Assessment of Environmental Effects Hearing...

HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Assessment of Environmental Effects

Hearing Report

Notice of Requirement by Telecom New Zealand Limited for a new designation for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes at its existing Onehunga Exchange site at 58 Princes Street, Onehunga.

Report to: The Hearing Commissioners

From: Kelly Seekup, Consultant Planner

Date: 1 March 2011

Keywords: Notice of Requirement, telecommunication, radiocommunication

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................... 3

2.0 The Notice of Requirement............................................................................................. 3

2.1 Designation Sought ........................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Overview of Proposal and Surrounding Environment ....................................................... 4 2.3.1 Proposal .................................................................................................................... 4 2.3.2 Site Description and Surrounding Environment ........................................................ 5

3.0 Submissions .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Late Submissions .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Summary of Submissions.................................................................................................. 6

4.0 Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Assessment of Effects on the Environment ...................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Radiofrequency Effects ............................................................................................. 7 4.1.2 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3 Visual Effects, Overshadowing and Dominance ..................................................... 13 4.1.4 Access and Parking ................................................................................................. 17 4.1.5 Hazardous Substances ........................................................................................... 19 4.1.6 Soil Instability and Contamination Effects ............................................................... 20


4.1.7 Heritage Effects ....................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Other Matters raised by Submissions ............................................................................. 22 4.2.1 Submission from 2Degrees ..................................................................................... 22

4.3 Relevant Provisions of Policy Statements and Plans ..................................................... 23 4.3.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement ...................................................................... 23 4.3.2 Auckland City District Plan ...................................................................................... 24

5.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 27

6.0 Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 27

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Copy of the Notice of Requirement and Noise Report

Appendix 2 Photos of the site

Appendix 3 Previous District Scheme designation information

Appendix 4 Submissions

Appendix 5 Correspondence to/from Applicant relating to a S92 request

Appendix 6 Specialist Comments


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference

This hearing report (hereafter referred to as ‘this report’) is intended to assist the Hearing Commissioners (the Commissioners) in considering the requirement by Telecom New Zealand Limited (Telecom) to designate land for telecommunication and radiocommunication and ancillary purposes at its existing Onehunga exchange site. The report is also intended to assist the Commissioners in considering the submissions received in respect of the designation requirement.

This hearing report should be read in conjunction with the Introductory Hearing Report outlining the statutory framework and the information that is relevant to all 14 exchange sites and the proposed designations.

The comments in this report should not be construed as a conclusive recommendation, particularly as further evidence may be provided at the hearing both on behalf of the Requiring Authority and the submitters.

2.0 THE NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT

2.1 Designation Sought

Telecom seeks a designation for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes at its existing Onehunga exchange site, which is located at 58 Princes Street, Onehunga and is legally described as Pt Allotment 9 Section 17, Town of Onehunga. The proposed location of the designation is shown below:

A copy of the notified NoR is included in Appendix 1.

The Onehunga Exchange is a substantial one to two storey building with a pitched roof that covers the majority of the site. There is an existing 22.2m mast with attached antennas located in the middle of the exchange site. Plans and photographs of the existing site are contained in Appendix 2. Previous


District Scheme designation information (dated 1991) is contained in Appendix 3.

The Requiring Authority proposes that conditions be attached to the designation, to allow for existing works and facilities on the site, as well as any future upgrades. This is consistent with the designation purpose sought by Telecom nationally. The proposed conditions concern matters around the height of any mast or antenna and their finished appearance, details of building envelopes for any new buildings at the site, noise limits and compliance with New Zealand Standard NZS2772.1:1999.

The Requiring Authority gave notice of its requirement to designate land to the Council on 8 July 2010.

The requirement was publicly notified on 1 November 2010 as proposed Plan Modification 285 (Isthmus District Plan). The closing date for submissions was Friday 26 November 2010 and 2 submissions were received (see Appendix 4). No late submissions have been received.

2.2 Background

This is a long established telecommunications site. The site was previously designated for a Telephone Exchange under the Borough of Onehunga Third Operative District Scheme 1991. However, for reasons that are unclear, the roll-over of this designation into the current Auckland Isthmus District Plan did not occur. The site is currently operating under existing use rights and resource consents for the antennas on the existing mast. The most recent resource consent was granted in on 16 August 2008 to replace 9 existing panel antennas with 9 new panel antennas at the top of the existing mast (ref LUC20080041901)

2.3 Overview of Proposal and Surrounding Environment

2.3.1 Proposal

Telecom proposes to designate the existing exchange site described in section 2.1 above, which incorporates the following existing infrastructure:

Telephone exchange building; 22.2m mast with circular head and attached antennas; Back-up electricity generators (electricity alternators) and associated

fuel storage; Air conditioning plant; and Asphalt parking area.

Future work at the site will include maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works as necessary and as required for the continued provision of telecommunications and radio-communications services.

Current planned works for exchanges within the Auckland isthmus in the next five years include, but are not limited to, replacing DC power plant, batteries, standby plant, replacing, upgrading and new air conditioning units, new and replacement diesel tanks (ranging from 1,500L to 10,000L tanks).

Six of the exchanges have co-location work programmed over the next 5 years. This work involves putting in new power feeds and footplates for the new Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) that other telecommunication customers wish to locate in the exchanges. Where antennas are located on exchange sites, these are subject to continual upgrading and reconfiguration to meet evolving technology and customer demand.


The NoR states that the designation of the site would give Telecom the flexibility and certainty to establish, maintain and upgrade this equipment and other ancillary work necessary for the continued operation of the exchange to provide a world class telecommunications system to Auckland.

2.3.2 Site Description and Surrounding Environment

The majority of the subject site is zoned Mixed Use, with a small portion in the north-eastern corner being zoned Business 2, in accordance with the Operative Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section (District Plan).

The site comprises a substantial one to two storey building with a pitched roof that covers the majority of the site. There is an existing 22.2m mast with attached antennas located in the middle of the exchange site. Access to the site is from Princes Street, which is a collector road. The site contains space for parking of service vehicles in an informal arrangement.

The site is located within the Onehunga Centre Plan Area, is subject to the Airport Approach height restriction (H05-04 - 120m) and is noted on Council’s records as being a contaminated site and in a soil register area.

The immediately surrounding area is zoned for business and mixed uses and can be described as commercial in nature. The nearest residential apartments are located in the Mixed Use zone to the south-west of the site on the opposite side of Princes Street. The Onehunga Police Station is located to the east of the site. The Onehunga Vehicle Testing Station and the Library Cafe and Function room are located opposite and the Sir William Jordan Recreation Centre and carpark is located behind the site.

3.0 SUBMISSIONS

A total of 2 submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are provided in Appendix 4 of this report.

Table 3-1 below summarises the submissions by the recommendation sought.

Table 3-1 Recommendations Sought in Submissions

Recommendation Sought Submission(s)

Accept with amendments (1)

1 (NZ Historic Places Trust)

Decline, or accept with amendments (1)

2 (2degrees)

3.1 Late Submissions

No late submissions were received on Plan Modification 285.


3.2 Summary of Submissions

The following table summarises the matters raised by submitters, the decision sought, and any specific relief sought.

Sub. No.

Name Matters Raised Specific Relief Sought Recommendation Sought

1 NZ Historic Places Trust

Wishes to be heard

Support but seek amendments

In order to promote the identification, protection, preservation and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand, the Historic Places Trust wish to ensure that the requiring authority is aware of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act.

The submitter seeks the following relief

Seek an advice note be added to the designation conditions to ensure that the requiring authority is aware of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act.

Accept with amendments

2 2degrees

Submission does not state whether wishes to be heard

Decline, or accept with amendments

An integrated co-location cell tower company which is a specialist site owning company is required.

2degrees supports designation, only after the impact of competition has been analysed and reviewed by the Auckland Council.

The submitter seeks the following relief

Seek that the Council decline the designation and request that Telecom resubmit with a plan for a site for an integrated co-location cell tower company which is a specialist site owning company.

Decline and resubmit


4.0 ASSESSMENT

The Notice of Requirement lodged by Telecom provides an assessment in terms of the matters set out in section 171 of the RMA. The following discussion summarises the key findings of the assessment and provides additional commentary where it is considered necessary to assess relevant matters in more detail, including in relation to the details raised in the request for further information and Telecom’s response, as well as the issues raised by submitters.

4.1 Assessment of Effects on the Environment

The Notice of Requirement generally provides an accurate assessment of environmental effects associated with the infrastructure which is currently located on the site. The Onehunga exchange is a long established telecommunications site, forming part of the existing environment. As such, there will be no immediate effect on the environment by designating this site. It is considered that any effects on the environment will only arise should additional works or uses be undertaken on the site. Moreover, the future potential effects associated with upgrading the site have been assessed accordingly.

It is concluded that any adverse effects will generally be acceptable provided the recommended conditions are attached to the designation. Recommendations regarding amendments and additions to the proposed conditions are made in Section 6.0 of this report.

The proposed project is considered to result in positive effects, as the planned works give Telecom the opportunity to maintain and upgrade its exchanges to provide a world class telecommunications system to Auckland. This project will allow future work on Telecom’s remaining strategic sites to be carried out in a nationally consistent manner which will have social and economic benefits for the community and the nation as a whole.

Additional assessment is now provided in relation to the following effects, including, where relevant, assessment of matters raised in the submissions.

4.1.1 Radiofrequency Effects

Outline of Potential Effects

The Ministry of Health considers that there are no established adverse effects from exposures to radiofrequency (RF) fields that comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines and the New Zealand standard. The Environment Court has similarly concluded that there are no adverse health effects arising from exposures to RF fields that comply with the New Zealand standard. The New Zealand standard is NZS 2772: Part 1: 1999 Radiofrequency Fields Part 1 – Maximum Exposure Levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz.

Clause 4 of the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities, which came into force in 2008, requires compliance with the New Zealand Standard, and is relevant to all telecommunications facilities that generate RF fields.


Requiring Authority’s Assessment

Telecom has not provided an assessment confirming that the RF fields currently being emitted from the existing 22.2m mast and its attached antennas at the Onehunga Exchange site comply with the New Zealand Standard. Telecom has advised that any future equipment transmitting RF fields will comply with the New Zealand standard.

Requiring Authority’s proposed mitigation (including conditions)

Telecom has proposed a condition in the NoR application that any equipment transmitting RF energy is to be operated in accordance with the New Zealand Standard for exposure to RF energy (NZS2772:1999 Part 1) as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities 2008 (NES). Specifically the proposed Condition states:

Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in New Zealand Standard NZS2772.1:1999 at any place where the public has reasonable access.

Issues raised by Submitters

None of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised concern about radiofrequency fields.

Assessment

It is considered that the proposed condition is appropriate, with an amendment to ensure compliance with the current NES as follows:

‘Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in current New Zealand Standard as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities at any place where the public has reasonable access’.

This will ensure that the New Zealand Standard for exposure to RF energy as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities and the Ministry of Health guidelines will be met in perpetuity.

Conclusion and recommendations

Overall, it is considered that the amended condition proposed by Telecom be imposed to ensure that there will be no adverse effect in relation to RF fields as follows:

‘9. Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in the current New Zealand Standard as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications FacilitiesNZS2772.1:1999 at any place where the public has reasonable access.’

4.1.2 Noise


The exchange site currently contains noise-generating equipment, including an air conditioning plant which is used for the cooling of equipment in the exchange, as well as a backup generator also known as an electricity alternator. The potential effects from this equipment are assessed as follows.

Condenser Units


Telecom has advised that over time, and as the exchange site is upgraded, they will strive to improve the noise levels from the site, should pre-existing noise issues continue to occur. This is the case as sometimes the older condenser units are not able to comply with residential noise limits. Despite this, Telecom has advised that with the installation of a new unit, it will not always be economically feasible to resolve all existing noise issues from all units on site. Accordingly, Telecom has proposed a condition, which is consistent for all of its exchanges in the Auckland Isthmus. The condition relates to requiring all new equipment to meet the proposed boundary noise limits in their own right, and to not result in any cumulative increase in existing noise emitted from the site.

Telecom are of the opinion that this will ensure that there will be improvements in noise levels over time, if any issues exist, but that the proposed condition will be flexible enough to allow upgrades to occur that are economically feasible.

Further, Telecom states that an assessment of existing noise and the effect of any upgrading, replacement or addition of new equipment can be assessed in any outline plan for such works.

Electricity Alternators

Electricity Alternators (EA’s) only operate infrequently during electricity outages but they are essential to allow for continued service, despite it being impractical for them to meet some noise limits (i.e. residential). For this reason, Telecom’s proposed designation conditions exclude the operation of EA’s from general noise compliance.

Test runs to ensure their reliability are also carried out for approximately one hour each week during normal working hours, as well as one five hour test annually.

Telecom has advised that as the EA’s are upgraded over time they will need to demonstrate best practicable option as part of any outline plan process for any new or upgraded equipment. This in turn will allow Council the opportunity to assess and comment on the reasonableness of noise levels and mitigation for any such projects. It is noted that this process normally provides the opportunity to improve any existing noise effects from EA operation.

Load Shedding

In the past, Telecom has been approached by some power supply and line companies to make EA’s available for ‘load shedding’ during emergency circumstances, such as when the electricity network is under extreme pressure and is facing supply cuts. As the exchanges are large power users, the EA’s have the ability to take the exchange off the electricity grid for short periods to assist with avoiding electricity blackouts. While this can cause short-term nuisance, Telecom has advised that it has counter-balancing benefits of taking pressure off stressed electricity supplies, which would in turn benefit any parties that may suffer some noise nuisance.

Telecom provided a noise assessment of the 14 exchange sites in the Auckland Isthmus as Appendix C to their NoR application.


Telecom has supplied an Acoustic Assessment prepared by Noise Control Services (NCS) with its NoR. This assessment is included as Appendix C to Telecom’s AEE (refer Appendix 1 to this report).


This assessment sets out a site-specific assessment and overview of each of the 14 exchange sites in respect of the existing noise outputs. The assessment then carries out a review of the text in the current Auckland District Plan and provides discussion around existing use rights and also highlights the responsibilities of Telecom under Section 16 (Duty to avoid unreasonable noise) and Section 17 (Duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects).

In respect of the Onehunga site, the acoustic assessment reported on the nature of the existing land use activities surrounding the exchange site. It states that “There is a relatively high daytime ambient [noise] due to the adjacent shopping area..... A distance correction of forty metres across Princess [sic] St can be utilised to the pub and restaurant area directly across the street. There is no plant on the front of the building...... The existing mechanical plant is on three sides of the building adjacent to commercial boundaries. The site has a small EA located within the building facing the commercial boundary.” No existing noise levels were provided by Telecom based on the current infrastructure equipment which exists on the site.

NCS commented on the potential for increase in overall site noise emissions with the growth in the telecommunications sector and the increase in extra equipment being located at the exchange sites. NCS is of the opinion that this additional noise can be offset by the careful selection of newer technologies with lower noise emission and the careful location of new or replacement equipment in the least noise sensitive location on each site.

As a consequence NCS has recommended that three conditions be implemented in order to satisfy the noise limit obligations at each site. It is noted that the site is zoned Mixed Use and specific noise limits, as included in the District Plan, relating to this zoning have not been recommended by Telecom. Specifically, the conditions are as follows:

1. All new equipment (excluding any electrical alternator required for emergency back-up power) shall not exceed the following noise limits:

At the boundary of any Residentially Zoned property:

7am – 10pm Monday to Sunday Leq 50dB(A)

At all other times Leq 40 dB(A)

At the boundary of any Business Zoned property:

7am – 10pm on any day Leq 55dB(A)

At all other times Leq 45dB(A)

These noise levels are to be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6801:2008 and NZS6802:2008.

2. All new equipment (excluding any electrical generator required for emergency back-up power) shall cumulatively in combination with any other noise generating equipment on the site, not increase present noise levels.

3. Where noise from new electricity alternator equipment exceeds the levels noted in Condition 1, an outline plan is to be submitted which demonstrates how the equipment and mitigation measures are the best practicable option (BPO) to ensure noise does not exceed a reasonable level.



Telecom’s AEE sets out the proposed noise mitigation measures to be employed in order to mitigate adverse noise effects. These measures reflect the wording in the recommendations proposed by NCS above and go further to embellish the wording in doing so providing clarification and enforceability. The recommended conditions are shown on page 4 of Telecom’s NoR application and specifically relate to the Mixed Use zoning of the site.

Statutory Matters

Section 16 of the RMA contains a general duty to avoid unreasonable noise, requiring every occupier of land to adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise does not exceed a reasonable level. Section 17 also contains a general duty for every person to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried out by or on behalf of a person.

While the acoustic assessment by NCS has highlighted these sections of the RMA, it is noted that Telecom’s NoR has not provided a discussion on how it is addressing its duty under Section 16 and 17 of the Act.

Further Information Request

A Section 92 request for further information was sent to Telecom on 20 August 2010, which attempted to gain a better understanding of the potential noise effects associated with the designation of this site. The information request identified an issue concerning noise complaints for some exchange sites from surrounding properties regarding technician visits. Council therefore requested that Telecom provide parameters around typical hours for technicians to undertake routine maintenance work (not emergency work).

Telecom’s response was that they cannot propose any restrictions to non-emergency technicians work hours for routine maintenance work. Telecom explained that the technicians must have unrestricted access (24 hours a day and 7 days a week) for planned routine operations and maintenance work. This work cannot be undertaken during standard business hours without the risk of significant disruption to customer services. Telecom has stated that it will continue to work with its service providers to ensure any potential risk of disruption to neighbours is minimised from the coming and going of technicians as part of their daily work.

The Council is of the opinion that the proposed noise conditions offer no control over the noise emissions of existing EAs on the site. Telecom was therefore requested to provide a methodology to manage the noise emissions of the existing EAs to ensure that the best practicable option (BPO) has been adopted and that the existing EAs generate no more than a reasonable level of noise in the context of any scheduled maintenance and emergency operations.

Telecom responded by stating that their strategy is to ensure the continuing improvement over time as equipment is replaced or upgraded. The EAs are used during electricity supply failures and accordingly, they did not consider it appropriate to propose any additional conditions that could affect the operation of its existing EA. Telecom has advised that they will respond and investigate any noise concerns raised by its neighbours as they have done for other exchange sites within the Auckland area.

Issues raised by Submitters

None of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised concern about noise.


Assessment

The NoR and its accompanying acoustic assessment has been reviewed by Jon Styles of JPStyles Ltd, who has been engaged by the Council to undertake an assessment of all 14 proposed designation sites (refer to Appendix 7 for all specialist comments).

JPStyles Ltd has noted in their assessment that the sites are currently operating subject to the development controls of the underlying zone notwithstanding any existing use rights that may apply. It is not clear to JPStyles Ltd which of the existing sites, if any, are currently compliant with the noise limits in the District Plan. Further JPStyles Ltd is of the understanding that no noise measurements have been undertaken relative to the proposed Designations. Mr Styles further notes that existing use rights, whether confirmed or otherwise do not absolve the duty to comply with the requirements of s16 of the RMA, particularly in complying with a reasonable level of noise.

The JPStyles Report discusses the acoustic assessment lodged with Telecom’s NoR. Mr Styles comments that this report sets out the results of a subjective acoustic assessment for each of the 14 sites, detailing matters such as nearest receivers, separation distances and general configuration of plant and noise sources. Mr Styles is of the opinion that this information is useful in terms of understanding the layout and general nature of the sites and surrounds but the report does not contain any measured noise level data for the sites.

The existing noise environment forms part of the established permitted baseline for the site and therefore it is considered appropriate to only control new noise generating equipment and this is reflected in the proposed and recommended conditions. Further details of the noise effects would be assessed as part of the outline plan of works stage.


Overall, having considered the nature of the site and surrounding environment, which comprises predominantly commercial uses or recreational uses, Telecom’s proposed designation conditions (amended to include mixed use noise limits as per the current District Plan), and the review of the proposal by Mr Styles, it is considered that the following conditions would ensure there will be no adverse effects on the environment resulting from the designation (deletions in strikethrough and additions underlined):

7. Any new noise generating equipment (excluding any electricity alternator required for emergency back up power generation) shall not exceed the following noise limits

At the boundary of the adjacent business zoned property: 7am – 10pm on any day: Leq 55 dB(A) 10pm – 7am on any day: Leq 45 dB(A) At the boundary of the adjacent mixed use zoned property: 7am – 10pm on any day: Leq 60 dB(A) 10pm – 7am on any day: Leq 55 dB(A)


8. Any new noise generating equipment (excluding any electricity alternator required for emergency backup power generation) shall cumulatively in combination with any other noise generating equipment on the site not result in any increase in existing noise levels received at any other property boundary where the noise levels in Condition 7 are exceeded. A noise assessment shall be submitted as part of any outline plan to confirm the existing noise levels and predicted new noise levels and predicted new noise levels to confirm compliance with this condition.

9. For any changes or additions to the electricity alternators on the site, where the noise from all electricity alternators exceeds the noise limits in Condition 7, an outline plan shall be required which demonstrates how the equipment and any mitigation is the best practicable option (BPO) to ensure that noise levels do not exceed a reasonable level and do not exceed existing noise levels.

4.1.3 Visual Effects, Overshadowing and Dominance


The existing exchange as already discussed in section 2.1 of this report is a substantial one to two storey building with a pitched roof that covers the majority of the site. The existing mast is located in the middle of the exchange site. Sites to the east and west are zoned Mixed Use or Business 2, with properties zoned Open Space 4 to the rear and opposite the site.

Potential visual, shadowing or dominance effects on the adjacent properties and the streetscene arising from the proposed designation are assessed below.


Telecom has carried out an assessment of the potential visual effects associated with the proposed designation of this site. Telecom advises in its assessment that the site is a long established network utility operation that forms part of the character of the local area. Telecom is of the opinion that the conditions proposed will allow them some flexibility to operate and upgrade services on the site while controlling the scale of structures on the site to ensure that any adverse effects on sensitive land uses in the area are not unreasonable.


A condition has been proposed that will allow for a maximum height of a mast and antennas on the site to 20 metres. Telecom has advised that this is the standard condition which they seek in a commercial area, and that this is generally consistent with the current permitted standard height limit for masts and antennas in the Mixed Use and Business 2 zones. Telecom has also proposed a condition stating that all antennas and support structures are to be finished in a recessive or dull colour.

A building envelope condition has also been proposed which will control the scale of any future building additions at the site. This includes a height limit of 12.5 metres and a height in relation to boundary recession plane, which is to comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining boundaries. It is noted that this building envelope excludes masts, exhaust flues, antennas and air conditioning equipment.


Telecom’s proposed condition goes on to state that this will not apply to the maintenance, upgrading and replacement of any existing building where it already infringes this condition, provided there is no additional exceedence of the standards within this condition.

Specifically, the proposed conditions state:

1. The height of any mast and antennas (on a mast or a building) shall not exceed 20m.

2. Notwithstanding Condition 1, the antennas on the existing mast existing 1 January 2009 may be upgraded, reconfigured or additional antennas installed subject to there being no increase in the overall height of the mast and attached antennas.

3. All antennas and support structures shall be painted or supplied in a recessive colour or supplied in a material that will weather to a dull finish (e.g galvanised steel brackets and antenna components).

4. Any building, excluding masts, exhaust flues, antennas and air conditioning equipment shall be contained within the following building envelope:

Height – 12.5m

Height in relation to boundary – shall comply with the relevant height in relation to boundary controls from adjoining residential boundaries as included in the Auckland City District Plan as at 1 January 2009.

Except this shall not restrict the maintenance, upgrading and replacement of any existing building where it already infringes this condition provided there is no additional exceedence of the standards within this condition.

For the avoidance of doubt, building height may be measured by either a rolling height method, or average height of the periphery of the building, whichever is the greater.


A Section 92 request for further information was sent to Telecom on 20 August 2010, which attempted to gain a better understanding of the potential visual effects associated with the designation of this site. This information request identified concerns around the mast envelope, including mast numbers, mast location and antennas on existing masts. It also highlighted concerns around the building envelope in respect of antennas on buildings and temporary structures.

Telecom was asked as to whether they were proposing to limit the number of masts that may be installed at the site. Further, should the limit exceed a single mast, Telecom was asked what methodology was proposed to ensure that the potential adverse visual effects of multiple masts could be satisfactorily assessed.

Telecom’s response was that it was satisfied its proposed conditions offered an appropriate balance between permitting activities on the site and the requirement to manage effects on the environment. Telecom further stated that they were not proposing any specific limit on the number of masts at this site.


They were of the opinion that the methodology for addressing visual effects would be the outline plan of works process in Section 176A of the RMA. To further assist with identifying the circumstances where outline plans would be submitted or required, Telecom suggested an additional condition as follows:

“That an Outline Plan of works shall not be required for any internal building works (excluding equipment generating external noise), ‘like for like’ replacement of equipment, the replacement of any antennas with antennas of similar size provided that there is no increase in the overall height of the facility, or boundary fencing otherwise permitted by the District Plan.”

Telecom was asked how it would ensure that any new masts would avoid generating more than minor adverse visual effects on streetscape values. Telecom’s response stated that they would not be offering any designation conditions to address this matter as there are no controls for mast location from the street in the underlying zone contained within the network utilities rules of the Plan. They have further added that unreasonable dominance and overshadowing effects on the road were not anticipated.

Council also raised concern that the increase in the bulk of the masts and antennas can create adverse visual effects and asked how Telecom was going to address this matter. Telecom responded by stating that they were not prepared to propose any further controls on the numbers of antennas. They further advised that the existing mast already contains a relatively substantial circular platform head and as such reconfiguration of antennas on this head, including the addition of antennas, will not alter the fundamental appearance or massing of this structure. Telecom reiterated that the visual effects of any future antennas can be adequately assessed through the outline plan process.

The Council highlighted the potential for an unlimited number of antennas being attached to 7.5m high support structures on the roof of a building. Further, because the NoR does not provide any indication of the approximate height of the existing exchange building on the site there is the potential for antennas on support structures being much higher than this. As a result, the Council requested Telecom to consider the following:

An appropriate cap on the height of antennas on buildings in business zones similar to that proposed for exchange sites in residential zones; and

Limiting the number of antennas that can be installed on the roof of the exchange building, or in the alternative,

Provision of a specific assessment to demonstrate how the effects of antennas on buildings can be appropriately managed.

Telecom’s response was that once the height of individual antennas and their mounts above a roof line is more than a few metres, a mast would generally be the most practical solution due to the structural limitations (particularly wind loading and roof strength), as opposed to individual antennas on long roof mounted support poles.

The District Plan allows antennas to the zone height plus 6m in Business zones (including the Mixed Use zone), regardless of existing building height, and does not differentiate between masts or antennas on buildings. Therefore Telecom is of the opinion that the proposed designation condition is generally aligned with the current District Plan, and from a practical perspective would be unlikely to result in the type of outcome the Council is concerned about (namely numerous individual antennas on very high mounts above buildings).


Telecom further advised that it does not consider that such a limit on the number of antennas is appropriate for a long standing and dedicated telecommunications site. Telecom are of the opinion that the additional condition suggested above will provide an appropriate consenting framework and reiterated that the outline plan process itself provides Council with the ability to suggest changes to address adverse visual effects.

The final aspect concerning visual effects that the Council requested further information on related to temporary structures. Council requested that Telecom consider placing limitations on location, size, and timeframes for temporary structures to assist in assessing any potential adverse effects.

In response, Telecom advised that any temporary structure is still required to meet the purpose of the designation and comply with its conditions. Further, the outline plan process provides Council with the opportunity to address potential adverse effects from those structures. Accordingly, Telecom does not consider that any further restrictions are necessary.

Issues raised by submitters

None of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised concern about visual effects. 2degrees advised that the site would be suited for co-location and this is further discussed in section 4.2 of this report.

Assessment

The Council’s Open Space Planner and Senior Urban Designer have commented on the proposed notices of requirement in relation to streetscape and open space issues. The Onehunga Exchange site is located adjacent to Open Space 4 zone to the rear (Sir William Jordan Recreation Centre). General issues of safety and surveillance and streetscape treatment have been raised for all sites. It is considered that given the existing and proposed use of the site, the topography of the site and the character of the area, the outline plan of works for any new development would be the most appropriate process for assessing these issues.

It is considered that based on the nature of the site and the permitted baseline for the site (which is 15m height for the Mixed Use zone and 12.5m for the Business 2 zone with an additional 6m allowable for antennas), the proposed maximum height of mast at 20m and the proposed maximum height of any new building at 12.5m is acceptable to mitigate adverse effects on the character of the area. The condition allowing upgrade of the existing mast and antennas and additional antennas on the existing mast (at existing height) is considered acceptable given the existing character of the site and area.

With regard to Height in Relation to Building controls proposed by Telecom, the site is surrounded by Mixed Use, Open Space 4 and Business 2 zoned land and therefore the conditions needs to be amended to reflect these zonings, rather than residentially zoned land. Open Space zones and Mixed Use zones have Building in Relation to Boundary controls or daylight controls that would be applicable to the site. Conditions are outlined below.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s proposed designation conditions, all comments from consultees and an assessment of the site characteristics, it is considered that the proposal would have no more than minor adverse visual effects on the surrounding environment given the recommended conditions follows (additions underlined):


1. The height of any mast and antennas (on a mast or a building) shall not exceed 20m above ground level (excluding any lightning rod).


3. Any new masts and associated antennas shall comply with the relevant building in relation to boundary controls from adjoining open space land and the daylight controls for the mixed use zoned land as included in the Auckland City District Plan as at 1 January 2009.

4. All antennas and support structures shall be painted or supplied in a recessive colour or supplied in a material that will weather to a dull finish (e.g galvanised steel brackets and antenna components).


a) Height – 12.5m

b) Height in relation to boundary – shall comply with the relevant building in relation to boundary controls from adjoining open space land and the daylight controls for the mixed use zoned land as included in the Auckland City District Plan as at 1 January 2009.



6. That an Outline Plan of works shall not be required for any internal building works (excluding equipment generating external noise), ‘like for like’ replacement of equipment, the replacement of any antennas with antennas of similar size provided that there is no increase in the overall height of the facility, or boundary fencing otherwise permitted by the District Plan.

4.1.4 Access and Parking

Outline of potential effects

The existing access and car parking arrangements are utilised by Telecom contractors visiting the site. Currently the site is accessed from Princes Street via two vehicle crossings. It contains space for parking of service vehicles in an informal arrangement.

No substantive changes to access and parking are envisaged for any future works on the site given that the site is fundamentally developed already.


Telecom has advised that should any significant change to access and parking ever be proposed, relevant access and car parking issues can be considered through the outline plan process.



Telecom are therefore of the opinion, that no specific designation conditions regarding access and parking should be proposed.


Council expressed its concern as to how the potential effects of parking, access and vehicle movements would be adequately addressed at the outline plan stage in the Request for Further Information letter sent to Telecom on 20 August 2010. In particular, it asked:

1. What does Telecom consider as a ‘significant change’ in site layout 2. What specific considerations will be made regarding parking and access 3. How does Telecom propose to address the effects of a potential

increase in vehicle movements on the site should a ‘significant change’ in site layout occur.

Telecom responded on 5 October 2010 by stating that “the current parking and access arrangements for the site are adequate for meeting Telecom’s needs.”

Further, “a ‘significant change’ would essentially be the demolition and rebuilding of the structure.” Telecom is of the opinion that this would not be necessary due to the significant changes which have occurred to the telecommunications industry over the years, which has meant that most sites no longer have permanent staff, and therefore, there is excess floor space. Consequently, substantive changes in building coverage, and therefore the need to rebuild, are not currently anticipated by Telecom.

However, should the building be increased in size, such that the parking is reduced, the Outline Plan process would enable Council to address potential adverse effects through section 176A(3)(d). This subsection requires the consideration of vehicular access, circulation and provision for parking in an outline plan.


None of the submissions received on this NoR by the Council raised concern about access and parking.

Assessment

Council’s Traffic Engineer, Pravin Dayaram recommended in his memo to the consulting planner dated 9 August 2010 that more details about the actual use of these facilities at each site, such as the frequency of movements to and from the site and occupancy of available parking spaces are provided to assist the public’s understanding and to provide a baseline of information, with which to assess any future significant changes proposed. Mr Dayaram consequently suggested a general access condition be imposed on all of the designation sites.

It was considered inappropriate to request Telecom to provide the above details as the exchange site is existing and has been operating on existing use rights and granted resource consent applications for many years. Most of the above information can be obtained by carrying out a site visit to the exchange.


However, it is considered that a condition should be imposed on the designation in the event that any significant change is proposed in the site layout or if any additional building works are planned for the site. Should this be the case, a traffic impact assessment will be required to address matters of access, carparking and trip generation. This information will be required to be submitted as part of the Outline Plan of Works process and will mitigate any potential adverse traffic effects on the environment.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s assessment and the Transportation assessment by Council (Pravin Dayaram), it is considered that the designation will enable the exchange to continue to operate at existing levels. Further, with the inclusion of a condition requiring a Transport Assessment to be submitted as part of the Outline Plan of Works process there will be no more than minor adverse traffic effects should any significant changes to access or additional building works occur in the future. The additional condition is as follows:

11. Should any significant change in site layout or any additional building works be proposed a traffic impact assessment which addresses access, car parking and trip generation shall be submitted as part of the outline plan of works process to ensure any potential adverse effects are appropriately mitigated.

4.1.5 Hazardous Substances


Telecom has advised that diesel storage associated with the running of the generators is located on the site.

Telecom has advised that any upgrade of the facilities at the existing exchange site will need to meet current Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 regulations.


Telecom has advised by way of an email dated 10th December 2010 that they have a diesel tank replacement strategy in place, which involves removing all underground tanks installed by the New Zealand Post and replacing all single skin constructed tanks with double skinned tanks. The upgrade of the 14 tanks in the Auckland Region is planned for the 2010/2011 financial year from approved capital funding.

The underground tanks are typically single skin construction in a concrete bund with a sand medium in between. All of the underground tanks are pressure tested as part of Telecom’s maintenance routine for HSNO stationary container certification.

Telecom has also been upgrading all of its single skin underground and indoor day tanks to modern Supervault double skin above ground tanks and DMS Manufactured double skin day tanks up to 1200 litres since the late 1990s. Telecom has further advised that these tanks meet all manufacturing standards, are HSNO compliant and are either installed indoors or in a caged area.


Telecom has not provided any details for proposed mitigation measures of having diesel stored at the site, except to say that it will meet current HSNO regulations.



None of the submissions received on this NoR raised concerns or issues relating to the storage of hazardous facilities.

Assessment

It is acknowledged that the storage of diesel at the exchange site is controlled under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HNSO) Act 1996. This legislation provides the means to set conditions on the management of hazardous substances which apply irrespective of their location. However, conditions to manage the risks at a particular site are controlled under the RMA.

It is considered that the actual and potential effects associated with the storage of diesel at the exchange site is no more than minor as the storage of the diesel is fully compliant with HSNO regulations. The majority of the diesel is stored securely underground, or in a restricted location. Telecom’s planned upgrade will further avoid the potential for adverse effects by replacing all of the older underground tanks and replacing the single skin constructed tanks with double skin constructed tanks in the 2010/2011 financial year.


Overall, having considered Telecom’s assessment it is considered that the storage of diesel at the site is being appropriately managed, such that, the actual and potential adverse effects of the diesel’s existence at the exchange site are avoided and mitigated to be no more than minor, through their location on the site and the planned upgrade works in the current financial year.

An advice note is recommended relating to compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

4.1.6 Soil Instability and Contamination Effects


The site is listed on Council’s records as being located in a Soil Register Area and a contaminated site. There is a dangerous goods licence held for the site, given the underground storage of diesel and therefore the Council’s records have been amended to note a potentially contaminated site.

Given the existing use of the building and storage at the site, any future development has the potential to result in effects on the environment in relation to soil contamination.


Telecom has not provided an assessment of the soil instability or contamination restrictions on the site.


Telecom has not provided any details for proposed mitigation measures for soil instability or contamination.


None of the submissions received on this NoR raised concerns or issues relating to the stability or contamination of the site.


Assessment

It is considered that two conditions are required to ensure that any excavation at the site associated undertaken as part of any future development of the exchange site is assessed as part of the Outline Plan of Works process in accordance with the Council’s requirements for soil contamination to ensure the avoidance and mitigation of the potential hazard.


Overall, having considered the site characteristics and the potential adverse effects on the environment, it is considered that conditions 12 and 13 outlined below should be imposed on the designation to ensure there will be no adverse effects on the environment (deletions in strikethrough and additions underlined):

12. The site is subject to potential geotechnical hazards. Any future developments shall be required to provide an assessment of the criteria in Part 5D.6 of the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as part of the outline plan of works.

13. Should an outline plan of works involve earthworks and/or excavation, the requiring authority (Telecom) shall undertake an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to be submitted with the outline plan of works. The ESA shall be comprised of a desktop study, a walkover of the proposed development area to identify potential contamination and soil sampling within the proposed development area. The results of the ESA shall demonstrate the level of contamination within the area of works and propose mitigation in the event that the contamination is above the regulatory guideline values for the protection of human health in the relevant zone.

If evidence of contamination which has not been previously identified is discovered during works, the Requiring Authority shall immediately cease works and notify the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring, and provide a detailed site contamination report and action plan to the satisfaction of the Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring.

The Requiring Authority shall ensure the excavated materials that require offsite disposal are disposed of in an appropriate landfill and provide evidence of the disposal to the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring.

4.1.7 Heritage Effects


The site does not contain any identified heritage features; however it is possible that future excavation on the site may uncover unknown heritage items.


Telecom advised that the District Plan does not identify any heritage feature on this site.


No assessment was provided by the Requiring Authority in the Notice of Requirement.



The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has submitted on all 14 designation notices and it is seeking an advice note be added to the designation conditions of each of the NoRs. The advice note is to ensure that Telecom, as the Requiring Authority, is aware of the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act.

Assessment

The advice note proposed by the NZHPT is considered appropriate to ensure the Requiring Authority is aware of its obligations under the Historic Places Act should archaeological sites be uncovered during future excavations.


It is recommended that an advice note relating to the Historic Places Act be added to the designation, should earthworks be required as part of any future works planned for the site.

4.2 Other Matters raised by Submissions

A general submission has been received from 2degrees and this raises issues that are not directly applicable to Section 171(1).

4.2.1 Submission from 2Degrees

2degrees have submitted on all 14 designation notices and considers that the Council should make changes to the designation to require Telecom to allow its telephone exchange locations to be used for co-location and co-siting of future cellular equipment by other telecommunication companies. 2degrees have requested that the designation would be supported only after the impact of competition has been analysed and reviewed by the Council and the sites designated on the condition that co-location is facilitated at realistic rental costs.

As part of the designation process the regulations (section 171(1A)) state that a territorial authority must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition when making its recommendation in accordance with s110 (1A).

It is also considered that the designation will not inhibit co-location as this can be pursued through the appropriate avenues such as the resource consent process where required.

Telecom have advised that six of the existing exchanges have co-location work programmed over the next 5 years. This work involves putting in new power feeds and footplates for the new Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) that other telecommunication customers wish to locate in the exchanges.

2degrees state that there is no integrated regulatory framework to ensure the most environmentally friendly outcome for competing telecommunication operators. It is considered that changing the regulatory environment is beyond the scope of the designation process and Telecom’s application.

The designation will allow Telecom as the requiring authority to utilise land for telecommunication and radiocommunication and ancillary purposes at its existing exchange site and no further comment regarding other operators or co-location is required as part of this process.


4.3 Relevant Provisions of Policy Statements and Plans

Section 171(1)(a) requires a territorial authority to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to relevant provisions of National Policy Statements, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, a Regional Policy Statement or proposed Regional Policy Statement, and a Plan or proposed Plan.

There are no relevant National Policy Statements or Coastal Policy Statements relevant to this proposal. Nor are there any Regional Plans, which are relevant to this proposal.

4.3.1 Auckland Regional Policy Statement

The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) makes provision for the consideration of significant physical resources when determining the sustainable management of the Auckland region’s overall resources. Issue 2.3.4 states:

“Regionally significant physical resources, including infrastructure, are essential for the community’s social and economic wellbeing. The location, development and redevelopment of infrastructure is of strategic importance in its effects on the form and growth of the region. However, the long term viability of regionally significant infrastructure and physical resources can be compromised by the adverse effects, including cumulative effects, of other activities. These regionally significant resources can equally give rise to adverse effects, including cumulative effects on the environment, and on communities. They can be adversely affected by conflicts if sensitive uses are allowed to develop near them or if they are inappropriately located.”

Key issues involving regional infrastructure which are relevant to this proposal include the need for replacement or upgrading of infrastructure in order to increase the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate growth. In addition, the need to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects generated by proposed changes to infrastructure and to consider alternative ways of avoiding or remedying them.

Specifically, the Strategic Direction for the Auckland Region recognises the needs of future generations by:

“Enabling the providers of significant regional resources to meet economic and social needs of the community while ensuring that adverse environmental effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.”

The Strategic Direction also recognises that not all adverse effects can be avoided as a result of development processes. In such circumstances “the strategic response is to seek a direction that leads to the least adverse effect which is most capable of being managed over the long term”.

Where an activity or the use or development of any resource results in, or is likely to result in, some adverse effects on the environment, the RMA identifies three approaches to achieving a balance of the competing values and interests involved. These are to ‘avoid’ adverse effects, to ‘mitigate’ the effects, or where the resources are already affected, to ‘remedy’ the adverse effects.


The above direction is reflected in the Strategic Objectives and Policies for the Auckland Region (2.5.1 and 2.5.2, respectively) which together, seek to ensure that the region has the capacity to accommodate growth and development, and at the same time to protect the quality and efficient use of the natural and physical resources.

Telecom has provided a brief assessment against the ARPS. They are of the opinion that “a modern and reliable telecommunications system is critical to the regional economy, and enabling the efficient use of exchange sites through designation with appropriate conditions”. Telecom further advised that they therefore consider themselves to be consistent with these provisions.

It is considered that the proposed works by Telecom are consistent with the relevant strategic objective and polices namely; 2.5.1.1, 2.5.1.6, 2.5.1.8 and 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.6 and 2.5.2.7 which relate to growth and the provision of infrastructure.

The urban growth management policies of the ARPS are also relevant. It is also considered that Telecom is providing for 2.6.1.2 (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii) which relate to the provision of necessary infrastructure, the efficient provision of services and the protection of amenity.

4.3.2 Auckland City District Plan

4.3.2.1 Designations

It is noted that Telecom has demonstrated in its NoR application how it has met the information requirements for designating a site in accordance with Part 4A.3 of the District Plan.

4.3.2.2 Network Utility Services

Part 4A.4 of the operative Auckland City District Plan – Isthmus Section (District Plan) makes provision for network utility services.

It is considered that the following objectives and policies are relevant to this proposal:

Objectives 4A.4.2

To maintain levels of infrastructure which provide for the citizens of the district

To allow for the provision of new network utility services whilst mitigating adverse environmental effects

Policies 4A.4.3

By providing for the continued existence and maintenance of established network utility services

By providing for new network utility services, provided that any adverse effects on amenity values are avoided, remedied or mitigated

It is considered that Telecom will be meeting the above objectives and policies in designating this existing exchange site for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes. In doing so, the requiring authority will be providing for the on-going provision of telecommunication services, which are critical for not only Auckland’s, but New Zealand’s population. In doing so, Telecom has proposed several conditions for the designation which seek to avoid any adverse health effects, and/or remedy and mitigate any adverse visual, amenity and acoustic effects on the surrounding environment associated with the long term provision of its services at the Onehunga exchange site.


4.3.2.3 Mixed Use Zone/Business 2 Zone

In addition to the above parts, it is also considered that Part 8 of the District Plan provides several relevant objectives to this designation in respect of Business Activity.

It is considered that the following objectives and its related policies are relevant to this proposal:

Objective 8.3.1: To foster the service, employment and productive potential of business activity while ensuring the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the City. Policy By recognising the valuable physical resources, in terms of infrastructure and commercial and community facilities and services as a whole, within the City’s existing commercial centres.

Objective 8.3.2: To ensure that any adverse effects of business activity on the environment is avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. Policy By applying controls which protect and enhance environmental values, public safety and amenity values.

Objective 8.3.3: To ensure that community values are recognised and balanced against the maintenance of public and private interests. Policy By recognising the valuable physical resources, in terms of infrastructure and commercial and community facilities and services as a whole, within the City’s existing commercial centres.

Objective 8.3.4: To provide for the safe, economic and convenient movement of people and goods within the business zones. Policy By requiring adequate off-street parking and loading facilities to ensure that the capacity of the roading system is not unduly reduced, and that the activities are sufficiently accessible to ensure their operation.

Objective 8.6.2.1(e): To ensure that any adverse environmental or amenity impact of business activity on adjacent residential or open space zones is prevented or reduced to an acceptable level. Policies By adopting controls which limit the intensity and scale of development to a level appropriate to the zone’s proximity to residential zoned properties and open space areas. By requiring acceptable noise levels at the interface between residential zones and business zones.

Objective 8.6.10(b): To ensure that any adverse environmental or amenity impact of activities within the zone on adjoining activities or on adjacent Residential or Open Space zones is avoided or mitigated. Policies By managing potential compatibility issues within development, between developments and their neighbours, and between developments and public spaces, including roads and open space, through the application of design criteria and rules, while recognising that amenity values in this zone are lower than in Residential zones. By limiting noise levels at the interface between neighbouring Residential zones and the Mixed Use zones, and within residential developments in the Mixed Use zones. By adopting controls which seek to protect privacy and amenity of occupants in adjoining Residential zones.


Objective 8.6.10.1(c): To encourage mixed use development which contributes to the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety, while recognising that these values are derived from a mixture of business activities and intensive residential development. Policies By requiring new developments to meet urban design criteria relating to streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety and building scale, form and layout.

It is considered that the designation of the site is consistent with the above mentioned objectives and policies as it will allow this telecommunications business industry to operate from the site, as a valuable physical resource for the community, whilst avoiding or reducing its operating effects on the surrounding business, mixed use and open space environment to an acceptable level, in terms of its visual, acoustic and amenity considerations. Future upgrade works planned for the site will also be controlled to acceptable levels by conditions on the designation to ensure that these environmental values as well as public safety will be protected, in turn recognising community values. Adequate off-street parking can also be accommodated within the site.

4.3.2.4 Onehunga Centre Plan

The site is located within the Onehunga Centre Plan Area (ref H10-49). The only relevant control in relation to the site and designation is the specific street frontage landscaping control which states the following:

a) Construction of any new building, or any major external building alteration or addition in this area shall be required to provide landscaped areas comprising not less than 50% of that part of the site between the identified road boundary and a parallel line 3m there from.

b) The landscaping must be in keeping with the guidelines for planting established in the centre’s Mainstreet Plan and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the delegated staff member from the Council at all times.

c) The landscaping should either be low shrubs and planting (under 1.5 metres in height) and /or involve trees with no branches or bush like growth.

It is considered that a condition should be imposed on the designation to ensure that the landscaping requirements of the Onehunga Centre Plan are considered and assessed as part of the outline plan of works process as follows:

‘Should any significant change in site layout or any additional building works be proposed an assessment of the landscaping requirements of the Onehunga Centre Plan shall be submitted as part of the outline plan process.’


5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Telecom seeks a designation which would allow itself flexibility and certainty to establish, maintain and upgrade its equipment and other ancillary work necessary for the continued operation of the Onehunga exchange to provide a world class telecommunications system to Auckland.

The proposed works planned for the site including maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works are considered necessary for achieving this objective. The planning tool of designation is considered to be reasonably necessary for achieving this objective and it is the most cost effective method available.

Appropriate conditions attached to the designation will ensure that any adverse environmental effects associated with the upgrade works are avoided, remedied, or mitigated. It is considered that the proposed designation is consistent with promoting the purpose and principles of the RMA (sustainable management) and also gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and the Auckland City District Plan prepared under the RMA.

A total of 2 submissions were received, including no late submissions. Of the 2 submissions received:

1 submission sought a recommendation that the requirement be declined;

1 submission sought that the requirement be confirmed subject to amendments; and

Key issues raised in submissions include a request from the Historic Places Trust that an advice note be included as a condition of the designation alerting Telecom to the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act. 2degrees has sought the decline of the designation and requested that Telecom resubmit the designation with a plan for a site for an integrated co-location cell tower company which is a specialist site owning company. On this basis 2degrees supports designation, but only after the impact of competition has been analysed and reviewed by the Auckland Council.

Taking the submissions and all other matters addressed in this report into account, it is recommended that the Commissioners recommend that Telecom confirms the requirement, subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That unless new evidence is produced at the hearing which would lead to a different conclusion, pursuant to section 171(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 it is recommended to Telecom that the requirement for a new designation for telecommunication and radio communication and ancillary purposes at the existing exchange site at 58 Princes Street, Onehunga be confirmed, subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions.

6.2 That pursuant to section 171(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the reasons for the recommendation are as follows:


a) Subject to the imposition of amended and additional conditions, the proposed designation is consistent with promoting the purpose and principles of the RMA (sustainable management) in that the future upgrading and reconfiguration of the Onehunga telecommunications exchange site will better enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety, by ensuring the continued provision of modern and reliable telecommunications and radio-communications services for future generations.

b) In terms of section 171(1)(b) of the RMA, adequate consideration has been given by Telecom to alternative methods for providing for future upgrade works at the telecommunications exchange site.

c) In terms of section 171(1)(c) of the RMA, the proposed maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works and designation are reasonably necessary to allow Telecom to achieve the following objective:

“To operate, maintain and upgrade its exchanges to provide a World Class telecommunications system to Auckland.”

d) The requirement is consistent with, and gives effect to the relevant provisions of policy statements and plans prepared under the RMA.

e) Appropriate conditions attached to the designation will ensure that any adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed maintenance, upgrade and replacement works are avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

6.3 That the following amendments be made to the Auckland City District Plan (Operative Isthmus Section)

a) That District Plan map H10 (No 2 Additional Limitations) be notated to show the designation with a reference number.

b) Amend Appendix A (Schedule) to the Planning Maps by inserting the following:

Map Ref Cat Description Authority

H10-55 A4 “Telecommunication and Radiocommunication and Ancillary Purposes”

Telecom NZL

c) Amend Appendix B (Additional Limitations, Controls and Diagrams) to the Planning Maps by inserting the following:

6.4 That pursuant to section 171(2)(c) of the RMA it is recommended to Telecom that amendments are made to the restrictions and conditions attaching to the requirement as follows (deletions in strikethrough and additions underlined):

**

Masts and Antennas

5. The height of any mast and antennas (on a mast or a building) shall not exceed 20m above ground level (excluding any lightning rod).



7. Any new masts and associated antennas shall comply with the relevant building in relation to boundary controls from adjoining open space land and the daylight controls for the mixed use zoned land as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as at 1 January 2009.

8. All antennas and support structures shall be painted or supplied in a recessive colour or supplied in a material that will weather to a dull finish (e.g. galvanised steel brackets and antenna components).

Buildings


a) Height – 12.5m

b) Height in relation to boundary – shall comply with the relevant building in relation to boundary controls from adjoining open space land and the daylight controls for the mixed use zoned land as included in the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section as at 1 January 2009.



6. That an Outline Plan of works shall not be required for any internal building works (excluding equipment generating external noise), ‘like for like’ replacement of equipment, the replacement of any antennas with antennas of similar size provided that there is no increase in the overall height of the facility, or boundary fencing otherwise permitted by the District Plan.

Noise

7. Any new noise generating equipment (excluding any electricity alternator required for emergency back up power generation) shall not exceed the following noise limits

At the boundary of the adjacent business zoned property: 7am – 10pm on any day: Leq 55 dB(A) 10pm – 7am on any day: Leq 45 dB(A) At the boundary of the adjacent mixed use zoned property: 7am – 10pm on any day: Leq 60 dB(A) 10pm – 7am on any day: Leq 55 dB(A)


8. Any new noise generating equipment (excluding any electricity alternator required for emergency backup power generation) shall cumulatively in combination with any other noise generating equipment on the site not result in any increase in existing noise levels received at any other property boundary where the noise levels in Condition 7 are exceeded. A noise assessment shall be submitted as part of any outline plan to confirm the existing noise levels and predicted new noise levels and predicted new noise levels to confirm compliance with this condition.

9. For any changes or additions to the electricity alternators on the site, where the noise from all electricity alternators exceeds the noise limits in Condition 7, an outline plan shall be required which demonstrates how the equipment and any mitigation is the best practicable option (BPO) to ensure that noise levels do not exceed a reasonable level and do not exceed existing noise levels.

Radiofrequency Fields

10. Any equipment transmitting radiofrequency energy shall comply with the exposure levels stated in the current New Zealand Standard as required by the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications FacilitiesNZS2772.1:1999 at any place where the public has reasonable access.

Transport

11. Should any significant change in site layout or any additional building works be proposed a traffic impact assessment which addresses access, carparking and trip generation shall be submitted as part of the outline plan of works process to ensure any potential adverse effects are appropriately mitigated.

Soil Register Area

12. The site is subject to potential geotechnical hazards. Any future developments shall be required to provide an assessment of the criteria in Part 5D.6 of the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus section Plan as part of the outline plan of works.

Contaminated Site

13. Should an outline plan of works involve earthworks and/or excavation, the requiring authority Telecom shall undertake an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to be submitted with the outline plan of works. The ESA shall be comprised of a desktop study, a walkover of the proposed development area to identify potential contamination and soil sampling within the proposed development area. The results of the ESA shall demonstrate the level of contamination within the area of works and propose mitigation in the event that the contamination is above the regulatory guideline values for the protection of human health in the relevant zone.

If evidence of contamination which has not been previously identified is discovered during works, the Requiring Authority shall immediately cease works and notify the Team Leader: Compliance and Monitoring, and provide a detailed site contamination report and action plan to the satisfaction of the Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring.


The Requiring Authority shall ensure the excavated materials that require offsite disposal are disposed of in an appropriate landfill and provide evidence of the disposal to the Team Leader: Compliance Monitoring.

Onehunga Centre Plan

14. Should any significant change in site layout or any additional building works be proposed an assessment of the landscaping requirements of the Onehunga Centre Plan shall be submitted as part of the outline plan process.

Advice Notes:

1. Hazardous Substances Any new development, maintenance, upgrading or replacement works shall comply with the necessary requirements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

2. Archaeology

It is possible that archaeological sites may be affected by earthworks at the site. Evidence of archaeological sites may include burnt and fire cracked stones, charcoal, rubbish heaps including shell, bone and/or glass and crockery, ditches, banks, pits, old building foundations, artefacts of Maori and European origin or human burials. Archaeological evidence, whether recorded or not, is protected by the Historic Places Act 1993 and an authority is required from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) to modify, damage or destroy an archaeological site. The applicant is advised to contact the NZHPT if the presence of an archaeological site is known or suspected. Work affecting archaeological sites is subject to a consent process under the Historic Places Act 1993. The Historic Places Act 1993 contains penalties for unauthorised site damage.

Name Title Signature

Kelly Seekup Consultant Planner

Name Title Signature

Finau Rokocoko Planner – Operative Plans (Central)

Name Title Signature Celia Davison Team Leader – Operative

Plans (Central)

U:\1020\129676_09\500 Del\510 Reports\NoR OnehungaV2.doc

APPENDIX 1 Notice of Requirement and Noise Report

APPENDIX 2 Photographs of the Site

Front of the site – Princes St

Commercial property to the west

Commercial property to the east

Recreation centre to the rear of the site and the subject site as viewed from the north

Subject site as viewed from the car park of the recreation centre (zoned open space) on the northern

boundary

APPENDIX 3 Previous District Scheme Designation Information

APPENDIX 4 Submissions

APPENDIX 5 Correspondence with Requiring Authority relating to a S92 request

C E L E B R A T I N G E X C E L L E N C E S I N C E 1 8 8 5

Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited

Level 1 71 Great South Road Newmarket

Auckland 1051 New Zealand

P O Box 5760 Wellesley Street

Auckland 1141 New Zealand

P 09 917 5000 F 09 917 5001

E [email protected]

W www.harrisongrierson.com

ISO9001 Quality Assured

20 August 2010 Telecom New Zealand Ltd C/- Incite P O Box 3082 Auckland Attention Chris Horne Dear Chris Resource Management Act 1991 Notice of Requirement for the Designation of the Onehunga Exchange HG Ref: 1020-129676-09 Council Ref: Plan Change 285 Request for Further Information Pursuant to Section 92 As you are aware, Harrison Grierson has been allocated the above notice of requirement (‘NOR’) to assess and process on behalf of Auckland City Council. We have visited the above site, undertaken a preliminary assessment of the above application and have received comments from Council’s specialists. Council acknowledges and, in general, supports the conditions included within the NOR that are intended to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects. However, the quality of the information provided within the notice of requirement and the drafting of the conditions does not enable Council to determine the scale and nature of effects that will result and whether the conditions are sufficient to achieve section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). Accurate information is required in order to present a complete package for public notification and to guide the preparation of the Council’s recommendation under s171 of the Act. Pursuant to Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the following additional information is requested in order to assist with the processing of the application. Council would welcome a meeting with Telecom to discuss how these matters could be addressed.

1.0 Mast Envelope

Council acknowledges and supports the restrictions Telecom have placed on the location of masts at the exchange site through the use of height in relation to boundary controls (HIRB), and the use of an envelope approach to control the size of antennas to be attached to masts. However, the proposed conditions do not provide sufficient control and certainty over what potentially could be constructed on the site. Further information that is required in relation to masts is outlined as follows:

Telecom New Zealand Ltd 20 August 2010 Notice of Requirement Application – Onehunga Exchange HG Ref 1020-129676-09

HARRISON GRIERSON CONSULTANTS LIMITED Page 2

1.1 Mast Numbers There is no restriction in the NOR on the maximum number of masts that may be constructed at the exchange site. Given the significant potential adverse visual effects that multiple masts may generate on the surrounding area, can you please confirm whether Telecom is proposing to limit the number of masts that may be installed? Should no limit be proposed, or should the limit exceed a single mast, what parameters and methodology are Telecom proposing in the NOR to ensure that the potential adverse visual effects of multiple masts can be satisfactorily assessed?

1.2 Antennas on Existing Masts While Council supports Telecom’s condition 2 that will ensure the height of the existing mast will not increase, there is still the potential for an increase in the bulk of the mast and antennas. An increase in bulk has the potential to create adverse visual effects that has not been addressed in the application. How does Telecom intend to address this?

2.0 Building Envelope The parameters for buildings put in place by Condition 4 are supported by Council. However, in order to fully consider and assess the potential effects of new buildings, Council requires the following information:

2.1 Antennas on Buildings It is noted that the height limit for antennas attached to buildings is proposed to be 20m, while the maximum height for any building is 12.5m. This creates the potential situation of an unlimited number of antennas being attached to 7.5m high support structures on the roof of a building. Notwithstanding this, because the NOR does not provide any indication of the approximate height of the existing exchange building on the site there is the potential for antennas on support structures being much higher than this. Having the potential for this kind of situation to arise in the NOR is inappropriate, as the potential adverse visual effects of the abovementioned scenario could be significant. Accordingly, please consider the following: • An appropriate cap on the height of antennas on buildings in business zones similar

to that proposed for exchange sites in residential zones; and • Limiting the number of antennas that can be installed on the roof of the exchange

building. Alternatively, Telecom could provide a specific assessment to demonstrate how the effects of antennas on buildings can be appropriately managed.

2.2 Temporary Structures The NOR provides no information on the control and location of temporary structures at the site. Temporary structures have the potential to generate visual clutter, which can lead to adverse visual effects on surrounding sites, particularly if placed close to boundaries and/or having no control over timeframe. Please consider placing limitations on location, size, and timeframes for temporary structures to assist in assessing any potential adverse effects.

Telecom New Zealand Ltd 20 August 2010 Notice of Requirement Application – Onehunga Exchange HG Ref 1020-129676-09


3.0 Parking, Access and Vehicle Movements It is noted that there are comments within the NOR explaining how Telecom will consider the parking and access arrangements of the site at Outline Plan stage should a significant change in the site layout be proposed. Council requires further information to ensure the potential effects of parking, access and vehicle movements are adequately addressed at future Outline Plan stages. In particular, for the purposes of the NOR: • What does Telecom consider as a ‘significant change’ in site layout? • What specific considerations will be made regarding parking and access? • How do Telecom propose to address the effects of a potential increase in vehicle

movements on the site should a ‘significant change’ in site layout occur?

4.0 Noise

4.1 Technician Hours

While it would be inappropriate to restrict the hours for technicians to work at the exchange site for emergency works, Council notes that there have been noise complaints for some exchange sites from surrounding properties regarding technician visits. Council therefore requests that Telecom provide parameters around typical hours for technicians to undertaken routine maintenance work (i.e. not emergencies).

4.2 Electricity Alternators Condition 7 of the NOR deals with the potential effects of installing additional Electricity Alternator (EA) on the site, while conditions 5 and 6 provisions for dealing with noise effects that exclude the consideration of existing EAs. This means that the proposed noise conditions in the NOR provides no control over the noise emissions of existing EAs on the site. It is therefore requested that Telecom provide a methodology to manage the noise emissions of existing EAs to ensure that the best practicable option (BPO) has been adopted and that the existing EAs generate no more than a reasonable level of noise in the context of any scheduled maintenance and emergency operations.

5.0 Proposed Plans It is noted that the NOR application includes Proposed Plans. For clarification and certainty, Council requires the following information with regard to these plans: • Have all of the components identified on the proposed plans been established on

the site? • If no, what components are yet to be established? • Will any component that is yet to be established be subject to a future Outline Plan

of Works or are they to be considered as part of the current NOR application? • If any of these non-established components are to be included in the current NOR

application Council requires an assessment of these works to be provided, including consistency with the conditions proposed in the NOR.

Telecom New Zealand Ltd 20 August 2010 Notice of Requirement Application – Onehunga Exchange HG Ref 1020-129676-09 The above information is required to enable an adequate analysis of your proposal, its effect on the environment, and the way in which any adverse effects on the environment may be mitigated, in turn, enabling an accurate assessment of the notice of requirement for the purposes of s171 of the Act. You have 15 working days in which to respond to this letter in writing. If you are unable to provide this information within 15 working days, please reply in writing so that an alternative timeframe can be mutually agreed. If you refuse to provide the information requested, confirm this in writing. Further information may be required during the course of processing your application. Should you have any queries please contact the undersigned on 917 5000. Yours faithfully Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited


Poul Israelson Principal Planner

1

Daina Punter

From: Kelly SeekupSent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:16 a.m.To: Daina PunterSubject: FW: all Telecom NORs - Correspondence from Applicant - Appendix 5

From: Chris Horne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:03 p.m. To: Poul Israelson Subject: FW: Telecom NORs Here you go, hopefully this will suffice for your purposes. Regards _____________ Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465 Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467 [email protected] www.incite.co.nz This e‐mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved by Incite.

From: Steven Kerr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 10:02 a.m. To: Chris Horne Subject: RE: Telecom NORs Hi Chris Chorus legal has advised that the notation is very common on Crown, SOE or ex-SOE owned land. Essentially it means if the land is no longer required for telecommunications purposes the Crown has the right to acquire the land to settle [proven/valid] claims. While it provides the right - it is quite unlikely the Crown would - seek to acquire the land to settle a claim if the site is still being used for telecommunications purposes. It would require a rare set of circumstances given the risks and costs to relocate the equipment in the exchange (ie potential disruption to telecommunications). I trust this is useful. Any queries give me a bell. Cheers

Steven Kerr Environmental Compliance and Planning Manager T +64 4 382 5692 (extn 46692) M +64 27 600 9699 F +64 4 472 6982 E [email protected]

2

Level 3, TeRenCo House, 86-96 Victoria Street P O Box 632, Wellington 6011 www.chorus.co.nz

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

From: Chris Horne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2010 8:50 a.m. To: Steven Kerr Subject: FW: Telecom NORs Hi Steve Can you find out internally what the notation on the tiles relates to please, so I can get back to Poul. Regards _____________ Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465 Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467 [email protected] www.incite.co.nz This e‐mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved by Incite.

1

Daina Punter

From: Kelly SeekupSent: Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:14 a.m.To: Daina PunterSubject: Telecom NORs - Correspondence relating to diesel storage - for all sites Appendix 5

From: Steven Kerr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 8:09 a.m. To: Poul Israelson Cc: Chris Horne Subject: RE: Telecom NORs

Hi Poul

The average age of diesel tanks in Telecom’s portfolio is 18 years. Our diesel tank replacement strategy is to remove all underground tanks installed by New Zealand Post Office and replace all single skin constructed tanks with double skinned tanks. We are planning the upgrade of the 14 tanks in the Auckland region over the 2010/11 financial year from approved capital funding.

The underground tanks are typically single skin construction in a concrete bund with a sand medium in between. All underground tanks are pressure tested as part of our maintenance routine for Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act stationary container certification. Telecom has been upgrading all its single skin underground and indoor day tanks to modern Supervault double skin above ground tanks and DMS Manufactured double skin day tanks up to 1200 litres since the late 1990’s. These tanks meet all manufacturing standards, are HSNO compliant and are either installed indoors or in a caged area.

Any queries give me a yell.

Cheers

<image001.gif>

Steven Kerr Environmental Compliance and Planning Manager

T +64 4 382 5692 (extn 46692)M +64 27 600 9699 F +64 4 472 6982 E [email protected]

Level 3, TeRenCo House, 86-96 Victoria Street P O Box 632, Wellington 6011 www.chorus.co.nz

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

1

Kelly Seekup

From: Chris Horne [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 25 February 2011 11:42 a.m.To: Kelly SeekupSubject: RE: NoRs Onehunga Exchange siteAttachments: 20110225113845761.pdf

Hi Kelly

Accordingly to Quickmaps, there is no CT for this site (not without precedent for former crown sites). Please see

attached parcels with aerial overlay from Quickmaps. There are actually two gazette notices for the site (54 Princes

Street). One you have, the other one NZGZ 1960, p1432 I have just requested from LINZ and will e-mail through when

received (see pages that follow aerial overlay). The legal description is the same. LINZ are also going to confirm from

their end whether there is a CT for the site.

The notification details for map H10 (sheet 2) and the previous designation map appended to the NOR correctly show

the site boundaries with the additional strip of land subject to the second gazette notice.

Let me know if any issues.

Regards

_____________

Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465

Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467

[email protected]

www.incite.co.nz

This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved

by Incite.

From: Kelly Seekup [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2011 9:15 a.m. To: 'Chris Horne'

Subject: NoRs Onehunga Exchange site

Hi Chris – our reports are nearly complete on all 14 sites – one thing I am missing for Onehunga is the CT

– there is a gazette notice but I cannot find the CT – please confirm

Many thanks Kelly

2

Kelly Seekup Senior Planner Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited Level 1 Dilworth House 71 Great South Road Newmarket Auckland 1051 P O Box 5760 Wellesley Street Auckland 1141 New Zealand P +64 9 917 5000 F +64 9 917 5001 E [email protected] W www.harrisongrierson.com

C E L E B R A T I N G E X C E L L E N C E S I N C E 1 8 8 5

1

Kelly Seekup

From: Chris Horne [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, 25 February 2011 12:10 p.m.To: Kelly SeekupSubject: FW: GN 1960/1432

Fyi, no CT, I’ll get the second gazette notice

Regards

_____________

Chris Horne Director

PO Box 3082 Auckland 1140 Phone 09 369 1465

Mobile 0274 794 980 Fax 09 369 1467

[email protected]

www.incite.co.nz

This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make use of its content unless use is approved

by Incite.

From: Marian Kempster [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, 25 February 2011 12:01 p.m. To: [email protected]

Subject: GN 1960/1432

Hi Chris

There is not a current title for this area – but there will be a title that had the land ‘taken by gazette’ that would

document the taking of the land. Please let me know if you require this title.

Kind regards,

Marian Kempster Searching & Office Administration

N A T I O N W I D E S E R V I C E

NOW INCORPORATING HAMILTON LEGAL SERVICES

2

phone 07 839 4949

free phone 0508 534 251

fax 07 838 1139

web www.landinfo.net.nz

"An extension of your office"

This communication (and attachment) has been virus checked by Trend Interscan Messaging Security Suite. LANDinfoNET accepts no responsibility for changes made to this correspondence or to any attachments after transmission from LANDinfoNET. This message is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this message and notify the sender.

APPENDIX 6 Specialist Comments

Assessment of Environmental Effects Hearing...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of Environmental Effects Hearing...