sky path decision 20150602

8/20/2019 Sky Path Decision 20150602

1/83


2/83


3/83

Decision following the hearing of an

application for resource consents under

the Resource Management Act 1991

Proposal

To construct, maintain and operate a combined pedestrian/cycle pathway (“SkyPath”).

RESOURCE CONSENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104B AND 104D

OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, ARE GRANTED.THE FULL DECISION IS SET OUT BELOW

Appl ication numbers R/LUC/2014/3364, R/REG/2014/3365 and R/REG/2015/720Site address Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;

Curran Street and Westhaven Drive, Westhaven

Appl icant Woodward Infrastructure Limited

Hearing location Town Hall, Auckland Central and Takapuna Service Centre

Hearing commenced 2 June 2015

Independent Hearing

Commissioners

Ms Karyn Sinclair - Chairperson

Ms Jenny Hudson

Ms Melean Absolum

Mr Mark Farnsworth

Appearances For the Applicant:

Mr Daniel Minhinnick - Counsel

Mr Bevan Woodward - Trustee

Mr Chris Guenter - Patronage

Mr Don McKenzie - Transport

Mr Garth Falconer - Urban Design

Mr Bruce McKenzie - Visual/Landscape

Ms Sally Peake - CPTEDMr Chris Concannon - Engineering

Mr Rhys Hegley - Noise

Mr Richard Bracebridge - Lighting

Mr Richard Blakey - Planning

For the Submitters:

Henry Barfoot

Christine RoseGreg Nikoloff

Princes Street, Northcote Point; Auckland Harbour Bridge;Curren Street and Westhaven Drive, Westhaven – ‘SkyPath’ Page 1


4/83

NZ Transport Agency:

Cameron Law

Ernst Zollner

Jim Sephton

Barry Wright

Deepak Rama

Kumaran Nair

Waterfront Auckland:

Matthew Twose

Tom Warren

Todd Langwell

Janette Miller

Jeremy Richards

Little Shoal Bay Protection Society:

Mr J Richards ATEED:

B O’Reilly

Mezzanine Capital:

Bianca Tree

and The Wharf:

Martin Smith

Westhaven Marina Users Association:

Alan Webb

Cycle Advocates Network:

Richard Barter

Michael Smythe and Helen Schamroth

Kevan Walsh

Richard Thumath

Anthony Holman

Lucy Whineray

Carol Scott

Frank Swanberg

Peter Sawyer

Graham and Sarah HughesHerne Bay Residents Association:

Brian Putt

Northcote Point Action Group:

Kevin Clarke

Tianna Hall

Northcote Residents Association:

Kevin Clarke

Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society:

Stephanie de Groot

Dinah Holman



5/83

Brian Putt

Sarah Hughes

Erica Hannam

Rodney Brown

David Welch

No 1 Estate:

Caryle Blanche

Generation Zero:

Niko Elsen

Emma McInnes

Luke Christensen

Harbour Sport:

Justine Martin

Cycle Action Auckland:

Barbara CuthbertRichard Tout and Erica Hannam

Rodney and Carol Brown

Viv Armstrong

Andrew Braggins

Michael Pearson

Carl Armstrong

George Wood

For the Council:

Ms Jennifer Valentine - Lead Senior Planner

Mr Mike Nixon - Traffic Engineer

Ms Nicola Williams - Urban Designer

Mr Heath Miller - Noise Consultant

Ms Bridget Gilbert - Landscape Architect

Mr George Farrant - Built Heritage

Mr John McKensey - Lighting Engineer

Ms Paulette Gagamoe - Democracy Advisor (Hearings)

Hearing adjourned 10 June 2015

Commissioners’ site visit 27 May 2015 and 11 June 2015

Hearing closed 12 June 2015



6/83

Introduction

1. This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) by IndependentHearing Commissioners Ms Karyn Sinclair, Ms Jenny Hudson, Ms Melean Absolumand Mr Mark Farnsworth appointed and acting under delegated authority pursuant tosections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

2. The application for resource consents was publicly notified on 5 December 2014. Atotal of 11,586 submissions were received, with 11,413 in support, 5 neutral and 168 inopposition. Of the 11,586, 27 were received out of time. The Commissioners passeda motion at the beginning of the hearing to accept these late submissions.

Summary of proposal and activity status

3. The Applicant proposes to construct, maintain, and operate a combined pedestrian

and cycle pathway (“SkyPath”) attached below the eastern lane of the AucklandHarbour Bridge (AHB), with entrance and exit locations at Princes Street, NorthcotePoint (northern end), and Westhaven Drive/Curran Street (southern end).

4. The proposal requires resource consent for the following reasons:

R/LUC/2014/3364

• Section 9 land use consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (NorthShore City Section) for the activity, construction of the structure andcompliance with ancillary rules relating to location and development controls;

•

Section 9 land use consent under the Auckland Council District Plan (AucklandCity Isthmus Section) for development control infringements, earthworks, treeremoval and lighting;

• Section 9 land use consent under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES);

• Section 9 land use consent under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)for structures on a scheduled heritage building/structure, archaeologicalinvestigations and earthworks;

R/REG/2015/720

• Section 15 discharge permit under the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air,Land and Water for discharge of contaminants from the structure; and

R/REG/2014/3365

• Section 12 coastal permit for the structure, use of the structure and occupationin the coastal marine area (under both the Auckland Council Regional Plan:Coastal and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

5. For completeness we have relied on the extensive breakdown of consents outlined inthe section 42A report.

6. As noted in the section 42A report, the activity status is as follows:



7/83

• Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section) - non-complying

• Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) - non-complying

• Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - discretionary

• Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land Water - discretionary

• Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal – discretionary

Overall the proposal has been considered as a non-complying activity.

Late submissions

7. Pursuant to Sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, the time limit for the receipt ofsubmissions is waived to accept the late submissions of:

•

Mezzanine Capital Limited;

• Ariki Spooner;

• Helen Griffin;

• Tabitha Roder;

• Eion Scott;

• June Bartlett;

• Ian and Robyn Bogue;

• Gavin John Tiplady;

• Stephen Giles;

• Number One Estate Limited;

• Kevin Clarke;

• Northcote Point Action Group Inc;

• Janice Fiddles;

• Andrew Gordon Cochrane;

• Beau and Lisa Evans;

• Rohan Packard;

• Donald Smith;

• Eva Walton-Keim;

• David Kennedy;



8/83

• Phil James;

• Rodger Kerr;

• Matt Harrison;

• Daniel Skerlj-Rovers;

• Ben Kenobi;

• Richard Evans;

• David Klein; and

• Chris Hopkins.

For the following reasons:

• The submissions were received within the period to extend the time framesunder section 37 of the RMA and

• The Applicant had no opposition to the late submissions being accepted.

8. The Council planning officer’s recommendation report (hereafter referred to as thesection 42A report) was circulated to the Applicant, the submitters and theCommissioners prior to the hearing. The officer’s report was taken as read.

9. This decision contains the findings of the Commissioners’ deliberations on theapplication for resource consent and has been prepared in accordance with section

113 of the RMA.

Relevant statutory provisions considered

10. In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, the Commissioners have had regard tothe relevant statutory provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 of the RMAand section(s) 104, 104D, 105, 107 and 108.

Other relevant standards, policy statements and plan provis ions considered

11. In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, the Commissioners have hadregard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following

documents:

• National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants inSoil to Protect Human Health

• New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

• Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

• Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement

• Part 1 Chapter B of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

• Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City Section)



9/83

• Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section)

• Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

• Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal

• Part 2 Chapter C Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

12. The Commissioners also considered the following other matters to be relevant andreasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section104(1)(c) of the RMA:

• The Auckland Plan

• Stokes Point Te Onewa Reserve Management Plan

• Waterfront Plan

• Government Policy Statement on Land Transport

Summary of evidence heard

13. The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues and concernsidentified in the section 42A report, the application itself and the submissions made onthe application.

For the Applicant

14. The evidence presented by the Applicant at the hearing addressed the following

matters:

15. Mr Minhinnick gave legal submissions at the outset. His submissions covered(among other things) the following points:

• An opinion on the section 104D threshold tests for non-complying activities;

• Property rights, especially with respect to the license to occupy that isnecessary with the NZ Transport Agency (the Transport Agency);

• Effects of the project, including positive effects, and irrelevant concerns.

16. Matters that Mr Minhinnick considered to be not relevant to our consideration of thematter include the viability and need for SkyPath, Council’s financial involvement andthe proposed charging scheme.

17. Mr Minhinnick provided an updated version of conditions which addressed issuesraised by submitters in submissions and evidence.

18. Mr Woodward (for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust) outlined the history ofthe SkyPath concept, noting that the original Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) hadincluded provisions for walking and cycling, which were abandoned as a cost savingmeasure. He outlined the benefits of SkyPath, consultation with stakeholders, datingback to 2010, and how the SkyPath would operate.

19. Mr Guenter (patronage) outlined the methodologies for the surveys undertaken to



10/83

estimate likely patronage numbers on SkyPath. He noted that there was noprecedent for this type of activity but some comparative analysis was undertaken tovalidate the data based on previous work undertaken by Opus, Maunsell/AECOM andErnst and Young. Mr Guenter confirmed his belief that the methodology usedresulted in realistic patronage numbers across three groups of users, beingcommuters, tourists and recreational users.

20. Mr D McKenzie (traffic/transport) produced three statements of evidence, includingevidence in chief, supplementary evidence and reply evidence. Mr D McKenzieoutlined the wider transport network and the context of SkyPath within that network.He outlined his assessment of SkyPath on the Southern and Northern Landing,making a series of conservative (ie over estimations) calculations with respect tousers who might walk, cycle and/or park in the vicinity to access SkyPath. He was ofthe opinion that the transportation effects of the proposal could be appropriatelymanaged via the conditions of consent.

21. Mr D McKenzie’s supplementary evidence addressed issues raised by submitters in

evidence. He acknowledged that SkyPath would be complemented by, but doesn’trely on, the SeaPath proposal being considered by the Transport Agency. Heconfirmed the peak activity levels (as being summer Saturdays) and design andsafety matters.

22. Mr D McKenzie assisted the understanding of the implications of the predicted peakusage at the Northern Landing in his reply evidence, providing video evidence toillustrate how the predicted numbers could be represented on the ground. He wenton to address site specific issues raised by submitters, including the impacts on No 1Queen Street, and the potential for conflict given the increased number of pedestriansin the immediate vicinity of the property’s garage. Mr D McKenzie addressed therefinements made by the Applicant in the conditions of consent tabled subsequently

by Mr Minhinnick.

23. Mr Falconer (urban design) provided two statements of evidence. He discussed thekey aspects of the design, how the design responded to submissions and issuesraised in the section 42A report. Mr Falconer discussed the SkyPath design followingthe gradient of the AHB, how the Northern and Southern Landing designs werederived and how the project has responded, design wise, to stakeholder concerns.Mr Falconer discussed submitter concerns as they related to the mainspan, SouthernLanding and Northern Landing. He addressed residual issues in the section 42Areport, the most notable being the colour of the rods and ribs of the SkyPath structure.

24. Mr Falconer’s supplementary evidence addressed issues raised by Mrs D Holman in

her evidence on behalf of the Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society(NPHPS), with respect to perceived effects on heritage character and amenity ofNorthcote Point. Mr Falconer addressed expert evidence of Mr Putt on behalf of thesame submitter, especially in relation to the plaza space and the unique space underthe AHB at the Northern Landing.

25. Mr B McKenzie (landscape and visual) provided a statement of evidence addressingthe landscape and visual effects of the proposal. He supported Mr Falconer’scomments in support of white ribs and rods, especially as a means of making theSkyPath legible and distinctive but complementary to the AHB. Mr B McKenziediscussed the character of the Northern Landing in the context of the wider NorthcotePoint area, concluding that “any changes in the character of the Harbour Bridge

northern abutment will be contained within the immediate area and not affect the



11/83

wider character of Northcote Point.”1

26. Mr B McKenzie discussed the amendments made to the Northern Landing locationbetween the lodgement of the resource consent applications and the hearing, with thelanding now being a “compressed loop” rather than the previous “serpentine” design.He assessed the relationship of dwellings that have a relationship with the AHBundercroft space and noted that submitters referred to the effects from the number ofusers of the SkyPath rather than the structure itself, including issues such as privacy,overlooking and amenity.

27. Ms Peake (crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)) addressedissues of safety in design. Among other issues Ms Peake specifically addressedissues relating to passive surveillance, entrapment and access. In addressingsubmissions, Ms Peake considered perceptions of increase in crime, safety andsecurity. Overall her assessment was that, subject to appropriate conditions, theproposal would not generate adverse effects on safety and security for users orresidents local to the landings.

28. Mr Concannon (structural design and infrastructure) outlined the preliminary findingsin relation to structural matters relating to the fixing of the SkyPath structure to the AHB, the effects from users (including vibration effects), wind tunnelling and firesafety. Mr Concannon addressed issues in relation to existing services fixed to the AHB and matters raised by submitters pertaining to engineering matters. The mattersraised by Mr Concannon will primarily be addressed through the Licence to Occupy tobe issued by the Transport Agency and through the building consent process.

29. Mr Hegley (noise) confirmed his opinion that the noise effects of any users of theSkyPath would be well under the existing noise levels generated by vehicles on the AHB. Mr Hegley confirmed that construction noise and vibration would be best

managed through a construction noise and vibration management plan (CNVMP). Inresponse to submissions Mr Hegley noted in his discussions with the Transport Agency that they had received noise complaints from locals about the AHB and thatecho effects have been considered in his assessment.

30. Mr Bracebridge (lighting) outlined the lighting design for the SkyPath, includingmodelled spill, lux levels and likely effects on the local neighbourhood. He suggestedan amendment to the draft conditions relating to the Harbourmaster’s requirement forno red or green lights (to avoid navigational confusion), noting that, given therequirement for satisfaction of the Harbourmaster and as there are so many colourvariants within “red” and “green”, that such a condition was overly and unnecessarilyconstraining.

31. Mr Blakey (planning) produced three statements of evidence, including evidence inchief, supplementary evidence and reply evidence. Mr Blakey addressed the projectfrom a planning perspective, including outlining a summary of the effects, respondingto planning related aspects of submissions and the section 42A report andcommenting on conditions. Mr Blakey confirmed the underlying zoning of theSkyPath structure within the undercroft of the AHB at Northcote Point. Mr Blakeyconfirmed his opinion that the proposal met both tests of section 104D of the RMA,and that the application merited being granted.

32. In the supplementary evidence Mr Blakey addressed the evidence of Mr Rama onbehalf of the Transport Agency with respect to proposed conditions of consent. Mr

1 B McKenzie statement of evidence para 3.7



12/83

Blakey countered the evidence of Mrs Holman on behalf of the NPHPS in relation toher contention that the proposal failed to achieve the purpose of the RMA, due to theeffects of the proposal on the quality of the heritage character of Northcote Pointthrough inappropriate activity. In rebutting Mr Putt’s evidence on behalf of theNPHPS, with respect to the area that the Northern Landing would occupy, Mr Blakeyconfirmed it would cover approximately 665m2, not 1,500m2 as stated in Mr Putt’sevidence. Mr Blakey stated that the objectives and policies of the Residential 3 zone(the underlying zoning) were not particularly relevant to an activity such as SkyPath.Mr Blakey addressed Mr Putt’s evidence on behalf of the Herne Bay Residents Association and stated his preference to rely on the traffic and transport assessmentof Mr D McKenzie, a qualified traffic engineer, over Mr Putt’s assertions.

33. Mr Blakey’s reply evidence addressed matters raised by submitters to theCommissioners relating to amenity, especially at the Northern Landing, includingsunlight access, privacy, dominance and views, traffic and people movement. In partresponse Mr Blakey appended an updated Mitigation Plan MP02 revision H. Heprovided a more specific breakdown of an assessment against the objectives and

policies of the Residential 3 zone, building on his original analysis in the AEE.

For the Submitters

34. In summarising the evidence of the submitters we acknowledge a number of widerconcerns and issues are beyond the scope of the application for resource consents,and have not been discussed below. Such issues include the desire for openinghours beyond those sought by the Applicant and the funding/financial model proposedby the Applicant. The Commissioners are grateful to the submitters for theirparticipation in the process and for their significant contribution to our understandingof the Project. The evidence presented by the submitters is summarised as follows:

35. Henry Barfoot, a local Northcote resident, gave evidence in support of SkyPath. Henoted he was a member of the Northcote Residents Association. He supportedSkyPath on the basis that it would open up opportunities that do not currently exist toreduce travel times to the city and offers a mode of commute that would be attractivefor him. Mr Barfoot tabled several email messages in support of SkyPath from localNorthcote residents.

36. Christine Rose supported the SkyPath on the basis of it making economic sense,being of public health benefit and in her opinion would have no significant adverseeffects.

37. Greg Nikoloff spoke in support of SkyPath. Mr Nikoloff was the only submitter who

used an electric bike, and spoke of how he travels around the city to work and visitclients. He noted with SkyPath he would have an opportunity to visit clients inTakapuna that he cannot ride to currently. He noted that the AHB is already quitecommercial, with lots of utilities, the bungy jump and bridge walk operations.

NZ Transport Agency:

38. Cameron Law noted in legal submissions that the Transport Agency manages manyrelationships via Licence to Occupy agreements and side agreements to resourceconsent requirements. He confirmed that the Transport Agency would manageconcerns about the loading risk from SkyPath via the licence to occupy.

39. Ernst Zollner (Transport Agency Regional Director Auckland and Northland)presented evidence about the strategic context of cycling within the Transport



13/83

Agency’s land transport programme. He noted that the Government Policy Statementon Land Transport (GPS) included recognition of appropriate transport choices andthat there are “opportunities for cycling to take a greater role in providing transportsystem capacity in our urban areas.”2 Mr Zollner then outlined the Transport Agency’s objectives to make cycling a “safe and attractive transport choice”3 andcycle initiatives throughout Auckland both constructed (such as Grafton Gully) andplanned.

40. Barry Wright (National Structures Manager for the Transport Agency) explained thestructural constraints of the AHB and noted that the Transport Agency would have toensure that the SkyPath operation could manage pedestrian and cycle numbers toensure “robust management of live loads.”4 This is an issue that is proposed to bemanaged via the Licence to Occupy.

41. Jim Sephton is the Transport Agency’s Project Sponsor for the Auckland walking andcycling portfolio. He outlined the existing initiatives for walking and cycling on theNorth Shore, and gave some context to “SeaPath”, which is a Transport Agency

proposal to provide a walking and cycling facility between Northcote Point andEsmonde Road following the Northern Motorway alignment. Mr Sephton noted thatirrespective of SkyPath, SeaPath would “provide a connection to the Northcote Pointferry wharf, and to the Akoranga Busway station enabling some degree of connectionto the city centre for pedestrians and cyclists (albeit by connection to bus or ferry).”5 Mr Sephton noted that the SeaPath project was currently at the “indicative businesscase stage”. He concluded by noting the Transport Agency has a strong commitmentto providing “a high quality network for cyclists in Auckland and in particular providinga connection between the North Shore and the City.”6

42. Deepak Rama, Principal Planning Advisor for the Transport Agency, provided someplanning context for the SkyPath proposal. Mr Rama considers that the proposal will

support the relevant strategic transport objectives of the Proposed Auckland UnitaryPlan (notably C1.2.1 and C1.2.2). Mr Rama addressed the conditions of consent andnoted that some of the construction work would require night works on the vehicledeck of the AHB to avoid significant disruption to the operation of the motorwaynetwork. Mr Rama sought to have such works exempt from construction noise limits.

43. Kumaran Nair (Auckland Harbour Bridge Contract Manager) confirmed that theSkyPath proposal at the Northern Landing may have some impact on currently designworks but that there were no major concerns and that he considered the SkyPathcould integrate with existing initiatives such as the “trestle works”.

Waterfront Auckland:

44. Matthew Twose, Manager Planning and Consents for the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency (Waterfront Auckland) gave some background to the ownershipand management of Westhaven Marina, including the relationship of Waterfront Auckland, Westhaven Marina Limited and the beneficiaries of the Trusts. What wasmade clear to the Commissioners was that SkyPath could not rely on the availabilityof public parking within Westhaven Marina for the project. Mr Twose noted thatWaterfront Auckland supported SkyPath and confirmed that the residual issues

2 Ernst Zollner statement of evidence para 10

3 Ibid para 16

4

Barry Wright statement of evidence para 175 Jim Sephton statement of evidence para 11

6 Ibid para 24



14/83

(relating to parking and bus drop off) were “resolvable” and could be addressedthrough conditions of consent and agreements outside the RMA process.

45. Todd Langwell, an independent traffic engineer, reviewed the parking and trafficaspects of the proposal on behalf of Waterfront Auckland. He outlined the allocationof parking (exclusive use for marina users compared to public parking), the existingparking controls, confirming that Waterfront Auckland is responsible for enforcement,and the impact of the recently consented development on “Platform 2” at the westernend of the Marina.

46. Mr Langwell confirmed that for the peak periods, SkyPath could potentially putpressure on the public parking within Westhaven Marina, “creating a significant effecton the operation of the Marina activities and its associated parking areas”.7 He notedthat appropriate changes would have to be made within Westhaven to “deter SkyPathvisitors from having the perception that parking is readily available”.8 To this end MrLangwell recommended that the parking controls and parking management changesnecessary as part of the proposed Operational Plan should be implemented prior to

opening of the facility.

47. Tom Warren (Marina Manager for Waterfront Auckland) appeared at the hearing withMr Twose and Mr Langwell and answered specific questions in relation to WesthavenMarina activities.

48. Janette Miller provided a video in support of her submission in opposition to SkyPath.The video addressed issues of whether the facility would be safe for users.

49. Jeremy Richards spoke to his submission in opposition expressing his scepticismabout the viability and lack of alternatives analysis. He noted that the neighbourhood(at the Northcote Point end) was “gridlocked” on New Year’s Eve when large numbers

of people came to Te Onewa Pa to view fireworks displays. He did not support thenumber of people who would be entering and exiting the facility at the south end ofPrinces Street and supported the idea of shifting the exit at the Northern Landing tobetter connect with SeaPath.

Little Shoal Bay Protection Society:

50. Mr Richards represented the Little Shoal Bay Protection Society’s submission. Hewas concerned about the amount of traffic that might be generated by the proposaland its effect on Little Shoal Bay. He did not think it appropriate that people mightpark in the Little Shoal Bay area and walk to SkyPath. He was concerned that thetraffic passing through Little Shoal Bay at the weekends would make it difficult for

people to get across the road, between the grass reserve area and the waterfront partof the reserve.

ATEED:

51. Brett O’Reilly is the chief executive of Auckland Tourism, Events & EconomicDevelopment (ATEED) and is the Project Sponsor on behalf of the Auckland Councilgroup (including Auckland Transport) in relation to SkyPath. He confirmed thatSkyPath would “complete a critical missing link for walking and cycling access acrossthe Waitemata Harbour”.9 He confirmed that the project aligned with the Council

7

Mr Langwell statement of evidence para 388 Ibid para 39

9 Brett O’Reilly statement of evidence para 4.1



15/83

group’s strategic direction for Auckland, including the Auckland Plan 2012, The LongTerm Plan, City Centre Masterplan 2012, the Waterfront Plan 2012 and the AucklandCycle Network. Mr O’Reilly went on to outline the expected benefits for transport,tourism, recreation and iwi that would be delivered by SkyPath.

Mezzanine Capital Limited:

52. Mezzanine Capital (owners of The Wharf) was represented by counsel, Ms BiancaTree. She was accompanied by Martin Smith (General Manager for CollectiveHospitality, operator of The Wharf). Ms Tree submitted that the existing consent forThe Wharf (dating back to 1963) entitled the operation of The Wharf to rely on on-street parking at the southern end of Queen Street, Northcote Point. She relied onthe recently granted variation providing for an extension to hours of operation whichnoted that “parking within the immediate environment is sufficient for accommodatingthe demand generated by the function centre…”10 The Commissioners noted that thedecision provided by Ms Tree was not signed. Ms Tree submitted that it wasinappropriate to leave the management of parking relating to the SkyPath to review

once operational, and supported implementation of restrictions prior to opening, onthe proviso that the entitlements accorded to The Wharf were recognised andprovided for. Ms Tree raised concerns about the noise levels that might be generatedduring construction. She submitted that the management plan approach needed tobe undertaken in accordance with the body of case law that provides guidance onhow these can rightfully be incorporated as conditions of consent. She provided anumber of amendments to conditions that would satisfy her client.

53. Mr Martin confirmed that The Wharf was used both throughout the day for corporateevents as well as for evening and weekend functions including weddings. He notedthat the venue did not have a designated loading zone, and that loading wasundertaken out the front of the venue or from the nearest available public parking

space. He raised concerns about construction noise interfering with both eventsbeing undertaken, but also when prospective clients were surveying the premises,when loud noise might put them off hiring the venue.

Westhaven Marina Users Association (WMUA):

54. Alan Webb, counsel for the Association, gave submissions on its behalf. The WMUAis an incorporated society that formally represents the rights of the berth holders andberth renters at Westhaven. He submitted that the Association was very concernedabout the lack of clarity with respect to traffic issues. Mr Webb submitted that the twolandings were poorly served by public transport and relying on Mr D McKenzie’sassessment concluded that, as walking 2- 3 kilometres from any public transport

facility to SkyPath was not realistic, there would be pressure brought to bear on theparking within Westhaven Marina. Mr Webb submitted that Westhaven “already hasserious competing demands for space”11 and that in spite of the lack of “expert”evidence the Association’s concerns are derived from a “long and continuousassociation with Westhaven”12 and that resolution of these issues needs to beundertaken prior to consent being granted.

Cycle Advocates Network (CAN):

55. Richard Barter spoke on behalf of CAN, an organisation established to promote safe

10

Legal submission of Ms Tree for Mezzanine Capital Limited para 16 b11 Mr Webb legal submission on behalf of Westhaven Marina Users Association para 22

12 ibid



16/83

cycling. He confirmed the organisation’s support for the project and believes thatSkyPath will help change active transport in the regions beyond Auckland.

56. Michael Smythe and Helen Schamroth addressed and expanded on points in theirsubmission in opposition to the proposal. They considered that SkyPath should beintegrated with either SeaPath and or the NaturePath being promoted throughOnepoto Domain. They thought that the predicted user volumes would causesignificant pedestrian, cycle, bus and car congestion. They submitted that theapplication should be rejected until it can be evaluated in the context of an integratednetwork plan including SeaPath.

57. Kevan Walsh stated that SkyPath was a great concept “but falls over in detail”. Hethought it was naïve to consider that people wouldn’t drive to SkyPath, and that theincrease in traffic it would generate would be to the detriment of Northcote Point.

58. Richard Thumath gave evidence that the proposal was completely contradictory to theexisting environment and was unable to be realistically mitigated. It was his opinion

that the proposal would create more than minor adverse effects on the residential andcoastal recreational areas.

59. Anthony Holman spoke in support of his submission, primarily in relation to the effecton Little Shoal Bay, outlining its values from botanical and recreation perspective. Heconsidered the effects of SkyPath would be considerable from traffic and othermatters, and would degrade the reserve which would be contrary to the ReserveManagement Plan. He noted that part of Council Terrace is within reserve land. Hesubmitted that the proposal would conflict with the Little Shoal Bay ReserveManagement Plan and Part 2 of the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statementand the Regional Policy Statement.

60. Lucy Whineray considered that the negative effects of SkyPath would not be limited toits immediate surroundings and that it would have a detrimental effect on traffic,parking and the heritage character of the residential area. She did not consider therewere adequate solutions to mitigate the effect of SkyPath traffic on the local roadnetwork.

61. Carol Scott was concerned that the “large scale commercial enterprise” and trafficvolumes were contrary to the district, regional and unitary plans. She considered thatthe large traffic volumes would be exacerbated by the constriction caused by thepeninsula geography. She considered the streetscape and heritage architecturewould be severely affected by the high volumes of traffic and parking.

62. Frank Swanberg considered Northcote Point to be a “backwater”, and that theconsent should be declined unless the terminus on the North Shore was at BarrysPoint Road or Smales Farm.

63. Peter Sawyer considered that the CPTED report was not sufficient to ensure thatpotential effects of a criminal nature were adequately assessed. He was concernedthat SkyPath was detached from SeaPath and wanted to see greater connectivitybetween the two. He concluded that he would like to see it a safe structure withconnected infrastructure in place.

64. Graham and Sarah Hughes live immediately adjacent to the AHB undercroft at thesouthern end of Princes Street. They noted that there was no issue with crime or

graffiti at present, and that they are confident letting their children play in the spacebeneath the AHB as it has a very low number of cars and or pedestrians at any given



17/83

time. Their concerns stemmed from the patronage projections and the potential forsignificant adverse effects at the Northern Landing, including noise, traffic andparking, safety, security and privacy and the visual effects. They were alsoconcerned that the activity was inconsistent and contrary to the objectives, policiesand provisions of the operative plan and PAUP.

65. Mr Hughes provided an analysis of the likely patrons per hours, using “simplemathematical manipulation.”13 Based on those calculations it was his assessmentthat the number of users would have a significantly more than minor effect on theresidences adjacent to the Northern Landing. Mr Hughes considered that the noiseeffects had been minimised, citing the recent removal of a flying fox in a playgroundas evidence that the effects of such recreational activities should be taken intoconsideration. He did not believe that the proposed mitigation measures would besufficient and that the measures would impose restrictions on the accessibility to thelocal resident community when currently they were not required. He considered thatthe landing structure would be a visual imposition, dividing the cul de sac communityand adversely affecting natural lighting.

66. Mr Hughes read a written statement from his neighbours Mr G Rogers and Ms JWhite in support of their submission.

Herne Bay Residents Association (HBRA):

67. Brian Putt, a qualified and experienced town planner, raised issues relating to thetraffic assessment, with respect to the availability of on-street parking that might beused by users of SkyPath. In his view, the provision of parking for SkyPath userswithin Waterfront Auckland land would go some way to mitigating the adverse effectcreated by the on-street parking demand. However, he acknowledged that the Applicant could not provide this parking as the land is not under its control. In his

opinion the proposal fails to achieve the threshold test for adverse effects, as theparking effects are not adequately mitigated. He conceded that the proposal wouldmost likely pass the objectives and policies test under section 104D. However MrPutt considered that there was not sufficient regard for the maintenance andenhancement of amenity values and the quality of the environment. In his opinion thesingle adverse effect (generation of on street parking demand where there could becompeting demand) was sufficient to decline the resource consent.

Northcote Point Action Group (NPAG):

68. Kevin Clarke spoke on behalf of NPAG. He gave some background as to the genesisof the Group. He stated that if they were not so directly affected it would be a great

idea but that the converse applies. He stated that the Group was concerned aboutthe effects of having such a large number of people visiting permanently to NorthcotePoint.

69. Tianna Hall lives in the immediate vicinity of the undercroft of the northern abutmentof the AHB. She was concerned that any security measures (such as staff andCCTV) would be focused on the facility itself rather than the wider community whowould be susceptible to an increase in crime. She was concerned about the likelyparking demand within Northcote Point.

13 G Hughes statement of evidence para 4.4



18/83

Northcote Residents Association (NRA):

70. Kevin Clarke spoke on behalf of the NRA. He stated that he opposed the SkyPath onthe basis of its “many unresolved technical, safety and operational problems…whichimpact detrimentally.. upon all residents of Northcote Point ..”14 Mr Clarke raisedconcerns about the Traffic Planning Group Limited traffic assessment In relation toparking and how the traffic and parking would be managed. He did not consider thedesign to be sufficiently compliant with relevant guides and recommendations forcycleways and pedestrian pathways. He considered that there were significant noncompliances. He claimed the patronage assessment was grossly over estimated. MrClarke considered that the progressing of the SkyPath consent applications ahead ofany other integrated cycle/pedestrian facility such as SeaPath was premature. He didnot believe that the Northern Landing location was in the right place.

Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society (NPHPS):

71. Stephanie de Groot gave legal submissions on behalf of the Society. She set out the

Society’s rules and submitted that the Northern Landing was inappropriate in theproposed setting under the AHB, that the space was confined, and the proposedstructure was obtrusive. She submitted that the landing in a residential heritage areawas also inappropriate and that such an intensive use was contrary to the zoning ofthe area. Ms de Groot submitted that the proposal could not pass the gateway tests ofsection 104D of the RMA as the adverse effects (notably traffic, safety and security,privacy, visual and noise, heritage character and amenity) would be more than minor.Further, she submitted, the proposal would fail with regard to the second gateway testas the proposal was clearly contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative Auckland Council District Plan: North Shore City Section and the PAUP specifically asthey relate to the Residential 3 Built Heritage zone. Ms de Groot submitted that theHigh Court case of Queenstown Central Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council

[2013]15

should prevail with respect to the interpretation of section 104D(1)(b), andthat the proposal must not be contrary to “any” relevant objective and policy. Ms deGroot called five witnesses as follows.

72. Dinah Holman appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the NPHPS. We note thatMrs Holman has made a submission opposing the proposal in her personal capacity.She outlined the historic character of the Northcote Point area, the heritage provisionsof the RMA and relevant plan provisions and her concerns with respect to the effect ofthe project on the heritage and character of Northcote Point. She considered the Applicant had failed to undertake a proper assessment of the effects of the project onthe heritage character and amenity of Northcote Point. She stated the effects “could”be significant,16 if the intensive use and associated effects conflicted with the

traditional heritage character and amenity. From her evidence it appeared that theseconcerns were derived from vehicle trips associated with SkyPath, rather than cyclingand pedestrians per se.17

73. Brian Putt provided planning evidence in support of the NPHPS. He concluded thatthe application would not pass either test of section 104D of the RMA. TheCommissioners note that this is contradictory to his statement on behalf of the HerneBay Residents Association. The adverse effects would be, in his view, more thanminor given the number of people arriving and departing from the Northern Landing,

14 Northcote Residents Association Kevin Clarke statement of evidence para 5

15

NZHC81716 NPHPS Statement of evidence D Holman para 59

17 Ibid refer para 62 - 63



19/83

and the associated traffic, lack of suitable facilities (such as toilets) and limited spaceavailable for the public beneath the AHB in the immediate area of the landing site. Heconsidered the proposal to be contrary to the Residential 3B and C zone provisions ofthe operative District Plan.

74. Sarah Hughes, a local resident, gave evidence on behalf of the NPHPS. Herevidence was based on the adverse amenity effects, noise, traffic and parking, safety,security and privacy, and adverse visual effects. These issues are common to manysubmitters and have been well traversed previously. Additional issues to those raisedpreviously include potential difficulty in accessing homes with the increasedcongestion and traffic flow and the effect of “overlooking” and loss of privacy from thehigher parts of the SkyPath structure as it winds down into the Northern Landing. MrsHughes considered the architectural design to have limited design appeal.

75. Rodney Brown is also a local resident from the southern end of Princes Street. Inaddition to issues common to Mrs Hughes and other submitters in opposition, henoted that people would be able to pass his property three times in any single trip,

that the quiet area is defined as that given the very limited number of people whopass by (mostly local residents walking, or Total Bridge Services staff). Mr Brownwas concerned that the proposed conditions of consent were inadequate and wouldbe like trying to shut “the stable door after the horse has bolted.”18

76. Erica Hannam completed the evidence of the NPHPS. She too is a local residentfrom the southern end of Princes St/Queen Street. She stated her concern that theprojected patronage numbers were conservative,19 that the limitations on numbersaccessing the facility at any one time might result in people congregating at theNorthern Landing entry, creating issues of safety and congestion for locals tonegotiate. She was concerned that any security guard might have a limited rolebeyond the structure itself should issues arise. Ms Hannam considered the only way

to appropriately mitigate these effects would be to relocate the Northern Landing.Contrary to evidence of Mr Falconer she confirmed that sun does reach under the AHB onto her house in the mornings in mid-summer.

77. David Welch appeared in support of the project. He cycles to work and with his familybut cannot cycle to the Shore and the ferry schedule is limited. Mr Welch consideredthere is a significant gap in the network, which breaks the benefits of a network. Herecognised the parking issues but considered on street parking was for the benefit ofall.

No 1 Estate:

78. Caryle Blanche read a statement of evidence on behalf of herself and Mr and MrsHolloway, all residents of 1 and 1A Princes Street. Ms Blanch considered the effectsfrom the level of disturbance to be inappropriate in the small residential cul-de-sac.She considered the structure to be intrusive and dominating, especially since theredesign during the submission period brought it closer to the eastern side of the AHBstructure. Ms Blanche considered the effects from parking and access would bedisruptive to the local residents and stated there were no real parking spaces duringthe weekends. She was concerned about safety, like Ms Hannam, with respect topeople backing out of driveways and garages into queues of SkyPath users. Shenoted that there is often maintenance staff within the undercroft working on the AHB,

18 PSHPS statement of evidence Mr Brown para 3019

The Commissioners note that in the context that “conservative” is often used, it represents the worst case scenario orhighest likely numbers.



20/83

but that the anticipated level of activity generated by SkyPath would be incompatiblewith the residential nature of this neighbourhood. Ms Blanche considered that theproposal was contrary to the objectives and policies of the residential zone, especiallywhere these seek to protect the amenity of residential areas.

Generation Zero:

79. Niko Elsen, Emma McInnes, and Luke Christensen addressed the Generation Zerosubmission and noted that SkyPath would complete a network of cycle paths within Auckland and that it would be celebrated by users into the future. They noted thatpublic transport opportunities were improving, especially when new schedules areoperative in 2017, including more frequent ferries to and from Northcote Point wharf.They noted trends regarding vehicle use compared to public transport and activemodes of transport, noting that younger generations were not seeking drivers’licences in the same number as previous generations, were more likely to use publictransport and less likely to own cars.

Harbour Sport:

80. Justine Martin provided an overview of the initiatives Harbour Sport is undertaking toincrease cycle use within the North Shore. She outlined the intergenerationalapproach to cycle use, including introducing preschool children to cycling, andextending to educating immigrant communities about the road code and safe cyclebehaviours. She indicated that SkyPath would be a welcome addition to cycle routesthat were safe for users, including those under Harbour Sport tutelage.

Cycle Action Auckland:

81. Barbara Cuthbert spoke on behalf of Cycle Action Auckland. Ms Cuthbert noted that

walking and cycling joins communities together, and the cycling networks extend theferry and public transport networks by increasing the reach of those who may wish totake a ferry or bus, and can cycle part of the way to achieve that. She recalled thatwhen SkyPath was first mooted 10 years ago, there was little in the way of cyclenetworks within the city, and she has personally seen the growth of cycle networks inthat time. She disputed the potential effect on heritage character by stating thatcycling and heritage were not incompatible, and that in her view, large numbers ofusers driving to the Northern Landing would not eventuate, noting that people weren’tdriving to the Grafton Gully cycleway.

82. Richard Tout and Erica Hannam spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting thatSkyPath seemed like a good idea, but that landing at Northcote Point was

inappropriate. Mr Tout was concerned at the number of bikes disgorging at thenarrow end of Princes Street, near the abutment to the AHB, and was concernedabout the conflict of his garage with pedestrians and cyclists who he would not beable to see. He confirmed earlier questions of Ms Hannam regarding sunlight,confirming that sun came in under the AHB during summer months, noting that thisside of the house (closest to the undercroft) was their kitchen and conservatoryspace.

83. Rodney and Carol Brown spoke in opposition to the proposal, adding to previousevidence on behalf of NPHPS, stating that they thought the Northern Landing neededmore space and far better connectivity. The combination of being overlooked and theintensity of use were key concerns to them.

84. Viv Armstrong stated that in her view the number of users would paralyse the



21/83

Northcote Point road network. She did not believe the parking concerns were minor,noting that many houses do not have garages and rely on on-street parking. Sheconsidered that there would be demand for toilets and other facilities such as a caféand that such activities had not been assessed.

85. Andrew Braggins gave evidence in support of the proposal, subject to amendments toconditions relating to traffic management and public toilets being addressedadequately.

86. Michael Pearson spoke in support of SkyPath, stating it would be transformational. Inhis opinion the proposal would benefit the wider community, including providing for ahealthier and balanced lifestyle for families. He thought that connection to SeaPathwould be a key mitigating factor with respect to the concerns of the residents at thesouthern end of Princes Street.

87. Carl Armstrong spoke in opposition to the proposal, on the basis that it would be adifficult facility to use as a cyclist and that it was not a safe design. He did not believe

there was a great deal of support to cycle/ferry to the CBD, as illustrated byBirkenhead wharf’s cycle lock up facilities being empty. He considered the originallanding of the AHB to be ill conceived, and thought that this proposal would be poorplanning, especially given that Northcote Point would become a thoroughfare. Heconsidered that it would be more appropriate to have all the linkages in place beforesuch a facility was consented.

88. George Wood spoke in his personal capacity to his submission. He considered thatNorthcote Point was the wrong landing place for SkyPath, and that it should besomewhere like Sulphur Beach. He considered that the conditions would have to bevery stringent to enable the project to go ahead.

Applicant’s Right of Reply

89. The Applicant’s right of reply was given by Mr Minhinnick and addressed the followingmatters:

90. Mr Minhinnick reiterated that, in his opinion, under section 104D only one gatewaytest needed to be passed, and that based on the evidence presented, the effects areminor and the proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory provisions.

91. He addressed Ms de Groot’s legal submission with respect to the non-complyingactivity status, the contention that we are bound by the High Court decision inQueenstown Central20 and that a single objective or policy would essentially render

the proposal contrary to the relevant objectives and policies. Mr Minhinnickmaintained his legal position, relying the Court of Appeal decision of Dye21 overQueenstown Central.

92. Mr Minhinnick confirmed Mr D McKenzie’s expert evidence in reply addressed issuesraised by the Commissioners and by submitters, including Mr Hughes.

93. In response to the Council officers’ position, maintaining the preference for grey overwhite rods and ribs, Mr Minhinnick stated that the Applicant’s preference was forwhite, citing the evidence of Mr Falconer and Mr B McKenzie that the structure shouldsit alongside, rather than as part of, the AHB

20 Queenstown Central v Queenstown Lakes District Council 2013 NZHC 817

21 Mr Minhinnick closing legal submission para 2.7



22/83

94. Mr Minhinnick submitted that the effects relating to parking and traffic at the southernend could be adequately mitigated through the use of the Operational Plan asproposed by conditions.

95. With respect to effects at the Northern Landing, Mr Minhinnick noted that submitterswere not concerned with SkyPath as a concept but with amenity at the NorthernLanding. He considered that effects from loss of privacy, overlooking, visualappearance and increased activity were adequately mitigated through the designrefinements (such as an increase in the number of rods at the Northern Landing).

96. Mr Minhinnick submitted that we should prefer the expert evidence of Mr D McKenzieover the evidence of Mr Clarke from the Northcote Residents Association and theNorthcote Point Action Group. He considered that the conditions requiring certain onroad activities be undertaken prior to SkyPath opening were sufficient to mitigateeffects associated with traffic and parking.

97. Mr Minhinnick submitted that the Commissioners were entitled to put a condition on

the proposal requiring toilets, as this was within the scope of the original applicationand several submitters thought them necessary.

98. Notwithstanding the adverse effects, Mr Minhinnick concluded that the positive effectsneeded reiterating, drawing on the evidence of a number of submitters in support. Itwas his submission that the proposal merited approval.

Principal issues in contention

99. After analysis of the application and evidence (including any proposed mitigationmeasures), undertaking two site visits, reviewing the Council section 42A report andexpert reviews, reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the

proposed activity raises a number of issues for consideration. The principal issues incontention are:

SOUTHERN LANDING

100. The Southern Landing is intended to become the main arrival point for SkyPath. Thelanding area comprises a switchback ramp structure with turnstiles at its terminus nextto a kidney-shaped plaza and ticketing kiosk.22 The ramp begins in a west-eastdirection, parallel with an existing and proposed NZTA service yard (under the AHB)and turns south then north before climbing above Curran Street and the roundabout atthe junction of Westhaven Drive/Shelly Beach Road.

101. About half of the landing 'site' is at present part of the NZTA service yard; however theSkyPath switchback is to be constructed within an area of pohutukawa trees forming avegetative screen in front of the bridge structure and service yards. An observationdeck is also proposed which will be overlooked by a Pou Whenua marker between the AHB and Westhaven Drive.

The effects on users

102. At the Southern Landing, the SkyPath structure will result in the displacement of theexisting NZTA and Waterfront Auckland marina workshop and storage yard, and therelocation of existing wastewater services. The affected parties (NZTA and Waterfront Auckland) have indicated their support for the proposal and are working towards

22 as shown on Visual Seven, Applicant's Core Visual Bundle, drawing 2719/GA01D



23/83

resolving these matters. Mr Twose, the Manager of Planning and Consents atWaterfront Auckland, said he was confident that a new area can be found andconsented, to accommodate these items.23

103. There is a number of existing user groups within the AHB and Westhaven Marinaenvirons and we have referred above to the submission made by Mr Webb on behalf ofthe WMUA. The effects on users will arise mainly from people arriving and departing,and seeking parking, once the SkyPath is operational. There will also be temporaryeffects arising from construction activity.

104. Mr Webb acknowledged that the main concern of WMUA was the effects of parking andhe did not see how it would be possible to discourage private vehicles in favour of usingpublic transport as assumed by the Applicant, particularly as there had not been anyrobust assessment of the existing Westhaven traffic environment or suitable publictransport options.24

105. Mr Putt was equally concerned that parking pressure would affect the amenity of

residents in the closest residential streets in Herne Bay and parking needs for users ofPoint Erin Park.

106. These potential effects require an understanding of the potential causes of parkingdemands, how those demands would manifest themselves and when they would bemost likely to occur.

107. We were told that SkyPath users will comprise three main groups, each of which willhave different effects on the areas around the Southern Landing:

• Pedestrian and cycling commuters

•

Recreational users (Aucklanders visiting SkyPath for leisure)

• Tourists and visitors, visiting SkyPath for leisure25

108. Mr Hancock's assessment on behalf of the Council was that "walking accessibility toSkyPath is poor "26 and this was likely to encourage driving to SkyPath and result invehicular and parking constraints at both landing points. Mr D McKenzie did not acceptthat walking access is poor, but agreed that "without measures to discourage parkingnear the landings, likely car parking demand could lead to negative impacts around thelandings, especially in the immediate vicinity".27 This was a view shared by Mr Langwellwho said that in the absence of effective management, "SkyPath visitors will find itattractive to use their private vehicles and will drive and attempt to park in the

immediate environs of the Southern Landing, putting added pressure on the WesthavenMarina parking areas and surrounding road network".28

109. Return trips from the city centre side to SkyPath itself, ie recreation or tourist trips goingonly to the top of the AHB, or touching down at Northcote Point would be 6-9 km return.Mr D McKenzie considered that most SkyPath recreational and tourist trips are likely tobe dedicated trips for the express purpose of going to SkyPath. He thought that

23 Matthew Twose para 8.4

24 submissions of counsel for WMUA, para 11

25 D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015, para 3.11

26

planner's report, page 2327 D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, executive summary para M

28 T Langwell EiC para 7



24/83

spending 2 - 3 hours on a recreational walk to and from such an iconic facility was quiterealistic.29

110. Mr D McKenzie also agreed that the Britomart transport hub (which is within a 3kmwalking catchment) would be a logical start and end point for many SkyPath users, andthat there may well in future be changes to tourist bus routes (such as the Explorer) toserve Wynyard Quarter and SkyPath. In closing, Counsel for the Applicant confirmedthat a revised condition (43a) was proposed which would encourage both the SouthernLanding and "appropriate locations within the city centre such as Britomart", as thestarting point for SkyPath, acknowledging that "Britomart offers superior connectivity tothe rest of Auckland".30

111. Based on these factors, combined with the proposed marketing of access options aspart of the SkyPath website and publicity materials, and with increasing reliability ofpublic transport services, Mr D McKenzie was confident that combined walking andpublic transport trips to SkyPath would be a viable and reasonable option for large partsof Auckland without requiring the use of a car. While Mr D McKenzie observed that the

Fanshawe Street bus stop is less than 2km away and provides good connectivity toother transport services including the North Shore, we have reservations about thepracticalities of a 2km or more walk for many recreational visitors (for example familygroups with children, people with disabilities, or the elderly) before beginning a walkover the SkyPath. Our concerns were shared by Mr Putt, Mr Webb and others. Whilethat distance may be reasonable for some recreational users, we nonetheless think thatin the absence of as yet unknown improvements to public transport links servingSkyPath, limited walking accessibility is a very real issue with the potential to addpressure to parking demand at the Southern Landing.

112. For cycling trips, distances at the approach to, and departure from SkyPath are not somuch of a constraint. The key issue is how recreational cyclists (as opposed to

commuter cyclists) would begin and end their trip on SkyPath. Mr D McKenzieconsidered that this group would be able to choose safer but often less direct cycleroutes, particularly on the southern side of the harbour such as riding to the city centrevia the northwestern cycleway or Tamaki Drive paths. Mr D McKenzie referred toprojects currently being planned by the Council, Auckland Transport and NZTA thatwould improve cycling conditions in the Auckland Cycle Network. On the southern sideof the bridge, these include Auckland City Centre priority cycle routes such as theNelson Street and Beaumont Street Cycleways and the Western Waterfront CityConnections pr oject proposed by Auckland Transport for Urban Cycleway Fundconsideration.31

113. We heard evidence in support of the proposal from two submitters residing on the

isthmus. Mr Nikoloff 32 and Mr David Welch33 both cycle to work and for recreation. Theydescribed their current cycling preferences and how they would use present andplanned cycle routes to get to the SkyPath if they wished to cycle to the North Shorefrom their homes in St Johns and Grey Lynn respectively. They did not identify anyconcerns with accessibility to SkyPath.

114. Ms Barbara Cuthbert, of Cycle Action Auckland, also referred to a project which hasrecently gained support from NZTA to develop a cycleway using a redundant section of

29 D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, para 4.46 - 4.49

30 closing submissions by counsel for the Applicant, para 5.9

31

D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, para 4.53, with reference to Item 111, AT board meeting April 201432 submission #204

33 submission #115



25/83

the Nelson Street motorway offramp.

115. Mr D McKenzie's conclusion was that “SkyPath is adequately accessible for current Auckland transport cyclist from both north and south – while cycling accessibility issomewhat poor for leisure cyclists from the north, is "adequate to good from the south -a much larger catchment".34 We discuss the accessibility issue for northern leisurecyclists separately, below, but had no reason to doubt Mr D McKenzie's conclusionsregarding a reasonable (and improving) level of accessibility for cyclists from the southand west.

Traffic generation

116. Mr D McKenzie told us that he had considered traffic generation and the parking andtraffic effects in detail. He assessed potential SkyPath-related car traffic impacts on thesurrounding road network on the basis of earlier estimations of the potential car parkingdemand in the TAR35 and has predicted the following additional vehicle traffic createdby SkyPath in the area of the Southern Landing as:

(a) 9 additional vehicle trips (inbound) during the AM peak hour, representing theoccasional walk/cycle user and early morning leisure user;

(b) 30 additional vehicle trips (half inbound, half outbound) during the PM peak hour,representing mainly arriving and departing leisure users; and

(c) 254 additional vehicle trips (half inbound, half outbound) during the Saturdaymidday peak hour, representing mainly arriving and departing leisure users. 36

117. Mr D McKenzie also assessed scenarios using double the above volumes to protectagainst the risk of underestimation and to allow for circulation of car park search traffic,

as well as various other assumptions which he considered had several levels of"significant conservatism". The worst case scenario resulted in an average delay of 5seconds per vehicle during the busiest Saturday conditions, and with the intersectionsstaying at good levels of service overall.

118. While the basis for Mr D McKenzie's assumptions was challenged by Mr Putt on behalfof the HBRA amongst others, we accept (as we discuss further in relation to theNorthern Landing) that the methodology adopted by Mr Guenter to produce thepatronage figures was sound and the model produces realistic numbers. Despite theacknowledged uncertainties over the figures, we accept that the methodology adoptedby Mr D McKenzie to arrive at the traffic predictions includes an element ofconservatism. Mr D McKenzie had taken the Angus and Associates car preference

factors and added in all potential users who indicated they would use a ferry for accessto SkyPath (which is currently not a feasible option for most SkyPath demand times). Aseries of steps were followed, as set out diagrammatically in Table 6.2 of the Traffic Assessment Report which formed part of the application material, starting with thenumber of people who indicated a preference to drive close to SkyPath and applyingvarious factors including car occupancy ratios, duration of parking and likelynorthern/southern landing split to arrive at the likely car parking demand effect at eachlanding. As Mr Nixon said in his reply on behalf of the Council, there are no publishedtrip generation rates on which to rely and there were no fatal flaws in the TDGmethodology.

34

D McKenzie EiC dated 12 May 2015, para 4.5435 Traffic Assessment Report dated October 2014

36 D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015 para 4.88



26/83

119. In terms of traffic generation, we find that the predicted numbers of vehicles are unlikelyto have more than minor effects on the surrounding road network.

Parking availability

120. Mr D McKenzie's opinion that the main parking demand will occur primarily at weekends, with a smaller peak during summer weekend evenings, was not disputed. 37 Nor was his assessment that the parking area most affected by SkyPath would be onWaterfront Auckland land at the Marina, used primarily by marina users of various typesplus staff and visitors to local businesses.

121. Mr Langwell's evidence on behalf of Waterfront Auckland included a summary of allavailable parking in and around Westhaven Marina. Mr Langwell described these asfour distinct carpark areas: the northern, western, southern and Z Pier carparks. Eachhas a mixture of parking space types for different users and includes exclusive berthholder spaces, loading zones, mobility parking, exclusive tenant spaces and specialuse areas for trailers and boat parking. Publicly available parking is delineated by white

markings whereas allocated parking is identified by yellow markings.

122. Mr Langwell's analysis of existing carparking in Table 1 of his evidence38 indicated thatthere are currently 1,574 carparks in all four carpark areas, of which 844 are publiclyavailable (some with time restrictions). Once the Platform 2 development within thewestern carpark takes place, the number of public spaces drops to 511. He consideredthat the 'white spaces' would provide a highly attractive proposition for SkyPath visitorsto be used on a casual basis. Although they are within the Marina boundaries, and onprivate land, they are available and free to access by any member of the public. Heconsidered, as did Mr D McKenzie, that visitors would seek to use these spaces firstbefore looking further afield as they are more accessible to the Southern Landing thanother areas such as the residential streets within St Mary's Bay. 39

123. However, he considered that if there is added pressure put on the white spaces bySkyPath visitors, some spill over effect could be expected into the berth holder andtenant spaces.

124. Mr Langwell also identified a further 50 - 60 spaces within Harbour Bridge Park to thewest of the AHB that are available for public use. He said that the area is typically usedas overflow parking when other areas around the Marina are occupied, or byrecreational users using the park and water's edge. From our observation, this area is apopular fishing spot. Mr Putt stated in his evidence on behalf of the HBRA that " there isno explanation as to why the vacant land owned by Waterfront Auckland fronting thelength of Curran Street within Westhaven is not made available for carparking to

service the SkyPath" noting that it is generally unused and has for many years beenused as storage for motorway and related construction equipment. 40

125. While clearly this area could be developed for parking, we heard from Waterfront Auckland that its intention is to develop it as a park. We also are mindful of thecomments made by Mr D McKenzie that providing parking specifically for SkyPath willsimply encourage people to drive to the Southern Landing, which is against thephilosophy of providing a facility for walking and cycling which forms part of a network.

37 D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015 para 4.108

38

T Langwell EiC 21 May 2015, para 1839 T Langwell EiC 21 May 2015, para 21

40 B Putt EiC, 27 May 2015, para 4.2



27/83

126. Mr Langwell referred to the drone survey work undertaken by Waterfront Auckland tomonitor the usage of its parking areas over the past 2 years, to understand the parkingdemands over the whole week including weekday race nights and peak summerholiday weekends. The highest occupancy rates occurred in the northern carpark,which is more attractive to commuters working in Wynyard Quarter or visitors to thenearby yacht clubs. The western carpark has occupancy rates of 18 - 24 % during theweek and 23% during a high demand weekend period. Mr Langwell thought that thissuggests little demand for this carpark primarily due to its remoteness from pier headsand other activities, which in his opinion highlighted "the issue of promoting car travel toSkyPath with uncontrolled parking to the Southern Landing".41 While he considered thatthere would be sufficient parking available in the future to accommodate the needs ofMarina users once various development projects are implemented (including the marinecentre on the western carpark), Mr Langwell concluded that any SkyPath visitors carswill be in direct competition with other activities for the use of the white parking spacesin the Westhaven area.

127. Using the TDG predictions of parking demand outlined by Mr D McKenzie of up to 82

cars on a weekday and 409 on a weekend during the summer months, Mr Langwellestimated that the baseline demands above the current activity could be about 180spaces during a weekday and 540 spaces on a high demand summer weekend. Heconsidered that this demand could be accommodated in the white spaces duringweekdays but the demand for parking at weekends would exceed supply within theMarina, thereby "creating a significant effect on the operation of the Marina activitiesand its associated parking areas".

128. Mr Langwell concluded that if SkyPath is granted consent it was important thatappropriate changes are made to the current parking controls within the Westhavenarea to deter SkyPath visitors from having the perception that parking is readilyavailable.

129. We found Mr Langwell's evidence helpful in understanding existing and future parkingneeds at the Marina, and are satisfied that the work he had undertaken on behalf ofWaterfront Auckland provides a robust information base from which the impacts ofSkyPath and any other changes to parking supply as a result of further development atWesthaven could be established.

130. Mr D McKenzie considered that the potential effects on the local road network,including the effects and requirements of tour coaches, and the potential effects on carparking, are provided for by a requirement to obtain necessary Licence to Occupyagreements with Waterfront Auckland. These will include reference to a series ofparking and access measures subject to Waterfront Auckland approval prior to the

construction of SkyPath.42

131. Mr D McKenzie also discussed options for managing Westhaven parking in future. Heconsidered that providing dedicated parking for berth holders and tenants was relativelystraightforward, but ensuring adequate parking for marina guests and businesscustomers was more difficult and complex as this group's requirements were not easilyseparated out from berth holders or marina/SkyPath visitors. It is the latter group whoseparking usage needs to be managed or discouraged for the benefit of the first twogroups. There was general agreement between the traffic engineers regarding themeasures that could be employed to manage parking. These included:

41 T Langwell EiC 21 May 2015, para 27

42 D McKenzie EiC 12 May 2015, executive summary para J



28/83

• access controls

• parking control and management

• some pay and display areas

• peak period parking enforcement

• parking/directional wayfinding signage

• a small bus station

• provision for a drop off zone and mobility parking

• parking controls on Curran Street west of the Southern Landing (currentlyunrestricted)

132. These measures would need to be part of the Licence to Occupy as required withWaterfront Auckland. Further review measures could include:

• progressive extension of the gated parking system in the Westhaven Marinaarea

• extension of parking enforcement

• establishment of residents' parking schemes in the Sarsfield/Curran andSarsfield/Shelly Beach Road areas

• increasing SkyPath tolls during peak demand periods.

133. Mr Twose stated that Waterfront Auckland has a responsibility to its existingleaseholders to plan for rather than react to congestion issues should SkyPath usersseek to park within Westhaven. He outlined the measures that Waterfront Aucklandconsidered would be necessary to discourage SkyPath related parking, while havingregard to the Waterfront Auckland's obligations to Westhaven Marina Ltd and themarina users and berth holders.

134. He said that parking management techniques such as charging for public parking, orinstalling prevention devices such as barrier arms were feasible but the implicationsincluded capital and operational costs and resource consent requirements. Thesemeasures were not under the Applicant's control and for that reason conditions

requiring such measures were not supported. However, Waterfront Auckland couldaccept a condition stating that SkyPath could not commence operations until parkingmanagement measures are in place (noting that this overlaps with the conditionproffered by the Applicant on the development agreement between the parties). 43

135. The Applicant has proposed a range of conditions relating to traffic management,through the Operational Plan. By requiring this Operational Plan to be subject toconsultation with Waterfront Auckland prior to approval by Council the Commissionersare confident that parking effects at the Southern Landing can be adequately mitigated.

136. It is clear to the Commissioners that while the existing public parking supply near theSouthern Landing would be an attractive and convenient option for recreational users

43 Matthew Twose EiC, para 7.4



29/83

of SkyPath, there will only be a limited number of public spaces available and there willbe competition for them with other Westhaven users. We agree that the Applicant'sproposed strategy of promoting alternative modes of transport, combined with a pre-emptive set of measures to manage parking at Westhaven and the residential streetsnearby is appropriate. These measures will need to be adaptive and responsive, andinvolve collaboration with other agencies including NZTA, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. Particular attention will also need to be given to managing parkingat Point Erin Park. We are generally satisfied that the proposed Operational Planrequired by condition 40 is sufficiently comprehensive to address the effects of trafficand parking. However, we have included a reference in the Operational Plan to themanagement of special events on SkyPath which may result in concentrations ofpedestrians and cyclists at certain times.

Bus and coach facilities

137. Mr Twose confirmed that Waterfront Auckland has sufficient land in the Harbour BridgePark area to provide for a future bus and coach drop-off area and supported the section

42A report recommendation for an advice note referring to this matter. He did notsupport a consent condition, as the decision around location and configuration of sucha facility more properly rests with Waterfront Auckland and Council organisationsincluding both the Council and Auckland Transport.44 There was no disagreementregarding the need for, and ability to provide, a bus and coach drop off area in anappropriate location.

Amenity issues

138. WMUA and other submitters have raised concerns in their submissions about theremoval of important amenity native trees and landscaping on the southern AHBabutment for which there is no mitigation in the immediate vicinity.45 The affected

vegetation comprises a strip of mixed Pohutukawa and Cabbage trees approximately15m long. The trees are 6 - 8m high and were planted as part of the AHB abutmentworks in the 1980's.46 Initially, the Applicant proposed relocation of the trees butadvised in its response dated March 2015 to a request for further information by theCouncil that on further advice this was no longer proposed, as the trees' location on thebund will make relocation too difficult.47 While the Council's specialist landscapearchitect, Ms Gilbert, considered that relocation of the Pohutukawa trees should bereconsidered by the Applicant, the section 42A report concluded that "any loss of visualand natural character and amenity can be mitigated with some replacement replantingand the quality of the structure".48 We paid particular attention to the trees during oursite visit, and concur that reinstatement of the slope with a rock garden and landscapedarea with native specimen trees49 is an acceptable outcome.

NORTHERN LANDING

139. The location of the Northern Landing, how it operates, and its net impacts on theenvironment and the residents of the local area and surrounds attracted considerableattention at the hearing.

44 Twose, para 9.4

45 WMUA submission signed by Barry Holton dated 21 May 2015

46 Memorandum from Bridget Gilbert to Suzanne Murray, 20 March 2015 page 9

47

section 92 response dated March 2015, section 648 section 42A report, page 32

49 section 92 response dated March 2015, section 7.4(d)



30/83

140. As noted in the evidence summary above many of the submitters in opposition to theproposal expressed the firm viewpoint that the location of the Northern Landing was notappropriate, for example - Ms Lucy Whineray told us:

“..the Northcote Point landing is in the wrong place.” 50

141. George Wood and others offered us similar viewpoints:

“SkyPath terminates at the wrong location on Northcote Point”51

142. The reasons for questioning the location of the Northern Landing were many, theyincluded:

• Introduction of 13,000 plus patrons a day into our quiet residential area.52

• The projected patronage numbers will clearly have a huge impact on NorthcotePoint – parking, access, transport, toilets, resident security and privacy.53

• It is not readily accessible to users.54

• The Northern Landing is inappropriate in its proposed setting because of thestructure’s bulk and intrusiveness.55

• Historic cul-de-sac with extremely limited ingress and egress.56

• SkyPath can only be evaluated in context of an integrated network plan.57

• The proposal imparts significantly more than minor adverse effects on theneighbourhood and surrounds.58

• Impacts on the historic character of Northcote Point.59

• The SkyPath proposal creates a level of activity and physical intrusion that istruly contrary to the Residential 3 zone in the Northcote Point setting. 60

• Creates an unsafe and intolerable environment around Northcote and beyond.

• The increase in the volume of traffic on the road across from the Little Shoal BayReserve would be contrary to the provisions of the RMA.61

• Any increase in traffic would seriously threaten the welfare of children in what

50 Lucy Whineray’s (#618) Representation Statement at [8]

51 George Wood’s (#546) Representation Statement at page 1

52 Caryle Blanche, Brian and Jay Holloway (#L10) Representation Statement at [4.2]

53 Erica Hannam’s (#62) Representation Statement at [6]

54 Lucy Whineray’s (#618) Representation Statement at [8]

55 Legal Submission of S de Groot at [11]

56 Peter Sawyers (#65) Representation Statement at Page 1

57 Michael Smthe and Helen Schamroth’s (#615) Representation Statement at [4]

58 Graham Hugh’s (#107/#108) Representation Statement at [11]

59

Dinah Holman’s Statement of Evidence60 Brian Putt’s Statement of Evidence at [4.8]

61 Little Shoal Bay Protection Society Incorporated’s (#550) Representation Statement at[5]



31/83

should be a safe and protected environment.62

• possible effects associated with the predicted large numbers of patrons includesafety, security, privacy, noise, lighting effects, loss of parking, and the maineffects of large traffic volumes and all the attendant traffic by-products andintrusive nuisances.63

143. We also heard representations from submitters supporting the Northern Landing:

• Generation Zero were highly enthusiastic in their support for SkyPath noting thatany adverse impacts at the landings could readily be overcome.

• Michael Pearson, a Northcote Point resident, offered us general support forSkyPath – seeing “the proposal as one the most transformational projects Auckland has seen in a generation if not more.”64

144. We were faced with competing evidence from

sky path decision 20150602

Documents