Bridget Gilbert Consultant Landscape Architect [B Hort, Dip LA, NZILA, ALI] On behalf of the Auckland Design Office Auckland Council Direct Dial: 021 661650 Email: [email protected]

83

1

Charlotte Hamilton-Pama

From: Paul HansenSent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015 1:14 p.m.To: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSubject: Fowlds Park

Charlotte Further to your brief and my site visit to Fowlds Park, Morningside, I wish to advise that I generally concur with the applicants arborist regarding the species list, the dimensions of height and spread of each tree and his comments regarding tree health and structure. I would like to point out however that Tree 15 in Figure 2 of the report ( Page 4) appears to be a Syzgygium not Pohutukawa as stated. That is the only mistake I can find . Please note that no pegs were on site, so the location and effect of the proposed excavation works could not be fully determined. In my opinion, the best standalone specimens on site are the Totara trees. These are listed as Tree 17 and 18 in Fig 2 of the report . The trees are excellent examples of their type and are growing in locations that can comfortably accommodate their future potential growth, both above and below ground. I cannot support any soil excavation works around these trees or severance of roots. Even moderate changes to the surrounding gradient or minor root severance would have an adverse effect on tree health Aside from the two large Totara, the remaining group of trees are of average form and structure. Please note, I did not inspect each tree closely. I note that several smaller native specimen trees and shrubs (Maramu Mahoe etc.) are located at the edge of the group as well as interspersed amongst them. This vegetation is not significant however collectively, it does add to the screening and density effect. Overall, the group provides significant visual amenity to the park. In my opinion, their location and contribution to amenity are a distinguishing feature. The fact that they screen the sports fields from the main road in and out of the park is what makes them so valuable to the setting . If the trees are removed, entering the park will be very much like entering any other, open , exposed and predictable. I do not support the proposal Paul Hansen Arborist – Regulatory

85

1


From: Paul HansenSent: Monday, 19 October 2015 1:22 p.m.To: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSubject: Folwds park

Hi Charlotte Further to your request for comments on the Fowlds Park replacement planting scheme I am comfortable with the proposal. I like the idea of the larger grade Rewarewa and Pohutukawa trees lining each side of the field. Some larger sized specimen trees should also possibly be included in the mass planting on the northern bank however . This would help to give the area a more established feel , quicker that the current planting . Other than that - the selection is good . Rimu, Tairere, Matai, Puriri, Nikau - all good choices Have they included an “aftercare maintenance programme” ?? Is someone going to come and check they don’t die from lack of water . What about damage or breakages to the trees by the public. Will these be replaced.? Regards Paul

87

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2

MEMO Date: 20 March 2015 To: C Hamilton-Pama – Planner From: S Paton - Development Engineering Division

Natural Resources & Specialists Unit Resource Consents Department - Central

__________________________________________________________ Subject: Regulatory Engineering Review

Resource Consent Application – R/LUC/2015/894 50 Western Springs Road – Fowlds Park

___________________________________________________________ I have looked through the application documentation. The works involve a sportsfield upgrade at Fowlds Park.

Work is described in the AEE as:

Lighting upgrades in conjunction with the works are also proposed:

These lighting works involve localised holes for the fondations and narrow trencing for cables. These works are small enough in scale that stability of the site and adcent properties would be unlikely.

89

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2

Within the park retaining walls as described below are proposed:

These works are away from boundaries and unlikely therefore to effect stability of adjacent sites. The following condition is recommended to ensure the walls are completed satisfactory form an engineering perspective:

The consent Holder shall engage an engineer to provide certification of the retaining construction. This shall be provided in writing to Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring – Central at the completion of the works. Note - Producer statements for design and site observation under the Building Act shall also be acceptable evidence of meeting the requirements of this condition.

Flood Plain A stormwater memo from Opus Ltd dated 18 Dec 2014 is provided commenting on the stormwater drainage/flooding systems and effects. In this case the analysis shows the development works are outside the flood plain and therefore will not alter the flood plain dynamics. No other properties will be effected by changes to flood waters. Freeboards to the works are also no applicable. Overland Flowpath The Opus report does identify local overland flows within the site. These are presently intercepted by existing surface drains and road formation within the reserve. The development works are therefore unlikely to effect these flowpaths. I would concur with these conclusions and can advise that entry and exit points will not change as a result of the works. Stormwater disposal The Opus report provides comments on the expected disposal arrangements for stormwater. Moderate soakage rates were achieved. The Opus report offers that the combination of permeable artificial surfaces, subsoil drainage and connections to park drainage systems. Any shortfalls in the overall disposal scheme will be an internal effect and be limited to the reserve. The Opus report states that no other properties will have worse runoff effects as a result. The OPUS analysis appears reasonable and I can advise that the overall design solutions are reasonable and appropriate for the development. The completed woks will be readily visible to Council’s monitoring staff so no special conditions are therefore required particularly as the works will be undertaken via Parks standard contracts.

Signed:

S Paton

90

1


From: Ruben NaidooSent: Friday, 30 October 2015 12:34 p.m.To: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSubject: RE: Artificial Turf- toxicity adviceAttachments: FW: Message from KMBT_C353 C35303692; FW: Message from KMBT_C353

C35303692; Stuff.co.nz - Artificial turf passes the test

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

Hello Charlotte, The potential toxicity of the artificial turf is outside of the TOR of Renate’s agreement in terms of reviewing consents from an NES perspective. The potential adverse effects of artificial turf is better addressed in terms of the Health Act. I have attached the Fact Sheet prepared by Parks that outlines their views after reviewing the limited research on this topic. Licensing and Compliance Services had no input into this document. However, reviewing the limited research available the major concerns stem from the infill material that is derived from scrap tyres. Tyre rubber crumb contains a range of organic contaminants and heavy metals that can volatilize into the air and/or leach into the percolating rainwater, thereby posing a potential risk to the environment and human health. A limited number of studies have shown that the concentrations of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in the air above artificial turf fields were typically not higher than the local background, while the concentrations of heavy metals and organic contaminants in the field drainages were generally below the respective regulatory limits within the US.

Health risk assessment studies suggested that users of artificial turf fields, even professional athletes, were not exposed to elevated risks. Preliminary life cycle assessment suggested that the environmental impacts of artificial turf fields were lower than equivalent grass fields.

The article in the East & Bays Courier refers .

You may prefer referring to Marcus regarding this as well

Regards,

Ruben Naidoo | Environmental Health Specialist Licensing and Compliance Services - Central Ph (09) 353 9078 | Ext (40) 9078 | Fax (09) 353 9091 Auckland Council , Level 1, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2015 10:06 a.m. To: Ruben Naidoo Subject: Artificial Turf- toxicity advice Hi Ruben,

103

2

As per our discussion this morning, I have an application for the installation of artificial turf at Fowlds Park. The application was reviewed by Renate of Andrew Stewart Limited, who deemed the proposal to be acceptable from an NES perspective but did not address the potential toxicity effects of the turf itself. A number of submitters have raised concerns about the toxic materials used to make the turf crumb rubber and the odour associated with this. The submitters believe that the materials used have cancerous properties. The submission points are very general. The Pdf I have attached with the submissions is lengthy , but in short the submitters note: “the characteristics of the selected turf material are such that they involve soil contamination and odour and are a potential health risk to user of the park and immediate neighbours” . Submission 81, 83, 86, 102, 104, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 130, 132, 139, 146, 148, 149, 150 and 152 all simply state the same line above. I will send through a scan later of just those listed submission points or provide you with a hard copy. I’m experiencing printer problems at the moment. Thank‐you kindly for your advice and I look forward to receiving a response. Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Intermediate Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

104

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fowlds Park _Tech Memo_March 2015 1

Technical Memorandum

To: Charlotte Hamilton-Parma

FROM: Renate Schütte, Andrew.Stewart Ltd.

DATE: 8 November 2015

SUBJECT: NES PEER REVIEW: R/LUC/2015/896 AND R/REG/20156/897 – FOWLDS PARK, 50 WESTERN SSPRINGS ROAD, WESTERN SPRINGS

As requested, the above application and relevant supporting information has been reviewed with reference to the

requirements of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human

Health (NES Soil). This technical memorandum has been prepared on behalf of, and reviewed and approved by, Regional

Environmental Control, Licensing and Compliance, Auckland Council.

The information reviewed includes the following:

1. Environmental Site Investigation Report, Fowlds Park Artificial Sports Field (Opus, June 2014); and

2. Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Effects on the Environment, Fowlds Park, 50 Western

Springs Road, Morningside, Proposed Sports Field Upgrade (Opus, March 2015).

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to upgrade the existing grassed upper field and netball court at Fowlds Park to a new artificial turf covering

approximately 1 hectare. Proposed works also include retaining walls, fencing and footpaths, lighting and carparking.

The broader site was historically quarried and largely filled with uncertified rubble/rock.

Earthworks of approximately 600m3 of cut and 6,700m3 of fill are estimated over an area of some 1.2 hectares.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT (OPUS, 2014)

The Environmental Site Investigation Report has identified that the area proposed to be developed as an artificial turf was

formed in the late 1920’s by basalt rock quarrying, followed by importation of rock/rubble fill and mixed topsoil - silty ash.

Reference has been made to part of Fowlds Park having been historically used as a refuse tip. The report has clarified that

there is no evidence from historical photos or the results of a geotechnical investigation to suggest that any part of the

refuse tip was located within the site proposed to be developed as an artificial turf.

Borelogs provided with the report typically show a shallow topsoil layer of around 200mm thick, underlain by rubbly basalt

fill to approximately 1m depth and followed by in-situ basalt rock.

The report has described the composite sampling undertaken for spray residues in the turf zone (0-60mm) as well as test

pit sampling for potential contaminants in imported fill materials in the subsurface (200mm – 500mm). The sampling has

shown low levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in all soils tested (range 0.1mg/kg – 1.83mg/kg) as well as

chromium concentrations above background levels (21mg/kg – 230mg/kg) in most soils tested. Organochlorine pesticides

(OCP), organonitro and phosphorous pesticides (ONOPP) and acid herbicides (AH) have been reported as below

laboratory detection limits in all soils. All potential contaminants have been reported as below the NES SGV for

recreational landuse.

107


The report has maintained that the levels of contamination are unlikely to pose a significant hazard to the health and safety

of construction workers.

The report has indicated that the uppermost 0.3m of silty topsoil / ash fill will be excavated and that this may be re-used as

engineered fill. In the event that the basalt rubble fill is excavated it has been suggested that this may be re-used as bulk

fill. It has been concluded that excavated material is not regarded as “cleanfill” and should be disposed of as “managed fill”

if taken off site.

It has been recommended that a Site Management Plan (SMP) be prepared for the proposed works and that application

for an NES Controlled Activity consent be made.

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION (Opus, March 2015)

Earthworks have been described as comprising 600m3 of cut and 6,700m3 of fill, with any imported fill material to be

certified as cleanfill.

Reference has been made to the Environmental Site Investigation Report by Opus (2014) and application for resource

consent as a controlled activity has been applied for under Regulation 9 of the NES Soil.

An assessment of the controlled activity criteria under Regulation 9 has been provided. It has been documented that a

SMP will be prepared prior to works to provide a management framework for the proposed earthworks.

It has been considered by the applicant that any potential risk of contamination on the site can be adequately managed,

and that as such, the actual and potential adverse effects are less than minor.

PEER REVIEW COMMENTS

We provide the following commentary on the information reviewed above:

1. It is considered that the DSI has been undertaken and reported in general accordance with Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1 and 5 (MfE, 2011).

2. We note that sampling has been conducted in the turf zone (0-60mm) and the underlying fill materials (200mm – 500mm). It is considered that there is a potential for elevated levels of contaminants to be present immediately below the turf zone (between 60mm and 200mm) due to leaching through sandy materials associated with the turf zone. However, given that sampling has demonstrated that both the turf zone soils and deeper rubbly fill have low levels of PAH and metals, it is considered that additional sampling of this intermediate zone is not essential and is unlikely to change the conclusions reached by the DSI. On the basis of the results presented in the DSI it is considered highly unlikely that contaminant concentrations will exceed the NES SCS in this intermediate zone.

3. We agree that material excavated on site is suitable for re-use and that any material removed from the site is not considered to meet cleanfill criteria and requires appropriate disposal as managed fill.

4. It is considered that the proposed SMP, together with a Site Specific Safety Plan (SSSP) to be documented prior to any construction work, can provide adequate procedures for potential site contamination issues, including the accidental discovery of contamination.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that application for resource consent for soil disturbance as a controlled activity under Regulation 9 of the

NES Soil is appropriate. It is considered that implementation of a Council-approved SMP and the recommended conditions

of consent provided below during the proposed works will suitably assist in managing adverse effects on the human health

of workers, neighbouring residents and the public.

108


RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

The following conditions are recommended for consideration.

1. Prior to any earthworks, a Contaminated Site Management Plan (herein referred to as the CSMP) shall be

documented to ensure the health and safety of workers on the site, and members of the public in the vicinity. The

CSMP shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring, Central Resource Consenting &

Compliance, Auckland Council for review and approval at least one month prior to commencement of any

earthworks. The CSMP shall include, but not be limited to the following:

− Contingency plans for the accidental discovery of contamination (including asbestos);

− Protocols for the identification, handling, transportation and disposal of potentially contaminated soil and groundwater;

− Dust management;

− Stormwater management and erosion/sediment controls; and

− Training and Health and Safety.

2. All necessary action shall be taken to prevent dust generation and sufficient water shall be available to dampen exposed soil, and/or other dust suppressing measures shall be available to avoid dust formation. The consent holder shall ensure that dust management during the excavation works generally complies with the Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, MfE (2001).

3. In the event of the accidental discovery of contamination, including asbestos material, and including any visible change in the nature of sub-surface material, works shall cease until such time that a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Professional (SQEP) has assessed the situation (including possible sampling and testing) and decided on the best option for managing the material.

5. A site-specific health and safety plan shall be in place at all times

6. Good practice hygiene measures shall be adopted during site works and adequate decontamination and wash-up facilities shall be provided.

7. Erosion and sediment controls shall be put in place to ensure that the generation of potentially contaminated sediment and stormwater is minimised and managed, according to the site specific erosion and sediment control plan.

8. Stockpiling shall be avoided if possible. If required, stockpiles will be placed within the excavation footprint. Stockpiles shall be completely covered with polythene or equivalent impermeable material and anchored at the edges when not being worked on.

9. Excavated material that is not re-used on site shall not be disposed of as cleanfill but at an appropriate facility licensed to accept the levels of contamination identified.

10. All imported material shall be demonstrated to meet the definition of “cleanfill” as per the Guide to the Management of Cleanfills (MfE, 2002) and tested at a rate of 1 sample per 500m3 of material imported.

109

Technical memo – Natural Resources & Specialist Input Unit

To: Charlotte Hamilton – Pama - Lead Planner, Resource Consents

From: Larrissa Wilkinson – Consultant to Earthworks and Contaminated Land, Natural Resources and Specialist Input Unit, Resource Consents

Date: 26th May 2015

1.0 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

Application and property details

Applicant's Name: Auckland Council

Application number: R/LUC/2015/896

NRSI file number: 25520

NRSI purpose description: To undertake 6,700m³ of earthworks over 1.2ha associated with the construction of an artificial turf and alteration of existing carpark layout.

Site address: 50 Western Springs Road, Western Springs

2.0 PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

2.1 Proposal relevant to this consent only

A full description of the proposal is provided in the following reports:

- ‘Fowlds Park, 50 Western Springs Road, Morningside, Proposed Sports Field Upgrade, Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Effects on the Environment’ prepared by Opus International Consultants Ltd and dated March 2015 (hereby referred to as the application report).

In brief:

Earthworks will involve 600m3 of cut and 6,700m3 of fill over an area of 1.2ha.

The works will involve the construction of retaining walls that will be backfilled

111

Consent: R/LUC/2015/896 2 Address: 50 Western Springs Road, Western Springs

Any imported fill material will be certified clean fill.

The main methods of sediment and erosion controls proposed are in accordance with the guidelines in Auckland Council’s Technical Publication 90 – Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (TP90). They include diversion bunds, silt fence, cesspit protection and stabilised construction entrance.

The applicant describes the site in section 2 of the application report. The total site is 11.84ha in area and is currently an existing sports and recreational park.

The area surrounding Fowlds Park comprises varying residential, commercial and industrial zones. The north-eastern edge of the park borders Western Springs Road, which runs along a ridgeline between St Lukes Road and New North Road. The park drops steeply from the road into the site, with gradients easing towards the existing sports fields, which are formed on three terraces. The park also includes car parking and club rooms and is bounded to the west by Malvern Road, to the south by residential properties and to the east by other clubrooms and the Rocky Nook bowling club. The receiving environment of the site is public stormwater reticulation that ultimately discharges to Meola Creek and the Waitemata Harbour.

The site is located within an area identified as “potential overland flow path low hazard” which means development is expected to have negligible effect on flood extent and level. However, the proposed retaining wall may result an overland flow path extending further into the lower field.

2.2 Background and site history relevant to this consent only

No consents have been held for the site prior to this application.

3.0 REASON FOR CONSENT – EARTHWORKS

3.1 Reasons for consent

Land use consent for earthworks is required under the provisions of Rule H 4.2.1.1 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Consent for a discretionary activity is required under this rule as more than 2500m2 and/or 2500m3 of earthworks are proposed in a Public Open Space Zone.

Land use consent is required pursuant to rule H.4.2.1.2 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) as the earthworks exceed 1,000m2 and/or 1,000m3 within the 100 year ARI floodplain. This is a restricted discretionary activity.

Land use consent for earthworks is required under the provisions of Rule 5.4.3.1 of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ACRPS). Consent for restricted discretionary activity is required under this rule as more than 2500m2 and/or 2500m3 of earthworks are proposed in an area where the land has a slope greater than or equal to 150.

112


4.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

4.1 Assessment of effects on the environment

This memo is the technical assessment of the earthworks and sediment control methodologies relating to the matters over which Council has restricted its exercise of its discretion as outlined at PAUP, Part 3, Chapter H, 4.2.3.1a-e, 1h, 1o, 2a, 2d and ACRPS, section 5.4.3.1.

The applicant has proposed mitigation to address adverse effects and this can be summarised as follows:

Erosion and sediment control measures will be established prior to commencement of earthworks and will remain until the site has been stabilised.

A cleanwater diversion is to be installed along the Northern perimeter to divert runoff away from the earthworks area and direct overland flow to catchpits that will be protected.

A silt fence will be installed around the downstream perimeter of the excavation area.

A stabilised construction entrance will be installed to minimise the transfer of sediment onto the road.

The erosion and sediment controls will be monitored to ensure their continued maintenance.

The applicant has clarified that all methodologies and devices will be implemented in accordance with the Council’s TP 90 and industry best practice.

The applicant has concluded that overall, the adverse effects on the environment resulting from the earthworks activity are anticipated to be less than minor.

It is agreed that the erosion and sediment controls proposed will be in accordance with TP90 when considered in the context of . In conjunction with the recommended conditions., Consequently, applicant’s assessment is considered to adequately identify the potential effects resulting from the proposal, concluding that they be less than minor. . .

The proposed controls, namely the cleanwater diversion, silt fence, catchpit protection and stabilised construction entrance are considered appropriate given the receiving environment and volume of earthworks that are proposed.

While short sections of steeper slopes will be worked during the construction of the retaining walls, most of the exposed earthworks area will be flat. Consequently, the site’s potential for sediment generation during rainfall is relatively low.

113


The applicant has stated that the earthworks will be undertaken within the 2015-2016 earthworks season. Given the nature of the proposal, the characteristics of the subject site and receiving environment, it is not considered necessary to impose a condition that would restrict the time of year when the earthworks can take place.

If implemented correctly I agree with the applicant that the adverse effects relating to silt and sediment from the earthworks proposed will not be significant and will be appropriately managed and mitigated.

5.0 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Objectives and policies of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control

The following objectives and policies are relevant:

Objectives 5.1.1 and 5.1.2

Policies 5.2.1 and 5.2.2

5.2 Objectives and policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The following objectives and policies are relevant:

C.5.2 – Earthworks

o Objectives C.5.2.1, 2 and 3

o Policies C.5.2.2-5

o Discharge Policies C.5.2.5

5.3 Other statutory documents

Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Chapter 8 Water Quality

Policy 8.4.1 – avoid adverse effects on water quality caused by the discharge of contaminants (including non-point source discharges) particularly potentially toxic, persistent or bio-accumulative contaminants

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

The Waitemata Harbour would be the ultimate receiving environment for any sediment that is transported from the site, therefore, the NZCPS is considered relevant. The NZCPS provides policies to achieve the purpose of the RMA, in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand. Consideration of the NZCPS is required by the consenting authority subject to Part 2 of the RMA.

5.4 Duration of consent: Section 123

114


A term of consent consistent with the default lapsing date of 5 years is consider appropriate for this proposal. The stated construction period will see completion by the end of 2016.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS

6.1 Conditions

It is considered appropriate to include a standard suite of consent conditions as these measures will ensure that the proposal’s effects will be appropriately managed. The following conditions are recommended:

X.1 The earthwork activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application and under section 92, outlined below and all referenced by Council as R/LUC/2015/896.

Report

‘Fowlds Park, 50 Western Springs Road, Morningside, Proposed Sports Field Upgrade, Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Effects on the Environment’ prepared by Opus International Consultants Ltd and dated March 2015.

Plans

‘Auckland Council – Western Springs Artificial Field, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan’, Drawing No 1/1167/54/6134,Rev A, Prepared by Opus Consultants International Ltd, dated 22 December 2014.

Advice Note:

In the event that minor amendments to the erosion and / or sediment controls are required, any such amendments should be limited to the scope of this consent. Any amendments which affect the performance of the controls may require an application to be made in accordance with section 127 of the RMA. Any minor amendments should be provided to the Team Leader, Central Monitoring prior to implementation to confirm that they are within the scope of this consent.

Pre-commencement meeting

X.2 Prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity, the consent holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that:

a) Is located on the subject site

b) Is scheduled not less than five days before the anticipated commencement of earthworks

c) Includes Auckland Council officer[s]

d) Includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works

115


The meeting shall discuss the erosion and sediment control measures, the earthworks methodology and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent.

A pre-start meeting shall be held prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity in each period between October 1 and April 30 that this consent is exercised.

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

e) Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent

f) Resource consent conditions

g) A copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan referenced in condition X.1.

Advice Note:

To arrange the pre-start meeting required by Condition (X2) please contact the Team Leader, Central Monitoring on [email protected] or 09 3010101 . The conditions of consent should be discussed at this meeting. All additional information required by the Council should be provided 2 days prior to the meeting.

X.3 Erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the erosion and sediment control plan referenced in condition x.1 unless an amendment to the plan is approved by the manager. Each control shall comply with Auckland Regional Council’s Technical Publication 90; Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region and any amendments to this document, except where a higher standard is detailed in the documents referred to in conditions above, in which case the higher standard shall apply.

X.4 All perimeter and erosion sediment control measures shall be installed prior to other earthworks commencing on site.

7.0 REVIEW

116

mailto:[email protected]


Memo prepared by: Sediment Management Consultant

Larrissa Wilkinson

Natural Resources and Specialist Input, Resource Consents

Date: 26 May 2015

Technical memo reviewed and approved for release by:

David Hampson

Team Leader, Earthworks and Contaminated Land Natural Resources and Specialist Input, Resource Consents

Date: 27 May 2015

117

ATTACHMENT 4 TABLE OF SUBMISSIONS

No.

Name

Physical Address

Stance Issues Raised

Relief Sought

Wish to be heard?

1 David P C Smith

20 Springfield Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

2 Simon Williams

29A Western Springs Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D Yes

3 Andrew Holmes

28 Wolseley Street

Neutral

33, 34 B No

4

Samuel Icke

5/2 Mountain View Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D Yes

5

Su Fung Lim

2A Linwood Avenue

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D Yes

6 Paul Ketko 17 Malvern Road Oppose 1, 5, 8 D No 7

Briar Green

115 Western Springs Road

Oppose

1, 2, 5, 8, 15

D No

8 Nicholas McHarg


Oppose

4 D No

9

Klaus & Anne Lengauer

18 Malvern Road

Oppose

1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 15

D No

10

Phillip Kiernan

32 Renfrew Avenue

Oppose

5 D No

11 Sione A Tukia 38 Cardigan Street Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

12

Jo Sutherland

201/64 Surrey Crescent

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

13 The Tree Council

PO Box 28272

Oppose

1, 2,4, 5, 8

D Yes

14

Jacqueline Peterson

11/29 Rossmay Terrace

Oppose

1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 15

D Yes

15

Marise Henry

5/669 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

16

Marianne van der Haas

39/59 Sackville Street

Oppose

4, 9, 15 D No

17

Jonthan Turner

74 Malvern Road

Oppose

1, 4 D Not Stated

18 Chris Hansen 15 Lawrence Road Oppose

1 D Yes

19 Ann L Mitcalfe

4 Hadfield Terrace

Oppose

1, 5, 8, 15 D No

20

Emma E Chapman 57 Finch Street

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D Yes

21 James E Hosking

51 Dryden Street

Neutral

31 B No

22

Philip J Hurdle

26 Sylvan Avenue

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15

D

Not Stated

23

Franziska Poeschl

9 Ayr Street

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

119

24

Natalie Clark

77 Dryden Street

Oppose

1, 4, 5, 8, 15

D No

25

Rose Meyer

613 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

26 Dorothy Bauld 6A Alice Avenue Oppose 4, 5 D Yes 27

John & Susan McMillan

11 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18

D Yes

28 Malcolm Nuttall

63 First Avenue

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

29

Jacqueline R Dunn

41B Leslie Avenue

Oppose

1, 8 D No

30

Siting Pan

709 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

31

Yaohui Huang

709 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

32 Josiah Dodson

709 New North Road

Oppose

4, 15 D No

33 Nigel C Williams

24 Brewster Avenue

Support

23, 24, 27 A No

34 Heather Windsor

709 New North Road

Oppose

1, 4 D No

35

Michaela Finis

709 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D Yes

36

Jasmine M Dodson

709 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

37 Natalie J Rogers

709 New North Road

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

38

Stephanie A Forde

701D New North Road

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15

D No

39

Joan F & Christopher B Panting

10 Warwick Street

Oppose

1, 4, 8, 15 D No

40 Dorina Jotti 18 Wairere Avenue Oppose

8 D No

41 Philip Gasparini

93A Western Springs Road Oppose

4, 15 D Yes

42

Jennifer Barrett

29 Lawrie Avenue

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 15

D No

43

Maddy Schafer

10 Omega Street

Oppose

1, 5, 8 D No

44

Seonaid C Abernethy

295C Mt Eden Road

Oppose

1, 4, 5, 16 D Yes

45

Fern M Mercier

21 Francis Street

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15

D Yes

120

46

Ron McMillan

[email protected]

Support

24, 28, 29 A Not Stated

47

Dervla O'Kane

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

48

Niall Hartigan

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

49

Damien McKenna

[email protected]

Support

25 A Not Stated

50 Blair G Giles 69 Malvern Road Oppose 4, 5, 12 D Yes 51

Janet Bogle

6 Gladfield Lane

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 15

D Yes

52

Maurice Deevy

[email protected]

Support

25 A Not Stated

53

Gerard Connor

C/- The Fletcher Construction Company Ltd

Support

A Not Stated

54

Marie Harris


Oppose

1, 4, 5, 8, 15

D No

55

Lisa Kemp

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

56

Colin Treacy

[email protected]

Support

25,29 A Not Stated

57

Donal Ahern

[email protected]

Support

25, 27 A Not Stated

58

Gayle O'Flanagan

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

59

David Semp


Oppose

1, 4, 8 D No

60

Steve and Helen Coyte

26 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13

D Yes

61

Auckland Softball Association

PO Box 26599

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

62

Stefanie Trutanic

67A Alexander Street

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

63

Cameron Smith

67A Alexander Street

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

64

Barbara Croawell

21 Athenry Place

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

65

Dean Josephs

2/8 Bechmark Drive

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

121















66

Rose Moreland

23 Earlsworth Road

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

67

Glenda Lamb

1/29A Taumata Road

Support

24, 25, 27,29

A Not Stated

68

Jin Tai


Oppose

1, 4, 8 D No

69

Sherrilyn Cook

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

70

Shannen Kroon

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

71

Ashley Kroon

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

72

Sally-Ann Honai

661 Mt Wellington Highway

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A

Not Stated

73 Mara Fisher 26 Pine Street Oppose 1, 2, 5, 8 D No 74

Mt Albert Ramblers Softball Club Inc

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

75

Aileen Bradley

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

76

Wiremu Campbell

2A/163 Portland Road

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

77

Karen McCrindle

12 Quibray Place

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

78 David Sorenson

27 Waimarie Road

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A

Not Stated 79

Margaret Tolhopf

4 Raddock Place

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

80

Sherif Ibrahim

16B Wolseley Street

Support

25, 27 A

Not Stated

81

Yvonne Kaeppeli

20 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11

D Yes

82

Joylene Malofie

[email protected]

Support

4, 5, 8, 10 A Not Stated

83 Christie R Arnot

7 Sainsbury Road Oppose

1, 4, 8, 10 No

122













84

Auckland Softball Scorers Association

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

85

Blair Bourgeois

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

86

Barbara M De Lange

7 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13

D Yes

87

Ruth Cobb

73 Wairere Road

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

88

Roger Marshman

Naylor Love Construction

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

89

Julie Richards

57 Lynwood Road

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A

Not Stated

90

Mercedes O'Connor

[email protected]

Support

A

Not Stated 91

Jana Makar

[email protected]

Support

24, 25 A No

92

Ngati Whatua Orakei

32-34 Mahuhu Crescent

Neutral

30, 31 B No

93

Doire Reid

17 Pendlebury Street

Support

24, 25 A No

94

Kathryn and Graham O'Neill

25 Wolseley Street

Oppose

1, 2, 16, 20

D No

95

Friends of Fowlds Park Incorporated Society Helen Jermyn


Oppose

8 A Yes

96

Auckland Rugby League Inc

PO Box 112234

Support

24 A Not stated

97

Dirk McGregor

327 Hillsborough Road

Support

24, 25, 27, 29

A Not Stated

98 Michelle Little 7 Balmer Lane Oppose 2, 3, 4, D No

99

John Booth

[email protected]

Support

30 A

Not Stated 100

Mark McLeay

[email protected]

Support

24, 27 A Not Stated

101

Mark Beford

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

123











102

Mark Wilson

9 Malvern Road

Oppose

2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13

D No

103 Liam O'Keeffe 99 Isabella Drive Support 24, 27 A No 104 Susan Berman

17 Malvern Road

Oppose

4, 5, 8, 10 D Yes

105

Katherine Poi

[email protected]

Support

27 A

Not Stated 106

S McAra & A Croucher

6/21A Malvern Road

Oppose

1, 4, 8, 15 D No

107

Jeremy Gray

[email protected]

Support

24, 27 A Not Stated

108 Jeremy Galvin 3 Brewster Avenue Oppose

1, 4, 8 D No

109

Aeron Petrie

2A Springfield Road

Oppose

1, 8 D No

110 Florence Hassall

20 Burnley Terrace

Oppose

4 A No

111

Glenn Bell

1/667 New North Road

Oppose

1 D No

112

Chris & Arthur Berman

Apt B Waitakere Gardens 15 Sel Peacock Drive

Oppose

1, 4 D No

113

Daphne A Lawless


Support

24, 27 A No

114

Matthew D McMenamin

22 Wolseley Street

Oppose

1, 7 D No

115 Cristina Billett 2 Parkhill Road Oppose 1, 4, 8 D No

116 Jennifer Anyan & John Gabriel

6 Rocky Nook Avenue

Oppose

1, 4, 5, 8 D No

117 Michael Leonard 37 Malvern Road

Oppose

1, 5 D Yes

118

Ross West

9 Westmoreland Street West

Oppose

5, 8, 10, 11, 13

D Yes

119

Valerie E Carter

9 Lancaster Street

Oppose

5, 8, 10, 11, 13

D Yes

120 Sinead Ennis 4 Freemont Street Support

24, 27 A No

121

Auckland Gaelic Athletic Association Brian Walsh

PO Box 6519

Support

24, 27 A Yes

122

Joan Callis

13 Richbourne Street

Oppose

5, 8, 10, 11, 13

D Yes

124





123

V Grbic, T Hoskins & R Grbick-Hoskins

3 Wolseley Street

Oppose

1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15

D No

124

Phil Crump

[email protected]

Support

24, 25, 27 A Not Stated

125

Alicia E Bailie

3 Malvern Road

Oppose

4, 5, 10, 15

D Yes

126 Ian J Bailie 3 Malvern Road Oppose 1, 5, 10 D Yes 127 Eileen D Burton

1/21A Malvern Road Oppose

1, 2, 4, 8, D Yes

128

Julia Thomson Friends of Fowlds Park

7/3 Wallingford Street

Oppose

8, 10 D Yes

129

Steve Buckingham Asplundh

PO Box 14-501

Support

24, 27 A Not Stated

130

Richard J Howarth

8D/20 Oriental Terrace

Oppose

4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13,

D No

131

New Zealand Tag Football Inc

[email protected]

Support

24, 27 A Not Stated

132 Katherine Ryan 8 Parkhill Road

Oppose

1, 4, 8, 10,

D No

133

Carolyn Mary Lewis

19 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 4 D No

134

Sarah Anne Berman 56 Rauhori Road

Oppose

1, 4, 8, 11 D Yes

135 Gavin Murphy 38/2 Cawley Street Support

24, 27 A No

136

Greg Smith

29 Mt Saint John Avenue

Oppose

2 D Yes

137

Lynette & Dudley Bell 27C Shaw Road

Oppose

1, 4, 8, 12 D Not Stated

138

Michael Moriarty

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

139

Mary Tallon


Oppose

2, 4, 10, 15

D Yes

140

Selwyn Pearson- Rugby League Development Foundation

Po BOX 112234

Support

24, 25, 27 A Not stated

141

Audrey Van Ryn

5C, 28 Wellesley Street East

Oppose

1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15

D No

142 Patricia Milligan

218A Point Chevalier Road

Oppose

1, 4, 8 15 D No

143

Dorothy Una Maddock

75A Methuen Road

Oppose

1, 8, 15, D Yes

125





144

Kane Norton

PO Box 41115 St Lukes

Support

21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

A Yes

145

Wendy Lorraine Donald

677 New North Road

Oppose

2, 5, 7, 8, 15

D No

146

Andrew Neal McCully

3/7 Hampstead Road

Oppose

5, 6, 10, 12, 15

D Yes

147

Anna Lockyer & Jonathan Boow

679 New North Road

Oppose

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15

D Yes

148

Elsa Ellen Carter

27 Malvern Road

Oppose

2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13

D Yes

149

Friends of Fowlds Park Incorporated

26 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13

D Yes

150

Brian Hugh Paterson Carter

27 Malvern Road

Oppose

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15

D Yes

153

Angus MacLean de Lange

7 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13

D

Not Stated

154

Barbara MacLean de Lange (this is a duplicate to submission 86)

7 Brewster Avenue

Oppose

1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13

D

Not Stated

157

Laurie Ross

71C Woodglen Road

Oppose

1, 2, 4, 8 D No

159

Jennifer R Carryer

43 Willcott Street

Oppose

20 D No

Late submissions 151 Mathew Maiden

30 Bannerman Road

Oppose

5 D No

152

Mary Egan

606/28 College Hill Road

Oppose

2, 4, 5, 8, 10

D No

155

Ruth Puka

AJ Park

Oppose

4, 5, 7, 9 A Not Stated

156

Grant Brosnan

23 Puketitiro Street

Support

24, 25, 27,29

A

Not Stated

158

Thomas McLoughlin

[email protected]

Support

A Not Stated

126

160 Lorraine M Clark

1A Mountain View Road

Support 22 D Yes

Note: Submissions in italics identify late submissions received. It is noted that submission # 154 is a duplicate of submission #86.

127

ATTACHMENT 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

2 June 2015

Charlotte Hamilton-Pana

Planner

Auckland Council

Central Resource Consenting and Compliance

Level 1 West

35 Graham Street

Auckland

1-95496.00

Dear Charlotte,

50 Western Springs Road- Fowlds Park Artificial Sports Field Application

R/LUC/2015/896

This letter has been prepared in response to a request for further information under

Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to 50 Western Springs

Road- Fowlds Park Artificial Sports Field Application R/LUC/2015/896.

As discussed during our meeting on the Wednesday 13th of May 2015, Auckland Council

Parks, Sport and Recreation is yet to confirm funding for this project. Accordingly, the

rationale for this response is to avoid where possible the need to provide changes and

updates to the preliminary design detail which would induce additional upfront costs to

the project. Instead Auckland Council Parks, Sport and Recreation would prefer to rely

on a suite of consent conditions which will direct detailed design of the project once

funding has been secured.

The following addresses those matters raised in the section 92 request:

Transport Matters:

Q1. Confirm whether a safety audit has been undertaken for the changes proposed

changes [sic].

A1. A safety Audit has not been prepared as part of the preliminary design for the

project. However, a safety audit is to be prepared during detailed design for the

project.

Auckland Council Parks Sports and Recreation are happy to include this requirement

as a condition of consent.

Opus International Consultants Ltd Auckland Environmental Management The Westhaven Building, 100 Beaumont St, Westhaven PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141 New Zealand t: 09 355 5900 f: 09 355 5980 w: www.opus.co.nz

129

Q2. The ‘Fowlds Park – Pedestrian Safety Improvements Study’ prepared by Opus

has highlighted that crossing sight distance for pedestrians at the proposed

crossing north west of the club room carpark (refer to drawing #1/1167/54/6134

Sheet 12 ‘Plan-New Pedestrian Crossing 3’) will be significantly restricted if

vehicles are parked in the adjacent car parks. Visibility of pedestrians by drivers

in on-coming vehicles will also be significantly restricted. This is a major safety

concern for pedestrians but this has not been included on the drawings. Please

provide the rationale for not including the proposed mitigation measures (that

is, to providing a kerb build out on the northern side of the crossing to improve

pedestrian/vehicle inter-visibility as suggested in Opus’s report) with regard to

improving pedestrian safety.

A2. The plans provided with the resource consent application are preliminary and

indicative of the development. As such detail such as kerb build and raised platforms

are not included in these drawings. However, the drawing plans will be updated

during detailed design to include these features.



Q3. Crossing sight distance is also insufficient at the proposed pedestrian crossing to

the north east of the proposed netball courts (refer to drawing #1/116/154/6134

Sheet 10 ‘Plan-New pedestrian Crossing 1’). Please provide the rationale for not

including the proposed mitigation measures (that is, to providing a kerb build

out on the northern side of the crossing to improve pedestrian/vehicle inter-

visibility as suggested in Opus’s report) with regard to improving pedestrian

safety.

A3. The site meets approach sight distance sightline requirements for both sides of

the crossing and crossing sight distance requirements is not met on one side of road

only. While it is desirable to meet all sightline requirements, it is not possible to meet

this everywhere over the existing road layout. The minimum standard is to meet the

approach sight distance requirements which it does in this case.

‘Approach site distance’ is the distance a driver needs to be able to stop without

hitting a pedestrian on the crossing. Crossing sight distance is the distance required

so that a pedestrian can cross the full width of the road without the car requiring to

stop at all.

As detailed in the previous response the plans provided with the resource consent

application are preliminary and indicative of the development. As such detailed

design elements are not included in these drawings. However, the drawing plans will

be updated during detailed design to include no stopping lines next to the pedestrian

crossing facility to ensure parking does not affect visibility.



Q4. It is stated in the report that in order to accommodate the increased field size

and retaining walls, there will be a loss of nine parking spaces north of the

Rugby league building. Have any parking occupancy surveys been carried out

130

during peak times to assess the actual effects of this loss of parking, especially

given that Opus states the upgrades ‘will facilitated increased community use of

the park’? Please provide comment on the effects this will have on on-street

parking in the surrounding local streets.

A4. Rule 12.8.1.1 of the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section (ACDP:

Isthmus Section) provides the parking space requirements for activities across the

Isthmus, while Rule H.1.2.3.2 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

provides the parking space requirement for activities across the region. With regards

to sports grounds and playing fields, the ACDP: Isthmus Section standards are

divided into four requirements based on the intensity of the associated activity. The

rugby league fields and netball courts fit into the “medium intensity activities” and

“high intensity activities” categories, respectively, the parking standards for which are

as follows:

Medium Intensity Activities: “Twelve and a half spaces for every one

hectare devoted to the activity.”

High Intensity Activities: “Twenty five spaces for every one hectare

devoted to the activity”.

Under the PAUP, all sports and recreational facilities have a standard requirement of

12.5 spaces per hectare.

Dimensions were determined by the standard rugby league and netball court

dimensions, these being:

Rugby League Field: 8296m2 (122m long by 68m wide)

Netball Court: 465.125m2 (30.5m long by 15.25m wide)

In consideration of the permitted parking standards outlined within ACDP: Isthmus

Section and the PAUP, the tables below detail the existing and proposed parking

requirements and provisions for Fowlds Park. The existing and proposed provisions

have been based on the following layout of the Fowlds Park:

Existing: Three full size rugby league fields, one half size rugby league field

and two full size netball courts.

Proposed: Three full size rugby league fields, one half size rugby league field,

one full size netball courts and one half size netball court.

In consideration of the parking requirements and provisions both the existing and

proposed parking layouts will provide an excess in parking to the minimum parking

requirements of both the ACDP: Isthmus Section and the PAUP. Accordingly, this

aspect of the proposed works is a permitted activity and does not require resource

consent.

As detailed by Arrigato Investments Ltd v Auckland RC 11/09/01, CA84/01, [2002] 1

NZLR 323 permitted activities form the permitted baseline, for which associated

effects can be disregarded during the assessment of an application for resource

131

consent. Accordingly, in this instance as the changes in parking provisions are

permitted under both the ACDP: Isthmus Section and the PAUP, further assessment

of parking is not considered to be warranted.

However, it is noted that regardless of the changes to parking numbers at Fowlds

Park, the proposed works will not provide for additional field use during peak

demand periods, but will rather provide for an increased reliability of use and longer

duration of use for the Number 3 field. As such, this will have no effect on the

existing peak parking demand associated with the Park, as there are no additional

fields being added to the site.

132

E

xis

tin

g P

ar

kin

g P

ro

vis

ion

s a

nd

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

A

rea

(m

2)

Pa

rkin

g R

equ

irem

ents

P

rov

isio

n

Su

rplu

s (+

/-)

AC

OD

P:

Isth

mu

s S

ecti

on

P

AU

P

AC

OD

P:

Isth

mu

s S

ecti

on

P

AU

P

Med

ium

In

ten

sity

Act

ivit

ies

29

03

6

36

3

7

101

63

6

4

Hig

h I

nte

nsi

ty A

ctiv

itie

s 9

30

2

Pr

op

os

ed

Pa

rk

ing

Pr

ov

isio

ns

an

d R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

A

rea

(m

2)

Pa

rkin

g R

equ

irem

ents

P

rov

isio

n

Su

rplu

s (+

/-)

AC

OD

P:

Isth

mu

s S

ecti

on

P

AU

P

AC

OD

P:

Isth

mu

s S

ecti

on

P

AU

P

Med

ium

In

ten

sity

Act

ivit

ies

29

03

6

36

3

7

92

5

4

55

H

igh

In

ten

sity

Act

ivit

ies

69

8

2

133

Q5. Please confirm whether there been [sic] any allowance for lighting of the

pedestrian crossings as per the standards set out in ATCAP Chapter 19.

A5. Lighting design will be provided during the detailed design phase of the project.

All lighting will be designed to comply with the relevant standards set out in ATCAP

Chapter 19. Auckland Council Parks Sports and Recreation are happy to include this

requirement as a condition of consent.

Q6. Also, the plans do not show all the necessary pedestrian crossing road

markings/belisha discs etc as required by ATCOP. However, this could be

include as an advice note but should be include on the plans or written

acknowledgement provided that the design of the pedestrian crossing would

meet the required standard.

A6. The crossing will be built to comply with all relevant ATCOP standards. This

includes pedestrian crossing road markings/belisha discs etc.



Stormwater Discharge:

Q7. Please provide an amended base course design to reflect the requirements for

infiltration capacity.

A7. An amended turf pavement detail is provided on the attached drawing to clarify

the sub-base and basecourse material requirements.

Basecourse material will be crushed aggregate with a particle size distribution in

accordance with Table 7.1 of Permeable Pavement Design Guidelines (Draft) with a

minimum permeability of 10-3m/s and minimum porosity of 30%.

Sub-base material will be crushed aggregate with a particular distribution of 9.5-

65mm, a minimum permeability of 10-3m/s and minimum porosity of 30%.

These details will be provided in the construction specification.

Sediment and Earthworks:

Q8.Please provide typical design detail, and sizing calculations as appropriate, for

all proposed erosion and sediment controls measures in accordance with TP90.

A8. The Universal Spoil Loss Equation (USLE) associated with the proposed Erosion

and Sediment Control Plan has been provided to Larrissa Wilkinson of Southern

Skies (Larrissa has replaced Ted Temple in the assessment of this application).

134

Larrissa has confirmed that this will be sufficient to proceed with her assessment of

the application.

Q9.Please illustrate on the ESCP drawing indicative stockpile location and

associated erosion and sediment control measures as required.

A9. Stockpiling locations are yet to be specified. However, any stock piles will be

located within the confines of the erosion and sediment control area to ensure that

any associated discharge is appropriately mitigated by the proposed erosion and

sediment controlled measures.

Auckland Council Parks Sports and Recreation are happy to include this as a

condition of consent.

Landscape:

Q10.Provide a Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment (LVA). The proposal has

the potential to generate in relation to:

o The Volcanic Viewshaft infringement;

o The change to the character of the park; and

o The amenity of dwellings that overlook the reserve.

Q11. The LVA should clearly address (although not necessarily be confined to) the

following matters:

1. The visual amenity effects for dwellings that overlook the park;

2. The visual amenity effects for park users;

3. The landscape effects of the development including effects in relation to

vegetation removals, earthworks and the general park character;

4. An appraisal of the development against the relevant District Plan

objectives and policies;

5. An appraisal of the development against the Fowlds Park Reserve

management Plan; and

6. The effects of the development of the viewshaft (noting that the viewshaft

mapping at Figure 2.3 if he AEE is inconsistent with the District Plan

mapping of the viewshaft)

Q12. The arborist references the poetical for targeted replacement planting’ to

mitigate vegetation removals. If such replacement planting is relied on in the

LVA, please also provide a Landscape Plan (The Landscape Plan should show

the location of vegetation to be retained and proposed plantings including

species, sizes at the time of planting and proposed spacing’s).

Q13. Further, the proposed development includes a green terramesh green wall.

Could you provide further detail as to the planting treatment proposed (for

135

example, grass seeding or low shrubs/groundcovers?) and the associated

maintenance requirements to ensure a consistent ‘green’ effect.

A10-13. A ‘Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment’ has been prepared by LA4 in

response to the above requests and is attached to this letter. In summary the

assessment concludes that the development is consistent with the existing visual

landscape of the park and overall “the likely landscape and visual effects of the

proposal will be low”. This conclusion is consistent with the visual assessment

provided within the AEE document which concludes that the landscape and visual

effects will be less than minor.

Regional Contamination:

Q14. The environmental discharge criteria listed within the DSI report for both

nickel and zinc are incorrect. This being noted, 4 exceedances of the discharge

criteria for nickel have been identified through the lab testing results. These

exceedances have come from the fill material that has been placed on site. Please

make comment regarding whether this nickel contamination within the fill is

likely to be of anthropogenic origin or more likely to be naturally occurring and

of volcanic origin.

A14. The following provides a response to the above query from Roger High -

Principal - Engineering Geology:

“The S92 for “Regional Contamination” makes a number of questions based on

the assertion that “the environmental discharge criteria listed within the DSI

report for both nickel and zinc are incorrect”. It is presumed that the

environmental discharge criteria referred to in the S92 are those for permitted

activity limits described in Table 11-1 of the DSI ie total recoverable nickel limit of

320 mg/kg dry weight and total recoverable zinc limit of 1,160 mg/kg dry weight.

These have been derived from the ACRP:ALW Permitted Activity Rule 5.5.41 and

the PAUP Permitted Activity Control H/4.5/2.1.3.

Rule 5.5.41 states that the “Discharge of contaminants to land or water from land

is a Permitted Activity subject to the concentrations of target contaminants, or the

95% upper confidence level of the mean …shall not exceed the greater of

…Schedule 10 :Permitted Activity Criteria …or the natural background levels for

that soil or the relevant background levels in ARC TP153”. With respect to the

latter levels the established Council approach is to adopt the maximum

background value for either the volcanic – type or non-volcanic – type soils listed

in TP153. The S92 enquiry states that four exceedances for nickel have been

identified. Looking at the results it would therefore appear that the reviewer has

adopted a value of 105 mg/kg dry weight for nickel, (this being the Schedule 10

value mentioned above) and that these exceedances are for samples Composite C,

Composite D, Soakage Pit 3 – 0.25m and Soakage Pit 4 - 0.2 to 0.3m depth.

Table 8-1 in the DSI describes the composite samples as a mixed silty ash / topsoil

and the soakage pit samples as a silty ash matrix in basalt rubble ie all samples

represent “volcanic – type” soil.

The PA Rule states that the limit should be the greater of the Schedule 10 value

and TP153 values. Table 11-1 of the DSI shows that the local background levels for

136

nickel is assessed at 235 mg/kg and the TP 153 level is 320 mg/kg for volcanic

soils, as is appropriate for this site. Table 11-1 also shows that the maximum and

95% UCL of the mean values for all tested samples are both less than the local and

TP153 values. Hence the nickel results indicate compliance with the ACRP:ALW

PA Rule 5.5.41. The same applies to the total recoverable zinc test results.

PAUP Control H/4.5/2.1.3 has the same conditions as ACRP:ALW Rule 5.5.41

except that it refers to the greater of Tables 1 and 2 included in the Control. The

permitted activity limits for nickel and zinc under this Control are the same as

under the ACRP:ALW Rule 5.5.41.

To summarise, it is our view that the permitted activity limits for the

environmental discharge of nickel and zinc described in the DSI are correct in

terms of the requirements of both the ACRP:ALW and PAUP, and that a response

to the additional S92 questions is not required. If Council disagrees with this

view then could you please advise the appropriate means by which the permitted

activity environmental discharge limits for nickel and zinc should be determined,

in order that responses to the additional S92 questions can be made.”

Noise:

Q16. MD state that compliance with the more restrictive noise limit of 40 dBA L10

will not be achievable between 10pm – 7am (Mon-Sat) and before 9am and after

6pm on Sundays & Public Holidays. It is clear from the MD report whether in

fact there is going to be some sports activity during these more restrictive hours

(particularly after 10pm at night), could you please confirm this.

A17. As detailed within the AEE, the operational restrictions on the proposed field

lighting will be as follows:

“Use of artificial field lighting will be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 9.30pm,

Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 6.00pm on Sundays”

Accordingly, organised sport activities are not anticipated to occur beyond these

hours, and will therefore comply with the more restrictive noise limit of 40 dBA L10

between 10pm – 7am (Mon-Sat) and before 9am and after 6pm on Sundays & Public

Holidays.

The contractor will be required to comply with the New Zealand Standard NZS

6803:1999 ‘Acoustics – Construction Noise’.

We trust this response meets the requirements of Auckland Council and you will be in a

position to complete the processing of the resource consent application. Please do not

hesitate to contact me should you require anything further.

Regards

Matthew Kerr-Ridge

Environmental Planner

137

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

FOWLDS PARK SPORTS FIELD UPGRADE

May 2015

138

Document History and Status Revision Date Reviewed by Status

28/05/15 R Pryor For Issue

File Number/Name 153476 LVA01

Author J Hogan

Client Opus International Consultants

139

FOWLDS PARK LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ASESSMENT SPORTS FIELD UPGRADE

28.05.2015 3 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This landscape and visual effects assessment has been prepared by LA4 Landscape Architects

on behalf of the Opus International Consultants as part of the documentation for a resource

consent application for Auckland Council for the upgrade of an existing football field and netball

courts to artificial surfacing at Fowlds Park, Western Springs. The development will require

some vegetation removal, alteration to an existing carpark, extensive earthworks and retaining

walls. Other associated improvement will include new paving and pedestrian connections,

sports field flood lighting, fencing and site amenities.

Scope

1.2 The scope of this assessment includes:

§ a description of the proposal

§ analysis of the existing landscape character/values and visual amenity of the park

§ a detailed assessment of the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposal

§ assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the District Plan

§ assessment of the effects of the development on the volcanic viewshaft

§ assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Fowlds Park

Management Plan

§ determination of the suitability of the proposal in landscape and visual terms.

1.3 Investigations undertaken in preparation of this report included desktop analysis of aerial

photography and other base information, as well as visits to the site and surrounding area

during May 2015.

140



2.0 THE LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

2.1 This section describes the landscape setting and the subject site and considers the landscape

values, character and quality of the landscape. Landscape values are a reflection of both the

biophysical environment and human perception of that environment.

The Setting (Refer to Figure 1)

2.2 Fowlds Park is surrounded by the Auckland inner city suburbs of Kingsland, Western Springs,

Mt Albert, and Morningside. These are all traditional established areas with well treed

neighbourhoods and mixed housing stock, dominated by single detached villas and bungalows

intermixed with some more contemporary dwellings. Several hundred metres to the east of

Fowlds Park are the Morningside shops, train station and industrial enclave. The local

residential catchment is contained by some major transport corridors in close proximity to the

park, including the northwestern motorway (SH16) to the north, St Lukes Road to the west and

New North Road to the south.

2.3 The local landform is elevated to the north and east of the reserve with a main ridgeline along

which run New North Road and Western Springs Road. To the north of this ridge, the slopes

descend toward the northwestern motorway. Locally, to the south, the contours fall more

steeply to form a steep slope that defines the northern edge of Fowlds Park. Beyond the

reserve to the south and west the terrain is gentle and low lying, before ascending again to

form slopes of Mt Albert/Owairaka.

Figure 1 – Location Map (NTS) (Source ALGGI)

141



Figure 2 - Site Plan (Source ALGGI)

The Site (refer to Figure 2 and Photographs 1 to 6)

2.4 Fowlds Park covers 11.48 ha and provides an important inner suburb recreational facility. To the

north and west it is bounded by Western Springs Road and Malvern Road. The southern and

eastern boundaries adjoin established residential development, which under the Auckland

Council Operative District Plan (Isthmus Section) and Proposed Unitary Plan is zone mostly for

low-medium intensity residential development.

The site was transferred to the Mount Albert Domain Board in 1912. It was then known as

Morningside Reserve and was used for refuse disposal until the 1930s. The park was then

renamed after Sir George Fowlds (a former Minister of Parliament) developed, and opened in

1935. The impressive stone entrance wall at the Rocky Nook Avenue entrance of the Park bears

his name.

2.5 One of the distinguishing characteristics of the park is the landform which is in it original state

was a results of the Mt Albert /Owairaka eruption which created a substantial lava flow that

extended northward toward the Waitemata Harbour to form Meola Reef. Although subsequently

142



modified during the development of the park, key characteristics of the landform remain. In

particular the prominent local ridgeline to the north, which falls steeply into the reserve to then

level out into a series of distinct terraces. The first of which is located along the eastern

boundary and is occupied by the bowling greens and associated development. A two lane

through road extends from the eastern entrance of the park at Rocky Nook Avenue to weave

along the base of the upper terrace and northern slopes to Malvern Road at its western end. To

the south of this road in the central part of the reserve the landform steps down again to form the

middle terrace where a football field (upper field), netball courts, clubrooms and carpark are

located. The lower terraces form the most extensive open space within the reserve with almost

continuous playing fields (lower fields) extending from the western to eastern ends. In the far

south western corner a localised depression forms the low point of the reserve.

2.6 Another significant feature of the park is the abundance of large native and exotic specimen

trees. These reinforce the landforms enclosure of the park and provide a significant buffer to the

surrounding roads and residential development. This vegetation also provides a strong sense of

establishment to the reserve. Of particular note is the stand of large gum trees (Eucalyptus spp)

which occupy the steep northern slopes. Because of their height, these trees provide distinct

local landmarks as features of the skyline from the surrounding areas. Together with a diverse

mix of understorey trees and shrubs, they combine to form a dense woodland area that covers

almost a third of the reserve. This woodland character continues around to the elevated

southeastern parts of the reserve where the dominant trees are the large pohutukawa associated

with the park entrance. Elsewhere, the presence large specimen trees continues throughout the

reserve, forming a fragmented avenue along the through road, defining the various spaces, and

providing a buffer along the residential interface along the southern boundary of the reserve.

The latter is further reinforced by an established acmena hedge (Syzygium smithii), which is

around 2.5m tall.

2.7 Under the District Plan the reserve is zoned Recreation 3, which focuses on active use.

Consequently the main open space areas of the park are developed and used for organised

sporting activities, with 3 full sized rugby league fields and 2 concrete netball courts which

dominate the central part of the reserve, and 2 half-sized playing fields at the western end.

During the summer the fields are used for softball. Existing sports field lighting is in place to

cover the main parts of the upper and lower fields and netball courts. This consists of a 12

columns of up to around 18m in height with a mixture luminaires.

2.8 Fowlds Park is the home ground of the Mt Albert Rugby League Club. Rugby League has been

the main sporting code associated with the reserve since the 1930s. During the 1950s a

clubrooms and a changing facilities where established in the central part of the reserve. The

Rocky Nook Lawn Bowling Club was also established during the 1950s in northeastern part of

the reserve. It now occupies shared facilities with Auckland Irish Society.

143



Photograph 1. Bowling Greens

Photograph 2. View from Lower to Upper Fields

Photograph 3. Existing Vegetation

144



Photograph 4. Central Section of Through Road

Photograph 5. Memorial Entrance (Rocky Nook Avenue)

Photograph 6. South Eastern Corner of Park

145



2.9 Despite the preeminence of active sporting codes, the park also provides extensively for the

passive needs of the local and wider community with the landform and vegetation combining to

create a high level of amenity and a series of discrete spaces for more passive pursuits. There is

also access to use of the main open space areas when not being used by organised sporting

activities. Informal use of the park is also facilitated by the existing path network which provides

access to most parts of the reserve. Other features of the park include a fitness trail and

children’s playground located in the far south western corner.

2.10 Together with its recreational values, the park displays a significant level of landscape amenity,

which results from:

§ distinctive landform, which is expressive of its formative processes and provides enclosure,

visual variety and interest, as well as space definition

§ large specimen trees and extensive areas of vegetation, which together with elements such

as stone entrance feature, low stone wall and edging, combine to impart a sense of

establishment and permanence to the reserve

§ the way the vegetation and landform combine to define the spaces within the park to create

a variety of large open spaces and more intimate areas

§ the composition of landscape elements that provide a sense of pleasantness and aesthetic

coherence.

146



3.0 THE PROPOSAL (refer to Appendix A)

3.1 As part of a wider Sports Field Capacity Development Programme, which seeks to ensure more

efficient use of public recreational open space, Auckland Council proposes an upgrade of the

upper football field and netball courts to artificial surfacing. This will result in a total area of

around 1ha which will be used as a multi-purpose field, for warming up, training and competition

games. Softball will use the facility during the summer months. The proposal is described in

detail elsewhere as part of the application, however in summary it includes

• the establishment of 2 areas of artificial playing surface with a 126m x 75m football field

(including safety zones) and netball courts of 60.05 x 21.4m

• earthworks involving 600 m3 of cut and 6700m3 of fill

• the removal of approximately 10 semi-mature mixed native and exotic trees from the bank

to the north of the playing field, and 7 young trees on the slope to the south

• the removal of the existing netball courts to the east of the rugby league clubrooms and

the formation of a asphalt hardstand area

• widening and leveling the sports field will necessitate the construction of a ‘Terramesh’

retaining wall up to 3.5m high on the southern side of the field. Terramesh is wire mesh

system tied back into the slope with geogrid anchors. The design allows the front face to

be filled with topsoil to facilitate grass or plant growth. On the western portion of the bank

on the northern side a ‘Strong Stone’ concrete block wall up to 2.0m will be constructed.

• a concrete footpath around the perimeter of the football field with suitable connections to

nearby facilities and the wider reserve

• 1.2m high pipe and wire chain mesh spectator fence with gates around the periphery of

the football field and along the top of the retaining walls

• 1.2m high pool-style safety fencing along the top of retaining walls where there is a safety

from falling hazard

• a pipe and wire chain mesh softball backstop up to 10m tall in the north eastern corner of

the field

• establishment of 6 new 17m lighting columns for sports field lighting with 4-7 luminaires on

each column.

• modification to the entry of the existing carpark to the rugby league club to accommodate

the retaining wall proposed in this area

• tree planting to mitigate the tree removal required as part of the works (yet to be finalised)

• the installation of two dugouts associated with the softball diamond

147



4.0 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL

4.1 The Resource Management Act (1991) outlines under the Forth Schedule – Assessment of

Effects on the Environment, Part 2: Matters that should be considered when preparing an

assessment of effects on the environment

(b) Any physical effect on the locality including landscape and visual effects.

LA4’s assessment of effects uses the recognised NZILA 7- point scale assessment rating, as

follows:

Negligible - Very Low - Low - Moderate - High - Very High - Extreme

With respect to planning considerations, effects Moderate or greater world be considered more

than minor, Low would be minor, and Very Low or Negligible less than minor.

A. Landscape Effects

4.2 Landscape effects take into consideration physical effects to the land resource. Assessments of

landscape effects therefore investigate the likely nature and scale of change to landscape

elements and characteristics. Landscape effects are primarily dependent on the landscape

sensitivity of a site and its surrounds. Landscape sensitivity is influenced by landscape quality

and vulnerability, or the extent to which landscape character, elements/features and values are

at risk to change. Landscape character results from a combination of physical elements together

with aesthetic and perceptual aspects that combine to make an area distinct.

4.3 Since its establishment, Fowlds Park has developed progressively over time as a reserve that

primarily supports active recreation. This has involved previous earthworks and the introduction

of associated infrastructure such as carparks, paths, goal posts, softball fencing and floodlights,

which have become integral components of the landscape character of the park. These

combine with the ‘natural’ features of the park such as trees, the landform, and open space

characteristics. These natural features enhance the landscape character and amenity of the

reserve and are therefore the most sensitive components of the park in landscape terms.

4.4 Consequently it is the proposed earthworks, retaining structures and tree removal that have the

greatest potential to produce adverse landscape effects. Although the volume of earthworks

are substantial and combined with the retaining walls either side of the upper field constitute a

reasonable amount of physical change, they will not significantly alter the overall character of

the landform within the reserve, which is characterised the steep northern slope and the series

of terraces with decreasing elevation from the north east to south west. It is also highly likely

that these terraces have already been significantly modified in the past when the site was used

for refuse disposal in thin the early 1900s, and again when the sports fields were initially

developed.

148



4.5 Some tree removal will be required on the low slopes to the north and south of the upper field

as part of the construction works. However in the context of the wider reserve this will constitute

a relatively small loss in overall canopy and not have any significant effects on the general

vegetated character of the park. This tree loss can also be suitably mitigated through

replacement planting.

4.6 Other components of the development such as the field lighting, chain mesh fencing, paving are

compatible with the existing character and use of the park. Therefore I consider that the overall

landscape effects on the park will be low and in keeping with what could reasonably be

expected in a reserve which main function is provide for active recreation.

B. Visual Effects

4.7 The assessment of visual effects analyses the perceptual (visual) response that any of the

identified changes to the landscape may evoke, including effects relating to views and visual

amenity. Visual sensitivity is influenced by a number of factors including visibility of a proposal,

the nature and extent of the viewing audience, the visual qualities of the proposal, and the ability

to integrate any changes within the landscape setting. The nature and extent of visual effects

are determined by a systematic analysis of the visual intrusion and qualitative change that a

proposal may bring.

Methodology

4.8 The methodology used to determine the nature and extent of visual effects and involves:

a) identification of the physical area or catchment from which the proposed development would

be visible

b) identification of the different viewing audiences that would be affected by the development,

followed by the allocation of viewpoints to positions that capture those audience’s

perspectives

c) evaluation of the effects taking into accounts the preceding analysis.

Visual Catchment & Audience

4.9 The visual catchment is the area from which noticeable visual effects of the development of the

site are likely to be evident to any significant degree. Visual catchments are determined by a

combination of the scale of a proposal, viewing distance, and screening elements within the

landscape such as landform, vegetation and structures. Due to the nature of the landform and

the considerable vegetation, the visual catchment area relating to this proposal is relatively small

and well-defined and consists of

§ most areas within the park, excluding part of the northern slopes, and other localised areas

where views are obscured by vegetation, and;

§ parts of the areas beyond the reserve immediately to the south.

149



Based on the visual catchment described the main viewing audiences would comprise of:

§ Park users including users of the through road

§ Local residents to the south.

4.10 A series of photographs have been taken to demonstrate the nature of the views over the

subject area for these audiences to assist in determining the sites sensitivity and the nature and

extent of potential visual effects of the development. These are depicted on Appendices B1 and

B2. A photo-simulation of proposed development has also been prepared from an aerial

viewpoint looking over the site (refer to Appendix C). Although this is not a view that will be

experienced by anyone as it was taken from remote controlled helicopter, it is useful to

demonstrate the nature and extent of the visual change that will occur to assist in the

assessment process. A discussion has been prepared considering the likely visual effects of the

proposal for each of the audiences identified. This is accompanied with a determination of the

nature and extent of the visual effects and conclusions about the proposal in light of these

findings.

Landscape and Visual Effects Analysis

Park Users (refer to Appendix B1)

4.11 Two photographs have been taken to represent the views of park users. Photograph B1.1 is

located at the south western corner of the lower playing fields and looks to the east. Photograph

B.1.2 is taken from the through road next to the bowling club and looks west over the upper

playing fields. These represent typical views over the subject area for parks users.

4.12 Although each view has a different elevation, and orientation, the visual characteristics within the

park are similar from each, with:

§ open expanse of playing fields over 2 distinct levels

§ densely vegetated backdrop and peripheral views

§ buildings and infrastructure supporting active recreational use of the park.

4.13 The park user audience is made up by a diverse array of people who are likely to have various

sensitivities to development and visual change within the park. In general those who use the

park for active recreation are likely to be less sensitive to changes in the park, if such

development enhances their use of the park for their chosen sporting activity. Whereas, other

passive users are more likely to appreciate the park for other reasons such as it natural qualities

and open space characteristic. It is the latter group therefore who are likely to be more sensitive

to the type of modification the proposal will bring.

150



4.14 The development of the upper fields will inevitably, during its construction phase result in some

significant adverse effects, as the existing grassed upper terrace is disturbed and modified by

extensive earthworks. However once the construction works are completed the degree of these

effects will rapidly decline. To determine the nature and extent of the likely visual effects at this

stage it is necessary to examine the nature of the visual change and consider this within the

context of the existing visual character and quality of the park.

4.15 The main changes will be:

§ the modification to the landform and replacement of the more natural slopes that define the

various changes in level with hard edged retaining structures

§ the replacement of natural grass with artificial surfacing

§ tree removal; and

§ the introduction of additional structures (lighting columns, fencing and dugouts etc.), and

hard surfacing (paving and hardstand area).

4.16 These changes will introduce a more formalised, structured, arrangement and appearance in this

part of the park. However, it is relevant to note that the landform is already modified and the

development will result in the general character of the landform and open green space

characteristics being retained, albeit the surfacing being artificial. The development will also

have relatively minor implications on the overall vegetated character of the park. Apart from the

retaining structures, in particular the large Terrarmesh wall on the southern side of the upper

terrace, the other components of the development are either already part of the visual character

of the park (e.g. sports field floodlighting) or of a scale and appearance which can be readily

assimilated visually (chain mesh fencing, dugouts etc.). Furthermore, these are all elements that

could naturally be expected in a reserve such this to facilitate the active use that the park is

zoned for.

4.17 A photos-simulation (refer to Appendix C) has been prepared to depict the nature of the likely

visual effects of the proposal. When compared to the photograph B1.1, which is the most similar

existing view accompanying this report, this demonstrates how the development can be visually

integrated into the reserve successfully, with the only notable change being the southern

retaining wall. In the context and scale of the park this too however can be suitably integrated

without significant adverse visual effects as the vegetated green face will successfully soften and

reduce the solidity and visual presence of the wall, and provide a certain visual continuity

between the lower and upper open space areas.

4.18 Based on this analysis, I consider that once the development is complete and the Terramesh

wall is vegetated, that the overall visual effects to the proposal for park users will be low.

151



Residents to South (refer to Appendix B2)

4.19 The photograph B2 was taken from the southern edge of the upper field. It looks over the

residential catchment area to the south of Fowlds Park. This is the only area where there are

any significant views of this part of the reserve from neighbouring properties. However, as is

demonstrated by this photograph, despite the proximity and density of residential development in

this area, such views into the reserve are generally screened or significantly filtered by existing

on and off site vegetation. The existing hedge along the park boundary effectively conceals

views from most of the immediate neighbours, and taller trees filter views for those in more

elevated locations beyond.

4.20 This audience is a permanent residential audience who are likely to be sensitive to changes to

their outlook. Although, from the photograph it is evident that there are only a handful of

situations where there are windows in nearby properties which have views of this part of the site,

and where they do, the views are often obstructed by the trees and hedging.

4.21 For those neighbours who can see into the park, the existing view would present a relatively high

level of visual amenity, with open grassed fields (where visible) and a heavily treed backdrop

providing a perception of spaciousness and visual relief from the surrounding urban

environment. Even so, and despite the openness and quality of the view, the reserve also

presents sufficient scale and visual diversity to assist in the visual absorption of certain types of

development, particularly the inclusion of relatively small elements, or elements which already

form part of the visual character of the reserve, such as sports field lighting.

4.22 Again, the main visual effects for this audience would be during and immediately following

construction, when the proposed retaining wall on the southern side of the field would present a

relatively intrusive engineered structure to the view. Although this is a sensitive audience, there

are few examples where people have comprehensive views into the park. For those who can

see in the park their views would generally be fragmented with only parts of the proposed

development visible. Many of the elements of the proposal such as lighting columns, fencing will

are features which will integrate readily with the established character of the park and do not

constitute significant visual change.

4.23 The tree loss would also not be significant in visual terms, as a relatively small number of trees

are proposed for clearance, and those being removed are comparatively small specimens in

relation to the scale of the wider vegetation within the view. Once the construction is completed

and grass has established on the front of the Terramesh wall it will significantly soften the

structure and assist in its visual assimilation with the setting. For this viewing audience other

components of the development will have negligible implications for the character and quality of

their outlook.

4.24 Consequently any adverse visual effects for this audience generally are likely to be low.

152



5.0 DISTRICT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS

Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section)

5.1 In the Operative Auckland Council District Plan the reserve is zoned Open Space 3

(Organised Recreation). The Open Space 3 zone is primarily for organised sports and

recreation although informal recreational activities are also encouraged. The zone strategy

seeks to ensure that reserves with this zoning “are used to their full potential in a manner

which is beneficial to the community, and which does not impact adversely on the amenity or

quality of the surrounding environment”.

The key relevant objectives to this assessment include:

Part 9.6.2 – Open Space 3 (Organised Recreation)

Objectives and Policies Comment

9.6.3.1 Objectives and Policies

To provided for organised sports and

recreation activities which are compatible with

the physical characteristics of the land and

which do not impact adversely on the amenity

and quality of the surroundings:

Policies

§ By applying a zone which provides for

organized sports and recreational pursuits

and their ancillary building and structures.

§ By encouraging multiple use of community

and recreational buildings and sports

facilities on Council reserves to ensure

maximum use by the public.

§ By imposing controls on the scale and

design of buildings and structures so as to

retain open space on each site within the

zone; and to avoid, reduce and mitigate

any adverse effects which may arise from

their use or operation.

The reserve is zoned for active recreation, and as

such requires the necessary infrastructure to

support use of the reserve. The proposed

development will maximise the efficient use of this

part of the reserve for sporting activities without

reducing the open space characteristics or

significantly affected the landscape character or

visual amenity.

5.2 Plan Change 339 – Volcanic Viewshafts, of the Isthmus Section of the Auckland Council

District Plan was recently adopted. The relevant updated planning maps (District Plan

Appendix C and Planning Maps 3) identify that parts of Fowlds Park are subject to applicable

View Protection Controls. The relevant volcanic viewshaft (A11) and associated height

restrictions are depicted Map 10 of PC339. These have been overlaid onto an aerial

photograph of the site for clarity as depicted in Figure 3. This shows that the viewshaft

extends as a thin wedge into the park, starting from the through road to the north of the

existing netball courts, with height restrictions ranging from 9m to 15m on the boundary.

153



5.3 The existing lights are inadequate. The new lights have been designed to meet the

standards detailed within Auckland Council’s Sports Field Lighting Guidelines, including

measures to minimise glare and light spill on the surrounding area. Use of the field lighting

will continue restricted between 7am – 9.30pm Monday to Saturday and 9.00am to 6.00 pm

on Sunday. The lights will set controlled by an automated timer system.

Figure 3. Fowlds Park Volcanic Viewshaft to Mt Albert showing height restrictions (NTS)

154



Photograph 7. Volcanic Viewshaft to Mt Albert

Part 5C – Heritage


5.C.7.6 Views

5.C.7.6 General Objective

To identify and protect views of important

visual landmarks and of the Harbours and

Gulf.

Photograph 7 (above) shows the Fowlds Park

Volcanic Viewshaft (A11) to Mt Albert/Owairaka.

The intent of the objectives and policies are to

protect the views of volcanic cones. As is

demonstrated by this photograph, there are already

several field lights located within the viewshaft.

However, because of their form and appearance

they do not obstruct views of the landform, rather

the landform is viewed through them without and

any significant adverse effects on the visual integrity

or amenity the volcanic cone provides as part of the

landscape, and to the viewers experience. The

development will see the three existing 16m tall

lighting columns in the fore and mid-ground of the

view removed with one new lighting column of 17m

in height installed around the centre of this view.

The distant light poles on the lower field will be

retained. The effects of the new lighting column on

the view of Mt Albert/Owairaka will be negligible.

A. Volcanic Cones

5C.7.6.3 Objectives

§ To protect significant views of the City’s

volcanic cones.

§ To protect the landmark qualities of the

volcanic cones.

Policy

§ By adopting measures which prevent the

visual intrusion of buildings and structures

into viewshafts from selected publicly

accessible vantage points.

155



Auckland Council Proposed Unitary Plan (2014)

5.4 Under the Auckland Council Proposed Unitary Plan Fowlds Park is zoned Public Open

Space - Sports and Recreation. As for the District Plan this zone applies to sites which are

used primarily for organised sports and active recreation, although they are available for

informal recreation when not used to active pursuits.

2.3 Sports and Active Recreation Zone


Objectives

1. Indoor and outdoor sport and active

recreation opportunities are provided for

through a network of quality public open

spaces that meet the community’s needs.

2. The use of public open space for sport and

active recreation is maximised.

3. The amenity values of the public open

space and surrounding areas, including

the CMA are maintained.

The proposal seeks to maxmise efficient use of the

park by the established sporting codes, by

improving facilities and increasing the useable

hours.

The proposal will not significantly affect the

attributes of the park which contribute to the existing

amenity values, such as the general character of the

landform, the open space and vegetative

characteristics.

Policies

2. Enable the provision of buildings and

structures where there is a demonstrated

need to enhance the ability to use and

enjoy the public open space for sports and

active recreation, including accessory

building and structures such as storage

sheds and scoreboards.

3. Require the location, scale and design of

new buildings and structures and additions

to complement the character of the public

open space, retain a level of

spaciousness, enable opportunities for

informal surveillance, and maintain a

reasonable level of amenity for users of

the public open space.

5. Maximise the use of buildings and facilities

(such as through multi-functional use and

adaptable designs) to increase the

capacity of the public open space, and

avoid permanent single purpose buildings

with restricted use.

8. Manage adverse effects such as noise,

glare, traffic and visual effects on the

surrounding area, through appropriate

Proposed structures such as the retaining wall,

lighting columns and fencing are all required to

facilitate enhanced use of the reserve for active

sports.

The provision of these additional structures will

allow for the retention of open space and a

commensurate level of amenity within the reserve.

The proposed artificial playing fields and courts

have the ability to be used for a variety of sporting

activities and training purposes.

The main potential visual effects of the proposal

have been addressed through selection and design

of materials (e.g. Green Terramesh retaining wall

156



locations, design, use and operation of

sport and recreation facilities, buildings

and structures such as lighting poles.

and through tree planting to mitigate vegetation

removal.

6.0 FOWLDS PARK RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.1 The Fowlds Park Reserve Management Plan Review was prepared in 1992 in accordance with

the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. It is intended as a practical planning document to

ensure the orderly development of the Reserve. The following are the relevant objectives and

policies from the Management Plan with regard to this assessment:

Objectives Comment

3.5 Conservation

To conserve and enhance the landscape by

planting, landscaping, effective

management, proper control and such other

measures which may be necessary to

ensure a pleasant setting in harmony with

the environment

The proposal will necessitate some tree removal,

but this will not be significant in the context of the

reserve and will be suitably mitigated through

appropriate planting to ensure the existing level of

amenity that results from the vegetation is retained.

3.7 Land Use Impact

To minimise any possible conflict between

activities on the Reserve and adjoining

landuses.

The development will not result in any change in the

type of activity within the reserve, just the frequency.

However there is sufficient buffer of space and

vegetation between the subject area and the

surrounding residential activity to ensure that the

increased activity will not create a significant level of

conflict.

Policies Comment

4.2.1 Sports Fields 4.2.1.1

• To recognise the role of Fowlds Park as

an area providing for active recreation and

organised sport on formally set out sports

fields.

This proposals focus is on enhancing active

recreational use of he sports fields.

4.5 Future Development and Applications

4.5.1 Policy

To recognise that all parks and reserves are

Public use of the sports fields is already limited

157



established, provided and maintained primarily

for the benefit enjoyment and general

recreation of the public at large (hereafter

called “public use”) rather than particular use

by specific bodies, persons or sports whether

incorporated organised or otherwise

(hereinafter called “private use”) and such

policy shall especially apply where any such

private use may involve the building,

extension or modification or any structure or

facility on such parks and reserves.

4.5.1.5. Development

To ensure the following criteria will be used for

the assessment of new proposals relating to

either public or private use of reserves:

(a) The suitability of the proposed use in

terms of the Reserve’s Classification.

(b)The anticipated demand for the proposed

use and its accessibility to the general

public.

(c) In cases of proposals for non-public use of

public open space the effect, if any, on the

interests of the public at large.

(d) The loss (if any) of land available to

general public use.

(e) The encroachment (if any) of buildings

onto existing public open space.

(f) The design and appearance of any

proposed new building work be in

harmony with the surrounding

environment.

to time when organised sports are not

occurring. The public will continue to be able to

use the facilities at such times, as long as they

have suitable footwear for the artificial

surfacing.

The extension of the upper terrace and

retaining wall will extend into the lower playing

field, but this will not have any significant

implications on the usability or access to open

space in this area by the general public.

Generally, the various elements which comprise

the development are of a scale and appearance

which is consistent and compatible with the

existing character of the reserve. A green

Terramesh retaining wall has been specified for

the large southern retaining wall to assist in

suitable integration into the reserve.

4.8 Landscaping 4.8.1 Policy

Council will;

To protect and preserve the existing stand of

gum trees growing on the bank adjacent to

Western Springs Road.

Preserve those existing natural landforms and

vegetation which enhance the character of the

The development will not have any implications

for the stand of gum trees.

The existing landform is already modified.

Although the development will require extensive

158



Reserve and, where desirable, plant new

vegetation.

earthworks, the final character will be similar to

the overall landform which currently exists with

a defined upper and lower terrace area.

Appropriate tree planting will be implemented to

mitigate the loss of any trees.

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Fowlds Park is zoned for active recreation. Auckland Council is seeking to maximise the

efficiency of sporting facilities throughout the city. The proposed upgrade will significantly

enhance the use of the reserve for sporting activities. There is already considerable

infrastructure in the reserve to facilitate such use. Such elements together with the natural

attributes combine to give the park its existing landscape character. Parts of the upgrade,

particularly the earthworks and retaining structures have the potential to cause adverse

landscape effects, however on completion these will not significantly alter the general

characteristics of the landform or the pervasive landscape character of the reserve, which is

mostly influenced by the open space qualities and established vegetation.

7.2 The area of development has limited visibility from the surrounding area. Consequently any

visual effects will be mainly confined to the site and park users, who are likely to have varying

levels of sensitivity to the development. The main adverse visual effects of the upgrade would

be confined to the period of disturbance during construction, but would temporary in nature and

suitably moderated once vegetation has established on the Terramesh wall and mitigation

planting has been implemented. Other components of the upgrade can be readily integrated

into the site, as they are either consistent with the established visual character of the reserve or

are of a scale or appearance which will ensure that they do not become intrusive.

7.3 The proposal will have negligible effect on the relevant volcanic viewshaft. The use and

development is consistent with the intent of the relevant statutory documents. For these reason I

consider the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposal to be low.

Jason Hogan

(NZILA) Registered Landscape Architect

Director - LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

159


FOWLDS PARKS Sportsfield Mitigation Planting DESIGN STATEMENT Introduction Auckland Council proposes upgrading the existing football field and netball courts to artificial surfacing at Fowlds Park, Western Springs. A full description of the works is contained within the documentation supporting the resource consent application. The development will require extensive earthworks and the removal of existing vegetation. Northern Bank Removal includes 10 trees (up to 12m in height) from the existing bank to the north of the playing field on the upper terrace. The vegetation for removal comprises several pohutukawa (Metrosideros spp), a Norfolk Island hibiscus (Lauganaria pattersonii), a Moreton Bay fig (Ficus macrophylla), a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica), and a phoenix palm (Phoenix canariensis). The clearance will also include the removal of various smaller semi-established trees and shrubs, including karamu (Coprosma robusta), mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus), laevigatus), tarata (Pittosporum eugenioides), totara (Podocarpus totara) and karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus), as well as works in drip line of some other trees.

Photograph 1. Existing Vegetation on Northern Bank

Eastern Bank 2 trees are indicated for removal from the low bank to the east of the proposed netball courts. These include a maple (Acer sp) at the northern end, and a Lawsons’s cypress (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) at the southern end.

Photograph 2. Existing Vegetation on Southern Bank

165


Southern Bank 6 exotic specimen trees would require removal from the southern bank, including 4 tulip trees (Liriodenderon tulipifera), and 2 red oaks (Quercus rubra). LA4 Landscape Architects have prepared planting plans to mitigate the loss of this vegetation. The proposed planting is depicted on the plans accompanying this report (13199 PP01 and PP02). This includes replacement planting for the trees removed as well as additional enhancement planting of the nearby wooded slope to the north of the access road. Mitigation Planting Proposals Southern Bank The proposed earthworks will necessitate the removal of all but the toe of the existing embankment to the southern side of the field on the upper terrace. The new widened field will be retained by a Terramesh wall. This retaining system allows for the establishment of grass along the face of the wall, which will soften its appearance and assist in reducing it overall visual mass. This will be further enhanced by the planting of 9 specimen trees along the length of the wall. The species selected for this area are rewarewa (Knightia excelsa). This is a vigorous upright tree with a columnar form that will provide sufficient stature without encroaching too far into the lower sportsfield or casting excessive shadow. Northern Bank Earthworks and low retaining along the northern edge of the field will also necessitate the removal of some of the existing vegetation as described. The replacement planting proposed in this area consists of 9 x Metrosideros ‘Mistral’. This is a naturally occurring hybrid of pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) and northern rata (Metrosideros robusta) that produces a tree with dark red flowers with abundant nectar attractive to native birds. These trees will strengthen the established theme, which includes a number of existing pohutukawa, and ultimately re-establish a continuous canopy along the edge of the field. Northern Slopes A key feature of Fowlds Park is the densely vegetated northern slope that falls away from Western Springs Road. The main component of the almost continuous stand of vegetation are large gum trees (Eucalyptus spp). Because of their height these trees form a distinctive landmark for the local and wider area. The sub-canopy vegetation consists of a dense mix of regenerating native vegetation combined with a component of exotic species. Planting proposed in this area includes 100 native trees. This will enhance the regeneration by augmenting the stand with mainly canopy tree species that will provide enrichment and long-term canopy cover as the gum trees eventually decline.

Photograph 3. Existing Vegetation on the Northern Slopes Showing Gum Trees and Understorey

Conclusions Although the works associated with the development of the sportsfield will necessitate some vegetation removal, this will be suitably mitigated by the planting proposed, with additional planting significantly enhancing areas beyond the immediate works area.

166


The proposed planting is also consistent with the Fowlds Park Management Plan (1992):

4.8 Landscaping 4.8.1 Policy Council will; Continue with a planting scheme to ensure maximum visual amenity to the area To protect and preserve the existing stand of gums trees growing on the bank adjacent to Western Springs Road. Preserve those existing natural landforms and vegetation which enhance the character of the reserve and, where desirable, plant new vegetation.1

LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

Jason Hogan Director NZILA (Registered)

1 Auckland City Council 1992. Fowlds Park Reserve Management Plan

167

KEY- PP01Metrosideros 'Mistral (Hybrid Pohutukawa)PB 95Knightia excelsa (Rewa Rewa) PB 95Refer PP02 for Mitigation

planting on Northern Slope

FOWLDS PARK

PROPOSED ARTIFICIAL FIELD

CLUB ROOM

PROPOSED NETBALL

--

OriginalProject: Title: Project No.

Rev.Approval

No. AppdRevision By Chk Date

Drafting CheckedDraftingDesign

FOWLDS PARK

LA4 Landscape Architects26 Kitchener Street, AucklandP.O. Box 5669, Wellesley Street, Aucklandp: 09 358 0904 f: 09 358 0895e: [email protected]

JHLMM JH

Drawing No.

Client:

JHPreliminary

13199

PP01LMM JH JH

1:1000 @ A3

18.06.15 B-

SPORTFIELD MITIGATIONPLANTING PLANText Size LMM JH JH 12.10.15A

Label Ammendment TS JH JH 15.10.15B

PP02

1:500 @ A3 SPORTSFIELD MITIGATION

PP01

Botanical Name Common Name Size Spacing Total

Knightia excelsa Rewa Rewa PB95 As Shown 9

Metrosideros 'Mistral' Hybrid Pohutukawa PB 95 As Shown 9

01

168

--

OriginalProject: Title: Project No.

Rev.Approval

No. AppdRevision By Chk Date

Drafting CheckedDraftingDesign

FOWLDS PARK

LA4 Landscape Architects26 Kitchener Street, AucklandP.O. Box 5669, Wellesley Street, Aucklandp: 09 358 0904 f: 09 358 0895e: [email protected]

JHLMM JH

Drawing No.

Client:

JHPreliminary

13199

PP01LMM JH JH

1:1000 @ A3

18.06.15 B-

SPORTFIELD MITIGATIONPLANTING PLANText Size LMM JH JH 12.10.15A

Label Ammendment TS JH JH 15.10.15B

PP02

10 x Taraire10 x Rimu

10 x Matai10 x Pururi

10 x Maire

10 x Nikau

10 x Matai

10 x Maire

10 x Rimu

10 x Taraire

NOTES1. Trees to be planted in same species groups of 10 (no.)2. Location and layout to be finalised on site in conjunction with Auckland Council Arborist.3. Spacings to vary according to site conditions.

Refer PP01 for Specimen Tree Planting around artificial field

FOWLDS PARK

WESTERN SPRINGS RD

Botanical Name Common Name Size Spacing Total

Beilschmiedia tarairi Taraire PB 28 As Shown 20

Dacrydium cupressinum Rimu PB 28 As Shown 20

Prumnopitys taxifolia Matai PB 28 As Shown 20

Vitex lucens Pururi PB 28 As Shown 10

Westegis cunninghamii Maire PB 28 As Shown 20

Rhopalostylis sapida Nikau PB 28 As Shown 10

02

Nestegis

169

1


From: Jarrod Snowsill <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 10:26 a.m.To: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaCc: Stephen Martin; Jonathan Begg; David BarkerSubject: RE: 50 Western Springs

Hi Charlotte, Auckland Council: Parks have advised that the upper field (proposed artificial turf) would be used outside of daylight savings hours for both training and a game standard (the proposed lighting would have two modes to facilitate this). During the winter season Auckland Council Parks would like to provide the option of being able to stage competitive games under lights on any Friday and Saturday night, with these games limited to no more than two competitive games per week under lights. During the summer months the upper field will continue to accommodate softball, touch and tag (both competitive and training) but lights will not be required during this time. Occasional tournaments will continue to be staged at Fowlds Park either in the summer or winter (potentially under lights). These would be limited to six per year. The arborist report details removal of 17 trees. However, on the southern bank of the Upper Field (numbered as 21 in report) there are two oaks (of similar size) to be removed rather than just the one specified. Therefore the design statement from LA4 is accurate in that there are 18 trees that are proposed to be removed (10 on northern bank, two on eastern and six on southern). If you have any queries regarding any of the above please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Jarrod

Jarrod Snowsill | Principal Planner | Opus International Consultants Ltd Phone +64 9 355 9305 | Mobile +64 21 244 0822 | Fax +64 9 355 9584 | Email [email protected] The Westhaven, 100 Beaumont St, Auckland 1010, New Zealand PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141, New Zealand

Visit us online: www.opus.co.nz

From: Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama [mailto:Charlotte.Hamilton‐[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 2:42 PM To: Jarrod Snowsill <[email protected]> Subject: 50 Western Springs Good Afternoon, I have received comments from the arborists who now finds the proposal acceptable subject to the planting plan being conditioned. I will include a condition relating to their maintenance etc. Bridget’s stance on the proposal has not changed from the memo I sent you. I am in the midst of writing up my hearings report and want to confirm some matters:

171

2

‐ Could you please confirm whether the proposed artificial turf will be used for competitions and whether

these competitions will occur in the evening? I note the subject site is used for semi‐professional competition games during the weekend and typically during the summer. There is no mention in the AEE how frequent these competitions will be. At this stage I would be inclined to place a condition relating to competitions being held on the site during the evening.

‐ The design statement you kindly provided me notes that 18 trees will be removed but the Arboricultural report provided with the application notes 16 trees are to be removed. Could you please confirm the number of trees which are to be removed?

Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Intermediate Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar carried with our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.

172

1


From: Jarrod Snowsill <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2015 1:14 p.m.To: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSubject: FW: Fowlds Park - Arborist ReportAttachments: Fowlds Park arb report Oct 2015.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

Hi Charlotte, Please find attached a revised arborist report – confirming the number of trees to be removed as 18. Regards Jarrod

Jarrod Snowsill | Principal Planner | Opus International Consultants Ltd Phone +64 9 355 9305 | Mobile +64 21 244 0822 | Fax +64 9 355 9584 | Email [email protected] The Westhaven, 100 Beaumont St, Auckland 1010, New Zealand PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141, New Zealand


From: Stephen Martin Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:27 AM To: Jarrod Snowsill <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Fowlds Park

Jarrod, PBM have been back to site and confirmed the total number of trees to be removed is 18. Does this revised report need to go back to Charlotte?

Stephen Martin | Parks Sport & Recreation Project Manager | Opus International Consultants Ltd Phone +64 9 355 9588 | Mobile +64 21 518 521 | Fax +64 9 488 4571 | Email [email protected] The Westhaven, 100 Beaumont St, Auckland 1010, New Zealand PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141, New Zealand


173

2

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gerard Mostert Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2015 3:10 PM To: Stephen Martin <[email protected]> Subject: Fowlds Park

Hello Stephen My apologies for the delay in getting back to you - the original report took some finding. I have edited it to put the information beyond doubt. 4 tulip trees and 2 oaks - the reason i only had one oak was that the smaller of the two was not of protected size at the time of writing One of the trees in Group 21 has also been removed, so if you counted that one the maths didn't stack up. Let me know ASAP if you have any further queries. Kind regards Gerard Mostert PEERS BROWN MILLER LTD PO Box 10166 Dominion Rd Auckland 1446. Ph (09) 631 7610 Cell (021) 493327 www.peersbrownmiller.co.nz

174

1


From: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSent: Friday, 10 July 2015 11:07 a.m.To: Friends of Fowlds ParkSubject: RE: Fowlds Park - proposed developmentAttachments: Lt010 r01 2008376A gfw150519 compliance testing.pdf; EW Final tech memo 50

Western Springs (4).pdf; Lighting Review - Fowlds Park 2015-03-27.pdf; Western Springs Rd 50.pdf; Fowlds Park_Tech Memo March 2015.pdf

Morning, I sought advice on the supply demand report. I have been advised that it is not a resource management matter as it does not relate to environmental effects. I have been advised therefore as part of my assessment it is not a matter which I can reject or accept an application on but it is supplementary information which will assist the applicant in putting their case forward. As the processing Planner my assessment is purely based on potential adverse environmental effects e.g. visual amenity, traffic, noise and light spill. I will not be assessing the supply demand report as it does not relate to effects. I have reviewed all my memo’s sent and I stand corrected we did not get this report reviewed for the reasons discussed above. It was included as part of the information sent to the traffic specialist. I have not yet received my memo back from the traffic specialist. With regards to your other enquiry I have attached all the memo’s I have received to date. Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz From: Friends of Fowlds Park [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 10 July 2015 9:37 a.m. To: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Subject: Fowlds Park - proposed development Hi Charlotte Thankyou for clarifying the issues discussed by phone earlier. Can you please forward the 'internal' expert reports or 'memos' that were supplied to you as a basis for your assessment recommending that the proposed development should proceed. Also, can you please confirm that the sportsfield supply / demand / SFCD information has been adequately and independently reviewed. Can you also please respond to the points and questions in my email of 18 June 2015 Regards Brian Carter for Friends of Fowlds Park

175

1


From: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 9:27 a.m.To: Friends of Fowlds ParkSubject: RE: Fowlds Park Ecological Area

Hi Brian, Following our phone discussion. I have reviewed the information you have provided and I can confirm based on the operative planning maps and the maps under the Proposed Unitary Plan that Fowlds Park is not noted as a Significant Ecological Area. Therefore the rules under the operative and proposed plan relating to SEA’s do not apply to the site. I do note that on the Auckland City Council Plan titled Eden/Albert Area outcomes 2050 that Fowlds park is referred to as a ‘ecological significant site’. This is not reflected in the Isthmus Plan or the PAUP which are legal documents which I will be assessing the proposal against. If you would like further detail as to whether Fowlds park was ever considered I suggest you speak to the PAUP team. Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz From: Friends of Fowlds Park [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 9:05 a.m. To: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Subject: Fwd: Fowlds Park Ecological Area ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Friends of Fowlds Park <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:11 PM Subject: Fwd: Fowlds Park Ecological Area To: [email protected]

Hi Charlotte I sent an email query ( below with attachments) regarding the Ecological Area status of Fowlds Park on 10 june 2015. Can you please follow up on the questions I raised and provide answers. (It seems that Sarah works under David Barker who is effectively the resource consent applicant in this case.) Regards Brian Carter Friends of Fowlds Park ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Peters <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM

176

2

Subject: RE: Fowlds Park Ecological Area To: Friends of Fowlds Park <[email protected]> Cc: Claire Webb <[email protected]>

Hi Brian

In response to your email enquiring about Fowlds Park:

There are no plans for any ecological restoration work at the park. I’ve been advised that the only activity of this type that has taken place recently is some tree privet removal (and one visit last year by volunteers who did a bit of weed work and litter removal).

Any future work at Fowlds Park would be guided by the Management Plan. I understand from David Barker that you have a copy of this plan but do let me know if you’d like me to email you a copy.

As Claire Webb has indicated, Fowlds Park is not a designated SEA. As Claire also suggested, the best person for you to talk to about matter relating to the Unitary Plan – including the attachments you sent me ‐ is a council planner. You can get hold of one via the call centre.

Regards

Sarah

Sarah Peters | Volunteer and Biodiversity Coordinator Parks, Sports and Recreation Division - Local and Sports Park - Central Ph 09 301 0101 extn (46) 4285 | Mobile 0272 466 658 Auckland Council, Bledisloe House, Level 4 South, 24 Wellesley Street, Auckland 1010

Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Friends of Fowlds Park [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 9:20 a.m. To: Sarah Peters Cc: Carters; Claire Webb Subject: Fwd: Fowlds Park Ecological Area

Hi Sarah

Are you able to respond to my email of 10/6/2015, below.

177

3

Please find information from the Auckland Council and Auckland City Council website in the 4 attachments. The Auckland City Council map showed the ecological areas on Fowlds Park. Are you able to explain this?

Regards

Brian Carter

Friends of Fowlds Park

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Claire Webb <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:53 PM Subject: RE: Fowlds Park Ecological Area To: Friends of Fowlds Park <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Peters <[email protected]>

Hi Brian,

I’ve had a look through the old Auckland City Plan – Isthmus section and haven’t found anything related to Fowlds Park in relation to the bank being identified as an ecological area. My understanding is that any vegetation clearance would potentially require consent under the general vegetation management rules within this district plan. I’m no planner though so I’d suggest you have a chat to a duty planner in the Graham Street office to confirm or have a look at the notified consent.

The only other thing I can think of is that the area was tagged for ecological restoration through a reserve management plan or something similar. The best person to look into that would be Sarah Peters, Biodiversity and Volunteer Co-ordinator in Local & Sports Park. You can contact her via 09 3010101 or on email: [email protected]. I’ve copied Sarah in on this email too.

Good luck with your submission.

Cheers

Naku noa na | Regards

Claire Webb

Biodiversity Team Manager Central / South

Infrastructure & Environmental Services | Auckland Council

DD 09 261 8728 | Int (41) 8728 | M 021 242 3656

178

4

Level 7, Civic Centre - Manukau

www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Friends of Fowlds Park [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2015 3:21 p.m. To: Claire Webb Cc: Carters Subject: Fowlds Park Ecological Area

Hi Clair

We are looking into the 'ecological status' of Fowlds Park ( 50 Western Springs Road).

It seems that under Auckland City Council, the area sloping hillside and trees south of Western Springs Road were designated as an 'ecological area'. Under the new 'Auckland Council', this designation does not seem to apply and there is a system of Significant Ecological Areas (SEA's).

I presume that Fowlds Park was subject to an assessment as a SEA. Are you able to forward a copy of the report that was done for this assessment?

Also, does the status of Fowlds Park as an 'Ecological Area' still apply?

Are you able to call to discuss /clarify.

Regards

Brian Carter

Friends of Fowlds Park

021 1204154 or 815-2245


179

1


From: Jonathan Begg <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 4:46 p.m.To: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSubject: Re: 50 Western Springs - seating planAttachments: S C6540029015111215320.pdf

Hi Charlotte Please find attached our indicative seating plan prepared by our Landscape specialist for your consideration. The Seat will look along the western edge of the view shaft –the existing poles on the right hand side of the photo on the scanned plan will be removed so the seat should afford a good view towards the maunga. The seat will be a typical park bench from the Auckland Council Parks design guide. Kind Regards

Jonathan Begg

From: Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama <Charlotte.Hamilton‐[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 3:11 p.m. To: Jonathan Begg Subject: RE: 50 Western Springs Good Afternoon, Thank‐you kindly for confirming this matter. I just wanted to confirm that this information was passed on to you, being that you’re the new planner. I’ve discussed the seating plan within my report, so wanted to ensure this was going to be presented at some stage i.e. before or during the hearing. Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Intermediate Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Begg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 3:04 p.m. To: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Subject: Re: 50 Western Springs Hi Charlotte It is our intention to provide an indicative Seating Plan. hopefully we can have it in time for you. If not we will definitely have one in our evidence.

180

2

Kind Regards Jonathan Begg

From: Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama <Charlotte.Hamilton‐[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 1:01 p.m. To: Jonathan Begg Subject: RE: 50 Western Springs Good Afternoon Johnathan, Jarrod and I discussed the potential for an indicative seating plan to be presented before the hearing, for me to refer to as part of my report. I’m assuming given he has left, this will be a matter to address at the hearing? I’m not sure if he has informed you about the seating plan. If he hasn’t, I informed Jarrod on the 22 October 2015 that I would recommend decline, if a seating plan or some form of mitigation was not proposed for the viewhsaft infringement. I’m more than happy to discuss this. Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Intermediate Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Begg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 6 November 2015 2:13 p.m. To: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Subject: 50 Western Springs Hi Charlotte, Thanks for the update. As discussed, I've recently taken over as the Opus planner for Fowlds Parks aspect of this consent. Now we have a hearing date set, I look forward to receiving you s42 report in due course. Kind Regards Jonathan Begg | Resource Management Planner | Opus International Consultants Ltd Phone +64 21 833 903 | Mobile +64 21 833 903 | Fax +64 9 355 9584 | Email [email protected] The Westhaven, 100 Beaumont St, Auckland 1010, New Zealand PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141, New Zealand Visit us online: www.opus.co.nz

181

3


182

1


From: Charlotte Hamilton-PamaSent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 3:12 p.m.To: 'Jonathan Begg'Subject: RE: 50 Western Springs

Good Afternoon, Thank‐you kindly for confirming this matter. I just wanted to confirm that this information was passed on to you, being that you’re the new planner. I’ve discussed the seating plan within my report, so wanted to ensure this was going to be presented at some stage i.e. before or during the hearing. Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Intermediate Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Begg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 3:04 p.m. To: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Subject: Re: 50 Western Springs Hi Charlotte It is our intention to provide an indicative Seating Plan. hopefully we can have it in time for you. If not we will definitely have one in our evidence. Kind Regards Jonathan Begg

From: Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama <Charlotte.Hamilton‐[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2015 1:01 p.m. To: Jonathan Begg Subject: RE: 50 Western Springs Good Afternoon Johnathan, Jarrod and I discussed the potential for an indicative seating plan to be presented before the hearing, for me to refer to as part of my report. I’m assuming given he has left, this will be a matter to address at the hearing? I’m not sure if he has informed you about the seating plan. If he hasn’t, I informed Jarrod on the 22 October 2015 that I would recommend decline, if a seating plan or some form of mitigation was not proposed for the viewhsaft infringement. I’m more than happy to discuss this.

183

2

Kind Regards, Charlotte Hamilton‐Pama | Intermediate Planner Central Resource Consenting and Compliance DDI: 09 353 9476 | Extn: (40) 9476 Auckland Council, Level 1 West, 35 Graham Street, Auckland Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

From: Jonathan Begg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 6 November 2015 2:13 p.m. To: Charlotte Hamilton-Pama Subject: 50 Western Springs Hi Charlotte, Thanks for the update. As discussed, I've recently taken over as the Opus planner for Fowlds Parks aspect of this consent. Now we have a hearing date set, I look forward to receiving you s42 report in due course. Kind Regards

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Jonathan Begg | Resource Management Planner | Opus International Consultants Ltd Phone +64 21 833 903 | Mobile +64 21 833 903 | Fax +64 9 355 9584 | Email [email protected] The Westhaven, 100 Beaumont St, Auckland 1010, New Zealand PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141, New Zealand


The linked image cannot be d isplayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link poin ts to the correct file and location.




184