NZ1-16115339-FINAL TE WHAU AEE FOR LODGEMENT€¦ · Positive Effects ... Just under 700m of...

AEE Report

Te Whau Pathway (Green Bay to Te Atatu) - Assessment of Environmental Effects

Prepared for Auckland Council Community Facilities (the applicant)

For Submission to Auckland Council (regulatory)

Prepared by Beca Limited (Beca)

18 April 2019


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 //

Revision History Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date

1 Jaiman Patel Draft for Internal Review 3/12/2018

2 Jaiman Patel Working Draft for Client Review 10/12/2018

3 Jaiman Patel Final for Client Approval to Lodge 12/04/2019

4 Jaiman Patel For Lodgement 18/04/2019

Document Acceptance Action Name Signed Date

Prepared by Jaiman Patel

18/04/2019

Reviewed by Ailsa Fisher

18/04/2019

Approved by Cushla Loomb

18/04/2019

on behalf of Beca Limited

© Beca 2019 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).

This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // i

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................................ 1 AEE Structure ................................................................................................................................... 1 Background to Te Whau Pathway .................................................................................................... 2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 6 Public Notification Requested .......................................................................................................... 7

2 Description of Proposal .................................................................................... 8 General ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Consenting Envelope ....................................................................................................................... 8 Description of General Alignment .................................................................................................... 9 Proposed Design ............................................................................................................................ 12 Design Changes since Scheme Assessment Report .................................................................... 19 Indicative Construction Methodology ............................................................................................. 19 Duration of Consents and Lapse Period ........................................................................................ 24

3 Description of the Existing Environment ...................................................... 25 Surrounding Land Use ................................................................................................................... 25 Community and Social Context ...................................................................................................... 27 Recreation and Use........................................................................................................................ 29 Te Whau River Physical Environment ............................................................................................ 31 Site Zoning – Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) ............................................................... 31 Services .......................................................................................................................................... 33 Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................... 34 Archaeology ................................................................................................................................... 35 Ecology and Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 36 Landscape and Natural Character ................................................................................................. 38 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 38 Site Geology ................................................................................................................................... 39 Contaminated Land ........................................................................................................................ 39

4 Reasons for Consent ....................................................................................... 40 National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect

Human Health ................................................................................................................................ 40 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) ..................................................................................... 40 Permitted Activities ......................................................................................................................... 44

5 Assessment of Environmental Effects .......................................................... 47 Positive Effects ............................................................................................................................... 47 Construction Effects ....................................................................................................................... 48 Operational Effects ......................................................................................................................... 59 Proposed Mitigation Plan ............................................................................................................... 69


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // ii

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 72

6 Consultation and Communication ................................................................. 73 Public Consultation During the Scheme Assessment Phase ........................................................ 73 Consultation During Resource Consent Preparation ..................................................................... 74 Communication .............................................................................................................................. 84

7 Statutory Assessment ..................................................................................... 85 Resource Management Act ............................................................................................................ 85 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ................................................................................................ 88 National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect

Human Health ................................................................................................................................ 89 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ......................................................................................... 89 Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part ....................................................................................... 90 Iwi Management Plan ..................................................................................................................... 93 Statutory Assessment Conclusion ................................................................................................. 95

8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 96

Appendices

Appendix A Drawings

Appendix B Construction Methodology

Appendix C Arboricultural Assessment – Arborlab

Appendix D Archaeological Assessment – Clough and Associates

Appendix E Civil and Coastal Processes Assessment – Beca

Appendix F Scheme Assessment Report - Stantec

Appendix G Contaminated Soils Management Plan – Beca

Appendix H Cultural Values Assessments

Appendix I Ecological Assessment – Wildlands

Appendix J


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // iii

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Beca

Appendix K Landscape and Visual Assessment – Landwriters

Appendix L Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Assessment – Beca

Appendix M Noise and Vibration Assessment – Marshall Day

Appendix N Social Impact Assessment – Beca

Appendix O Transport Impact Assessment – Beca

Appendix P Consultation Records

Appendix Q Landscape Plans

Appendix R Objectives and Policy Analysis

Appendix S Records of Title, Coastal Marine Area reference points and Road Classifications

Please note that information in this report has been derived from available public records (including the Regional and District Plans and Policy Statements as they were provided, either in hard copy or on the respective local authority websites), at the time of preparation of this document. These records are continually changing and are frequently incomplete and therefore Beca Limited cannot be held responsible for any misrepresentation, incompleteness, or inaccuracies provided within that information, or for updating or revising this report in respect of any changes that may occur after the date of this document, or for notifying Auckland Council of such changes. Should any other information become available, then this report should be reviewed accordingly by Auckland Council.


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // iv

Table of Acronyms/Abbreviations AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

AUP Auckland Unitary Plan

AUP-OP Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative Plan

AVD Auckland Vertical Datum

CAUs Census Area Units

CMA Coastal Marine Area

CNVMP Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

CPTED Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

CSMP Contaminated Soils Management Plan

CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan

CVA Cultural Values Assessments

DSI Detailed Site Investigation

ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

NESCS National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil

NSAAT No Stopping at Any Time

NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

OFP Overland Flow Paths

RMA Resource Management Act

RPS Regional Policy Statement

SAR Scheme Assessment Report

SEA Significant Ecological Area

SIA Social Impact Assessment

SMAF Stormwater Management Area Flow

The applicant Auckland Council (Community Facilities)


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // v

Executive Summary Auckland Council Community Facilities (the applicant) are applying for resource consent for the construction and operation of a shared walking and cycling path that will link the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours from Green Bay (Karaka Park) to Te Atatū (convergence with the State Highway 16 shared path). The shared path is referred to as the Te Whau Pathway (‘the Project’ or ‘pathway’).

Te Whau Pathway is approximately 11.8km with 3.2km of connecting paths, a total length of 15km. The path will largely follow the western side of the Whau River and will be designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. The pathway is being built in stages. Construction for the earlier stages began in 2015 and, to date, 3.9km of pathway has been constructed. Just under 700m of pathway at Rizal / Sandy Lane is currently in detail design phase to be delivered in FY19/20 and is not included in this resource consent application. This Resource Consent application applies to the remaining approximately 10.4km of path, comprising approximately 7.1km of proposed boardwalk and 3.3km of proposed footpath.

Te Whau Pathway will provide a high-quality shared path that is safe and almost entirely segregated from vehicular traffic. It will also provide connections to the wider cycle network including the New Lynn / Avondale rail link and the North Western motorway cycle path.

Te Whau Pathway Project is a collaborative partnership project between the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the Whau and Henderson - Massey Local Boards, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei.

The Whau catchment is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial development. The Whau River has a long history of human transportation. Māori for centuries used the Whau as an important route for transporting waka between the two coasts of Te Ika a Maui (‘North Island’). For Tangata Whenua, the water has significant spiritual values especially revealed in its alternative Māori name Waitahurangi (“Waters of Tahurangi”). Through the Project and subsequent development of the pathway, there will be opportunity to share both the local and cultural stories of the Whau River and surrounding catchment through education and interpretative signage.

The construction of the pathway will deliver 3m wide concrete paths on land and 4m wide boardwalks through the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). The overall pathway will connect 33 reserves, esplanade reserves, sports parks and roads. The pathway will also connect the various communities of Green Bay, New Lynn, Avondale, Kelston, Glendene and Te Atatū as well as a number of schools.

On completion the pathway will feature strategically placed seating, viewing and rest areas and art work. Weed control and community plantings of native plant species will also be delivered through the Project. The development of the pathway will be a significant link in Auckland’s network of cycling and walking routes and will aim to improve community connection to and appreciation of the Whau River.

To construct, operate and maintain the Project, a number of resource consents are required under the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part and the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS). Consent requirements relate to both short-term enabling works (e.g. construction) and long-term use and occupation of land and the CMA. Overall the application is a discretionary activity and seeks a 10-year consent lapse date. A consent envelope is sought to allow for modifications in the final alignment should they be required during detailed design and to provide for different potential construction methods within the CMA.

The potential effects of the Project relate to both the construction and operational stages. In general, the construction effects are temporary in nature and can be suitably mitigated through the implementation of a number of management plans. Overall the operational effects of the Project are positive given the significant


Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // vi

transport and recreational benefits to be derived from the pathways use. However, there are potential adverse landscape / visual and social amenity effects on a small number of identified properties immediately adjacent to the proposed boardwalk. A discussion on the proposed mitigation agreed to or proposed to be worked through during detailed design is included in section 5 of this AEE.

Consultation with stakeholders, affected landowners, mana whenua, interest groups and the public has been undertaken over the development of the Project. At the beginning of 2017, Auckland Transport sought public feedback on the scheme plan and preliminary design for the Te Whau Pathway route. In June 2017, the scheme plan and preliminary design was completed. Further targeted consultation occurred in 2018 as the consent application was prepared. The design and location of the alignment and approach to mitigation of environmental effects has been informed and developed through this consultation.

An assessment of the Project against the relevant provisions of legislation and planning documents has been undertaken. Overall the Project is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies and furthermore is consistent with and supports the purpose of the Resource Management Act (RMA) to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Te Whau Pathway (Green Bay to Te Atatū) – Assessment of Environmental Effects

Beca // 18 April 2019 4217284 // NZ1-16115339-4 0.4 // page 1

1 Introduction

Purpose of Report This Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) report has been prepared by Beca Ltd (Beca) for Auckland Council Community Facilities (the applicant) in relation to an application for resource consent for the construction and operation of a shared walking and cycling path from Green Bay (Karaka Park) to Te Atatū (convergence with the State Highway 16 shared path). The shared path is referred to in this report as the Te Whau Pathway (‘the Project’ or ‘pathway’).

The applicant proposes to construct and operate new sections of the Te Whau Pathway comprising boardwalk in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and at-grade paths on land. Resource consent is required under Sections 9, 12, 14 and 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and pursuant to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP), and the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS) for the following activities:

n Works within the CMA (construction of a boardwalk and one bridge, temporary structures, occupation, use and disturbance of the CMA)

n Land disturbance including within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) – Marine 2 (M2) and Terrestrial (T) n Disturbance of contaminated land n Vegetation removal within road, open space and river / CMA environment n Works within tree dripline (protected root zone) n Underground noise associated with vibration and piling n New impervious areas within stormwater management areas 1 and 2 n Infrastructure within the coastal storm inundation overlay n Infrastructure within overland flow path or floodplain n Exceedance of maximum impervious site coverage in an open space zone n Boardwalk and bridge structures within yards, coastal protection yards and riparian yards

This AEE has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 88 and the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and contains the following information:

n Background to the Project n A description of the proposed activity and existing environment n An assessment of the actual and potential effects of the Project on the environment, including the

mitigation proposed n Outcomes of consultation undertaken n An analysis of the Project against the provisions of the RMA and the relevant statutory documents

AEE Structure Table 1 below sets out the sections contained in this AEE.

Table 1: AEE Structure

AEE Section Contents

Section 1: Introduction, Background and Project Drivers

n Outlines the consenting requirements, approach to the Project and structure of this document

n Sets out the Project objectives



AEE Section Contents

Section 2: Project Description n Describes the consent envelope, proposed pathway design and indicative construction methodology

Section 3: Existing Environment n Describes the Project area environment as it currently exists

Section 4: Reasons for Consent n Sets out in detail the consenting requirements

Section 5: Assessment of Effects n Summarises the key effects and recommendations for each supporting technical assessment and provides an overall summary, including proposed mitigation

Section 6: Consultation n Describes the consultation and engagement undertaken up to consent lodgement

Section 7: Statutory Assessment n Assesses the Project and its effects against the relevant statutory framework

Section 8: Conclusion n Sets out final conclusions and recommendations of the report

Background to Te Whau Pathway

1.3.1 General

Te Whau Pathway is a shared path that will link the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours. The main alignment is approximately 11.8km with 3.2km of connecting paths, a total length of 15km. The pathway will largely follow the western side of the Whau River (Figure 3) and will be designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

The pathway is being built in stages. Construction for the earlier stages began in 2015. Between 2015 and 2016 pathways were completed at Archibald, Ken Maunder, Olympic Park, McLeod park. Roberts Field and Tiroroa Reserve were completed in 2018. To date, 3.9km of pathway has been constructed. Just under 700m of pathway at Rizal / Sandy Lane is currently in detail design phase to be delivered in FY19/20 and is not included in this resource consent application (granted previously). This resource consent application applies to the remaining approximately 10.4km of path, comprising approximately 7.1km of proposed boardwalk and 3.3km of proposed footpath.

The construction of the pathway will deliver 3m wide concrete paths on land and 4m wide boardwalks through the CMA. The overall pathway will connect 33 reserves, esplanade reserves, sports parks and roads. The pathway will also connect the various communities of Green Bay, New Lynn, Avondale, Kelston, Glendene and Te Atatū as well as a number of schools.

The project started as the Whau West Greenway in 2011/12 a concept put forward by Whau River Catchment Trust and the Greenways Project Inc. It was presented and approved in principle by the Whau Local Board. A similar concept was promoted in 2013 through a HOOP-LA research project called Muddy Urbanism. The river edge pathway idea started to gain traction and in 2014 the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust was established by a group of locals keen to bring the vision into reality.

Te Whau Pathway Project is a collaborative partnership project between the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the Whau and Henderson - Massey Local Boards, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei.



The Whau catchment is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial development. The Whau River has a long history of human transportation. Māori for centuries used the Whau as an important route for transporting waka between the two coasts of Te Ika a Maui (North Island). For Tangata Whenua, the water has significant spiritual values especially revealed in its alternative Māori name Waitahurangi (“Waters of Tahurangi”). Through the Project and subsequent development of the pathway, there will be opportunity to share both the local and cultural stories of the Whau River and surrounding catchment through education and interpretative signage.

Figure 1: Te Whau Pathway at Archibald Park

At the beginning of 2017, Auckland Transport sought public feedback on the scheme plan and preliminary design for the Te Whau Pathway route. In June 2017, the scheme plan and preliminary design was completed.

During 2017, a concept design for the remainder of the pathway was undertaken. The dates below outline the series of key events for the Project:

n March / April 2017 – Public feedback on the scheme plan and preliminary design n June 2017 – Scheme plan and preliminary design complete n 2017 / 2018 – Completed construction of paths in Roberts Field, Tiroroa Reserve n 2017 - 2019 – Planned construction of paths in Queen Mary Reserve (application no. LUC60307203) and

Rizal Reserve (application no. LUC60307205). Queen Mary Reserve path has been put on hold n 2018 / 2019 – Current resource consent application prepared and applied for the remaining sections for

Te Whau Pathway (including CMA boardwalk)

On completion the pathway will feature strategically placed seating, viewing and rest areas and art work.



Weed control and community plantings of native plant species will also be delivered through the Project (refer to Figure 2 showing community planting day held at Archibald Park).

The development of the pathway will be a significant link in Auckland’s network of cycling and walking routes and will aim to improve community connection to and appreciation of the Whau River.

Figure 2: Planting at Archibald Park (Source: Auckland Council)

This resource consent application relates to sections of the pathway that have not been constructed or consented to date. Figure 3 shows the general alignment of the pathway and those sections that are included in this consent. The plans in Appendix A show in detail which parts of the pathway are included in this consent application and which are excluded (as either having already been consented or to be consented separately). An envelope approach for the consenting of the boardwalk is being sought to allow for minor alignment changes during detailed design. All technical reports referred to within this AEE have considered effects of a potential alignment within this envelope. Further discussion regarding the envelope is in section 2.2.



Figure 3: Te Whau Pathway Project - Proposed Alignment (refer to Appendix A for detailed plans)



1.3.2 Auckland Plan 2050

The Auckland Plan 2050 is a strategic plan which considers how Auckland Council will address key challenges in the future such as high population growth, shared prosperity, transportation, and environmental degradation.

One of the six key outcomes for the Auckland Plan 2050 is Transport and Access: Aucklanders will be more easily able to get to where they want to go and will have choices about how they get around. The Plan states that it is essential that more people walk, cycle or travel by public transport as Auckland continues to grow.

Te Whau Pathway is a key Project for achieving the goal of increasing the public’s transport options and providing them with a safe option for walking and cycling in the west Auckland area (including in the growth areas of Avondale, New Lynn and Te Atatu South) and therefore contributes to the outcomes of the Auckland Plan 2050.

1.3.3 Whau Local Board Plan 2017

Outcome 3 of the Whau Local Board Plan 2017 is “It’s 20 minutes to all we need by walking, cycling and public transport”. A key objective of this outcome is to build more paths to local facilities and public transport. The Whau Local Board has identified Te Whau Pathway as a key initiative in achieving this objective, and states that it will advocate for its funding in the 10-year Budget.

1.3.4 Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017

Outcome 5 of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2017 is “It is easy to get around without a car”. The local board is looking to extend its active transport networks across west Auckland and beyond. A key objective of this outcome is “safe footpaths and cycleways enable people to reach key destinations in a timely manner”. A key initiative outlined to achieve this objective is working with neighbouring local boards to deliver Te Whau Pathway and enhance connectively between parks and key council facilities.

Project Objectives The Te Whau Pathway will be a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists that will be a significant link in Auckland’s network of cycling and walking routes. It is intended that the Te Whau Pathway will provide an efficient and safe transport mode that will support the movement of people and encourage alternative transport choices such as walking and cycling. It is to be designed to be consistent with Auckland Transport and Auckland Council’s Local Path Design Guide0F0F

1 with a gradient and width to facilitate accessibility and mobility for all sectors of the community (including those with limited mobility).

The following are the Project objectives:

n To facilitate and build a shared walking and cycling path, accessible to all, from Green Bay to Te Atatū that celebrates the portage

n To connect with the regional walking and cycling network, including the planned New Lynn to Avondale shared path and the North-western shared path

n To enable multi-modal travel by providing a safe alternative for walking and cycling to the New Lynn Transport Interchange and proposed Te Atatū Transport Interchange

1 Local Path Guide referenced from: http://content.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/streets-and-parks/Documents/Local_Path_Design_Guide_Rev_1.2.pdf

http://content.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/streets-and



n To provide a safer and more convenient route for cycle commuting to schools, New Lynn, City Centre and transport interchanges

n To create local connections away from busy roads n To connect communities, promote health and recreation n To increase levels of walking and cycling among adjacent communities to contribute to the reduction in

the growth of car trips n To increase access to and along the Whau River and provide a coastal experience n To improve the natural environment (integrated aquatic and terrestrial environmental management and

restoration) n To uplift, support, and enhance the presence of mana whenua across the cultural landscape through

engaging with iwi partners and incorporating cultural values throughout the Project

Public Notification Requested This AEE generally discusses the environmental effects of the Project along the approximately 10.4km length of pathway that is subject to this consent application. There are some areas of specificity identified through the development of the AEE and supporting technical reports. Given the scale and length of the Project and the high level of public interest, it is not possible to identify all of the potentially interested and affected parties to the application. Public notification is therefore requested in the interest of providing opportunities for public participation in accordance with s95A(3)(a) of the RMA.



2 Description of Proposal

General The applicant is seeking resource consent to construct, operate and maintain the sections of the Te Whau Pathway shown in the plans in Appendix A. The pathway consists of two primary designs. The first is a concrete pathway which, as noted in section 1.1, is already operational or is in the process of being built at several locations along the pathway. The second is the boardwalk which will connect the on-land portions of the path. As such the pathway is incomplete and currently requires the use of the surrounding road network to form a continuous network. This application for resource consent addresses the remaining sections of the alignment between Green Bay and Te Atatū that have not been built or already consented (apart from a few selected areas in which the sections of the pathway will be consented separately). The proposed alignment is shown in the plans in Appendix A. The plans clearly set out which parts of the pathway are subject to this resource consent, and those parts which are not included in this application. The plans also differentiate between planned ‘at grade’ land sections and boardwalk sections.

The pathway subject to this application is to be constructed both on land and within the CMA in the Whau River. When located in the CMA, the pathway will be constructed in the form of a boardwalk (or crossings as outlined in section 2.4.4). On land the pathway will primarily be a concrete path with some areas of boardwalk where the topography requires such a structure. Each boardwalk structure will be approximately 4.3m in width (with 4m useable width and handrails) and the at-grade shared path will be 3m wide, consistent with already constructed sections.

The pathway alignment was developed during the previous phases of the Project which were led by Auckland Transport (the Project Feasibility and Scheme Assessment phases). A copy of the Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) is included in Appendix F. As part of the preparation of this resource consent application further refinements have been made by the applicant to provide flexibility in the final alignment of some sections as described in section 2.3.

Consenting Envelope Detailed design of the structure and the final alignment of the boardwalk has yet to be confirmed and the sections of pathway subject to this resource consent application are at concept stage only. The key details to be worked through at detailed design stage is the final exact alignment of the boardwalk within the CMA, construction methodology and the construction materials to be used in the boardwalk structure (e.g. concrete or wood piles, wood or Fibre Reinforced Plastic for the deck material).

A consent envelope is proposed to provide flexibility for minor alignment changes that may be required within the envelope as a result of further work during detailed design, particularly within the boardwalk and transition sections. For example, minor changes may be necessary during detailed design once technical investigations (e.g. geotechnical investigations) are complete, costings are undertaken and feedback from further consultation is received. Technical investigations and consultation will also inform the final selection of the size, material, depth and spacing of piles required to support the boardwalk and minimise effects.

The consent envelope is shown on the plans in Appendix A and is proposed in both land and CMA sections of the pathway. In general:

n On land the envelope is only 4m wide. The location of the path is generally fixed as a 3m concrete at grade path, but the envelope is wider at locations where the boardwalk transitions to at grade path sections and some flexibility may be required



n Within the CMA the envelope is generally up to 20m wide. This provides for alignment changes once geotechnical testing has been done and costings finalised but also acknowledges that there is a variety of construction methodologies available given the Project is at concept level stage and a contractor has not been selected (discussed in section 2.6). As such, the envelope within the CMA provides enough room for a ‘side by side’ construction approach (such as the use of access tracks and / or temporary staging platforms).

The consent envelope has been used to inform the assessment of environmental effects. Effects have been assessed within the envelope based on the potential for the path to be located anywhere in the identified envelope. It is noted that the consenting envelope is not the same as the ‘effects envelope’ as the effects will be limited to construction and operational effects of the pathway which will not be the entire consenting envelope. For example, adopting the construction methodology with the maximum potential effects (i.e. the ‘side by side’ construction approach) up to 12m of the CMA along the length of the boardwalk could be impacted (temporarily in the case of construction). Therefore, although the envelope is up to 20m wide (primarily to allow for flexibility in alignment), the effects within the envelope are limited to a 12m width.

Description of General Alignment The route generally has five distinct sections as shown on Figure 4. As noted on the plans in Appendix A, some parts of the route within each section have been previously consented, built or are to be consented separately. The following section describes the general alignment within each section from Green Bay to Te Atatū.



Figure 4: Pathway Sections (Te Whau Pathway Alignment and Section Map: Beca)

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5



2.3.1 Section 1: Portage Road

This section is an at grade shared path between Green Bay and Olympic Park with the majority of the alignment located on existing road reserve on Portage Road, before turning into Wolverton Street towards Olympic Park 1F1F

2. Some parts of the route will pass through adjacent open spaces (Craigavon Park, Sister Rene Shadbolt Park). Use of a small area of privately-owned land is necessary for the pathway on the corner of Portage Road and Connaught Street (owned by the Motu Moana Green Bay Scouts Club). Auckland Council are currently in discussions with the property owners in regard to property access negotiations and this is discussed in further detail in section 6.

2.3.2 Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park

This section of the alignment connects Olympic Park, Rizal Reserve and Ken Maunder Park and is the first location where the alignment will be adjacent to or within the Whau River. Parts of the route will be boardwalk or at grade path. This section passes under the North Auckland rail line and Great North Road. At this point it is proposed to connect to the proposed New Lynn to Avondale shared path. Once the pathway leaves Rizal Reserve it will connect into a residential development being undertaken at 30 Sandy Lane (Tamora Lane development) and cross a tributary of the Whau River to either reach 118A Ash Street (privately owned residential parcel) or to align through the CMA and 122A Ash Street (marginal strip owned by Department of Conservation). Auckland Council are currently in discussions with the property owners regarding property access negotiations. Once the pathway reaches Rātā Street (across the river, Ash Street turns into Rātā Street) it will enter Ken Maunder Park via an underpass under Rātā Street.

2.3.3 Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park

From Ken Maunder Park a new bridge of 2m width is proposed adjacent to the current bridge (also of 2m width) that connects Ken Maunder Park to Queen Mary Avenue. This will provide a total pathway width across the Whau River tributary of 4m, consistent with Auckland Transport shared cycleway standards. Once at Queen Mary Avenue, there is a short on road section of pathway until Queen Mary Reserve. At the northern end of Queen Mary Reserve the pathway enters the CMA as a boardwalk which connects to Archibald Park. When the boardwalk passes the end of Koromiko Street and Lynwood Road there are two spurs to connect the boardwalk to the roads. Given the gradient of the connection, cycle staircases may be proposed (cycle staircases are staircases which have a channel alongside it to facilitate walking a bike up or down the staircase).

Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park Once the pathway reaches Archibald Park it will connect to an existing shared path through the park. At the northern end of Archibald Park, a boardwalk connects to Cobham Reserve. At this point the boardwalk travels to the west down Wairau Creek to connect to Akatea Park and Harmell Reserve as a ‘spur’ to the main alignment. From Cobham Reserve the main boardwalk continues along the Whau River, crossing the mouth of the Wairau Creek to connect to Laurieston Park via the Hepburn esplanade reserve area (which will be a combination of boardwalk and at grade path depending on topography).

2 On the envelope plan in Appendix A it appears that use of an area of privately-owned land is needed on Wolverton Street on the approach to Olympic Park; however, it is noted that at this point the pathway will remain within road reserve and no private land is required



Section 5: Laurieston Park to North West Cycle Connection This section of the alignment connects Laurieston Park, McLeod Park, Roberts Field and Bridge Avenue with the cycleway at State Highway 16 (Te Atatū). Along the way there are three ‘spurs’ to Meadow Crescent, Riverglade Esplanade and Covil Park.

Proposed Design Although detailed design has not occurred for the sections of the pathway subject to this application, the proposed design is to be in accordance with Auckland Council’s Local Path Guide standards. The pathway has three major components, which are at-grade paths, boardwalks and special stream crossings. For the majority of the route a gradient of 3% or less is achievable. Due to topographical challenges in some instances gradients of 8.3% (1:12) is required, this is noted as the maximum disability grade (refer to Appendix F – the Scheme Assessment Report). Where these steeper gradients are proposed, flat rest areas are required at certain intervals. In total, there will be 20 new access connections onto the pathway’s off-road route providing significantly improved accessibility. The majority of these new connections cater for all users and levels of accessibility, however due to design constraints and gradients in certain areas, five of the accesses are by stairs only, possibly with a cycle staircase. These are shown on the plans in Appendix A and are located at:

n St Mary’s School n Great North Road n Koromiko Street n Lynwood Avenue n Covil Park

2.4.1 Landscape Design

The final landscape design will be undertaken during the detailed design stage. This will involve elements relating to the at-grade path and boardwalk itself (the look and feel), treatment of adjacent spaces (e.g. planting, seating, artwork, signage) and inclusion of cultural narratives.

Key principles of landscape design are proposed based on potential mitigation of identified effects and as the platform from which to undertake the design itself. Indicative Landscape Plans are included in Appendix Q noting opportunities for landscape design throughout the route. This has been informed primarily by the ecology, arboriculture and landscape visual assessments. Figures 1 and 2 show images of existing landscaped areas along the pathway.

2.4.1.1 Principles of Landscape Design

The Project has been developed with a ‘whole of place’ approach meaning that the design vision and objectives for the pathway have been developed to traverse through different regions and environments in an interrelated manner. The principles in the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (ULDF), March 2017 (appended to the SAR in Appendix F), are applicable across all sections of the path and are a key driver for the design, being:

n Go with the Whau (Kei te Ngau Te Whau) – Provide safe, easy to use walking and cycling facilities as a metro route and community linkage to promote healthy lifestyles

n Know the Whau (Te Hau o Te Whau) – Recognise and celebrate the coastal experience, environmental quality and rich cultural heritage

n One Path, Many Places (Kotahi te Ara, he Maha ngā Huaraki) – One legible pathway, made in New Zealand within a common defining aesthetic, episodic moments and a high quality recreational facility



There are four more specific principles of the ULDF that informs the design of the pathway. These are discussed below. The principles were developed so that the development reinforces and fits seamlessly within its surrounding context (landscape, materiality and aesthetic) and represents qualities that are distinctive and promote a unique character and identity (promotes variety).

The four principles are discussed below.

2.4.1.2 Extending the Greenways

A planting plan will be prepared as part of the Project during detailed design, consistent with sections of the pathway that have already been built and are currently being delivered. In order to inform this planting plan, a planting palette is attached in Appendix Q (Landscape Plans) suggesting the species and type of plants to work from as suggested in the ecology, arborist and landscape and visual reports as well as drawing from the principles of the ULDF. The purpose of the planting plan is to enhance the extensive network of planted greenway corridors between Te Atatū, New Lynn and Green Bay. The Project spans both terrestrial land and CMA and it is important to enhance existing ecological habitats and values which increases diversity, provides habitat, stabilises the river edge and controls bankside erosion.

In the varying ecosystems within the Project (which include intertidal zone, tidal creeks, coastal forest edges and parklands), New Zealand native plant species will be predominantly selected and, where possible, eco-sourced from within the Tāmaki Ecological District (as defined by the Department of Conservation)2F2F

3.

2.4.1.3 Integration of Cultural Narrative

In partnership with mana whenua, the development and integration of a cultural narrative will be reflected in the final design. The Whau River was a critical portage and crossing point across Auckland’s isthmus between the Waitemata and Manukau harbours. As an expression of their mātauranga (traditional knowledge and customary practices), mana whenua will be involved in the detailed design process to achieve relevant and meaningful outcomes in the proposed development of the lands and waters of their ancestors. Furthermore, the ULDF incorporates the Te Aranga Design Principles3F3F

4 which are universal principles to be holistically applied across built form and public space design, developed in consultation with mana whenua by Auckland Council. Specifically, in relation to the pathway, there is a desire to bring the river to the fore, to restore the mauri of its waters and acknowledge the mana of its people4F4F

5.

2.4.1.4 Vertical Screening for Visual Privacy

The path will on occasion be adjacent to people’s homes. To reduce the impact of the main pathway and the connector paths on these properties, low growing hedges, boundary fences and mounding across both private and public land will be considered (factoring in landowner preference) for those properties identified in the Landscape Visual Assessment (Appendix K). However, to enable good CPTED outcomes total screening of the path should be avoided and a balance between passive surveillance and privacy should be achieved. This detail is to be discussed with affected landowners during detailed design.

2.4.1.5 Landscape Maintenance

3 Refer http://maps.doc.govt.nz/mapviewer/index.html?viewer=docmaps

4 Refer to http:// www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/design-thinking/Māori-design/te_aranga_ principles for the principles

5 Refer section 1.2 of the ULDF (Volume 1)

http://maps.doc.govt.nz/mapviewer/index.html?viewer=docmaps

http://www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/design-thinking/M



Effective weed control and management is required for all plantings and existing coastal edges to establish and maintain healthy growth. Tall mangroves may need to be trimmed at intervals to keep sight lines above the safety rail of the boardwalk (the Ecological Assessment in Appendix I notes that mangrove height ranges generally from 1 - 1.5m in height but in some areas may be up to 2m in height). A maintenance plan will be developed to set out proposed maintenance and management of planting and grass areas.

2.4.2 At-grade Paths / Footpaths Sections

The at-grade paths will be of a typical footpath design and built on land at approximately 3m wide to allow enough room for pedestrians and cyclists to pass each other (refer Figure 5). The at-grade paths will be constructed of concrete approximately 75mm to 100mm thick, have a brushed concrete finish and be built to the Local Path Guide standard.

Figure 5: Indicative Cross Section of 3m and 4m Paths (Source: Auckland Council Local Path Guide)

2.4.3 Boardwalk Section

2.4.3.1 Boardwalk Design

The boardwalk will be a piled structure extending in sections that total approximately 7km, generally over intertidal mudflats, low lying vegetated margins and tributaries of the Whau River. The boardwalk will comprise a deck of approximately 4.3m wide (with 4m useable width) with an average height of 2.89m Auckland Vertical Datum (AVD) (4.64m CD) to deck level supported by beam elements and piles. An indicative cross section is shown in Figure 6. Handrails on the boardwalk will be up to 1.4m on both sides. Viewing platforms may be provided at certain points along the boardwalk but will avoid sensitive locations such as immediately adjacent to neighbouring houses at the Koromiko Street section.

The deck and beam elements will be constructed from treated timber and / or fibre reinforced plastic (FRP). The piles will be constructed from treated timber (approximately 250mm diameter), FRP or reinforced concrete (approximately 200mm diameter). The materials and sizes of the deck, beam and piles will be determined at detailed design once further engineering and cost investigations have been undertaken. The spacing of longitudinal piles is governed primarily by beam capacity and is expected to be 4 - 6m, depending on material type and section profile.



Figure 6 - Indicative cross section of boardwalk (not to scale) - Modified from Auckland Transport

2.4.3.2 Boardwalk Height

The height of the boardwalk has been determined taking into account storm surge (coastal hazards) and climate change influences such as sea level rise. The proposed boardwalk height is 2.89m AVD at deck level. Adopting a deck level based on the 0.39% (1 in 2-year storm surge) event will mean that in average conditions the distance from normal mean high-water tide (the average of all high tides) to deck level will be approximately 1.1m. In the short term this will mean that the coastal sections of the Project are not likely to require closure, even in severe weather events, however in the longer term this may change. As sea levels rise, the probability of having to close the structure to allow for high tide, storm surge and wave attack in severe weather events will increase to potentially 1 closure every 2 years in 2070 (noting closures will be limited to 1 - 2 hours of high tide periods only).



Figure 7: Indicative sketch of the boardwalk relative to relevant water level. During normal conditions there is approximately 1.38m difference between the deck and water surface at mean highwater (Source: Beca Ltd)

2.4.3.3 Boardwalk Maintenance

The applicant has maintenance contracts in place for boardwalks (amongst other structures) which is outcome based – in that there is no frequency of maintenance activity as long as the structure meets the output statement criteria, noted below:

Output statement: Structures are safe, functional, clean, visually pleasing and serves its intended purpose.

(1) Structures covered by this contract include but are not limited to rock walls, boardwalks, steps/ladders, skate ramps, bridges, predator fence, gazebos, band rotunda, retaining walls, monuments, pontoons, viewing platforms, wharfs, jetties and seawalls.

(2) Structures, including footprint and fixings, shall be maintained to a safe, clean, structurally sound, weed free, serviceable and functional standard. This shall include the concrete pads and any mowing strips if present.

(3) Repainting, re-staining and oiling of surfaces will be required where the existing surface is worn through or not covering as intended. Repainting will also be required if existing colours are not consistent. Paint, stain and oil colours shall match the existing colour, or as approved by the Principal.

(4) Any rotten, rusted, damaged, worn or deteriorated individual components shall be repaired or replaced to installation standards, current building codes and at least equal to or to a higher quality.

(5) Before carrying out work on coastal structures it will be reviewed by engineers as required and all necessary resource consents will be obtained prior to any works.

The boardwalk will be subject to a maintenance contract and will be maintained in accordance with the output statement above.



2.4.4 Crossings

There are 10 identified “crossings” for the Project where further specialist design is required over that of the standard boardwalk. These relate to crossing of Watercare assets or crossings of the Whau River or its tributaries in the following areas:

n Chainage 2950 – Watercare pipe n Chainage 4200 - 4240 – Rizal Reserve Bridge n Chainage 4300 - 4400 – Ken Maunder Park Bridge n Chainage 5040 - 5140 – Ken Maunder to Queen Mary Avenue Bridge n Chainage 7230 - 7370 - Channel n Chainage 8765 - 8795 - Channel n Chainage 9090 - 9110 - Channel n Chainage 9970 - 9990 - Channel n Chainage 10570 - 10590 - Channel n Chainage 560B - 640B – Channel n 410B – Watercare Pipe

Watercare guidelines will be followed for any construction works in close proximity to Watercare assets (refer to Appendix E Civil and Coastal Processes Report).

The remaining crossings that require specialist design are Whau River channel crossings of the main channel or tributaries. The construction methods for these sections will largely be the same as the boardwalk construction methods which are detailed in section 2.6 below but may require larger spans between piles to avoid the channel (if possible).

A new bridge is proposed, extending from Ken Maunder Reserve to Queen Mary Avenue. The bridge will be constructed directly adjacent to the existing 2m wide bridge and is intended to replicate the existing structure in its design. Refer to Appendix A for drawings of the as-built bridge.

2.4.5 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

As part of the Scheme Assessment Report a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) analysis was undertaken (included in Appendix F). As part of the development of this AEE a further CPTED analysis was undertaken focusing on the underpasses at the rail line and Great North Road, and cul-de-sac connections to the path. This is included as Appendix L.

The four principles of CPTED are:

1. Surveillance

2. Access Management

3. Territorial Reinforcement

4. Quality Environments / Maintenance

There are seven qualities of CPTED that characterise well designed and safe places which relate to these principles. These are as follows (taken from the CPTED analysis in Appendix F):

1. Access: Safe movement and connections

2. Surveillance and Sightlines: See and be seen

3. Layout: Clear and logical orientation

4. Activity Mix: Eyes on the street



5. Sense of Ownership: Showing a space is cared for

6. Quality Environments: Well designed, managed and maintained environment

7. Physical Protection: Using active security measures

Key matters and recommendations of the two CPTED assessments are noted as follows:

n Installation of adequate lighting n Consider art and landscape treatment and well-maintained landscaping to create attractive environments,

discouraging vandalism n Improve visibility as much as possible for passive surveillance, including appropriate planting that

maintains sightlines and permeable (to some extent) fencing where new fences are proposed n Consider use of police patrols or CCTV monitoring n Provide alternative accesses at underpasses (under the rail line, Great North Road and Rātā Street) n From an operational perspective, methods to encourage patronage outside of peak periods (e.g.

community run / walk clubs) or to set up businesses near the path that support its use (e.g. coffee carts) n Consideration of sight distances and curve radii that allows for good visibility n Wayfinding and signage along the route to identify entry and exit points n Physical barriers to stop vehicles accessing the boardwalk (e.g. bollards)

These matters and recommendations will be taken through and considered at detailed design. As part of a Safety in Design review at that time, further detailed CPTED considerations will be undertaken and applied to the design.

2.4.6 Lighting

Street lights mounted on 6m columns are proposed for the sections of the at grade pathway. For the pathways proposed alongside roads, lighting will be provided by the existing street lighting. For the boardwalk section, luminaires embedded into the deck and/or the up to 1.4m high handrail are proposed. The lighting will have an asymmetric distribution such that the majority of light is directed onto the boardwalk.

The typical illuminance calculations for the boardwalk and concrete path will be designed to be compliant with the requirements of category P3 lighting of AS/NZS 1158.3.1, section E24 (lighting) of the AUP-OP, and Auckland Transport’s TDM Chapter 12 – Street Lighting. It is noted that Category P3 lighting is appropriate for the boardwalk and concrete path and is consistent with the light levels on other pathways in the Auckland region. Category P3 is a widely used lighting category on local roads in residential areas, pathways, and is deemed to be a safe level of lighting for pedestrian walkways and shared paths. Use of shields or alternative luminaires will be considered at detailed design stage and used if necessary to meet the aforementioned standards.

Preliminary discussions have been had with Auckland Transport in relation to potential dimming of lights at different times of the night or the use of sensor lighting, so that the boardwalk is not lit at night when no one is using it and visual effects can be minimised. In relation to these two options it is noted:

n Auckland Transport have a central management system capable of assigning dimming profiles (lowered light output at different times of the nights)

n Auckland Transport have advised that sensor lighting is an option but has not been undertaken before on other projects, and therefore requires further investigation and liaison during detailed design stage to confirm feasibility



Design Changes since Scheme Assessment Report There have been a number of design changes to the alignment since the completion of the Scheme Assessment Report in 2017. This is as a result of technical investigations and consultation undertaken as part of the preparation of this resource consent application and an initial costing exercise by the applicant. The changes are:

n Reduction of the proposed boardwalk deck height in the CMA from 3.46m AVD to 2.89m AVD to reduce visual impact

n Inclusion of a land option to the north of Great North Road to connect to Wingate Street via an open space parcel (instead of boardwalk) at approximate chainage 3800 to potentially reduce construction costs

n Moving the boardwalk envelope to the edge of the mangroves, away from properties within the section from Queen Mary Reserve to Lynwood Road to reduce visual and privacy effects

n Re-routing the Rizal Reserve to Ken Maunder section to pass around Rizal Reserve to connect to Ash Street to the north of the River. This avoids a 100m boardwalk crossing of the river itself and issues around constructability given the overhead Transmission lines in this location

n Removal of the previously proposed bridges that are openable and replacing these with a boardwalk (to reduce whole of life costs) at: – The tributary between Queen Mary Reserve and Koromiko Street, and – The Wairau Creek tributary to the Whau River

n Re-routing the alignment to the north of Roberts Field to connect to the existing (and recently upgraded) Tiriroa boardwalk, which avoids an area of saltmarsh.

Indicative Construction Methodology The construction methodology described in this section is derived from the indicative construction methodology report in Appendix B. It is noted that the construction methodology is indicative only as a contractor has not yet been selected to undertake the design and construction of the works. The successful contractor will be required to submit a detailed construction methodology based on the high-level methodology provided in Appendix B and consistent with any conditions of consent granted for the works. A key principle for construction is minimal disturbance to the CMA and surrounding land.

2.6.1 Construction Timeframes and Staging

Given the lineal nature, length and scale of the Project construction will be undertaken in stages (which could be undertaken concurrently). Works will occur within the specific sections outlined in section 2.2 and 2.3 but it is yet to be confirmed which section will be undertaken first and in what order.

Overall construction may not commence for 5 - 10 years on any section (depending on design, funding and timing of further investigations such as geotechnical work, etc).

Once commenced any particular section may take 1 to 3 years to complete based on the size and complexity of construction of the section, the nature of the contractors equipment and the methodology used.

2.6.2 At-grade Shared Pathway

The proposed material used for the construction of the at-grade pathway will mostly be concrete. To construct the at-grade paths, the contractor will carry out minor earthworks to prepare an area for the laydown of GAP40 aggregate, which includes the removal of any grass, topsoil and vegetation. Vegetation removal will be either by mechanical or manual means, depending on the scope of the vegetation to be removed and the ease of access. This will be detailed in the Contractors methodology.



Once the aggregate has been levelled and compacted, the preferred construction material (asphalt / concrete) will be poured and cured. Disturbed land adjacent to the path will be grassed or revegetated based on a planting plan undertaken during detailed design. A planting palette is provided in Appendix Q to guide the planting plan.

At selected areas along the route public amenities such as interpretive signage and seating will be placed. The location and design of these amenities will be confirmed at detailed design as part of a landscape design package and in consultation with mana whenua (as discussed in section 5.3.1). Refer to Figure 8 showing existing seating at Archibald Park and Figure 9 showing an example of existing interpretive signage along the Te Whau Pathway.

Figure 8: Existing seating at Archibald Park (Source: Auckland Council)



Figure 9: Existing interpretive Signage at Archibald Park (Source: Auckland Council)

2.6.3 Boardwalk Construction Methodology

For all works within the CMA, it is expected that the contractor will adopt a method of working which creates minimum disturbance to the seabed, vegetation and surrounding land. A suggested method to achieve this is a build as you go method for the boardwalk, where continuing works can be carried out from the newly constructed previous boardwalk segment. However other options are noted below for completeness and to provide a ‘worst case’ scenario approach in terms of works within the CMA to inform the assessments of effects.

2.6.3.1 Potential Work Methods

Based on site conditions, it is anticipated that the construction could be carried out via the following methods.

Swamp Matts Where the alignment is located within intertidal mudflats, swamp matts may be used. Swamp matts allow heavy machinery to access the area of works, however will be restricted to operating during periods of low tide. Any vegetation within close proximity to the swamp matts will need to be removed.

Erection of a Standalone Temporary Staging When working near steep banks, over water or soft ground, a temporary structure may be used to provide a work platform. Prior to construction, the contractor will need to design the temporary structure and this structure will be removed after the completion of works. Access points will need to be identified to allow for material delivery and access to the temporary staging / structure.



Use of the Permanent Structure as a Construction Platform During construction the contractor may elect to use permanent piles as a temporary work platform. This is known as a ‘build as you go’ method and will involve construction machinery working off completed sections of the boardwalk and constructing sections ahead. The contractor will need to check that the permanent piles proposed for the boardwalk have adequate strength to support construction loads. This may result in the installation of stronger piles than needed for the permanent boardwalk.

Depending on ground conditions / contractor requirements, piles will be installed by one of the following methods:

n Driven using a piling rig with pile hammer n Piles placed in pre-augured sockets and set with concrete

Barge Works Given the proposed alignment in shallow intertidal areas, it is unlikely that any construction works from a barge would be feasible. However, they could be utilised for transport and delivery of materials at high tide where appropriate.

Access Tracks and Platforms Adjacent to the Boardwalk: For zones out of tidal and river areas, access tracks and temporary platforms formed from imported gravel may be used. A sketch illustrating this approach is shown in Figure 10. It is anticipated that site clearance / vegetation removal under this method may be up to 12m.

Figure 10: Access Track / Platform Approach

2.6.3.2 Site Clearance

Any vegetation obstructing construction works will be removed which may include the removal of vegetation in the following locations:

n Over access points to allow for access tracks and temporary staging n Along access tracks and platforms along the alignment of the boardwalk (if required) n Along the alignment to allow for placement of swamp matts in intertidal areas (if this method is selected) n Directly underneath piles

Vegetation removal will be either by mechanical or manual means, depending on the scope of the vegetation to be removed and the ease of access. This will be detailed in the Contractors methodology.



2.6.4 Crossings

The existing Ken Maunder Park to Queen Mary Avenue Bridge is to have an additional 2m wide replica bridge constructed next to it (as discussed in section 2.4.4 above). This bridge will be on independent foundations and adjacent to the existing bridge and will be designed in a similar manner to that of the existing bridge (see Appendix A for as built drawings).

The tributary crossing from Rizal Reserve to Ash Street will require longer spans and height than the standard boardwalk lengths however construction of this crossing (using either temporary staging or use of the permanent structure as a construction platform) will likely be similar to that described in section 2.6.3.

In regard to the proposed crossing near the Watercare asset across the Whau River, the design and construction will need to comply with Watercare’s general conditions so that their assets do not get interfered with (refer to Appendix E). It is anticipated that the proposed boardwalk will be raised or lowered as necessary to meet these conditions. Any change in height may require additional cross bracing.

2.6.5 Construction Compound and Staging Areas

The Construction Methodology in Appendix B identifies suggested locations that would be most appropriate for construction compound and staging areas. These areas are existing public reserves including Olympic Park, Rizal Reserve, Archibald Park, Cobham Reserve and Roberts Field. It is not anticipated that any private property will be used as a construction compound or staging area. The laydown areas noted are clear of trees to allow for construction operation. Adjacent trees will be fenced at the drip line as necessary.

The construction compound / area of works will be appropriately fenced or cordoned off for health, safety, and security reasons. Pedestrian diversions may be necessary and will be used to divert park users around the compound or area of works during construction.

2.6.6 Traffic Generation

The number of construction vehicles will vary across the alignment and will be dependent on the ability to access the site and staging areas. Indicative numbers of truck movements have been calculated based on estimates of timber, concrete, aggregate and earthworks volumes required for construction (as set out in section 3.2.3 of the Construction Methodology (Appendix B)). The estimated truck movements based on the above assumptions per staging area and in total (over the entire route) are as follows:

n Mobilisation of plant, site offices, etc: 5 - 10 total n Truck movements required for earthworks: 50 - 60 total n Truck movements required for Sub-Base GAP40 Aggregate: 50 - 60 total n Truck movements required for timber: 50 - 60 total n Truck movements required for concrete: 100 - 125 total

These numbers do not include general mobilisation and staff movements. The specific truck movements for each staging area are outlined in the draft construction methodology (Appendix B).

2.6.7 Earthworks

Overall it is estimated that construction of the proposed pathway will require approximately 1,000m3 of earthworks. This assumes a 3m wide on-land shared path. Depending on how the boardwalk is constructed, there may be more earthworks required. Minor earthworks may be required for the temporary construction compound(s) and access tracks, e.g. removal of topsoil and formation of a temporary access track / haul road. Further discussion regarding earthworks (including preliminary calculations of earthwork volumes per staging area) are included in Appendix B.



Earthworks will be undertaken in accordance with an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). A high level ESCP is included in Appendix J setting out key principles and processes from which site specific ESCP’s will be developed by the contractor prior to construction. The ESCP’s will be developed once detailed design is undertaken, the alignment and construction methodology are confirmed, and construction yard / laydown areas and staging are known. It is intended to provide these ESCP’s to Auckland Council prior to each stage of construction progressing. Following earthworks, the exposed soil will be grassed or planted to stabilise the site.

2.6.8 Works within Proximity of the Transmission Line Network

As identified in section 3.6, works required for the construction of the boardwalk and at-grade pathway are located underneath or next to Transpower transmission lines or Vector distribution lines in certain areas. Any works underneath / or within close proximity to Transpower and Vector assets will comply with the regulations set out under the New Zealand Electricity Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001 – included within the Civil and Coastal Processes Report in Appendix E). The NZECP sets out the particular clearance required to certain infrastructure. Consultation will be undertaken with Transpower and / or Vector to get their approval prior to undertaking works, including the preparation of a clearance assessment for Transpower’s approval (further discussed in section 6.2.11). This process is proposed to occur during detailed design and once the alignment and construction methodology is confirmed.

Duration of Consents and Lapse Period A 35-year consent duration is sought for activities being consented under, s12(1), s12(2) ,12(3), 14 and 15 of the RMA (the coastal and discharge permits). This includes the occupation and use of the CMA for the purposes of public recreation and amenity and is considered appropriate given the expected lifetime of the structure (of over 50 years) and the potential staged approach to construction of sections within the CMA. Land use consents issued under s9 of the RMA are granted in perpetuity and no duration is sought.

The applicant is seeking, pursuant to section 125(1) of the RMA, a ten-year lapse period for all consents sought. A ten-year lapse of consent is sought (as opposed to the default 5 years under the RMA) to allow for any delays in exercising the consents, in particular due to the following reasons:

n Potential funding delays n Allowing time for detailed design, technical investigations and consultation to occur as each stage is

developed n Allowing time for the construction contracts to be tendered and awarded n Development, submission and / or approval of any plans to Auckland Council regulatory which may be

required as a result of conditions of resource consent (e.g. ESCP, planting plans, Ecological Management Plans)

n The size and scale of this Project



3 Description of the Existing Environment

The Te Whau Pathway passes through a range of environments including the CMA, intertidal mudflats with established mangroves, public open spaces containing vegetated and grassed areas and roads. This section outlines the existing environment of the Project area and includes information from the technical assessments included in Appendices.

Surrounding Land Use The Project area is split into 5 sections and covers 14 Census Area Units (CAU’s), with an overall community population of approximately 60,000 people. Over 20 schools are within a 2km distance of the proposed pathway, along with other key community, recreational, commercial and industrial areas. The land use in Sections 1 – 5 are outlined below.

3.1.1 Section 1: Portage Road

The surrounding land use from Green Bay to Hill Crescent is primarily residential development and open space. From Hill Crescent to the Clarke Street / Wolverston Street intersection the land use is primarily commercial development. To the east of Portage Road, near Bolton Street, is Blockhouse Bay Intermediate School. The Motu Moana Green Bay Scouts Club is located on Portage Road.

3.1.2 Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park

The surrounding land use on the eastern bank of the Whau River is generally residential development with some commercial areas (e.g. 2171 Great North Road - near the West Line Overbridge), St Mary’s School and Wingate Club. Along the western banks of the Whau River the land use is primarily commercial and industrial activities.

A large residential development is currently being constructed at 30 Sandy Lane which has a boundary with the Whau River. As part of this development an esplanade reserve has been vested to Auckland Council and will be used to construct a shared path to connect to Te Whau Pathway (this section is subject to a separate resource consent application).

3.1.3 Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park

The adjacent land uses are primarily residential or open space within this section. The boardwalk passes through mangroves and over a small tributary of the Whau River. The pathway alignment within the CMA is adjacent to residential properties and a consented jetty at 125 Lynwood Road. The jetty was granted resource consent for occupation and use within the CMA with an expiry date of 2034 (Auckland Regional Council reference number 30871). Residents at the property currently use the jetty to launch a small vessel and kayaks.

Where the path reaches Archibald Park there is an existing public boat ramp and new pontoon structure, developed as part of the wider Te Whau Pathway Project (Figure 11).



Figure 11: Archibald Park Pontoon Opening (children standing and sitting on pontoon) (Source: Auckland Council)

3.1.4 Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park

The land adjacent to Archibald Park and Cobham Reserve is residential. To the west of Cobham Reserve, along the north-western banks of the Wairau Creek, is primarily industrial land. One of the properties is the Span Farm Slip Yard which currently operates a commercial business for storing and launching marine vessels into the Whau River (via Wairau Creek). Adjacent to Span Farm is an existing Watercare water supply pipe which traverses Wairau Creek from Span Farm to approximately Kiernan Place. To the north of the Wairau Creek mouth, before reaching Laurieston Park, there is an area of industrial land which is adjacent to a large area of undeveloped land along Hepburn Road (zoned residential). It is understood that a large residential subdivision is proposed on this land.

3.1.5 Section 5: Laurieston Park to North West Cycleway Connection

From Laurieston Park the path is largely in the CMA until it reaches Bridge Street next to the Te Atatū Boat Club, with connections to a number of open spaces along the way (including the recently constructed path at Roberts Field, see Figure 12). The predominant surrounding land use is residential.



Figure 12:Te Whau Pathway at Roberts Field, photo taken in 2018 (Source: Te Whau Pathway facebook page)

Community and Social Context A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has been prepared by Beca Limited and describes the existing community environment and social context (refer to Appendix N). The SIA has established a Study Area for the purposes of profiling the existing environment and for assessing local social impacts associated with the Project. To provide a more local assessment, and for research purposes the Study Area was also broken up into four Community Areas (Figure 13). Each Community Area comprises of a number of local CAUs (totalling 14 CAUs). CAUs are non-administrative geographic areas that, in terms of size are larger than meshblocks but smaller than territorial authorities. They are a tool used by Statistics New Zealand to gather more detailed statistics on defined local areas within territorial authorities. CAUs within urban areas normally contain a population of 3,000 – 5,000 people. CAUs have been used as a useful tool to gather and compare statistical information in order to profile the communities.



Figure 13: Community Area Map and Te Whau Pathway Alignment (Source: Auckland Transport, 2017)

The four Community Areas are described below:

3.2.1 Community Area 1

Green Bay, Blockhouse Bay, Rewarewa and Avondale South

These suburbs are largely residential with some industrial activity with Portage Road running through the centre. The area is well resourced with community facilities such as several shopping areas, medical facilities gyms as well as nine schools within 1.9km of the pathway. The 2013 census data indicates that the usually resident population of Community Area 1 is approximately 20,124 people. The population growth across all the CAUs between 2006 and 2013 was 1032 people or 5%. The 2013 Census indicates that most residents in full time employment in Community Area 1 travel to work by private vehicle (58%), with approximately 10% of people within each suburb travelling via public / active transport modes.




Avondale West, Lynnmall and Glenavon

Covering the suburbs of north and west Avondale and New Lynn east, this area has a large retail sector with residential areas and some industrial activity. A key focal point for Community Area 2 is the Lynn Mall which is a large shopping centre with big box retail stores, supermarkets, smaller retail outlets, medical centres and gyms. There are also sports facilities in the area, including the Olympic Park athletics track and football club and the Avondale Racecourse. There are six schools within 1.7km of the pathway and these schools are culturally diverse with high proportions of students from Pacific Island, Māori and Asian backgrounds. The 2013 census data indicates that the usually resident population of Community Area 2 is approximately 13,512 people. The population growth over all the CAUs between 2006 and 2013 was 705 people or 5%. The 2013 Census indicates that most residents within Community Area 2 travel to work by private vehicle (56%), with approximately 17% of people within each suburb travelling via public / active transport modes.


New Lynn North, New Lynn South, Kelston Central, Glendene South, Glendene North

This area is largely residential with some industrial activity, mostly located within Glendene South. There are little shopping or service opportunities and it is likely that residents travel east to the New Lynn Mall or south to Glen Eden to shop and access key services. This community area does have a large industrial area which provides services such as car parts, mechanics, packaging and boat services. There are seven schools within 1.6km of the pathway and they offer a mix of all study levels (primary, intermediate and secondary schools). The 2013 census data indicates that the usually resident population of Community Area 3 is approximately 16,914 people. Within Community Area 3 the population growth across all the CAUs between 2006 and 2013 was 978 people or 6%. The 2013 Census indicates that the majority of residents are in full time employment and that the majority of residents travel to work by private vehicle (61%), with approximately 11% of people within each suburb travelling via public / active transport modes.


Mcleod Park, Te Atatū South

The area is primarily residential in nature and has little in the way of retail or other services. It is likely that residents travel to WestCity Waitakere Mall to shop and access key services. There are several sports fields in the area. There are four diverse schools within 1.6km of the pathway in the area with high proportions of students with Pacific Island, Māori and Asian backgrounds. The 2013 census data indicates that the usually resident population of Community Area 4 is approximately 10,179 people. Within Community Area 4 the population growth over all the CAUs between 2006 and 2013 was 1026 people or 10%. The 2013 Census indicates that the majority of residents are in full time employment and travel to work by private vehicle (58%), with approximately 9% of people within each suburb travelling via public / active transport modes.

Recreation and Use The Whau River environment has a long history of maritime uses and recreation. The book “Te Whau: connecting the people, the places, the taonga” by Angela J Thomson (2017) provides a comprehensive history of the Whau River and peoples association with it. This includes sporting events such as rowing regattas in the late nineteenth century to power boat racing in the early 1900s.

The Whau River is also known for kayaking and canoeing, an activity enjoyed from pre-European times when Māori waka rowed up and down the rivers path, to present times where many locals enjoy the waters of the Whau.



Some private properties next to the river have riparian rights and over time some structures that allow access to the water and mooring opportunities for vessels have been constructed. Most of these structures (boatsheds, slipways, etc) do not have resource consent to occupy the CMA, with the exception of a jetty at 125 Lynwood Road. It is understood that residents at the property currently use the jetty to launch a small vessel and kayaks. Most use of the Whau by properties with riparian rights is for non-powered craft such as kayaks and paddle boards and access are limited to high tides due to the intertidal nature of the area.

The Te Atatū Boat Club is located at the northern end of the Project area with direct access to the river at all tides. There are over 1,400 people associated with the Te Atatū Boat Club. There is a public access to the river (boat ramp) next to the Te Atatū Boat Club although this access is now overgrown, and the only likely use is kayaks and similar small vessels. There are moorings within the river at this point.

Further to the south is a public boat ramp at Archibald Park. An upgraded boat ramp and new pontoon has recently been constructed here as part of the Project that provides improved safety for launching vessels and provides greater tide access.

Use of the Whau River is constrained by the tides and there are many anecdotal reports of vessels becoming stranded on the intertidal flats as waters recede. Many places around the Whau River margins are inaccessible to water craft at low tide due to the tidal flats and mangroves (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Whau River (looking north) at a period of low tide. McLeod Park is centre left of this image

Historically the Whau River was used for swimming by locals, however given its current degraded state and poor water quality this is no longer a common recreational use.

Adjacent to the Whau River are a number of open spaces with informal and formal recreation opportunities. These open spaces vary in size from neighbourhood parks and reserves (including Rizal Reserve, Queen Mary Reserve, Cobham Reserve, Laurieston Park, Meadow Glade, Riverglade Esplanade, Roberts Field, Covil Park) to larger sport fields and informal recreation spaces (including Craig Avon Park, Sister Rene Shadbolt Park, McLeod Park, Olympic Park, Ken Maunder Park, Archibald Park).



Te Whau River Physical Environment

3.4.1 River Morphology

A large portion of the shared pathway will be located within the Whau River, an estuarial arm of the Waitemata Harbour. The Whau River flows for approximately 5.7kms from its origin at the convergence of the Avondale Stream and Whau Stream to its mouth between the Te Atatū Peninsula and the Rosebank Peninsula. The widest point in the river is 800m and it decreases to 400m at the mouth. The majority of the river is tidal mudflats with large areas of mangroves and drainage channels.

The average depth of the western riverbank during spring high tide is approximately +0.5m (Chart Datum, CD), and the channel is approximately -2.0m (CD). According to the DML bathymetry report (referenced in the Civil and Coastal Process Assessment – Appendix E), these chart datum depths are 1.77m offset below the Auckland 1946 Vertical Datum (AVD), which is an additional 1.397m below Mean High Water Springs (MHWS). Thus, the intertidal area is approximately 2.67m deep at MHWS, and the channel is 5.17m deep at MHWS.

Sediment types present in the Te Whau River are predominantly mud, sandy mud, and muddy sand (with gravelly sand, gravel, and rock outcrops present to a lesser extent).

3.4.2 Coastal Processes

The predominant wind direction is from the South-West. Since the Te Whau pathway will be built on the western bank of the river, there is very little fetch for South-Westerly wind waves to generate. In addition, the many mangrove stands in intertidal areas further restrict the distance of open water across which waves can be generated. Assuming a conservative channel depth of 5.2m (noting much of the maximum fetch distance is intertidal rather than deep channel areas) and a maximum fetch length of approximately 2.8kms from the NNW which ignores the presence of mangroves (see Coastal Processes Report, Appendix E), the greatest wave height produced at a wind speed of 62.8 knots would be 1.07m, and 10% of the waves would be over 1.13m. However, this figure is considered highly conservative due to the presence of mangroves restricting fetch lengths and the fact that the probability of high winds from the NNW occurring for a long duration at the same time as a high tide is very small. This is especially true considering the fact that the predominant wind direction is from the SSW.

As the Whau River is a tidally constrained waterbody, currents are driven by tides more than the wind. A November 2008 report by Auckland Regional Council modelled currents for the Whau estuary and indicated that current velocities are typically less than 1m/s even at maximum incoming tide. The highest current velocities occur at the entrance to the estuary where the river is at its narrowest. The presence of mangroves slows the currents in intertidal areas and can contribute to the build-up of fine sediment in these locations.

Site Zoning – Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

3.5.1 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Zoning

Table 2 outlines the zoning and overlays relevant to the proposed pathway alignment.

Table 2: Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Zoning and Overlays

Section Zones Relevant Overlays Non-statutory Overlays

Section 1: Portage Road

n Road (Portage Road and Wolverton Street)

n Stormwater Management Area Flow (SMAF) 1

n Overland flow paths (OFP) (Portage Road)



Section Zones Relevant Overlays Non-statutory Overlays

n Open Space – Informal Recreation

n Open Space - Conservation

n SMAF 2 n Flood plain (small section of Portage Road)

Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park

n Open Space – Conservation n Coastal Transition* n General Coastal Marine n Residential single house

zone (Parcel adjacent to the north of North Auckland Line) – 49A Arran Street

n Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation

n Business Light Industry (34E Portage Road, New Lynn)

n Mixed Housing (Urban) – 118A and 122A Ash Street

n National Grid Corridor Overlay, National Grid Yard (Uncompromised / Compromised / Subdivision)

n Significant Ecological Area (SEA) M2-54 Marine 2

n Coastal inundation 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) plus 1m control

n Designation 6300 (North Auckland Line, KiwiRail)

n OFP (the river itself) n Flood plain (Olympic Park

and the river itself) n Flood prone area (near

Rātā Street)

Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park

n Coastal Transition* n General Coastal Marine n Open Space – Sport and

Active Recreation n Road (Koromiko Street and

Lynwood Road connections)

n National Grid Corridor Overlay, National Grid Yard (Uncompromised / Subdivision)

n SEA M2-54 Marine 2 n Coastal inundation 1%

AEP plus 1m control

n Flood plain (the river itself)

Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park

n Coastal Transition* n General Coastal Marine n Open Space – Informal

Recreation n Open Space – Conservation n Residential Single House

zone (Hepburn Road parcels)

n Road (Akatea Road, Avenger Place connections)

n National Grid Corridor Overlay, National Grid Yard (Uncompromised / Subdivision)

n SEA M2-54 Marine 2 n SEA (T) – Harmell

Reserve, Akatea Park and Cobham Reserve

n Coastal inundation 1% AEP plus 1m control

n OFP (Akatea Park, Hamel Reserve, Cobham Reserve, Hepburn Esplanade, Laurieston Park)

n Flood plain (the river itself)

Section 5: Laurieston Park to North West Cycleway Connection

n Coastal Transition* n General Coastal Marine n Open Space – Informal

Recreation n Open Space – Conservation n Open Space – Sport and

Active Recreation n Road (Riverglade Parkway,

Roberts Road, Bridge Avenue connections)

n Designation 6738 (SH16, NZ Transport Agency)

n SEA M2-54 Marine 2 n SEA (T) – Laurieston

Park n Coastal inundation 1%

AEP plus 1m control

n OFP (McLeod Park, Bridge Reserve and Bridge Avenue)

n Flood plain (the river itself) n Flood prone area (Bridge

Reserve)

* Section F8.2(2) of the AUP states that the Coastal Transition Zone does not have a set of rules in itself but takes on the rules of the Open Space – Informal Recreation Zone (or where adjacent to another Open Space zone, those rules instead)



Services A Civil Services assessment was undertaken by Beca (Appendix E) to determine what services were present within, or in close proximity to, the proposed alignment. The findings of the report are summarised below.

3.6.1 Stormwater and Wastewater

Along the alignment, or near to the alignment, there are a number of stormwater and wastewater services identified including:

n Underground 100PVC rising wastewater pipe and a 50PE water pipe between 93 Wingate Street and 98 Wingate Street

n An underground stormwater pipe in Cobham Reserve n The alignment passes over an underground wastewater pipe near 32 Bancroft Crescent n There is a 400PE and 450AC wastewater pipe which traverses the Whau River between Laurieston Park

and Saunders Reserve n Wastewater pipe behind 24B Portage Road n A new culvert is proposed within Olympic Park by Project Partner, Auckland Transport. Discussions are

on-going with Auckland Transport about the location of the culvert and how the design of the pathway will respond to this new infrastructure

n There are several stormwater outfalls located along banks of the Whau River. However, the alignment does not conflict with any of this infrastructure (further discussed in Appendix E)

Section 6.2.11.1 sets out consultation undertaken with Watercare regarding the Project.

3.6.2 Transmission Power Lines

Transmission powerlines run along the Whau River and either cross over or are adjacent to the alignment. The key areas where the proposed alignment runs in close proximity to existing Transmission lines are summarised in Table 3 below and discussed in further detail in Appendix E.

Table 3: Location of Transmission Lines

Address / Area Comment

Adjacent to the eastern side of Olympic Park The proposed alignment runs parallel to the transmission lines

Behind 2180 Great North Road, Avondale The alignment crosses underneath the transmission lines and is approximately 13m from a transmission tower

Railway bridge near Olympic Park The alignment crosses underneath the transmission lines

Behind 34B Portage Road, New Lynn

Behind 20 Portage Road, New Lynn

Behind 10 Drury Street, Avondale

Near 40 Koromiko Street

Behind 17B Kieman Place, Kelston

14 Meadow Crescent

12 Corregidor Place, Avondale



Cultural Values Three iwi groups have provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA): Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei are Project Partners and have therefore had inputs and provided advice for the Project as it has developed. Each CVA has a separate narrative and while overall views of the environment may be similar across all iwi, each iwi group has their own story and appreciation of the cultural values of the environment. The below describes the cultural values of each group.

In addition to the three iwi listed above, there are other groups with interest over the area including those listed in section 6.2.5.

3.7.1 Te Kawerau a Maki

While it is recognised that this broad area is of interest to other iwi and hapū, Te Kawerau a Maki are associated with many geographic locations and areas within the Project area through the traditions, songs, place names, and histories of the people.

The Whau River is a highly significant feature roughly marking the south-eastern corner of Hikurangi and the core rohe for Te Kawerau a Maki. The Whau River is an important geographic feature associated with many previous kāinga, wāhi tapu, and other cultural sites and was known both for gardening on the coastal edges (e.g. at Rosebank Peninsula) and for food gathering. It was also a regionally important transport corridor – waka could navigate from the Waitemata Harbour to the Manukau Harbour via a short portage which variably terminated at Motukaraka (Green Bay Beach) and at Te Whau.

In this way the strategic and cultural importance of the Whau River relates to its wider cultural landscape context. This wider context is required in order to better understand the cultural values associated with the proposed pathway.

3.7.2 Ngāti Whātua Orākei

The Whau River is one of many tributaries to the Waitemata that is of cultural significance to Ngāti Whātua Orākei. The connection is important as any adverse effects may also affect the Waitemata Harbour. Like Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua Orākei used the Whau River as a rich food source for both marine and terrestrial animals. The surrounding lands of the Whau River had native flora and fauna that had customary cultural practices associated with them including weaving, medicinal purposes and carving. These resources were regularly sourced by Ngāti Whātua Orākei ancestors.

3.7.3 Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

The key cultural nodes that bind Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua to the Whau landscape are:

n Tupuna maunga n Water resources n Waka portage routes

Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua’s relationship to the Whau coast is linked to the "portage" (conveyance) of people and goods from the Manukau harbour to the Waitemata harbour. These were the ancient travelling and trade routes between the two major water bodies. For Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua these portages are intrinsically tied into traditional histories and settlement patterns. They have important historical, occupational and traditional use significance.



Archaeology Clough and Associates have undertaken an Archaeological Assessment for the Project (see Appendix D). The following summary of the history of the area is taken from the report in Appendix D.

Early Māori settlements were established near shorelines and major rivers in the Auckland region and were occupied either long-term, seasonally, or temporarily, according to the availability of food resources. Satellite fishing and gardening camps were usually set up away from long-term settlements during the summer months and food would be preserved and then taken back to the kainga (village) for use during the winter. The Whau River was a primary communication route, leading to an important portage route between the two harbours, and midden sites located near to the Project area suggest transient Māori occupation along its banks. The area yielded abundant resources such as cockle, tuatua, and mudsnail, and floats for fishing nets were often collected from the local whau tree, which produced balsa-like wood. In reference to the valuable resource Māori named the river and surrounding district Te Whau; however, the area now known as Kelston was called Onewherowhero after the red coloured clay which covered the region.

During European settlement the clays along the Whau attracted brick makers and a number of works were established along the banks of the Whau River, taking advantage of water transport from the southern end of Te Atatū Peninsula to near Rātā Street in New Lynn. A number of brickworks sites are recorded in the vicinity of the proposed pathway. The first site was established in the 1850s on the eastern side of the river, with brickworks established on the western side of the river from the 1860s. Some of the sites also had landings and jetties associated with the operations to assist with river transport.

A total of 32 sites, of both archaeological and other historic heritage value, have been recorded within 50m of the consent envelope. These include midden sites from early Māori occupation and industrial brickworks sites, landings, jetties, wharves and heritage buildings from early European settlement occupation. Sites that are within the consent envelope include:

n R11/459 (midden) - Midden exposed in the bank along the beach just south of the State Highway 16 bridge. It is approximately 13m in length with a depth of 30cm. The midden is situated directly in the path of the pathway through this area

n R11/2549 (midden) – Located in the reserve at end of Alwyn Avenue, Te Atatū, in and around the roots of a large Norfolk Pine, and some in slopewash on the banks immediately below the pine

n R11/2016 (former brickworks site) – The former Laurie Brothers Brickworks, located within the Hepburn Esplanade Reserve. The remains include cuttings, wooden piles and a tramway slip.

Sites which are adjacent to the envelope include:

n R11/3040 (former brickworks site) - John Malam’s Brickworks, dating from 1862 to 1897, later purchased by Laurie Brothers. The site is located just to the north of the Hepburn Esplanade Reserve, immediately adjacent to the Laurie Brothers Brickworks, and is currently largely covered by gorse

n R11/451 (midden) - Visible in several patches over an area of 30m, located on the point at the junction of the Whau River and Wairau Creek, Cobham Reserve. The area is subject to on-going loss from erosion, and planting of Ti around the edge of the reserve had disturbed the midden remains

n R11/455 (midden) - Recorded in 1977, located at the northeast corner of McLeod Park. The midden is approximately 25cm below the surface in an area of replanting

n R11/457 (midden) - Located on the western bank of the Whau on the northeast edge of Covil Park and possibly redeposited

n R11/2911 (former brickworks site) - Located beneath the bank and on the mudflats of Whau Creek at the southern end of Beaubank Reserve. Whole and partial bricks are spread for approximately 20m along the shoreline and within the mudflats. The bricks are wirecut and range in colour from yellow to red, some being partially glazed.



Ecology and Vegetation An Ecological Assessment undertaken by Wildlands outlines the existing flora and fauna within and adjacent to the consent envelope on land and within the CMA (refer to Appendix I). An Arboricultural Assessment has been undertaken by Arborlab (Appendix C) outlining existing trees within the landward envelope. The following section summarises the findings of those assessments as it relates to the existing environment.

3.9.1 Planning Maps

The Whau River is recognised as a Significant Ecological Area - Marine 2 (SEA-M2) in the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). The AUP notes that the Whau River contains substantial quantities of mangrove ecosystems and saline vegetation. The Ecological Assessment (Appendix I) states that there is approximately 204ha of mangroves within the Te Whau estuary, of which approximately 8.43ha (or 4%) is within the consent envelope. This vegetation provides habitats for threatened birds and potential nesting sites, including kingfisher, pied stilt, white-faced heron, red-billed gull, black-backed gull, pied shag, black shag, welcome swallow, and pūkeko.

In addition, there are four SEA-T areas which the consent envelope passes through. These are located at:

n Laurieston Park n Akatea Park n Harmell Reserve n Cobham Reserve

SEA-T’s are recognised where at least one of 5 criteria are met that indicates there is significant ecological value. Overall the SEA-T environments noted above consist of a mixture of exotic and native plants, and whilst given a SEA-T status they may not necessarily exhibit all aspects of a typical SEA. However, the SEA’s-T noted above may act as buffers between the Whau River and its landward side providing an important habitat for its immediate ecosystem.

3.9.2 Marine Habitat

Estuaries such as Te Whau are complex ecological systems marking the transition between fresh water and the open coast. The character of the river changes from a narrow tidal creek in the south near Olympic Park with dense mangroves, exotic trees, weed species and steep embankments to increasingly extensive areas of open water, mudflats and mangrove forest in the north as the intertidal zone widens towards Waitemata Harbour. While very little indigenous vegetation cover remains in the wider area, the mangroves and saltmarsh that thrive in the estuarine river environment provide several important ecosystem services such as stabilising sediment, filtering water, and providing habitat for a range of plants and animals, particularly birdlife.

Based on the vegetative survey most of the mangrove habitat within the consenting envelope is relatively short (less than 1.5m tall) and does not differ significantly from that present in the adjacent areas or within the wider estuary. Overall, the mangrove vegetation and the observed intertidal ecology indicates that the estuarine areas to be affected by the proposed boardwalks are of relatively low to moderate ecological value.

Saltmarsh vegetation can protect shorelines from coastal erosion, filter and trap sediment and pollutants from stormwater run-off, provide important nesting and roosting habitat for moho-pererū, and spawning sites for īnanga. However, the areas of oioi, wīwī and pūrua grass identified are small. Overall the saltmarsh vegetation within the consenting envelope is of moderate ecological value.



3.9.3 Terrestrial Habitat

Areas of green space include local parks that are mostly covered by exotic grasslands. Exotic dominated vegetation contains many pest plant species, including black wattle, brush wattle, tree privet, Chinese privet, monkey apple, giant reed, ginger and gorse. While exotic trees may provide habitat for indigenous birds they are not the preferred habitat for geckos. Areas of coastal edge vegetation on public parks often comprise of indigenous revegetation plantings. These areas have been planted relatively recently (last 6 - 7 years) and are therefore not mature / well established. Some areas of terrestrial vegetation contain a mixture of mature indigenous and exotic tree species. These include established kānuka trees, which provide potential habitat for indigenous geckos. On balance, areas of mixed indigenous and exotic vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed pathway can be considered of low to moderate value.

Three plant species within the consent envelope are considered at risk (manuka, kanuka and pōhutukawa). The pōhutukawa trees at Archibald Park are considered of high ecological value due to their threatened status and likelihood to provide nesting habitats for pied shag, black shag and / or white faced heron. Manuka and kanuka are located within various parts of the envelope including within indigenous and exotic forest areas and along coastal edges of parks (where these have been planted as part of recent replanting works).

Approximately 117 trees and 40 groups of trees are within or in proximity to the proposed alignment (consent envelope). Trees are both native (pōhutukawa, ti-kouka, puriri etc.) and exotic (oak, pine, mexican cypress etc) species.

3.9.4 Fauna

3.9.4.1 Avifauna

Seven species of indigenous birds were recorded during the survey undertaken by Wildlands within the Project area. The surveys were conducted in January, July and November 2018 (Appendix I). The species recorded include New Zealand kingfisher, welcome swallow, pūkeko, spur-winged plover, pīwakawaka, riroriro, and tūī. The terrestrial vegetation at the site may also provide habitat for other common indigenous species such as tauhou. Exotic birds such as blackbird, song thrush, and house sparrow are also likely to use the terrestrial vegetation for nesting and foraging. The mangroves may provide foraging and shelter habitat for white-faced heron, black shag, pied shag and banded rail. The species identified have been recorded within the estuary during both the surveys undertaken for the Project and in past historical surveys. “At risk” bird species who inhabit the estuary are moho-pereru, pied shag, black shag and royal spoonbill.

3.9.4.2 Long Tailed Bats

A recent model of the distribution of long-tailed bats in the Auckland Region indicates that the environment within the Project area does not provide suitable foraging habitat for long-tailed bats. However, some of the large exotic trees (such as radiata pine and blue gum) may provide suitable roost sites and are within the estimated maximum home range (19kms) of known long-tailed bats roost sites. As such, the presence of long-tailed bats in the vicinity of the proposed pathway is a possibility.

3.9.4.3 Herpetofauna

While no lizards were observed on site during the surveys (undertaken by Wildlands in January, July and November 2018), suitable habitat for indigenous lizard species is present within the consent envelope. Mature kānuka trees provide potential habitat for elegant gecko which are a threatened species. Ground dwelling copper skink are often found amongst leaf litter, woody debris and ground cover vegetation. Both of these species have been recorded in highly urbanised environments within 3kms of the consent envelope.



3.9.4.4 Marine Fauna

Evaluation of the 19 intertidal sites revealed a relatively homogenous and low diversity intertidal flora and fauna. Benthic fauna samples were dominated by mud snails, mud crabs, polychaete worms, insects (chironomid larvae) and Phoxocephalid amphipods. All species recorded are synonymous with both mangrove habitat and / or muddy intertidal environments. Collectively the low abundance and diversity of benthic species point towards an environment at the lower end of ecological functioning and values. Within the Ecological Assessment, Kelly (2008) suggests that over the last 30 years there has been significant changes to Te Whau estuary’s marine biota, particularly the loss of estuarine bivalves (such as cockles, pipi, wedge shells and nut shells) from the inner estuarine margins.

While no fish were observed on site visits conducted by Wildlands in January, July and November 2018, a number of fish species such as shortfin eels, yellow-eyed mullet, yellow bellied flounder and sand flounder are likely to be present (Appendix I).

3.9.4.5 Pest Fauna

Pest animals likely to be present within the Project area include brush-tailed possums, rats and mice, hedgehogs and stoats / ferrets. Cats were also observed at several locations along the alignment.

3.9.5 Summary

In general, the values of the environment in which the Project is located ranges from low – moderate ecological value and comprises a range of indigenous and exotic vegetation that supports the habitats of fauna (bats, lizards, marine species, birds) within the Project area.

Landscape and Natural Character A Landscape and Visual Assessment has been prepared by Landwriters Ltd and is included in Appendix K. The assessment notes that the Whau River is an important, legible landscape feature framed by strips of reserve and parkland and considerable urban residential and industrial development. While the river itself is largely free of built structures, there are a few large scale modifications such as the National Grid pylons and the State Highway 16 and Rātā Street bridges and it is framed by built development including residential and industrial / commercial development close to the margins on both sides of the river, as well as nearby roading infrastructure.

The fluctuating ebb and flow of the tide imparts a strong sense of naturalness with the mudflats and mangroves expressive of the interplay between the coastal and estuarine processes. However, catchment development and land use activities such as stormwater runoff from roads and buildings, along with increasing built environment on the water’s edge such as jetties, wharves boatsheds and slipways have modified the quality and values of the estuary. Overall the natural character of the active river channel is considered to be moderate in contrast to the low natural character of the riparian margins which are more affected by human intervention and pinched between a heavily modified wider setting, long shaped by development.

Water Quality Overall the health of the estuary’s water quality is poor with the contamination of the Whau River described in detail in “Te Whau: connecting the people, the places, the taonga” by Angela J Thomson (2017).

In addition, Auckland Council’s State of Auckland Marine Report Card 2014 for Central Waitemata Harbour (which includes the Whau River and three monitoring sites within the River itself) rates the harbour as “D”



rating (on a scale of “A” to “F” from highest to poorest water quality), considering water quality, ecological health and contaminants in sediment.

Site Geology The Geotechnical Factual and Interpretive Reports included as part of the Scheme Assessment Report describe the geology of the area (refer Appendix F). Their findings were informed by existing information on the area and additional intrusive investigations (boreholes, core penetration tests and dynamic probes). In summary the site has four main geological units underlying the site:

n Fill (reclamation or landfills) n Tauranga Group Soils n East Coast Bays Formation Residual Soils n East Coast Bays Formation Rock

The Interpretive Report noted that slope stability issues are likely where materials are soft and steeply sloping. Preliminary desktop information suggests the New Lynn area exhibits these characteristics where drainage gullies are the prevalent landform. As referenced in the Ecological Report (Appendix I), the geology along the majority of the Whau River is sandstones of the Waitemata Group. Soils are predominantly clay.

Contaminated Land An intrusive contamination assessment was undertaken by Stantec (Appendix F) as part of the Scheme Assessment phase to identify potentially contaminated land that could be disturbed during the works. Previous activities and potential sources of contamination were assessed based on site observations, historical aerial imagery and review of contamination records held by Auckland Council (regulatory).

Historic and current land uses and activities with potential contaminant sources noted in the assessment include industrial areas, public reserves on reclaimed land, closed landfills and the Te Atatū Boat Club (part of a former landfill).

Following the desktop review a sampling programme was undertaken at 36 locations, 21 terrestrial sites and 15 marine sites. Heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides and tributyl tin (TBT) were all detected either above background concentrations or above their laboratory detectable limits at various locations along the proposed pathway route. Asbestos was detected in 5 soil sample locations. The report concludes that sediment contaminant concentrations present a low risk to the receiving environment as the receptors present have been subject to these contaminants for a long duration (Appendix F).

As part of development of the Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP), attached as Appendix G to this AEE, consultation with Auckland Council’s closed landfill team identified that the pathway may pass through some closed landfills. These are noted below with commentary on the proposed pathway works within these general locations:

n Sister Rene Shadbolt Landfill – Minor fringe works to tie into path n Olympic Park Landfill – Existing footpath to be upgraded n Ken Maunder Park Landfill – Minor fringe works to tie into path n Queen Mary Reserve Landfill – Minor fringe works to tie into path n Archibald Park Landfill - Minor fringe works to tie into path n McLeod Park Landfill - Minor fringe works to tie into path n Bridge Ave Landfill – New pathway to be constructed.

.



4 Reasons for Consent

This section sets out the resource consents required for the Project, pursuant to Sections 9 and 12 of the RMA. For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant is seeking all resource consents required from Auckland Council (regulatory) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the pathway within the consent envelope shown in the plans in Appendix A.

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

The Contamination Assessment undertaken as part of the SAR (Appendix F) indicated no exceedances of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NESCS) human health risk criteria for a ‘recreational’ land use scenario and no exceedances of adopted environmental risk criteria. However, while contaminants identified during the investigation present a low human health and environmental risk, there may be some variation in fill material that could generate isolated areas of contamination that have not been characterised in the assessment.

The approach to site management with respect to non-asbestos contaminants is therefore conservative, applying a precautionary level of human health and environmental controls to account for any localised areas of elevated contaminants that were not identified through sampling. In addition, the characterisation of potential asbestos contamination and subsequent risk assessment has not been undertaken at this stage. For these reasons a resource consent is being sought under the NESCS for managing effects from contamination in soil to protect human health. A Detailed Site Investigation has not been undertaken on the site, therefore resource consent will be required under Regulation 11 of the NESCS.

Under the NESCS, the application for resource consent is considered as a Discretionary Activity.

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) The following table is a summary of the consents required under the AUP-OP. Overall the application will be assessed as a Discretionary Activity.

Table 4: Resource Consents Required under the AUP-OP

Rule Description Activity Status Comments

Stormwater Diversion and Discharge

E8.4.1(A10) Diversion and discharge of stormwater runoff not otherwise provided for.

Discretionary The AUP provides for stormwater runoff from impervious areas up to 5,000m2 in size in urban areas as a controlled activity. Pending final confirmation of the alignment, it is possible that the impervious areas will collectively be more than 5,000m2 and therefore consent is sought under this rule as a precautionary measure.

Stormwater in Stormwater Management Area Flow (SMAF)

E10.4.1(A4) Development of new impervious areas greater than 50m2 within SMAF – One and Two.

Discretionary Within Craigavon Park and Sister Rene Shadbolt Park there are small sections of the shared path that are within the




SMAF 1 and 2 overlays. Collectively this area is over 50m2 (approximately 250m2) and triggers consent. The proposal does not meet the standards of E10.6.1 or E10.6.4.1 because no hydrological mitigation is proposed and as such the proposal will be assessed as a Discretionary Activity.

Earthworks

E11.4.3(A28) and E11.4.3(A30)

Earthworks in a SEA over 5m2 or 5m3 not otherwise listed in the table.

Restricted Discretionary

The heading of table E11.4.3 references cycle and walking tracks however permitted rule E11.4.3(A16) only lists ‘walking tracks’ as permitted. Clarity is being sought from Auckland Council in regard to the interpretation of this rule but in the interim and as a precautionary measure, consent is sought as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

C1.9(2) regarding infringement of E12.6.2(1) and E12.6.2(13)

Earthworks (district) for cycle and walking tracks including temporary land disturbance and stock piling in a 1% AEP flood plain and / over overland flow path over 28 days.


E12.4.1(A1) provides for cycle and walking tracks as a permitted activity. However, the general standards E12.6.2(1) cannot be complied with as it only lists installation of walking tracks. For construction within Olympic Park it is also unlikely that E12.6.2(13) will be met and accordingly consent is being sought under this rule. This section does not state the activity status should the standards be infringed. However, rule C1.9(2) states that where an activity is classed as permitted but does not comply with one or more standards applying to that activity it is a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Vegetation / Tree Works

E15.4.1(A21) Vegetation, alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 of contiguous vegetation, or tree alteration or tree removal of any indigenous tree 3m in height, that is within 20m of mean high water springs.


The proposed vegetation removal and alteration along the alignment will exceed 25m2 of contiguous vegetation. This vegetation consists of a mixture of exotic grass and riparian vegetation that is within 20m of MHWS.

E15.4.1(A22) Vegetation, alteration or removal of greater than 25m2 of contiguous vegetation, or tree alteration or tree removal of any indigenous tree 3m in height, that is within 20m of a cliff with a slope angle steeper than 1 in


The proposed vegetation removal and alteration along the alignment will exceed 25m2 of contiguous vegetation. This vegetation consists of a mixture of exotic grass and riparian vegetation that is within 150m of MHWS.




3 within 150m of mean high water springs.

E16.4.1(A6) Tree trimming or alteration that does not comply with Standard E16.6.1.


Tree trimming may be necessary that does not comply with standard E16.6.1. Because the methodology has not been confirmed, consent is sought as a precautionary measure.

E16.4.1(A8) Works within the protected root zone that do not comply with Standard E16.6.2.


Works may be required within the open space zone within an individual trees root zone. Because the methodology has not been confirmed and the area of root zone required has yet to be determined, consent is sought as a precautionary measure.

E16.4.1(A10) Tree removal of any tree greater than 4m in height or greater than 400mm in girth.


The proposal requires the staged removal of trees within open space zoned land which measure greater than 4m in height.

E17.4.1(A6) Tree trimming or alteration that does not comply with Standard E17.6.1.


Tree trimming may be necessary that does not comply with standard E17.6.1. Because the methodology has not been confirmed, consent is sought as a precautionary measure.

E17.4.1(A8) Works within the protected root zone that do not comply with Standard E17.6.2.


Works may be required within the road zone within an individual trees root zone. Because the methodology has not been confirmed and the area of root zone required has yet to be determined, consent is sought as a precautionary measure.

E17.4.1(A10) Tree removal of any tree greater than 4m in height or greater than 400mm in girth.


The proposal requires the removal of trees within road zoned land which measure greater than 4m in height.

Noise and Vibration

E25.4.1 (A2) Activities that do not comply with a permitted activity standard.


The Noise and Vibration Assessment in Appendix M identifies some locations where it is possible that construction noise levels may be unable to meet NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction noise. Therefore, general standard E25.6.1(3) is unlikely to be complied with in all locations.

Contaminated Land

E30.4.1(A7) Discharges of contaminants into air, or into water, or onto or into land.

Discretionary The land-based sections of the route (park land) have or are likely to have elevated levels of contaminants that do not meet permitted standards.




Land Use in Floodplain or Overland Flow Path or Flood Prone area or Coastal Inundation Zones

E36.4.1(A56) Infrastructure not otherwise provided for.


Rules A52 – A56 relate to infrastructure within the floodplain, overland flow path, flood prone area, coastal inundation zones (1% AEP plus 1m sea level rise) and land that may be subject to land instability. The definition of infrastructure in the AUP is the same as per the RMA 1991. In the RMA s2 infrastructure means:

“…(g) structures for transport on land by cycleways, rail, roads, walkways, or any other means…”

The definition of land in the RMA “(a) includes land covered by water…”

Therefore, this rule applies to the envelope outside the road sections (which are permitted activities as per section 4.3). It is also noted that given the length of the Project, the level of detail available at this stage and the detailed definition in the AUP of ‘land which may be subject to instability’, these areas cannot be specifically defined and accordingly, consent is sought as a precautionary measure.

Construction, Occupation and Use of the Boardwalk within the CMA (and SEA-M2)

F2.19.4(A50) Mangrove removal, not otherwise provided for.

Discretionary Mangrove removal will be required for boardwalk construction and for temporary construction works. The final area of mangrove removal cannot be confirmed until a construction methodology is determined. However, this rule is relevant because the activity is not provided for in other rules relating to mangrove removal (regardless of area).

F2.19.8(A114) Underwater blasting, impact and vibratory piling, marine seismic surveys.


The proposed construction methodology notes that piling will be necessary. It is likely that most piling will be undertaken in the dry but at Ken Maunder bridge and on other occasions underwater piling may be necessary. Consent is therefore sought as a precautionary measure.

F2.19.10(A133) Infrastructure CMA structures not otherwise provided for.

Discretionary A new bridge is proposed in the CMA (being a replica of Ken Maunder




Bridge) which is infrastructure not otherwise provided for in the chapter. Consent is sought under this rule for the construction, occupation and use of the Ken Maunder Bridge and the use of temporary structures from which to construct the bridge.

F2.19.10(A143) Construction of a boardwalk which occupies and uses the General Management Area of the CMA, including temporary structures and activities.

Discretionary Boardwalks are provided for within this rule specifically. The activities within table F2.19.10 include construction (including use of temporary structures from which to construct the boardwalk), occupation and use of the structure.

Zones

H7.11.7 Open Space – Conservation

Maximum permitted impervious area per site is the lesser of 10% or 5,000m2 within the Zone.


The shared path within Covil Park will not comply with the 10% threshold (in conjunction with existing impervious area coverage) – being approximately 16% impervious surface coverage of the 1.5ha parcel.

Permitted Activities Proposed activities that meet the Permitted Activity criteria are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5: Permitted Activities under the AUP

Activity Provision Comment

Within the National Grid Yard (Compromised) any new building or structure, and alterations, that is not for activities sensitive to the national grid.

D26.4.1(A11) The proposed structures are not considered ‘sensitive to the national grid’ (as per the definition within the AUP) and are permitted.

Within the National Grid Yard (Uncompromised) any structures that do not meet the definition of building.

D26.4.1(A33) All paved shared path surfaces within the National Grid Yard is a permitted activity as they are not a building.

Land disturbance that complies with Standards D26.6.1.1(1)(a), D26.6.1.1(1)(b), D26.6.1.1(1)(c) and D26.6.1.1(1)(d).

D26.4.1(A19) The standards include excavation depths at certain distances from towers, poles and stay wires. It is considered that these permitted standards will be met.

Diversion and discharge of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces up to 5,000m2 of road.

E8.4.1(A4) The Project includes additional impervious surfaces within the road reserve in small areas of the route that will total less than 5,000m2.

Development of new or redevelopment of existing impervious areas up to 1,000m2 for a road, motorway or state highway operated by a road controlling authority or rail corridor within

E10.4.1(A5) New or redevelopment of footpaths in Portage Road and parts of Kinross Street road reserve to increase to 3m width is a permitted activity. The area is less than 1,000m2.




stormwater management area control – Flow 1 or stormwater management area control – Flow 2 that complies with Standard E10.6.2.1.

Furthermore, it is noted that Standard E10.6.2.1 also excludes areas where runoff is dispersed over vegetated or grassed areas as is proposed in this application.

Earthworks for installation, operation, maintenance and repair for (amongst others) cycle and walking tracks.

E11.4.1(A1) Cycle and walking tracks are a specific permitted activity in relation to installation, operation, maintenance and repair.

Pest plant removal. E15.4.1(A6) Pest plant removal is a permitted activity.

Pest plant removal of any tree less than 4m in height and less than 400mm in girth in Open Space zones.

E16.4.1(A4) Removal of pest plant trees less than 4m in height and less than 400mm in girth is permitted.

Lighting: Open Space Conservation zone – Category 1 and Other Open Space zones – Category 2.

E24.4.1 The path lighting is to be designed to meet the permitted standards of E24.6.1.

Earthworks up to 2,500m2 other than for maintenance, repair, renewal, minor infrastructure upgrading.

E26.5.3.1(A95) Earthworks in the road reserve will be less than 2,500m2 at any one time.

Earthworks up to 2,500m3 other than for maintenance, repair, renewal, minor infrastructure upgrading.

E26.5.3.1(A96) Earthworks are estimated at 1,000m3.

Off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities.

E27.4.1(A10) Off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities are provided for as a permitted activity in the Auckland wide provisions of Chapter E27. This rule applies in all zones 5F5F

6.

Exotic vegetation alteration or removal not otherwise provided for.

F2.19.4(A43) Exotic vegetation removal within the CMA is a permitted activity.

Mangrove removal to enable the operation, maintenance, use and functioning of existing lawful structures, infrastructure, or to ensure public health and safety in the use or operation of infrastructure: Up to a maximum of 200m2 in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone and SEA-M2 overlay.

F2.19.4(A47) To enable the on-going maintenance of the boardwalk vegetation directly adjacent to the boardwalk including mangroves, may need trimming / pruning from time to time. Mangrove removal will not occur. It is anticipated that pruning will take place throughout the year and not exceed 200m2.

Planting of native vegetation. F2.19.5 (A51) Mitigation planting of native vegetation is permitted.

Archaeological Investigation within the CMA.

F2.19.8 (A102) Any archaeological investigations during the investigation phase will be a permitted activity.

Informal recreation within Open Space Zones.

H7.9.1 (A13) General informal recreation within Open Space zones are permitted activities. Such activities include leisure, sport or exercise activities that occurs on an ad-hoc basis.

6 This approach was confirmed in Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society Inc v Auckland Council [2016] NZEnvC 248 at [17]-[21]




Recreational trails within Open Space Zones.

H7.9.1(A49) Recreational trails are defined as ‘a sealed or unsealed pathway or greenway that is used for informal or organised purposes such as footpaths, cross country mountain biking, bridle trails, fitness trails, off road cycleways and walkways’ and therefore is applicable to this Project.

Public amenities within Open Space Zones.

H7.9.1 (A16) Public amenities within Open Space zones are permitted activities. Such activities include landscaping and planting, bicycle stands and cycle parking structures, directional signage and information boards, lighting, shelters and changing facilities.



5 Assessment of Environmental Effects

When considering an application for resource consent, Section 104(1) of the RMA requires a consent authority to have regard to any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. For the purposes of this assessment, the actual and potential environmental effects arising from the Project are:

n Construction related, being temporary and only occurring during construction n Operation related, being longer term and occurring as a result of the presence and use of the new

pathway

This AEE has been informed by a range of technical reports referred to throughout the section and included in the appendices as well as consultation undertaken (see section 6). Given some details are yet to be determined through design (including the final pathway alignment within the consent envelope, the materials used for boardwalk construction and the construction methodology), the technical assessments have considered the highest potential effect anticipated.

Positive Effects The following summarises the positive effects that have been identified to result from the implementation of the Project.

5.1.1 Transport Benefits

The Project will deliver a safer, more convenient connection to the city centre and within neighbouring suburbs for walking and cycling, including:

n Connection to 13 schools n Enhanced access to the North-western Cycleway, and the future New Lynn to Avondale shared path n Alternative forms of transportation in a growing part of Auckland, opening the area to recreational users

as well as commuters both locally and from across Auckland n 20 new access connections onto the pathway’s off-road route providing significantly improved

accessibility to and along the coast n Providing a safe travel option for commuters along the Whau River and the surrounding areas by being

an off-road travel option n Improving connectivity to public transport options as there are several local and regional public transport

links within approximately 600m of the path, including the New Lynn train station

5.1.2 Social and Recreational Benefits

In its existing state the Whau River is severed from its surrounding communities, due to limited road access (from the western side), steep topography and a lack of esplanade reserves. It is noted that historically the Whau River was an identified important portage link in the area which has been lost over time as development has progressed. Positive effects associated with the implementation of the Project include:

n Overcoming severance from surrounding communities, enabling the community to experience the Whau River

n Pathway design to enable accessibility for those with limited mobility n Enhancing the use and enjoyment of the Whau coastal environment for large sectors of the community n Providing a new recreation and commuting option for the community to improve health and wellbeing

through walking and cycling



n The pathway may also become a tourism opportunity, giving visitors a unique perspective of the Whau River and the surrounding environment. For the community, this has the potential to enable wider socio-economic opportunities as well as the potential to positively contribute to the sense of identity / environmental value the community places in their physical environment

n Maximise opportunities for the community to experience the Whau River environment in a formalised way and offers new spaces for recreation (such as fishing and bird watching)

5.1.3 Cultural Benefits

Planning for and implementation of the Project has provided an avenue for recognising the importance of the area to mana whenua and enhancing the presence and visibility of the cultural landscape across this area. This is achieved through:

n The close working partnership between mana whenua and the applicant including the presence of mana whenua on the Project Steering Group and development of the CVA (included as Appendix H)

n Incorporating cultural values throughout the Project including providing opportunities for cultural design and interpretation in the design. This will help to enhance people’s understanding of the cultural importance of the area to Māori. This includes the importance of the Whau River as a historical portage link for tangata whenua.

5.1.4 Environmental Benefits

Positive effects related to the natural environment include:

n Planting of indigenous species and weed removal as part of the pathway construction n Removal of pest tree species such as privet as part of pathway construction n Educational opportunities on the history of the area and the importance of the natural environment

(including the role mangroves play in the ecosystem) provided through interpretative signage along the length of the pathway

n Formalised pathways reduce the damage (e.g. of vegetation) that may be caused by people using informal accessways to and along the river

Construction Effects The following section discusses the potential effects arising during construction. The effects considered include:

n Potential damage of historic heritage and archaeological sites n Potential damage or disturbance of cultural sites of significance n Effects on existing network utilities n Disturbance of contaminated sites n Arboricultural effects through removal of significant trees or damaging root systems n Ecological effects associated with removal of vegetation or disturbance of habitats n Degradation of marine water quality n Landscape and visual effects of construction activities n Noise and vibration effects from use of machinery n Social impacts arising from construction activities near to communities n Transportation effects from construction traffic



5.2.1 Sites of Historic Heritage or Archaeological Significance

An Archaeological Assessment has been prepared by Clough and Associates (refer to Appendix D). The key potential effect on archaeological sites during construction is the potential for earthworks to damage or expose sites of significance and for machinery compacting deposits as they access areas for pathway construction. Of the 34 sites recorded within 50m of the proposed route, four sites are considered likely to be impacted during construction (R11/459, R11/2549, R11/457 and R11/2016 – being three midden sites and a former brickworks site), and a further five have the possibility of being impacted (R11/3040, R11/451, R11/455, R11/457 and R11/2911). There is also a reported cemetery in Laurieston Park, but its precise location is unknown, and any burials are likely to be at sufficient depth to be unaffected by pathway works.

The archaeological value of sites relates mainly to their information potential, that is, the extent to which they can provide evidence relating to local, regional and national history through the use of archaeological investigation techniques, and the research questions to which the site could contribute. The surviving extent, complexity and condition of sites are the main factors in their ability to provide information through archaeological investigation. For example, generally pa are more complex sites and have higher information potential than small midden (unless of early date). Archaeological sites may also have other values, including landscape, amenity, educational and cultural values.

The midden sites are considered to be of low to moderate archaeological / historic heritage significance. They have limited knowledge potential and moderate contextual value based on their contribution to the archaeological landscape.

The brickworks sites are considered to be of moderate archaeological / historic heritage significance based on their knowledge potential and contextual value.

In summary, the Archaeological Assessment has found that adverse effects on archaeology are unlikely to be significant, even if some of the sites cannot be fully avoided through final pathway alignment design. This is because of the limited extent of the proposed works, and the fact that the sites are not of more than moderate archaeological value and significance. There are also good opportunities for mitigation in the form of interpretation signage relating to the sites along the pathway and the recovery of information from any sites affected.

With the implementation of following mitigation measures, the potential effects on archaeological sites can be avoided, remedied or mitigated:

n During detailed design seek to avoid archaeological sites where possible. This is supported by Te Kawerau a Maki (as noted in section 5.2.2). If sites cannot be avoided, consider construction techniques which minimise effects on the sites e.g. building up the path instead of excavating or constructing boardwalks over middens. This was recently undertaken during works to upgrade the Tiriroa Esplanade walkway. Should work be required within archaeological sites, investigate and record the site during construction to cover information relating to the history of the area

n An Authority will be sought from Heritage NZ under Section 44(a) of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act (HNZPTA) and must be granted by Heritage NZ prior to the start of any works

n The Authority which will be applied for will cover accidental discovery and similar matters n It is possible that additional unrecorded sites may be exposed during earthworks. As such the authority

application will include the entire route (consent envelope) to provide for this possibility, to minimise any delays once works are under way.

n Prior to construction starting, the recorded sites in the vicinity of the proposed earthworks will be temporarily marked out or fenced off to protect them from accidental damage from heavy machinery during earthworks



n Earthworks in the vicinity of the recorded sites will be monitored by an archaeologist to establish whether any unrecorded subsurface remains are present and investigate and record any remains exposed

n Interpretive signage near the brickworks sites R11/2016 and R11/3040 will be provided

In summary, based on the mitigation proposed, the archaeological effects are considered minor.

5.2.2 Cultural Values

Iwi groups Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Te Kawerau a Maki prepared CVA’s for the Project in 2015 - 2016. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei both confirmed that their CVAs from this time are still relevant and applicable (Appendix H).

As noted in section 6.2, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua deferred to the Project Partners with respect to further engagement on the Project and subsequently has not provided an updated CVA (but their CVA prepared in 2015 is included in Appendix H). Other groups with mana whenua or an interest over the area have been contacted and those who have responded confirmed they are comfortable with the Project Partners to reflect their views on potential cultural effects (see section 6.2.5). The cultural effects section has been compiled using the CVAs and consultation outcomes.

The key potential effect on cultural values is the disturbance or damage of cultural sites of significance during construction. Other potential construction effects on cultural values is degradation of marine water quality through runoff of exposed earthworks areas and removal of native vegetation. The primary recommendations across the CVA’s is to avoid known archaeological sites and to exercise the accidental discovery protocol should archaeological artefacts be discovered. The reports also recommend appropriate sediment and erosion control methods be used as well as consideration given to retain areas of native vegetation.

In relation to these matters the following is noted:

n Archaeological Sites: Numerous recorded archaeological sites are located within the Project route / footprint. Although the pathway can be designed to avoid most of these features (refer section 5.2.1), a precautionary approach is advised where the pathway is on land in terms of uncovering unknown sites as the absence of formal recording or recognition does not guarantee that there is no archaeological and / or cultural feature present. Should intact subsurface archaeological features or artefacts associated with Māori be exposed during any earthworks, it will be necessary to cease earthworks in the vicinity and representatives of the Project Partner iwi groups and Heritage NZ should be notified immediately of the discovery (as stipulated in the CVA Accidental Discovery Protocol)

n Vegetation Removal: Native fauna are considered taonga (both terrestrial and aquatic) with vegetation often serving as important habitats for native fauna. Any impact to vegetation can in turn impact the fauna. The CVA recommends an ecological mitigation planting and an environmental weed plan be developed to encapsulate and guide implementation of ecological restoration initiatives (which is proposed and discussed in section 5.2.5 and 5.2.6)

n Erosion and Sediment Control: Stormwater runoff and treatment will use natural treatment devices such as runoff to adjacent grassed areas and riparian planting. Appropriate sediment and erosion control methods will be put in place during construction to limit the effects of sedimentation into the receiving environment

With these and other mitigation plans in place, effects on cultural values from construction are considered to be less than minor.



5.2.3 Network Utilities

The Civil and Coastal Assessment attached as Appendix E has identified potential construction effects associated with Watercare, Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport, Transpower and Vector assets. In general, the potential effects are the damage to assets during construction and health and safety effects for construction workers should the works conflict with the assets (e.g. workers or equipment touching overhead power lines). The following sections set out the proposed mitigation to address potential utilities conflicts.

5.2.3.1 Watercare Assets

Watercare have provided advice on how to properly locate and accommodate their assets as part of pathway construction. General ‘works over’ conditions for works within 10m of Watercare assets have been provided by Watercare and are attached with the Civil and Coastal Assessment. Any potential effects on Watercare assets can be mitigated by the following:

n An Investigation Consent will be sought from Watercare for any test pits, hand auguring, bore holes or potholing in close vicinity of Watercare critical assets

n A Works Over Consent will be sought prior to any construction works starting (applied for through the Watercare Works Over Team)

5.2.3.2 Auckland Transport Assets

Auckland Transport advised that a new culvert is being constructed in Olympic Park. The path will need to be designed during detailed design to avoid conflicts with this culvert. The design will be done in consultation with Auckland Transport as a Project Partner to avoid conflicts. The applicant is also consulting with Auckland Transport in relation to connecting the pathway to the proposed New Lynn to Avondale shared path.

5.2.3.3 Transpower Assets

Transpower were contacted to discuss areas where transmission powerlines run over or adjacent to the proposed route. Transpower stated that an electrical report and a construction methodology must be completed for Transpower approval prior to works occurring. This report would show that the required clearances are able to be complied with and that appropriate measures will be put in place to meet these clearances during construction (refer to section 2.6.8 for further detail). It is anticipated that with the above protocol in place, transmission line conflicts can be avoided so that Transpower’s assets are not affected and there are no health and safety effects during construction of the pathway.

5.2.3.4 Vector Assets

Vector were contacted in order to determine whether the pathway will interfere with their existing electrical and gas infrastructure. Although the pathway will not affect gas assets, Vector did comment on the potential conflicts with electrical assets over 5 areas of the route. As discussed in section 3.4 of Appendix E these areas are:

n Between Meadow Crescent and Glen Marine Parade n Between Akatea Road and Sabulite Road n Beside Transpower’s Hepburn substation (Hepburn Esplanade Reserve) n The intersection of Great North Road and Portage Road n A 270m area along Portage Road



Vector advised that potential effects can be mitigated through appropriate design in the detailed design phase so that the conflicts with Vector’s assets are managed. The Electrical Code of Practice (ECP-34) would apply to work near the potential Vector conflicts.

5.2.3.5 Summary of Effects on Network Utilities

Overall where existing utilities have been identified in the alignment of the pathway, the pathway’s final alignment, pile driving locations, and construction methods will be altered to prevent damage to the civil services and avoid health and safety issues for workers during construction. The applicant will continue to consult with the asset owners during detailed design to work through these potential conflicts and in the submission of the necessary plans for approval prior to construction.

5.2.4 Contaminated Sites

As discussed in section 3.13, there is a history of landfills and potentially contaminating activities having occurred near the proposed pathway alignment. There is the potential for workers involved with the construction of the shared path to be exposed to contaminants via soil ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation during earthworks. To mitigate these potential effects a CSMP, included in Appendix G, has been developed to set the overarching protocols and processes to be followed prior to and during construction. These include:

n Pre-development site set up (dust control, erosion and sediment control, stockpiles) n Soil excavation and disturbance procedures n Health and safety procedures

The CSMP will be implemented to mitigate any significant potential human health risks along the entire length of the alignment. In addition, implementation of the CSMP will reduce the impacts on the receiving environment (generation of dust and off-site migration of contaminants) and provide guidance for disposal options for the removal of surplus soil, or stormwater during the development works.

A Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) is required (focusing on asbestos) to be undertaken and submitted to Auckland Council regulatory services team prior to each stage of the development occurring. The CSMP will be updated as required following the results of the detailed investigation. Due to the anticipated staging of the Project and that asbestos was identified in some parkland areas, it is recommended that DSI’s be undertaken for each stage during detailed design.

Asset owner approval and management will be required in regard to works in closed landfills with site specific management plans to be prepared on a site by site basis. General measures for work within landfills are noted in the CSMP and include:

n All works are to be overseen by a Suitably Qualified Experienced Practitioner in the contaminated land field

n Gas monitoring is required during excavation works n Disposal measures if landfill material is encountered n Contingency plan for landfill leachate n Limits on stockpiling

Provided the CSMP is followed, it is anticipated that any potential effects arising from contamination will be less than minor.



5.2.5 Arboricultural Effects

An Aboricultural Assessment has been prepared by Arborlab and this documents in detail the tree species present in the proposed consent envelope (Appendix C). The potential construction effects relate to removal of tree species and potential damage to root systems or driplines that may impact the growth of trees along the proposed pathway route. The final proposed alignment of the pathway offers the opportunity to minimise the damage on existing trees, but the following assessment is based on the greatest potential impact.

This assessment concludes that the permanent removal of 47 protected trees or groups of trees growing within road reserve or open space reserve may be required depending on the final alignment within the consent envelope. In addition, 33 protected trees or groups of trees have been identified as potentially requiring works within the root zone in order to facilitate the construction of the path.

In order to mitigate the effects on trees during construction, the following mitigation and avoidance measures are proposed:

n Works will avoid mature and native vegetation wherever possible n Specific design including root bridging detail and / or the use of boardwalk structures for trees to be

retained n A detailed tree protection methodology should be prepared and adhered to both during and post

construction n The removal and pruning of any vegetation shall be undertaken by suitably trained and experienced

arboricultural contractors n A works arborist will be engaged to supervise works within the root zone / dripline of the identified trees n A planting plan will be prepared during detailed design for replacement planting. It is noted that a

suggested planting palette has been prepared and included in this application as Appendix Q (Landscape Plans) to use as a basis for the planting plan. Replacement planting shall be carried out on the following basis: – For trees measuring 4 - 8m in height that are removed – 1 for one – For trees measuring over 8m in height that are removed – 2 for one

These measures will be incorporated into Tree Management Plans and Landscape Plans that will be prepared following detailed design and prior to works occurring. With the above mitigation methods in place, it is anticipated that adverse construction effects on trees and associated vegetation will be less than minor. The removal of pest species such as gorse and privet that has encroached in many areas is considered a positive effect of construction of the pathway.

5.2.6 Ecological Effects

An Ecological Assessment has been prepared by Wildlands (Appendix I). The potential ecological effects during construction are summarised as:

n Loss of habitats including feeding and breeding habitats n Temporary disruption to fauna during construction from noise and vibration n Injury or loss of lizards, bats and benthic fauna during construction works n Sedimentation and remobilisation of intertidal sediments and contaminants (through mangrove removal

and pile driving)

5.2.6.1 Localised loss of habitats

Given the extent of mangroves habitats within the consenting envelope, potential adverse effects are likely to be greatest for this habitat type. The scale of any effects will be largely dependent on the method(s) of construction and how much mangrove removal is required. The current estimate of the extent of mangrove



habitat within Te Whau estuary is approximately 204ha, of which 8.43ha (4%) falls within the consenting envelope. The exact amount of mangrove clearance required to construct the pathway is not yet known (as it will be based on the construction methodology adopted), however it will be only a proportion of the extent within the consenting envelope. Currently, it is expected that a strip of mangrove clearance up to 12m wide should be considered the “worst case scenario” based on the potential for side by side construction method. Based on this estimate, and in the context of the wider estuary, adverse effects on existing mangrove habitat are expected to be minimal.

Approximately 128m2 of saltmarsh habitat falls within the consenting envelope and may therefore be impacted by the pathway. While the ecological value of these saltmarsh areas is lessened by their small size and fragmented distribution, the construction methodology should aim to avoid the removal of this uncommon vegetation type. If moho-pereru are using these saltmarsh areas for breeding at the time of construction, it is possible that nests with eggs or chicks would be destroyed. While it is unlikely that these small fragmented saltmarsh areas would be used for nesting, the possibility cannot be ruled out.

Pied stilt and royal spoonbill generally forage in open tidal flats. While they may avoid the construction area while works are underway it is expected that they will return to their usual feeding grounds following the pathways completion.

As noted in section 3.9 there are three ‘at risk’ or ‘threatened’ species which may require removal in coastal parkland (manuka, kanuka and pōhutukawa). The removal of this vegetation would result in fragmentation of coastal fringe habitats and loss of feeding and breeding habitat for indigenous bird species. In considering these effects however the Ecological Assessment does note that the bird species recorded on-site are common and widespread with an abundance of similar habitats in the local area in which the birds can disperse to, and the fragmentation of habitat is unlikely to limit the movement of indigenous skinks that may be present.

5.2.6.2 Disruption to avifauna and benthic fauna due to construction noise and vibration

Noise and movement associated with construction machinery may disturb or temporarily displace some avifauna species. For terrestrial birds, these effects are likely to be minimal, as the species present are all common and mobile and are likely to move back to the area following the completion of works. It is also expected that any moho-pererū displaced from foraging in the adjacent mangrove areas would return following construction.

Noise associated with machinery and associated construction activities also has the potential to impact benthic communities and other species using habitats in the CMA. Construction noise during low tide when mudflats are exposed will not impact highly mobile species such as fish and eels. Indeed, highly mobile species are likely to avoid areas of construction. While noise effects such as vibration (during pile driving) on intertidal benthic fauna has not been studied in detail, impacts may include reduced foraging and predator avoidance abilities. Within the context of this Project, noise-related impacts during construction are likely to be limited in both spatial and temporal extent.

5.2.6.3 Injury and mortality of fauna during construction

Clearance of terrestrial vegetation presents a risk of injury to or mortality of lizards during the clearance works. In addition, although the Project area is not considered to contain valuable foraging habitat for long-tailed bats, it is possible that some of the larger exotic trees could provide roost sites. Felling trees that contain roosting bats is likely to result in individual bats being harmed or killed. Mitigation measures are suggested below to minimise effects.



During construction, pile driving will potentially impact the immediate benthos through displacement of surficial substrate (mud) and associated biota. In the worst case scenario this will result in the loss of those species within the direct footprint of each pile. However, given the ubiquitous nature of the species recorded in the survey (mud crabs, mud snails, polychaete worms and amphipods) together with the low biological diversity across sampling sites, it is anticipated that effects associated with construction will be small and restricted to only the construction envelope. Any disturbed areas are likely to be recolonised quickly (days to several weeks) by those species occupying adjacent areas.

5.2.6.4 Sedimentation and remobilisation of intertidal sediments and contaminants (through mangrove removal and pile driving)

Disturbance of sediment during construction can increase the levels of suspended solids (turbidity) in the water column and smother benthic organisms or reduce light for marine species growth. In addition, the catchment of the Whau Estuary contains a mix of residential and industrial land uses and zinc contamination within sediments present in sections of the estuary are high for the Auckland region (Appendix I). Copper, lead, mercury and PAH concentrations are also elevated in some areas. As such, it will be important that sediment disturbance associated with construction in the CMA (primarily pile driving) is contained to prevent any spread of sediment-bound contaminants.

To mitigate these effects the following mitigation is proposed:

n In general, the design philosophy is to avoid native and mature vegetation where possible, and for the CMA – land interface to be undertaken at a right angle to minimise the footprint and subsequently reduce the level of vegetation removal. This includes avoiding pruning of the pōhutukawa at Archibald Park where possible (although the assessment notes that this may not be possible due to engineering constraints)

n Enhance the coastal fringe vegetation through preparation and implementation of an Ecological Management Plan that sets out proposed planting of shoreline vegetation, pest plant control and saltmarsh restoration. The Ecological Assessment sets out the proposed mitigation planting area ratios for affected vegetation types as follows: – Planted indigenous scrub: 1:1.5 – Mixed indigenous and exotic forest: 1:1 – Saltmarsh vegetation: 1:3 – Pōhutukawa treeland: 1:2 (pruning) and 1:5 (tree removal)

n Assess areas cleared of mangroves post construction to identify if further management is needed to encourage the re-establishment of mangroves

n To enhance remaining habitats outside of the construction footprint, retain (where possible) woody vegetation that has been cleared on-site

n Prepare and implement a Lizard Management Plan covering areas of terrestrial vegetation clearance and pruning. The plan needs to outline search, rescue and salvage operations to be undertaken prior to construction to avoid injury or mortality during construction

n If vegetation clearance and / or pruning is to take place during bird breeding season (September – January inclusive), a nesting bird survey should be undertaken to identify any active nests of indigenous bird species in saltmarsh and mangrove habitats where construction is proposed. Works should be put on hold in this area until any chicks have fledged

n Bat surveys should be undertaken (in areas containing potential roost trees) prior to construction to confirm if long-tailed bats are present and, if so, a Bat Management Plan (BMP) will need to be prepared, including tree felling protocols to reduce the risk to roosting bats

n Implement ESCPs to avoid sedimentation. In addition, works in the CMA to be undertaken in the dry where possible (i.e. during periods of low tide).



Overall with the appropriate mitigation options in place, the adverse construction effects on ecology of the proposed pathway are anticipated to be minor.

5.2.7 Marine Water Quality

The potential effects on marine water quality relate to silt and sediment runoff from exposed earthworked areas, disturbance and remobilisation of sediment as a result of mangrove removal and the potential for hydrocarbon spills or grease from machinery entering the water column.

Silt and sediment runoff associated with the earthworks and physical works has the potential to result in adverse effects on the water quality of the CMA and wider environment by increasing turbidity and introducing any contaminants attached to sediments. An overarching ESCP (Appendix J) has been prepared in accordance with Auckland Council’s GD05 to assist with the mitigation of effects of the development. The ESCP outlines the effects associated with the land disturbing activities that are anticipated to be undertaken during construction and makes recommendations for measures necessary to mitigate the impact of these activities on the receiving environment.

Erosion and sediment control measures are detailed in the ESCP. These include:

n Establishing site access points built in accordance with GD05 n Minimising exposed areas by staging of earthworks n Limiting site length - via the installation of contour drains or beached slopes to minimise the potential for

water to trail across the site and cause erosion n Stabilisation and reinstatement measures in accordance with GD05 n Dust control and stock piling to prevent ingress of rainfall and the generation of dust n Watercourse protection - the use of coffer dams and / or water diversions n Clean water diversion n Slope protection – implementation of contour drains or benched slopes to break up slope lengths and

geotextile methods to protect cut and fills from erosion n Sediment retention ponds to retain and treat sediment laden water across the site n Decanting earth bunds n Dewatering from excavations to either a retention device on-site or a temporary silt trap. Flocculation

could be employed for dewatering devices to obtain faster settlement of suspended sediment n Silt and super silt fences installed in accordance with GD05, on all estuarine boundaries downhill of

earthworks to slow sheet flow and impound sediment

Prior to construction a site specific ESCP (or series of ESCP’s depending on the staging of the Project) will be developed and provided to Auckland Council regulatory services for approval.

In addition to the above, works within the CMA are to be undertaken during low tide periods and from work platforms where possible to avoid the need for machinery to directly traverse the CMA, thereby reducing the potential water quality impacts. Construction machinery will be fuelled away from the CMA to avoid any potential for hydrocarbon spills entering marine waters.

Any disturbance of sediment from the removal of mangroves will be limited by undertaking removal works during low tide and retaining the root system where possible. Due to the tidal nature of the Whau River, any sediments disturbed will be rapidly flushed and turbidity is expected to be localised and temporary in nature. It is noted that the turbidity of the Whau River is already high, particularly after rain events, and so the effects of sedimentation are considered less than minor.

Overall, with the provision of the above mitigation measures it is considered that the effects on marine water quality will be less than minor.



5.2.8 Landscape and Visual

During construction, the potential landscape and amenity effects relate to the presence of construction machinery and workers, removal of vegetation and the potential discolouration of waterbodies through sediment runoff. The potential for sediment runoff is addressed in section 5.2.7 above and, with the proposed ESCP and given the high turbidity of the Whau River after rainfall events, is considered to be a less than minor adverse visual impact.

The presence of construction machinery and workers in the CMA and on land is not common in the landscape of the area. However, given the works are temporary and confined to the section of the pathway within which they are working this is not considered to be a significant visual impact for local residences. The surrounding coastal edge vegetation will also assist in partially screening views to the construction works from public spaces and residential dwellings reducing the potential impact.

Any vegetation removal required for construction will re-establish or be supplemented with additional planting and so the visual effects are expected to be minor.

Overall, due to the temporary construction period and implementation of an ESCP, landscape and visual amenity effects are considered to be less than minor.

5.2.9 Noise and Vibration

Construction noise and vibration effects are assessed within the Noise and Vibration Assessment in Appendix M. In summary, it is anticipated that construction noise will exceed daytime noise limits at up to 135 (residential or commercial) buildings along the route for relatively short periods (1 – 2 weeks) given the lineal nature of the route. The addresses of the potentially affected buildings are noted in Appendix M. Depending on the final construction methodology and alignment selected the number of properties potentially affected will decrease.

Piling associated with the boardwalk has the potential to generate underwater noise which can disturb marine fauna. Most piling will be done in the dry (i.e. during low tide periods on intertidal flat areas) but some piling within water may be required, particularly in relation to the construction of the Ken Maunder Bridge section (across a channel). Given the limited nature of underwater piling likely to be required, the mobile nature of marine fauna that may be impacted (so they can move away from the noise) and the short duration of piling works, underwater noise levels within the CMA are anticipated to be negligible.

Vibration effects primarily relate to cosmetic building damage and disruption to people. The construction equipment with the highest risk of exceeding the amenity limits are plate compactors and impact piling. Adopting a highest potential effects scenario, it is predicted that the AUP amenity vibration limit will be exceeded at up to 22 buildings and the cosmetic building damage limit will be exceeded at 10 buildings. A table identifying these buildings is provided in the CNVMP (Appendix M). It is possible that, based on the final alignment and the construction methodology used that the potentially affected buildings will reduce in number. It is therefore suggested that once the final alignment is set and indicative construction methodology confirmed, predicted vibration noise levels be revisited to confirm which buildings will have likely exceedances of the limits.

Mitigation methods to address potential noise and vibration effects during construction are proposed as follows:

n Where plate compactors are predicted to exceed the cosmetic building damage criteria it is recommended than alternative compaction methods be used

n For piling within the CMA, it is recommended that bored piling be adopted where considered practical as this provides a significant reduction in noise and vibration



n When piling, ‘soft starts’ (gradually increasing the intensity of impact piling) should be undertaken n For the three buildings which are predicted to receive vibration levels exceeding the cosmetic vibration

limit due to piling, it is recommended that bored piling be adopted for those piles n The management of noise and vibration during construction will be set out in a Construction Noise and

Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP), a draft which has been prepared by Marshall Day (refer to Appendix M). The assessment outlines performance standards predicted levels during construction and mitigation to manage effects

Based on the Noise and Vibration Assessment (Appendix M) and given the proposed mitigation measures, the noise and vibration effects are minor.

5.2.10 Social Impacts

A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has been prepared by Beca Limited (refer to Appendix N). The SIA considers potential effects of construction focusing on two key social impact ‘categories’, being 1) people’s way of life and 2) the quality of the living environment and amenity. These are discussed in greater detail in the SIA.

The SIA anticipates adverse effects (in relation to these two categories) associated with construction traffic, noise and vibration, access, materials and lay-down from the construction of the pathway. There may be adverse effects for residents in regard to amenity and privacy due to the presence of construction sites and / or work areas. The SIA identifies potential temporary disruption to community groups (e.g. Scout Association of New Zealand) as well as local businesses (e.g. early childhood education centre on Connaught Road, properties on Portage Road and Great North Road, Te Atatū Boat Club) in relation to construction noise, presence of construction sites / work areas and potential access restrictions.

The following mitigation is proposed.

n Implement a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) (further discussed in section 5.2.9)

n Construction management planning and community liaison – to provide mechanisms for regular communication from contractors relating to when key impacts will likely be experienced. This includes providing access to business premises throughout the construction phase and providing early notice of times when access will be restricted

n Manage construction traffic through a Traffic Management Plan as discussed in section 5.2.11 n Provide signage at affected parks explaining what the construction is for and how long the construction

will take as well as contact details if people have concerns or complaints Based on the above mitigation measures the social impacts from construction are considered minor.

5.2.11 Effects on Transportation

A Transportation Impact Assessment has been prepared by Beca Ltd, refer to Appendix O. The primary transportation effects associated with construction is the increased traffic on local roads caused by truck movements.

The frequency of truck movements (e.g. per month / day / hour) and the duration of the construction programme will be confirmed by the contractor. However, as part of the Construction Methodology (Appendix A), the number of potential truck movements has been calculated for each of the proposed staging areas for the pathway.



The busiest staging area is Covil Park for timber deliveries which is anticipated to generate 5 - 8 truck movements. The remainder of the staging areas will generate 2 - 5 trucks delivering timber which is not considered to be significant.

The busiest two sites are Craigavon Park and Laurieston Park for concrete pours where 20 - 25 concrete trucks are anticipated. It is very unlikely that these concrete truck pours would all occur on the same day. However, if the concrete pours were to all occur on the same day at these two sites this would only be two trucks an hour.

The two busiest sites for heavy vehicles associated with earthworks are also Craigavon Park and Laurieston Park where 10 - 15 trucks are anticipated at each of these two staging areas. In the unlikely scenario that these trucks all arrived on the same day this would only be 1 - 2 truck per hour.

Overall, the construction traffic is not considered to present a significant transportation effect. However, to minimise potential effects of construction, it is recommended that a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) be prepared and implemented for each stage. Measures to minimise transport effects that should be considered within the CTMP include:

n Avoiding heavy vehicle movements during times of peak use in parks and areas of activity n Providing safe pedestrian access to all park users n Temporary removal of on-street parking spaces to allow movement of trucks

Works on Auckland Transport road reserve (e.g. Portage Road, Kinross Street, Queen Mary Avenue, Bridge Avenue) will also need approval via the Corridor Access Request process (which is a separate process with Auckland Transport) in which a Traffic Management Plan is required.

It is considered that the construction effects can be satisfactorily mitigated through the implementation of a CTMP.

5.2.12 Summary of Construction Effects

Overall it is anticipated that the construction effects are minor and acceptable as they are temporary in nature and can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through appropriate conditions of consent.

Operational Effects The following section discusses the potential adverse effects arising from the ongoing presence and use of the pathway. The effects considered include:

n Effects of the pathway on cultural values n Ecological effects from fragmentation of habitats or light pollution n Landscape and visual effects caused by the pathway presence, particularly in the CMA n Noise effects caused by pathway users n Social impact effects associated with amenity, privacy, security n Transportation n Effects on recreation and navigation use of the Whau River n Stormwater effects on flooding and water quality n Effects of the structure on coastal processes and resulting scour



5.3.1 Cultural Values

Cultural effects primarily relate to construction effects and the potential to damage sites of significance. The potential adverse effects associated with the presence of the pathway (operational effects) identified in the CVAs are a perception that the increase in visitors may impact upon native fauna such as the mangroves and vegetation adjacent to the boardwalk. The ecological assessment has noted that there will be no impacts on vegetation adjacent to the boardwalk once it is constructed. The formalisation of access to and along the CMA will also assist in reducing the amount of damage potentially caused by people informally accessing the area, which is a positive effect.

During detailed design input will be sought from both iwi Project Partners for the design elements such as interpretative signage and artistic elements.

5.3.2 Ecology

Once constructed the potential ecological effects of the Project are:

n Potential fragmentation of habitats, both terrestrial and estuarine from the presence of the structure n Light pollution effects on fauna

These effects are discussed further below and in detail in the Ecological Report in Appendix I.

5.3.2.1 Fragmentation of habitat on land

The removal of some planted indigenous vegetation within public parks to accommodate the pathway will result in the fragmentation of coastal fringe habitats. However, as the width of the vegetation removal is likely to be narrow (approximately 4m wide in most places) it is possible that canopy closure may be achieved once trees adjacent to the pathway have grown.

5.3.2.2 Fragmentation of marine habitat

Although up to 12m of mangrove removal may be required (based on the highest potential effect associated with side by side construction methodology) it is noted that permanent removal will be limited to the area of the boardwalk (4m wide). It is expected that mangroves will re-establish (or be replanted if necessary) once construction is completed, limiting the area of permanent removal and fragmentation. However, existing mangroves are typically less than 1.5m tall. As such, shading by the pathway structure is likely to be the largest spatial impact on mangroves and may hinder regrowth of adjacent areas.

Once constructed, raised boardwalk areas will provide cover between the areas of established mangrove vegetation on either side. This will enable the fauna that use the mangrove vegetation (such as moho-pererū) to move freely from one side to the other. As such, the adverse effects that may result from the fragmentation of mangrove habitats will be limited.

Similarly, the fragmentation of mangrove habitat is not likely to greatly impact benthic fauna distribution or the abundance and distribution of fish. Hard structures such as piles associated with the boardwalk sections of the pathway may provide additional habitat for other species including barnacles, oysters and gastropods.

5.3.2.3 Light pollution

Lighting is important for public safety and much of the area is already subject to light pollution from street lights, lights in parks and residential properties. Indigenous terrestrial birds in the area (such as tauhou and riroriro) are commonly found in such light polluted areas and are unlikely to be affected. Moho-pererū forage



beneath mangrove canopies, tall grass and shrubland and are therefore likely to be shielded from the additional light emissions from the pathway at night.

The increase in lighting across the estuary margins has the potential to impact marine fauna. Studies carried out in estuarine systems elsewhere (e.g. Becker et al. 2013) have demonstrated that certain fishes (particularly small shoaling fish and larger predatory fish) have the potential to increase in abundance around infrastructure with artificial night lighting. The degree to which artificial lighting along the boardwalk would impact fish species positively or negatively is unknown. However, any effects are likely to be localised and of limited significance within the context of the wider estuary.

Overall the operational effects on ecology are considered to be minor and able to be mitigated through planting.


The landscape and visual effects are split into two sections, effects on landscape and natural character and visual effects. The effects are summarised below from the LVA in Appendix K.

5.3.3.1 Landscape and Natural Character Effects

Landscape effects relate to changes in the physical nature of a site or locality and can occur whether or not they are seen. Natural character effects relate to the elements, patterns and processes within the coastal and riparian part of the landscape. The following outlines the assessment of potential effects.

The landscape and natural character of the parks and river setting, or the wider landscape will not be significantly adversely affected by the shared pathway. The location is not in an area identified in planning maps as having outstanding landscape or natural character values however the river is an important feature and there are key landscape elements that have higher values such as the tidal flow, the river channels and mudflats, parkland, and areas of indigenous vegetation. While the river is an important feature with its own unique character, it is not pristine. The wider landscape includes a mix of different residential and business / light industrial land uses as well as infrastructure including power lines, pipe bridges, road corridors, all with a low sensitivity to landscape change. Overall, the riverscape has a moderate sensitivity to change, though the sensitivity and qualities of different elements within it vary.

Although the pathway will introduce a manmade element to the coastal environment, effects are largely limited to these modified margins and therefore effects on landscape and natural character of the river overall are considered low. The main construction materials of the boardwalk will be timber, concrete, and / or FRP. Timber and concrete will weather to a naturally recessive appearance. If FRP is used, it will be coloured to ensure an appropriately recessive colour and minimise effects of the scale of the structure on the riverscape. With large spacings between slim piles, the boardwalk will be capable of sitting lightly over the mudflats and water surface. The works will typically be visually absorbed into the fabric of the existing vegetation and / or the built development beyond. Although the effects on landscape and natural character are not considered to be significant, detailed design offers the opportunity to further mitigate any natural character effects through the design and selection of materials that will maximise capacity to visually integrate the pathway and an alignment that follows the natural curvature of the river.

The at-grade concrete paths proposed will have negligible impacts on landscape and natural character as they are generally located in grassed open space with minimal vegetation removal and disturbance required. However, vegetation removal is likely at locations of embankments (i.e. where the boardwalk connects to the at grade pathway). Disturbed areas or cut and fill will be revegetated with appropriate plant species in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Ecological Assessment and Arboricultural Assessment and this is considered to mitigate landscape and natural character effects of vegetation removal. Planting of



additional indigenous species in publicly owned parks will benefit degraded landscape characteristics associated with weedy riparian edges while also extending the existing wildlife habitats and benefiting natural character and amenity values over the long term.

Overall, landscape and natural character of the parks and river setting will not be significantly adversely affected by the Project with the overall landscape and natural character effect being described as low (Appendix K).

5.3.3.2 Visual Effects

As noted in the LVA (Appendix K), visual effects relate to the degree of change that may occur to the view and amenity because of changes to the landscape and landscape character. The significance of effects is influenced by the extent to which the setting can absorb the structures, the proximity of viewers, their relative elevation and the position of the pathway in their view. The significance of effects also depends on the nature of the viewing audience (i.e. residents versus transient audiences such as road users).

Visual effects due to the boardwalk are generally considered to be low in most parts of the proposed pathway. Project wide mitigation of visual impacts are recommended as follows:

n Consideration of the final appearance and colour of the proposed boardwalk structures including using the minimum pile diameter necessary to limit visual prominence use of recessive colours in final boardwalk design such as tones of greys or browns with a low reflectivity value (LVR) or where practicable for timber construction, keep structures unpainted and allow to weather

n Handrail lighting installed as part of the boardwalk is directed downwards and away from nearby residential dwellings to minimise effects on visual amenity at night

n Planting of indigenous species as discussed in the Ecology and Arboricultural Assessments to mitigate vegetation removal throughout the alignment and within disturbed areas, to enhance natural character, aesthetic and amenity values

Some areas of boardwalk have been identified as having higher visual impacts depending on the final alignment options and detailed design. These are:

n Dwellings adjacent to the alignment at Cobham Reserve, primarily 58 Cobham Crescent n 259 Hepburn Road near Laurieston Park n Dwellings overlooking the boardwalk near Meadow Crescent, primarily 20 Meadow Crescent n Riverside residents at the end of Koromiko Street primarily Flats 1 - 3, 40 Koromiko Street

Current views from these locations will not be entirely lost, however the new boardwalk structure is likely to result in at least partial loss of, or modification to key characteristics in these views. As private views they are not identified as being viewshafts of importance to a wide / public viewing audience but are certain to be highly valued by the residents who will also be most sensitive to any changes.

Recommended measures to mitigate effects on these properties (in addition to the aforementioned ‘Project wide’ mitigation) includes providing localised screening vegetation or other forms of screening (low growing hedges, trees or climbing plants in combination with boundary fences and mounding) to reduce visual impacts. It is recommended that consultation continues with the property owners during detailed design to further explore options to reduce visual impacts in relation to the appearance and location of the boardwalk including lighting. The final mitigation measures will be subject to consultation with these parties.

With this mitigation the effects can be reduced from high to moderate for these properties.



5.3.4 Noise and Vibration Effects

As discussed in the Noise and Vibration Assessment (Appendix M), operational noise effects from the shared path would be typically generated by noise generated by users of the pathway (such as people talking). This noise level is readily compliant with both the daytime and night-time District Plan noise limits in residential areas. Further to this, the noise generated by users of the shared path is considered to have a character typical of residential areas. Overall the change in environmental noise level due to the operation of the shared path is considered negligible and therefore operational noise effects are less than minor.

5.3.5 Social Impact

The SIA discusses effects and mitigation based on four Community Areas made up of four CAUs. The SIA considers potential effects of operation of the pathway focusing on three key social impact ‘categories’, being 1) people’s way of life, 2) their quality of the living environment and amenity and 3) cohesion, stability, character and facilities in a community. These are discussed in greater detail in the SIA. The SIA considers these categories in the context of ‘Wider Community Area’, ‘Community Area’ and ‘Neighbourhood Area’.

It is noted that there are many positive social impacts resulting from the operation of the pathway, these are set out in section 5.1. No adverse effects are anticipated for Community Area 1. As such the following discussion focuses on adverse effects for Community Areas 2 – 4.

5.3.5.1 Community Area 2

Regarding Community Area 2, the SIA anticipates potential adverse effects relating to privacy issues for properties at 118A, 122 and 122A Ash Street who may have living areas / bedrooms facing out on to the boardwalk. Additionally, the SIA anticipates adverse effects for these properties as well as those on Alanbrooke Crescent, Stedman Place, Wingate Street, Corregidor Place and Ash Street in relation to the quality of living environment and amenity, due to the presence of the boardwalk which may impact their outlook, visual amenity and sense of privacy (including at night due to the introduction of lighting on the boardwalk). It is noted that some of the properties are situated above the boardwalk with vegetation that will screen the views. In addition, some of the outlooks from these properties are to an industrial backdrop which is already highly modified and reduces the impact of the structure.

The SIA considers Community Area 2 to have a low negative impact associated with privacy, visual amenity and quality of living environment. To mitigate these effects to very low the SIA recommends vegetation planting or shielding to retain privacy (in consultation with landowners) and a consideration of the feasibility of using sensor lighting for the boardwalk in this area to reduce adverse visual amenity effects at night.


Regarding Community Area 3, the SIA anticipates potentially high adverse effects relating to:

a. Privacy

Privacy issues for properties at 1/40, 2/40, 3/40 and 49 Koromiko Street and 125 Lynwood Road, with living areas, bedrooms and a spa pool (in one instance) facing out onto the proposed location of the boardwalk.

b. Security

The presence of the boardwalk may also have real or perceived security issues for properties at 1/40, 2/40, 3/40 and 49 Koromiko Street as users of the boardwalk can see into the properties. However, it is also noted that the presence of the boardwalk may also be a deterrent for illegal activity due to the passive surveillance of other users of the boardwalk.



c. Access

Potential restriction on access to the main Whau River for properties with riparian rights and certain structures such as the coastal structure located at 21 Kelston Street. The SIA also notes potential locations where landowners may directly access the water from their properties (using a review of aerial imagery).

It is noted that kayaks, canoes and other low-lying craft such as stand up paddle boards will be able to access the main river (as noted in section 2.3.3) given the distance between the deck of the boardwalk and water level. Larger craft can pass under the boardwalk at low tide, but this is dependent on their ability to access the low tide channel. It is also noted that boat accesses at 21 Kelston Street and Span Farm are not consented structures. These effects are discussed in greater detail in section 5.3.6.

There is a public boat ramp nearby at Archibald Park which allows access to the Whau River for the public. A pontoon has recently been constructed next to the boat ramp as part of this Project to make it easier for vessels to access the river. In addition, the boat ramp was refurbished and widened. It is envisaged that this could provide an alternative river access point for the local community should the presence of the boardwalk mean they can no longer access the river from their current location

Access restrictions for Span Farm may impact their ability to run their business in terms of use of the slipway. According to the company’s website the slipway can be used to launch trailer boats less than 8m6F6F

7 noting that this is tidally dependant because mud flats are exposed over part of the day. However, it is understood that the main purpose of their operation is a boat yard and storage facility for marine craft and vehicles (which do not rely on water access).

125 Lynwood Road has an existing consented jetty which they use to launch their dinghy into the river. The current design of the boardwalk will limit the use of larger motorised vessels in this area.

Mitigation measures in response to these effects are provided below.

n In regard to the consented jetty at 125 Lynwood Road, the Applicant has committed to maintaining access to the river for this consent holder however the options to do this are still being worked through in consultation with the consent holder

n As noted in section 2.5 the envelope has been moved further from the properties at 1, 2 and 3/40, 49 Koromiko Street and 125 Lynwood Road. As part of detailed design and as far as practicable, the final alignment will be located at the furthest point from the properties while avoiding the channel

n Consider the use of sensor lighting for the boardwalk to reduce adverse visual amenity effects at night (however the SIA notes that this option needs to be investigated further as to the feasibility of sensor lighting)

n For the properties at 1, 2 and 3/40, 49 Koromiko Street and 125 Lynwood Road specific mitigation measures include the possibility of planting, fencing or window treatment to address privacy and security concerns. These measures are subject to further consultation with the landowners in terms of desirability and location

n The boardwalk in the Koromiko Road section will not contain viewing platforms (which will instead be placed at adjacent sections. This is to discourage people from lingering in sections in front of the properties to minimise the level of disturbance to residents

n Where practicable design of the boardwalk will avoid piles in channel of the river (the Wairau Creek) to enable access at low tide for smaller vessels from the Whau River to / from Wairau Creek

7 Refer https://www.marineservices.co.nz/listings/spanfarmboatyard

https://www.marineservices.co.nz/listings/spanfarmboatyard



Based on the above mitigation measures the social impacts (privacy, security and access) are considered to be moderate.


Moderate negative effects are assessed for Community Area 4 as the SIA finds that there may be amenity effects for residents of 14, 16, 18, 20 Meadow Crescent in relation to lighting and visual amenity of the structure.

Mitigation measures to reduce the level of effect to low are outlined in the SIA as follows:

n Explore lighting options to further reduce lighting effects during detailed design such as dimming options or sensor lighting

n Design the boardwalk with colours and textures that blend into the existing environment as much as practicable

n Vegetation planting to mitigate amenity effects

5.3.5.4 Summary

Overall the SIA finds that any potential effects associated with the operation of the Pathway on all community areas, except for Community Area 3 will be low to very low with mitigation in places such as suitable design, planting / screening and consideration of lighting options. Overall effects for the community are generally positive because of the benefits that the Project will generate (see section 5.1). The SIA concludes that effects in Community Area 3 will reduce from high to moderate with mitigation in place such as suitable design, planting / screening, consideration of lighting options, avoiding viewing platforms adjacent to the Koromiko Street properties, and maintaining access to the river from the jetty at 125 Lynwood Road.

5.3.6 Effects on Recreational and Navigation Use of the CMA

The occupation and use of the CMA by the pathway can result in effects on navigation and recreational opportunities. Many of the significant effects of the pathway related to recreation are positive, as outlined in section 5.1. Some specific effects on navigation are related to effects on recreation which are discussed in section 5.3.5 (social impacts).

Due to the location of the pathway in the intertidal areas along the Whau River, the main potential adverse navigation and recreation effect of the pathway is the physical impediment it will present for those accessing the river from private properties. As noted in section 3.3, some properties adjacent to the Whau River have riparian rights and many have constructed informal access structures such as jetties and boat houses. Access from these properties is currently limited to high tide unless craft is physically walked out over the intertidal flats to the main channel (which is further restricted due to the presence of mangroves in many areas). Most use of the river from these properties is non-motorised vessels such as kayaks and paddle boards. Given the proposed height of the structure, with over 1m clearance between the deck and the mean high water level, it is considered that many non-motorised vessels will be able to pass underneath the structure so that the effects on recreation and navigation will be minor. Larger vessels are likely to have a larger draft (the distance between the waterline and the bottom of the hull) and therefore would be limited in the times they could launch from land adjacent to the Whau River anyway. These larger vessels are likely to be associated with formalised access structures such as slipways or pontoons. There is one authorised (by resource consent) jetty at 125 Lynwood Road that would be impacted by the presence of the boardwalk. The applicant has committed to maintaining access for the existing use of the jetty. The options to do this are still being worked through in consultation with the jetty owner. In addition to the authorised jetty there are other non-consented structures present such as boat sheds and slipways. It is noted that legally, non-consented coastal structures are not part of the RMA definition of ‘environment’ that requires consideration in terms of



effects assessments. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has had regard for those properties who may access the CMA directly from their properties (including via such coastal structures). The following outlines key considerations.

n As noted above due to tidal patterns access is restricted already for certain vessels due to presence of mud flats at certain times of the tide (i.e. the water does not always reach the properties)

n The boardwalk height allows kayaks and smaller vessels to still access the Whau River underneath the structure as noted above

n Alternative options for the community to access the CMA (if unable to directly access the coast from their property) includes the floating pontoon and boat ramp at Archibald Park (upgrades were undertaken as part of the wider Te Whau Project) and use of the Te Atatū Boat Club boat ramp (free for members with a fee for non-members)

n It is acknowledged that the presence of the boardwalk will restrict the movement of larger vessels accessing to / from Span Farm. This will result in an adverse effect on their ability to launch and retrieve vessels at this point. However, it is noted that this effect is minor given the aforementioned access limitations present (due to the intertidal, shallow nature of the area) and given the access to the river from this property is unconsented. Consultation has been undertaken and is continuing to occur with Span Farm – refer to section 6.2.10 of this report

Regarding navigation effects, the replica bridge from Ken Maunder Park to Queen Mary Avenue will be built adjacent to the existing consented bridge, with piles located outside of the main channel and will therefore maintain access up the tributary so that existing navigation is not affected. Overall in terms of recreation and navigation, adverse effects are anticipated to be minor for those private property owners who currently have direct access to the river, noting it is likely that existing use is able to continue for users of small non-motorised vessels. However, recreation effects are anticipated to be positive for the wider public who will experience a greater level of access to the CMA than what is currently available.

5.3.7 Effects on Transportation

The Transport Assessment in Appendix O notes that the operational effects of the pathway relate to walking and cycling, parking within local streets and public transportation. Overall transport effects are anticipated to be positive and are discussed in section 5.1.1.

5.3.7.1 Walking and Cycling

Positive transport effects in regard to walking and cycling are discussed in section 5.1.1.

5.3.7.2 Parking

The Project is expected to become a destination for recreational users both within the local area and across the wider Auckland region particularly in summer evenings and weekends. As a result, parking effects pertain to the potential effects on availability of parking spaces on local streets and parks by commuter and recreational users and the permanent removal of on-street parking required to enable the safe operation of the Project. Approximately 10 parking spaces are anticipated to be removed through the implementation of No Stopping at Any Time (NSAAT) lines at the southern end of Portage Road, and 10 parking spaces on Queen Mary Avenue.

Table 6 below highlights the anticipated parking demand for each street within each section per day based on a conservative traffic review. Overall the demand is not considered to be significant. Section 3 is anticipated to have the most parking demand with a peak of 11 vehicles per access in this section (between Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park, Appendix O). Appendix O sets out in detail how the anticipated parking demand was calculated.



Table 6: Anticipated Parking Demand (see Appendix O for source)

Section Walking and Cycling Daily Demand

Approximate Parking Demand (per Local Street) Providing Access to the Pathway

Weekend Weekday

Section 1: Portage Road to Olympic Park

90 1 1

Section 2: Olympic Park to Ken Maunder Park

180 2 - 3 2 - 4

Section 3: Ken Maunder Park to Archibald Park

870 6 - 12 7 - 14

Section 4: Archibald Park to Laurieston Park

420 2 - 5 3 - 5

Section 5: Laurieston Park to the North-western Shared Path Connection

930 4 - 9 5 - 10

As part of the Project, additional ‘NSAAT’ lines will be implemented for access and safety, resulting in the removal of 29 existing parking spaces along the route. It is anticipated that the removal of the carparking spaces will not have a significant effect on on-street parking. As identified in the report in Appendix O, due to the low number of vehicles that are expected to drive and park on local streets and with most residential streets having significant available car parking capacity and off-street parking, the operation of the pathway will have a less than minor effect to on-street parking on those residential streets that provide access to the pathway.

Given the small parking demand anticipated and effects of removal of carparking spaces it is considered the operation of the Pathway will have less than minor effects on on-street parking.

5.3.7.3 Public Transportation

Positive effects regarding public transport are discussed in section 5.1.

5.3.8 Stormwater Generation Effects

Construction of an impervious pathway will generate stormwater runoff that can have flooding or water quality effects (if stormwater entrains contaminants). These effects are considered to be less than minor as the Project is unlikely to generate contaminants of concern being a walking and cycling path. The Pathway will not generate significant stormwater volume and result in flooding due to its narrow, linear at-grade design and adjacent land areas are vegetated or grassed so that runoff will be to land soakage. The cross falls will be used to direct runoff from the shared path to open spaces, consistent with the cross fall guidance in the Local Path Guide. The pathway will not impede flood flows over land. Stormwater from the boardwalk section will flow off the structure as overland flow and will cause a negligible effect on flooding.

Within the SMAF 1 stormwater will be discharged directly into the surrounding grassed areas of the path on Portage Road (land soakage), as well as towards Karaka Park and the Manukau Harbour CMA. Within the SMAF 2 stormwater will be discharged directly into the surrounding grassed areas of the path on both sides of Portage Road (Craigavon Park and Sister Rene Shadbolt Park). This will provide attenuation, drainage and contaminant removal with the majority of stormwater discharge from the impervious area of the path discharging to ground soakage (grassed area).



Given the small increase in impervious surfaces over the relatively long length of the pathway, and proposed runoff to adjacent open spaces, the increase in stormwater runoff is considered to have a less than minor effect on runoff / flooding.

5.3.9 Coastal Processes Effects

The potential coastal effects related to the Project are:

n Effects of the boardwalk structure on coastal processes n Effects of coastal processes on the boardwalk structure

These effects are discussed in greater detail in Appendix E and summarised below.

5.3.9.1 Effects on Coastal Processes

Potential coastal processes effects of the structure relate to changes in the wave patterns, currents and sediment transport (which can result in scour of river sediments adjacent to piles). Effects of the boardwalk are expected to be less than minor due to:

n The location of the structure avoids the main Whau River channel n The piles will be located outside of tributary channels where practicable n The piled nature of the structure allows waves and currents to pass beneath the boardwalk n The bridge extending from Ken Maunder Reserve to Queen Mary Avenue will be a replica of the existing

2m wide bridge. The replica bridge will be generally the same type of structure as the existing one which is not observed to have caused any significant scour or adverse effects on coastal processes

n The locality of the boardwalk in the Whau River is within an area of low current (no more than 1m/s even at the rivermouth) scour effects will be less than minor. Socketed piles will be utilised which will further minimise the risk of scour

n The intertidal location of the structure means the structure is exposed to waves and currents only for part of each tidal cycle

5.3.9.2 Effects of Coastal Processes on the Structure

A boardwalk deck height of 2.89m AVD is proposed. This is discussed in further detail in section 2.4.3.2 but in summary, in average conditions the distance from normal mean high water tide (the average of all high tides) to deck level will be approximately 1.1m. As noted in Appendix E, in 1-2-year storm surge weather events, the boardwalk is unlikely to require closure in the short term. As sea levels rise, in severe weather events the probability of boardwalk being overtopped by waves is 1 every 2 years (in the year 2070). The consent duration sought is 35 years and within this timeframe it is expected that closures of the boardwalk structure will not be required. Even if a closure is required it would only be within 1-2 hours of high tide when water levels are high. Given the proposed design of the structure, the effect of coastal processes on the structure are considered minor.

5.3.10 Natural Hazard Effects

Effects and mitigation in relation to sea level rise and coastal processes are covered in section 5.3.9. This section considers potential effects of the works on other natural hazards being flooding and land instability.

Potential effects are noted as follows:

n The Introduction of the pathway and associated on land structures (seating etc) may impede or redirect flood flows. It is noted however that the on-land sections of the Project are largely just an at grade



concrete path which will not impede flood flow and no habitable structures or buildings are proposed as part of the Project. Structures associated with the pathway are typically light weight with minimal ground coverage (e.g. seats, signs) and are unlikely to significantly affect the flow of flood waters.

n Locating the pathway and connecting structures to the boardwalk in areas that may be subject to land instability may result in a hazard risk for users or damage to the pathway from land slippages. At this stage specific locations that may be defined as ‘land which may be subject to instability’ (refer to the definition in the AUP) have not been identified, and this is proposed to occur during detailed design. However, given the location of the at grade path, connections to the CMA boardwalk and the boardwalk itself, it is possible that some parts of the route will be on such land.

Mitigation measures for natural hazard effects include:

n Structures along the route in relation to the at-grade will, where possible, be located outside the 1% AEP floodplain (although noting that these may be required in certain locations for way finding or CPTED / safety reasons).

n Irrefutably a key driver for the applicant is to provide a piece of public infrastructure which maintains safety of its users and long-term structural integrity of its infrastructure. It is proposed to undertake further intrusive investigations to classify ground conditions during the detailed design phase (including new pavement areas and where the boardwalk connects to land). This may be undertaken in stages depending on construction programme. The investigations will enable designers to assess slope stability risks (amongst other outcomes) and this will inform detailed design matters such as suitable ground treatment requirements, structural design and foundation / pile design.

Proposed Mitigation Plan The following summarises the mitigation to be provided as part of the Project.

5.4.1 Boardwalk Design

n Alignment to be designed to avoid piles in the main channel n No viewing platforms to be located outside of 1 - 3/40 or 49 Koromiko Street and 125 Lynwood Road

properties n Provide access for the current use of the consented jetty at 125 Lynwood Road (potentially a raised

boardwalk in this location) n Handrail design, boardwalk materials, colours, finish, etc in consultation with affected parties to minimise

visual effects

5.4.2 Archaeological Sites

n Seek to avoid impacting archaeological sites as far as practicable during detailed design by selecting an alignment that avoids known sites. Where the sites cannot be avoided consider construction methods and alignment design that minimises intrusion or damage

n Consultation with mana whenua in regard to archaeological management n Identified sites in close proximity to works to be fenced off prior to construction n A Heritage New Zealand Archaeological Authority to be sought prior to modifying or destroying

archaeological sites

5.4.3 Network Utilities

n An electrical report and a detailed construction methodology will be completed and submitted for approval by Transpower and Vector prior to pathway construction. This report will document the required clearances, as outlined in ECP-34, and outline appropriate measures to ensure that clearances are met



during construction. Measures included in the plan, including adherence to the Electrical Code of Practice (ECP-34), will be followed during the construction and operation of the shared path

5.4.4 Contaminated Soils

n All earthworks within areas identified as potentially contaminated to be in accordance with the CSMP n A DSI in accordance with NESCS guidelines is required (focusing on asbestos) to be undertaken and

submitted to Auckland Council Contaminated Land team. The CSMP will be updated as required following the results of the investigation and any other intrusive sampling undertaken

n Appropriate management will be required in regard to works in closed landfills. Site specific management plans will need to be prepared for works in these areas and submitted to the Auckland Council Closed Landfill team.

5.4.5 Cultural

n Consult with Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Te Kawerau a Maki during development of Landscape Design Plans (including planting, signage, artwork) and in relation to works affecting (or in close proximity to) Māori heritage sites

5.4.6 Arboriculture

n Avoid works that affect mature and native vegetation where possible n Consider design such as root bridging or boardwalks where the path is proposed over trees to be retained

as identified in the Arboricultural Assessment n Prepare Tree Management Plan to set out proposed methods to protect trees where works are proposed

in the rootzone. Removal and pruning of vegetation to be undertaken by suitable trained and experienced arboricultural contractors. The works Arborist to supervise tree removal and works within the root zone or dripline of retained trees

n Prepare Landscape Plans (based on that set out in Appendix Q) for replacement planting of trees that are being removed

5.4.7 Ecology

n Avoid effects (removal or pruning) on pōhutukawa trees at the southern end of Archibald Park n Seek to minimise the amount of saltmarsh vegetation required to be removed when designing the final

boardwalk alignment n Prepare an Ecological Management Plan. The plan is to provide for a bird nesting survey prior to

construction works. No construction works in the vicinity of identified nests can commence until chicks have fledged. This relates to indigenous bird species only

n Prepare a Lizard Management Plan covering areas of terrestrial vegetation clearance and pruning n Prepare a Bat Management Plan (if bats are identified during survey as noted in section 5.2.6) n Prepare a Tree Management Plan (see arboricultural mitigation above) n Prepare Landscape Plans (based on that set out in Appendix Q) for replacement planting of trees that are

being removed

5.4.8 Marine Water Quality

n Detailed ESCPs for each stage to be developed based on the high-level principles of the ESCP appended to this AEE (Appendix J). All construction works to occur in accordance with the ESCPs



5.4.9 Social Impact

General n Construction management planning, community liaison and signage during construction n Manage construction noise and vibration and traffic through development and implementation of CNVMP

and CTMP

Community Area 2 n Vegetation planting or shielding in specific areas and consider use of sensor lighting for the boardwalk to

reduce adverse amenity effects at night

Community Area 3 n Maintain access to the consented jetty at 125 Lynwood Road n Locate the alignment within the envelope as far away from properties as practical while avoiding the river

channel n Consider use of sensor lighting for the boardwalk to reduce adverse amenity effects at night n Consultation to confirm mitigation in the form of fencing, planting, window treatments / curtains or blinds

for 1 – 3/40 Koromiko Street, 49 Koromiko Street and 125 Lynwood Road n Avoid viewing platforms in front of 1 – 3/40 Koromiko Street, 49 Koromiko Street and 125 Lynwood Road n Where possible, avoid piles in the channels of the tributaries of the river (e.g. Wairau Creek) to maintain

access at low tide for smaller vessels from the Whau River

Community Area 4 n Explore lighting options to further reduce lighting effects during detailed design such as dimming options

or sensor lighting n Design the boardwalk to blend into the existing environment using colours and textures n Vegetation planting to mitigate amenity effects


General n Landscape design plans to be prepared and implemented to screen affected properties and naturalise

outlook where possible n With respect to the properties at 58 Cobham Crescent, 259 Hepburn Road and Meadow Crescent

dwellings overlooking the boardwalk undertake consultation to confirm mitigation in the form of screening vegetation, boundary fences and mounding

n With respect to the properties at 1/40, 2/40, 3/40 Koromiko Street investigate light reduction options including dimming or sensor lighting and incorporate resident preference where practicable in relation to structural design options including balustrade and pile materials, widths, colour

5.4.11 Noise and Vibration

n CNVMP to be prepared prior to works occurring and all works will be undertaken in accordance with the plan

n Signage to erected nears works sites advising the public on details of the works and providing a contact number for any concerns

5.4.12 Transportation

n CTMP to be prepared prior to works. All construction will be undertaken in accordance with the CTMP



5.4.13 Natural Hazards

n Minimise structures along the route that may impede flood flow and where possible locate them outside the floodplain areas

n Undertake intrusive geotechnical investigations as part of detailed design to identify land which may be subject to instability, and design in response to the ground conditions and potential risks

Conclusion The effects of construction are considered temporary and minor with the implementation of mitigation to address effects such as erosion and sedimentation, ecology, noise and vibration, tree removal, transport and archaeological effects.

The on-going presence and use of the pathway is anticipated to have significant positive effects on recreation and transportation for the wider community. However, there are also some adverse landscape visual and social adverse effects identified for certain properties along parts of the alignment. Mitigation to reduce the level of effect is proposed as set out above in relation to design, landscaping and treatment to existing houses.



6 Consultation and Communication

Consultation has been on-going over a number of years since commencement of the Project in 2014. Consultation has occurred with the public, landowners, government agencies, iwi groups and other interest groups and stakeholders.

The Project has a number of Project Partners – many of whom represent key stakeholders to the Project (being Auckland Council, the Whau and Henderson-Massey Local Boards, Auckland Transport (AT), Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua Orākei and the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust). The Project Partners meet regularly to discuss the Project and are kept up to date by the Te Whau Pathway Project Manager at Auckland Council (Applicant).

The following section sets out a summary of the consultation undertaken during the later phases of the Project (i.e. from 2017 onwards). Consultation is on-going and will continue to occur following lodgement of the application.

Public Consultation During the Scheme Assessment Phase In early 2017, Auckland Transport (who previously led the Project) undertook public consultation on the proposed pathway alignment. The public consultation ran from 13 March until 16 April 2017. The methods used during consultation were the following:

n 5,867 hard copy consultation brochures mailed to property owners and occupiers in the area n A Project webpage to disseminate information and to allow feedback being http://tewhaupathway.org.nz/ n Information posted on AT’s main facebook page and the AT Cycling facebook page n Two public open days on 19 and 25 March 2017 n Project information e-mailed to around 400 people on the Project database n Project information e-mailed to 12,625 AT Cycling Newsletter subscribers, including a link to the Project

webpage n Brochures handed out at local events, schools, and libraries n Consultation information provided to the Whau and Henderson - Massey local boards n Consultation advertised in the Western Leader newspaper on 16 and 23 March 2017 n Consultation advertised on the ‘Our Auckland’ webpage

In total, AT received 383 feedback submissions and from these submissions:

n 317 people indicated they like an aspect of the pathway route n 248 people indicated they like an aspect of the pathway design n 25 people indicated they don’t like the proposed pathway n 86% of the submitters indicated they would use the pathway.

The results of the feedback and changes to the Project made as a result of the feedback was compiled in a report which is available on the Project website (https://at.govt.nz/Projects-roadworks/te-whau-pathway/#feedback). The feedback on the proposal was categorised into key themes. These themes are identified in Figure 15 below:

http://tewhaupathway.org.nz/

https://at.govt.nz/Projects-roadworks/te-whau



Figure 15: Key themes of feedback received during public consultation in 2017 (Source: Auckland Transport – Te Whau Consultation Report) - https://at.govt.nz/media/1974361/te-whau-pathway-consultation-report-final.pdf

Consultation During Resource Consent Preparation A Consultation and Engagement Plan was developed to inform the targeted consultation to occur during the preparation of the resource consent application. The Consultation and Engagement Plan, included in Appendix P, focussed on key stakeholders with the objective of building on the earlier public consultation and informing the technical effects assessments. The minutes of meetings held are included in Appendix P.

Consultation with the following stakeholders / partners has been undertaken during the development of the resource consent application:

n Auckland Council Regulatory Team and Contaminated Land and Closed Landfill Teams n Local Board n Auckland Transport n MACA applicants n Mana whenua n Heritage New Zealand n Department of Conservation n KiwiRail n Forest and Bird n Potentially affected landowners (either due to land requirement or potential effects)

https://at.govt.nz/media/1974361/te-whau-pathway-consultation-report-final.pdf



n Watercare Services Limited n Transpower n Vector n Harbourmaster n A number of schools and businesses (refer to Appendix P)

6.2.1 Auckland Council

Pre-lodgement meetings were held on 13 March 2018 and 11 December 2018 with Fiona McLeod and Fennel Mason of Auckland Council (regulatory) to discuss the Project, the resource consent requirements and information needed to support the application. At the December 2018 meeting, the proposed ‘discretionary activity’ approach to consenting under the NESCS and AUP (discharge of contaminants) was discussed with Auckland Council’s contaminated land specialist and they confirmed they were comfortable with this approach. The proposed lapse period of 10 years was also discussed, and Auckland Council indicated they were comfortable with this.

Discussions have also been held with the Auckland Council Contaminated Land and Closed Landfill Team to discuss the Project given it passes through sites containing potentially contaminated land and / or closed landfills. The Auckland Council Closed Landfill Team provided the limited information they had on potential closed landfills.

In addition, the technical reports prepared in support of this application were provided to Auckland Council (regulatory) for a pre-lodgement review and comment. Feedback from these reviews has been taken into consideration in the finalisation of the technical reports.

6.2.2 Local Board

The Project passes through Whau and Henderson-Massey Local Boards – both local boards have supported the Project to date through funding and attending opening events. Accordingly, the Local Boards have been kept regularly up to date on the progress of the Project and on request the Henderson-Massey Local Board were provided a copy of the draft application for their information. Overall both local boards are supportive of the Project and identify the Project within their respective Local Board Plans (2017) as a key initiative to achieve their desired transport outcomes.

6.2.3 Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport are a Project Partner as well as a stakeholder given that parts of the pathway will tie into Auckland Transport infrastructure (the road network). The Avondale to New Lynn cycleway is a new shared path being planned at present which runs along the North Auckland Rail Line. It is proposed that the pathway tie into this shared path around Olympic Park. Consultation with Auckland Transport has confirmed that this connection is feasible (refer Appendix P).

6.2.4 MACA Groups

In accordance with Section 62(3) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACA), a letter describing the application and the consents sought was sent to MACA groups on 22 November 2018 and their views sought. This letter, along with a list of recipients is attached in Appendix P. To date only one group (Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society) has responded, requesting a site visit and to prepare a report. The applicant is in the process of facilitating this.

A copy of the draft consent application has been provided to MACA groups on 17 April 2019 and further comment / views sought. Any feedback received will be forwarded to Auckland Council (regulatory services).



6.2.5 Mana Whenua

The applicant has met and engaged with Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei regularly given the two iwi are Project Partners.

More recent communications with mana whenua was in the form of a letter circulated to all the iwi that have an interest in the Whau and Henderson - Massey Local Board areas in September 2018. The identified iwi within the Local Board areas and those who were sent a letter are listed in Table 7.

Table 7: Identified Iwi that have Ancestral Connection with the Project Area

Mana Whenua Whau Local Board Area Mana Whenua Henderson-Massey Local Board Area

Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

Te Kawerau a Maki Te Kawerau a Maki

Ngāti Tamaoho

Te Akitai Waiohua

Te Ahiwaru Waiohua Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

Ngāti Paoa Ngāti Paoa

Ngāti Maru Ngāti Maru

Ngāti Tamaterā Ngāti Tamaterā

Waikato-Tainui

The intent of the letter was to provide an overview of the Project and seek their views or confirmation that the Project Partners can represent their views in relation to the Te Whau Pathway cultural effects. Those iwi who responded (apart from the Project Partners themselves) noted they are happy for the Project Partners to represent their views (see Table 8 below and Appendix P).

Table 8: Response Received from Iwi Groups

Iwi Communication Response

Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua n Letter – sent on 30 November 2018

n Last email sent on 22 November 2018

Opt to defer their interests to:

n Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara n Letter – sent on 30 November 2018

n Phone call – 19 November 2018 and 20 November 2018


n Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei n Hui, phone calls and letters n Various dates as frequent

communications held with Project Partners

Iwi Project Partner



Iwi Communication Response

Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki n Letter - sent on 30 November 2018

n Phone call – 19 November 2018


n Te Kawerau a Maki

Te Kawerau a Maki n Hui, phone calls and letters n Various dates as frequent

communications held with Project Partners

Iwi Project Partner

Ngāti Tamaoho n Letter - sent on 30 November 2018



n Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei n Te Kawerau a Maki

Te Akitai Waiohua n Email sent on 3 December 2018 and 22 November 2018

No response received

Te Ahiwaru Waiohua n Email sent on 3 December 2018 and 22 November 2018


Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua n Letter – sent on 3 December 2018

n Phone call 19 November 2018 and 20 November 2018


n Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei n Te Kawerau a Maki

Ngāti Paoa n Letters sent on 3 December 2018 and 22 November 2018



Ngāti Maru n Letters sent on 3 December 2018 and 22 November 2018



Ngāti Tamaterā n Letters sent on 3 December 2018 and 22 November 2018



Waikato-Tainui n Letters sent on 3 December 2018, 22 November 2018 and 28 November 2018

n Phone call – 19 November 2018, 20 November 2018 and 28 November 2018


The iwi Project Partners originally prepared CVA in 2014 and 2015. These were based on the Scheme Assessment alignment. Although the alignment has not changed significantly since then, the Project Partners were given the opportunity to review the updated alignment and update their CVA’s if deemed necessary. Both Project Partners have confirmed that there is no need to update their CVA’s and as such, those developed in 2014 and 2015 are attached in Appendix H and summarised in section 5 of the AEE. In summary the key areas of interest detailed in the CVA include the disturbance or damage of cultural sites of



significance during construction, degradation of marine water quality through runoff of exposed earthworks areas and removal of native vegetation.

In addition, the Auckland Council Project Manager provides regular updates at Parks and Recreation - North West Mana Whenua Engagement Forum. These meetings are held monthly, for the purpose of updating and seeking feedback from Mana Whenua attendees.

6.2.6 Heritage New Zealand

As discussed in sections 3.8 and 5.2 of this application, the pathway is likely to traverse across and within the vicinity of archaeological sites. As a result, a meeting was held with Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) on 11

February 2019 to discuss the Project. An email from Isaac Mclovr of HNZ is attached in Appendix P outlining their recommendations for the Project which are summarised as follows:

n HNZ recommend given the nature of the Project that a series of Archaeological Authorities are sought from HNZ based on construction programme and staging

n There are three sites in which the extent is unknown (refer Appendix P) and for these sites HNZ recommends an initial exploratory authority application be sought. The purpose of such an application is to undertake exploratory works in order to identify the extent of recorded archaeological sites overlapping with and in the vicinity of the proposed works footprint. In doing so this enables the applicant to understand the potential effects on the site (if any)

n HNZ also had a series of detailed alignment comments (related to avoiding or mitigating effects on archaeological sites within the envelope). These comments will be acted on during detailed design

The applicant will be seeking an exploratory authority concurrently with this resource consent process in accordance with the HNZ recommendation. Archaeological Authorities will also be sought based on Project staging as suggested.

6.2.7 Department of Conservation

The pathway traverses a number of marginal strips owned by the Crown and administered by the Department of Conservation (being 122A Ash Street, marginal strips near Hepburn Road behind the Transpower site and 34E Portage Road).

A meeting was held in March 2018 between Auckland Council and the Department of Conservation (DOC). The purpose of this meeting was to confirm the type of agreement necessary for the path to be constructed on DOC Reserve. The application was also discussed with DOC and their views sought in regard to the potential environmental effects. A copy of the draft application has been provided to DOC for comment. An email from Peter Smith of DOC is attached in Appendix P outlining their thoughts and recommendations for the Project, which are summarised as follows:

n DOC is supportive of the Project from the increased recreational opportunities and access to the harbour which is the essence of the Auckland experience

n DOC supports the native regeneration and the improved control of exotic weeds along the harbour edge n DOC encourages the implementation of Council or community led pest control programs in the areas in

which access is opened up n DOC encourages the use of sensor lighting as it has the potential to reduce adverse effects on nocturnal

fauna n DOC supports the general alignment of the route and would like to be involved with peer reviewing the

detailed design



6.2.8 KiwiRail

The pathway passes under the North Auckland Line overbridge in the vicinity of Olympic Park where the pathway first meets the Whau River. At this point it also connects to the future Avondale to New Lynn shared path which runs adjacent to the North Auckland Line (as a shared path bridge). Works within KiwiRail’s designation requires their written approval as requiring authority in accordance with s176 of the RMA.

The applicant met with KiwiRail on 2 April 2019 to discuss the Project and confirm the process going forward with respect to KiwiRail approval for works within the designation. Minutes from this meeting are included in Appendix P and in summary:

n KiwiRail supports the Project in principle n A Deed of Grant is required from KiwiRail to progress the works (within the rail corridor) n The pathway cannot affect the rail embankment or KiwiRail assets n Any proposed planting within the rail corridor needs to be submitted as a Planting Plan to KiwiRail and

approved prior to implementation

Consultation with KiwiRail will continue over the course of the Project.

6.2.9 Forest and Bird

A meeting was held with Forest and Bird on 7 December 2018 and a site visit undertaken on 24 January 2019. In general key discussion points were:

n Ecological and biodiversity values within the consenting envelope – on land values were limited, as were marine ecological values due to existing contamination and the narrow alignment width of the pathway

n Avoiding locating the alignment as practicable along coastal edges, as well as areas deemed to be significant and to not compromise the habitats of birds

n Impacts on bird breeding season (September – January inclusive) during construction – construction period to be considered as part of methodology

n Design and the ability to have laybys for bird viewing - will be confirmed at Detailed Design within the envelope. Some residents have notes they do not want laybys outside their properties

n Restoration work such as planting to be undertaken by interest groups / schools and pest control for weed removal

n Education and signage opportunities - to be potentially developed with the local community, schools and interest groups

n Lighting – to be developed as part of Detailed Design including a low impact manner such as hand rail lighting on sensor control

Notes and discussion from this meeting are included in Appendix P.

6.2.10 Affected Landowners

A number of landowners have been contacted to discuss the Project, either because their land is directly affected by the Project7F7 F

8 or because they are considered to be potentially affected by the Project from an effect’s perspective.

8 Although most of the path is proposed to pass through CMA or publicly owned land, part of the parcel at 118A Ash Street (privately owned) has been identified as necessary to build a section of boardwalk on.



6.2.10.2 Directly Affected Parties

Although landowners of properties that the pathway may be located on are not considered ‘affected’ in the RMA sense (rather it is a property matter), the following discusses private properties and the consultation undertaken with them to date. If no agreement can be reached regarding the location of the pathway on private property, alternative alignments will be required.

There is a small area of land required at the intersection of Portage Road and Connaught Road for the pathway which is owned by Motu Moana Green Bay Scout Group. The applicant met the landowner in March 2019 to discuss the matter, with the landowner willing to work with the applicant to come to an amicable solution. Minutes of the meeting are included in Appendix P. Consultation with this landowner is on-going.

In relation to the private land parcel at 118A Ash Street that the proposed boardwalk can occur on, the landowner has been contacted to arrange access on-site for geotechnical investigations to be undertaken and the Project has been discussed. Consultation will continue in regard to concept design of the boardwalk on their property. Property negotiations for use of their land will explore options to lease land or buy the land outright. These discussions are on-going. If agreement can’t be reached with the property owner, then an alignment within the CMA will be adopted (which can be accommodated within the consent envelope).

Consultation with DOC as a directly affected landowner is set out in section 6.2.7 above.

6.2.10.3 Indirectly Affected Parties

The assessments of social, visual, noise and / or recreation have identified a number of parties potentially affected by the Project greater than the public in general. These parties are identified in Table 9 below.

These indirectly affected parties have been consulted with during the preparation of the resource consent application. Their key concerns and how their feedback has been responded to are indicated in Table 9 below. Refer to Appendix P for meeting minutes.

Table 9: Indirectly Affected Parties

Address and Potential Impact Key Concerns Response to Consultation Feedback

21 Kelston Street

This waterfront property has direct access to the water. The property has an unconsented structure located to store a boat within the CMA along with an unconsented jetty.

n Access to the Whau River for their vessel

n Clearance height of 4m is required for their vessel to pass underneath the boardwalk

n Worried that motorbikes will use the shared paths

n Don’t want the public using the Whau River – they brought the property for boat access

n Prefer an inland pathway route

n Piles in the main channels of waterway will be avoided to encourage continued use of the river

n No motorbikes will be allowed on the boardwalk

n An inland route was considered for the section which passes Koromiko Street and Lynwood Avenue. This option was not preferred given the extra length of the pathway of an inland route, inconsistency with the Project objective to provide a coastal experience, difficulties in achieving suitable gradients from the CMA to the road interface for universal access, and potential




traffic and safety issues by using on-road sections of pathway

n Alternative authorised public access to the river is provided at Archibald Park (boat ramp, pontoon)

1 - 3/40 Koromiko Street

These three waterfront units face directly onto the Whau River. Primary concerns for these properties relate to outlook, visual privacy and safety.

n Loss of visual amenity – being views of the Whau River

n Loss of general amenity – being increased noise in the area

n Concern around an increase in traffic on their street

n Safety / home security with increased number of people using adjacent pathway

n Loss of privacy – people will be looking into living areas / bedrooms from the pathway

n Construction effects of the boardwalk, particularly site haulage vehicles and noise from construction

n Concern about potential lighting and colours of the structure

n Would prefer if structure was lower

n Concerns that the proximity of the pathway to their property will devalue their property

n Concerns the structure will limit access to the water for paddle boarding and kayaks

n Want an inland route n 1-40 and 3-40: Not supportive of

boardwalk due to the reasons above

n An inland route was considered for the section which passes Koromiko Street and Lynwood Avenue but not preferred for the reasons outlined above (in relation to 21 Kelston Street)

n Discussions are being held with Auckland Transport to put yellow no parking lines at the end of the cul de sac

n Alignment has been moved to edge of mangroves (further away from properties)

n Alignment has been lowered as far as practicable to allow for sea level rise to 2.89m AVD

0B0BPrivate property mitigation option (to be explored): n Fencing / noise barrier to be

investigated with landowners further

n House treatments such as glazing – double glazing, one way and / or tinted window being discussed with residents further

n Landscaping for screening on the property boundary being discussed with landowners

1B1BProject mitigation: n Dimmed or sensor lighting will be

investigated further n Materials and width of

balustrades to be discussed with landowners for preferences

n Materials and widths of piles to be discussed further with landowners (noting this is also dependant on technical and engineering investigations)




n Colour of structure to be discussed further with landowners during detailed design stage. There is a preference for non-solid materials

n Viewing platforms / signage will be designed at other locations to discourage people dwelling on sections of pathway in front of the properties

47 Koromiko Street

This waterfront property has some views through to the proposed location of the boardwalk (large trees block views in places). Primary concerns relate to a loss of coastal access and perceived increase in criminal and antisocial activity.

n Opposed to pathway due to loss of privacy and perceived increase in criminal activities because of the pathway

n Prefers inland option for pathway, rather than coastal boardwalk in this section

n Does not want to lose access to the river for small boats and kayaks

n Relocating the alignment as far back to the edge of the mangroves as possible (away from properties)

n Viewing platforms / signage will be designed at other locations to encourage people to move along past the properties

n An inland route was considered for the section which passes Koromiko Street and Lynwood Avenue but not preferred for the reasons outlined above (in relation to 21 Kelston Street)

n Small vessels, kayaks will still be able to pass underneath structure

125 Lynwood Street

This waterfront property has direct access to the water and have a consented pontoon structure. The consent expires 2032. They currently use the structure to launch a small dinghy sized motorised boat at high tide.

n Boardwalk will limit their access to the river from their consented jetty

n Would like access to be retained to jetty

n Has concerns around safety in the lower section of property

n Provisions for continued access for the current use of the consented jetty being discussed with landowner including through potential boardwalk design modifications

n Design will not place viewing platforms in this stretch of the boardwalk

n Boardwalk alignment pushed further out from properties

Span Farm Boat Yard

The current landowners have been operating for the past 1.5 years. They currently, and have since their occupation, used an unconsented slip way for boat access into and out of the Whau River. Use is limited to 2 - 3 hours each side of high tide, and

n Pathway may affect operation of their boat yard by restricting access

n Would like the boardwalk passing their property to be at least the height of the Watercare pipe or the height of the Te Atatū Bridge

n Concerns about impacts on boat access into the Whau River. They

n Avoid piles in the main channels of waterway to encourage continued use of the river

n The boardwalk will restrict movement of larger vessels to and from Span Farm which will cause an adverse effect on their ability to launch and retrieve vessels. However, this is a minor




those vessels with low draft. Refer Appendix P for consultation minutes.

currently use an unconsented slipway for boat access into the river

effect given the access limitations already present due to intertidal and shallow nature of the Whau River and in consideration of the slip way being used is an unconsented structure

58 Cobham Crescent

This waterfront property is situated directly adjacent to Cobham Reserve and the new pathway.

n Concern for proximity of pathway to house –privacy and security issue with people looking into living areas. Prefer a fence as mitigation for security

n Concerns on height of boardwalk

n Relocating the alignment as far back to the edge of the mangroves as possible (away from property)

n Discussions of fencing for security mitigation are on-going

6.2.11 Network Utilities Providers

6.2.11.1 Watercare Services Limited

Consultation has been undertaken with Watercare Services Limited to understand whether there are any potential conflicts with their existing assets within the vicinity of the proposed boardwalk.

As discussed in section 3.6 of this report, there are a number of Watercare assets located either in parallel or conflict with the proposed alignment. Watercare have provided their standard set of conditions for working in close proximity and the protection of their assets. The conditions are included in Appendix E.

Auckland Council will incorporate these conditions into detailed design.

6.2.11.2 Transpower

The proposed boardwalk alignment will pass nearby and below existing Transpower transmission corridors. The boardwalk will pass underneath an existing 110kV transmission line at various points and pass in close proximity to existing 220kV transmission line and supporting pylons (Olympic Park, Great North Road Bridge and Rizal Reserve).

An email was sent to Transpower on the 30 January 2018 informing them of the proposed works and seeking their feedback on the Project. Concerns raised during consultation included the potential for line conflict during the construction phase.

Following these discussions Auckland Council decided to amend the alignment and envelope to avoid the major conflict at Rizal Reserve with overhead lines. There are no other sections that are likely to conflict with overhead transmission lines.

Based on previous projects and clearance assessments, Transpower are generally supportive of development near transmission lines, provided that it is planned appropriately and does not compromise the ability to maintain the transmission lines(s). A Clearance Assessment Report is to be prepared during detailed design phase and provided to Transpower for their review and approval prior to works occurring.



6.2.11.4 Vector

Vector was contacted to discuss potential conflicts of the Project with their electrical and gas infrastructure. The pathway crosses under some of Vector’s overhead lines and over a submarine line near Hepburn Esplanade Reserve. There is also a length of Portage Road containing poles, lines and a transformer.

Vector noted that the conflicts will need to be addressed during detailed design in consideration of the NZECP 34:2001 (discussed in section 2.6.8).

6.2.12 Other Parties and Interest Groups

Appendix P contains a list of parties that have an interest in this Project and with whom consultation has occurred on an on-going basis as the concept for the pathway has been developed and the resource consent application prepared. This includes consultation with schools within the area, community groups, and others.

Communication The Project has been communicated with the wider public since 2014, Auckland Transport established a website and a facebook page in order to provide updates on the Project and to allow people to register their interest in receiving newsletters and specific updates in regard to the Project (https://at.govt.nz/Projects-roadworks/te-whau-pathway/). Community group websites were also set up to provide the same benefit ((www.tewhaupathway.org.nz).

Ongoing communication in regard to the Project will continue to be provided through these channels.

https://at.govt.nz/Projects

http://www.tewhaupathway.org.nz



7 Statutory Assessment

This AEE has been prepared with consideration of the statutory framework provided by the following legislation and plans:

n Resource Management Act 1991 n New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 n National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human

Health n Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part n Te Pou O Kahu Pokere – Iwi Management Plan for Ngāti Whātua Orākei (2018)

Resource Management Act

7.1.1 Section 5 – Purpose

The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management is defined in Section 5(2) as:

“…managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Comment

The Project promotes the purpose of the RMA. The Project will provide infrastructure which will enable the community to have safer and enhanced access to the CMA, providing for social and cultural wellbeing. The Project will provide the opportunity for future generations to appreciate the natural environment of the Whau River and will safeguard the life supporting capacity air, water, soil and ecosystems. Potential adverse effects on the environment during construction and operation will be avoided, remedied or mitigated through the measures set out in section 5 of this report.

7.1.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance that shall be recognised and provided for and includes the following considered to be relevant to this application;

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna:

(d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:



(e) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:

(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(h) the management of significant risks from natural hazards.

Comment

The construction of the boardwalk will enhance public access to the Whau River, Council owned land and beyond, increasing pedestrian linkages between these areas. Effects on the natural character of the Whau River has been considered in section 5.3.3 and in summary the landscape and natural character of the parks and river setting will not be significantly adversely affected by the Project and the pathway is considered appropriate. The area of salt marsh in the CMA is an area of significant indigenous vegetation. To provide protection of this important habitat, the pathway has been designed to largely avoid areas of saltmarsh with only a minimal area potentially being affected.

The Whau River has significance to mana whenua and the special relationship of Māori with the river will be reflected through the cultural narrative to be incorporated into pathway design. The pathway passes through areas with historic heritage significance. Largely those known archaeological sites are avoided by the consent envelope however there are 4 recorded sites that will be affected, and another 5 recorded sites potentially affected. Mitigation in response to the potential effects on these sites is discussed in section 5.2 and the effects on historic heritage are considered minor. Historic heritage will be protected, and the development is not considered inappropriate given the mitigation proposed. The boardwalk has been designed in consideration of the effects of natural hazards and sea level rise. Further geotechnical intrusive investigations are proposed at detailed design to inform designers as to what appropriate ground strengthening or structural options are necessary in response to local ground conditions. The significant risk from hazards has been managed through appropriate design.

7.1.3 Section 7 – Other Matters

Section 7 of the RMA lists the matters to which particular regard must be had in making resource management decisions. The relevant matters are:

(a) Kaitiakitanga

(aa) The ethic of stewardship

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values

(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

(i) The effects of climate change

Comment

Kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship are recognised through the participation of Project Partners Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust, the Whau and Henderson-Massey Local Boards, Te Kawerau a Maki,



Ngāti Whātua Orākei who have been involved collaboratively in the Project since inception. The construction of the Project is an efficient use of the CMA that has been designed to maintain and enhance the amenity values and quality of the area. Its construction will be undertaken in a manner which will manage and mitigate potential temporary and adverse effects on the environment, including the intrinsic values of ecosystems and the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. The effects of climate change have been taken into account in determining an appropriate boardwalk height in the CMA (sea level rise).

7.1.4 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

Section 8 states that all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Comment:

The Treaty of Waitangi principles relate to partnership between the Crown and Tangata Whenua. Mana whenua have been consulted during the preliminary design phase of the Project including the preparation of CVAs and those who have indicated an interest will continue to be involved as the Project progresses into detailed design. The inclusion of Project Partners Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the partnership approach. A summary of the consultation undertaken to date is detailed in section 6 of this AEE. It is considered that the Project is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

7.1.5 Section 104(1) – Consideration of Applications

Section 104(1) of the Act requires a consent authority, when considering an application for resource consent, to have regard to:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of –

(i) a national environmental standard (ii) other regulations: (iii) a national policy statement: (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

Comment:

This application has been prepared with regard to Section 104(1) of the RMA. Section 5 provides an assessment of any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. The relevant provisions of the New Zealand Costal Policy Statement, Te Pou O Kahu Pokere – Iwi Management Plan for Ngāti Whātua Orākei (2018), Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, the NESCS and AUP as addressed in sections 7.2 to 7.6 below.

7.1.6 Schedule 4 – Information Required in Application for Resource Consent

Schedule 4 of the RMA sets out the information required to be provided in an application for resource consent. It is noted that this application has been prepared in accordance with schedule 4.



Amongst others, clause 6(1)(a) of Schedule 4 states that

(1) An assessment of the activity’s effects on the environment must include the following information:

(a) if it is likely that the activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity:

As assessed in section 5, the adverse effects of the activity on the environment are not assessed as significant, and therefore a description of possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity is not considered necessary to include in this application. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has provided feedback to some indirectly affected parties who queried an alternative (inland) alignment for a section of the pathway. This feedback is set out in section 6.2.10.3.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 Section 13 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 provides that all persons exercising powers or carrying out functions for the Hauraki Gulf under any Act specified in Schedule 1, which includes the RMA, must have particular regard to the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA. These sections are set out below:

Section 7 Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf

(1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance. (2) The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands includes the capacity—(a) to provide for— (i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands; and (ii) the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and communities: (b) to use the resources of the Gulf by the people and communities of the Gulf and New Zealand for economic activities and recreation: (c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.

Section 8 Management of Hauraki Gulf

To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are— (a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (b) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (c) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of those natural, historic, and physical resources (including kaimoana) of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments with which tangata whenua have an historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship: (d) the protection of the cultural and historic associations of people and communities in and around the Hauraki Gulf with its natural, historic, and physical resources: (e) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the contribution of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments to the social and economic well-being of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand: (f) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, which contribute to the recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf for the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand.



Comment:

The Project is not anticipated to adversely affect the life supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf. Moreover, the Project seeks to provide for social and recreational wellbeing of the community in providing improved access to and appreciation of the Whau River which is part of the Hauraki Gulf. An assessment of ecological values has been undertaken (Appendix I) and summarised in section 5. In general, the ecological effects of the Project can be appropriately mitigated by undertaking coastal planting on fringes and undertaking pest removal that promote indigenous biodiversity values. The life supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf is not considered to be adversely affected by the Project, moreover enhanced through provision of a recreational facility within the Gulf to provide for social wellbeing and enjoyment for the community.

National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

The NESCS provides a national environmental standard for activities on pieces of land where soil may be contaminated in such a way as to present a risk to human health. The NESCS sets out a range of chemical specific soil contamination standards that define an adequate level of protection for human health for a range of differing land uses.

In the absence of additional contaminants testing, all the soil and water materials encountered during construction must be managed as if they are contaminated above Permitted Activity levels, until proven otherwise. Any characterisation and protocols for handling, disposal and validation of soil material is set out in the CSMP (Appendix G). It is considered that through the implementation of the CSMP that contaminant hazard risk associated with the Project can be appropriately managed, and as such, the Project is consistent with the purpose of the NESCS and will not lead to adverse effects on human health.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) provides guidance on the management of the coastal environment. The NZCPS 2010 sets out high-level objectives and policies for the management of the coastal environment throughout New Zealand. Objectives 2, 4, and 6 are considered relevant to this proposed works and they require the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and protection natural features and landscape values from inappropriate activities, to maintain and enhance the public open space qualities and recreation opportunities of the coastal environment and to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety. The NZCPS contains specific polices around taking into account the Treaty of Waitangi (Policy 2), the importance of infrastructure and built development and associated infrastructure given the rate of population growth (Policy 6), avoiding adverse effects on significant indigenous vegetation (Policy 11), the preservation of natural character (Policy 13), the protection of natural features and landscapes (Policy 15), the protection of historic heritage (Policy 17), the maintenance and enhancement of public walking access to and along the coast (Policy 19) and avoiding the risk from coastal hazards (Policy 25).

In summary, the pathway is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the NZCPS as it will increase access to the CMA, which will enhance public open space qualities and increase recreational opportunities for people who cannot otherwise access the area. The boardwalk has been designed in consideration of the effects of natural hazards and sea level rise. Mitigation in respect to indigenous biodiversity is set out in section 5.2.6 and includes management of flora and fauna during construction, replanting of coastal fringes with indigenous vegetation and weed removal. The Project area is within an urban coastal environment where the natural character has already been modified, however the design seeks to recognise and reflect its surroundings through alignment shape, lowering the height of the boardwalk and avoiding locating the alignment within the main channel.



Further analysis of the Project in consideration of the NZCPS provisions is provided in Appendix R.

Overall the Project is considered to be consistent with the NZCPS.

Auckland Unitary Plan: Operative in Part The AUP is Auckland’s key resource management document prepared under the RMA. The AUP is a combined plan and therefore includes a regional policy statement, as well as regional and district planning matters. The AUP-OP has legal effect and is treated as operative, however some sections are subject to appeal. Those sections subject to appeal are not considered relevant to the assessment of this application.

7.5.1 Regional Policy Statement

The provisions of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) are contained within the AUP and those of relevance to the Project included in Appendix R (along with an analysis of the Project against these provisions). In general, the Project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the RPS.

Key themes of the objectives and policies of the RPS are noted in the table below with analysis of the Project in relation to these themes.

Theme Comment

Provision of open space and recreation facilities to support urban growth.

The Project provides both recreational opportunities as well as an alternative transport option. The Project enables the linking of open space areas adjacent to the CMA for a large sector of the community, including those with limited mobility.

Provision of effective, efficient and safe transport.

The Project will provide for efficient and safe transport that will support the movement of people and facilitate transport choices such as walking and cycling. The pathway is also sought for an efficient commuter route, in which the CMA route is relatively direct and a safer option for a wider range of potential users. The pathway will support the development of Auckland’s integrated transport network and the urban growth of Auckland.

Opportunities for mana whenua to participate on the sustainable management of resources.

Mana whenua have been involved in the development of the Project over many years and will continue to be involved during detailed design and construction. The Project has two iwi Project Partners, being Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Te Kawerau a Maki who have been involved since Project inception. Three CVA have been prepared and attached in Appendix H which sets out the views of Ngāti Whātua Orākei, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. Mana whenua have been engaged regularly in the Project as set out in section 6.2.5.

Maintaining indigenous biodiversity.

Indigenous biodiversity will be enhanced as part of this Project through proposed mitigation including replanting of coastal fringe vegetation and weed removal (further discussed in section 7.5.2 below). This is consistent with the provisions around maintenance of indigenous biodiversity.

Use of the coastal environment including consideration of effects on natural character, public access, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and development of the CMA.

The Project will provide significant benefit to the public by enhancing access to the CMA at a location where current access is limited. The Project provides a direct access to the coast and through the coastal environment on the boardwalk. As part of the overall Project the Archibald Park boat ramp has been upgraded and a pontoon built to enhance public access to the Whau River which provides an alternative for those specific landowners whose access for large vessels may be restricted by the presence of the boardwalk. The pathway can



Theme Comment

be accessed via a number of road and open space connections throughout the alignment which will enable a greater number of users to access it.

The proposed location of the pathway is in an urban, built environment which is not considered of high natural character. The alignment is designed to mirror the riverscape and to weave through mangroves and intertidal areas instead of the main channel. Planting of coastal edge vegetation with indigenous species is proposed as well as weed removal to support the enhancement of natural character. Effects on natural character are determined to be low (refer to section 5.3.3).

Objective B8.3.1(4) of the RPS seeks to limit occupation of the CMA to those activities with a functional need to locate in the CMA or an operational need. The objective of the Project includes providing users with a coastal experience. As esplanade reserve or marginal strip is not available along large parts of the pathway route, the Project cannot practicably be located outside the CMA in certain sections. Where possible the pathway adopts a landside route.

Addressing environmental risk such as natural hazards and contaminated land.

The boardwalk is proposed to be a height that takes into account potential effects of storm surges and sea level rise. The alignment avoids the main channel and piles, where possible, will be located to avoid low tide channels of tributaries. Management of contaminated land will be undertaken in accordance with the CSMP included as Appendix G.

7.5.2 AUP Objectives and Policies

Section C1.8 of the AUP states:

(1) When considering an application for resource consent for an activity that is classed as a restricted discretionary, discretionary or non-complying activity, the Council will consider all relevant overlay, zone, Auckland-wide and precinct objectives and policies that apply to the activity or to the site or sites where that activity will occur.

Key themes of the objectives and policies of the AUP are noted in the table below with analysis of the Project in relation to these themes. A detailed analysis of relevant provisions is appended in Appendix R.

Theme Comment

Maintaining indigenous biodiversity and protection of significant indigenous biodiversity.

The Ecological Assessment included in Appendix I does not identify any effects on indigenous biodiversity that are considered significant. The Project may affect species considered at risk or threatened both within estuarine and terrestrial habitats. Vegetation removal and alteration will be necessary at all the abutments for the proposed boardwalk sections and within the boardwalk sections, including of some existing pest species. At this stage the total area of vegetation to be removed cannot be quantified until the alignment and construction methodology is confirmed. It is noted however that the vegetation to be removed will be the minimum as far as practicable. The species requiring the most removal are mangroves. The Ecological Assessment has considered the loss of mangroves under a worst case scenario for construction methodology and concludes that in the context of the wider environment of the Whau River, effects are minimal.



Theme Comment

Mitigation in response to these effects include minimising vegetation removal as much as possible, additional coastal fringe planting, weed control, undertaking lizard, bat and bird roosting surveys prior to construction and replanting of saltmarsh.

In summary the Ecological Assessment concludes that with mitigation the effects are no more than minor and indigenous biodiversity maintained. It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to these provisions.

Protection and management of trees in open space zones and road reserves.

Tree removal will be necessary in selected areas of open space and road reserve along the route as well as works within the rootzone. The removal of any tree within an Open Space Zone will be appropriately mitigated through replacement planting of an indigenous species and tree protection measures are proposed in regard to works within the rootzone. Refer Appendix C for the Arboricultural Assessment. It is considered that the Project is consistent with these provisions.

Maintaining the natural character, features and landscapes of the coastal environment.

The natural character will not be significantly adversely affected, given the existing built landscape, including residential and industrial development, as well as roads and Transpower infrastructure, the current status of the Whau River (in that in itself it is not considered pristine), the location of the alignment within intertidal flats and riparian margins (and not the main channel) and the design of the alignment to be curved to reflect the riverscape. The Project is considered to maintain the natural character and features of the landscape and is consistent with these provisions.

Land disturbance that avoids, remedies and mitigates effects on the environment.

Land disturbance is necessary to construct the path on land. The volume of earthworks required will be the minimum possible and undertaken in stages given the lineal nature of the path. Exposed land will be stabilised progressively as construction proceeds. An overarching ESCP has been prepared in support of this application and is included in Appendix J. It is considered that the proposed mitigation will minimise the effects of land disturbance, consistent with these provisions.

Manage stormwater from SMAF areas to minimise effects of runoff.

Being a walking and cycling path it is unlikely the Project will generate contaminants of concern. Stormwater runoff is proposed into the surrounding grassed areas (road reserve or open space). This will provide attenuation, drainage and contaminant removal with the majority of stormwater discharge from the impervious area of the path discharging to ground soakage (grassed area). Given the small increase in impervious surfaces over the relatively long length of the pathway within the road reserve, the increase in stormwater runoff is considered less than minor and is consistent with these provisions.

Management of artificial lighting, noise and vibration, contaminated land and natural hazards.

In relation to artificial lighting, lights will be designed to comply with the standards set out in section 2.3.6.

In relation to noise and vibration, relevant objectives and policies of the AUP acknowledge that there can be periods or activities where the construction noise standards cannot be met. The objective is to enable them provided they are no louder than necessary. It is considered that the construction noise levels for this Project would be reasonable with the application of the BPO measures in a suitable CNMP. Accordingly, a CNVMP is proposed to manage the effects of noise and vibration during construction (refer Appendix M).



Theme Comment

In relation to contaminated land, the land-based sections of the route (park land) have or are likely to have elevated levels of contaminants so that earthworks in these areas will trigger resource consent. In order to avoid potential adverse effects from the disturbance of these materials, a CSMP has been developed and will be implemented (refer Appendix G).

In relation to natural hazards, the Project will not impede flood flows over land. The height of the boardwalk is designed in consideration of storm surges and sea level rise. The Project may be located on land that may be subject to instability. Further geotechnical intrusive investigations are proposed at detailed design to inform designers as to what appropriate ground strengthening or structural options are necessary in response to local ground conditions.

Overall the Project manages the effects, consistent with these provisions.

Coastal matters such as disturbance, mangrove management, planting, use and development of the CMA, structures and noise.

The removal of mangroves within the CMA will be required for the boardwalk construction. Although an amount cannot be determined at this time until the construction methodology is confirmed, mangrove removal and CMA disturbance will be minimised as far as practicable and is not considered significant when looking at the habitat as a whole.

From a use and development perspective the Project will improve public access to the CMA and enhance coastal connections for the wider community.

The alignment and boardwalk has been designed in consideration of the effects on coastal processes and as such is located outside the main channel. Where possible piles will be located outside the tributary channels as well (to be confirmed at detailed design).

Piling will be required within the Whau River in order to install the boardwalk piles. This has the potential to impact on marine fauna in the area however as set out in the Noise and Vibration Assessment the effects are considered negligible.

The need for the structure to be located in the CMA is discussed in section 7.5.1.

Overall it is considered that the Project is consistent with the relevant provisions relating to coastal effects management.

Management of open space zones and residential / industrial zones in which the path passes through.

The Project is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Open Space, Residential and Light Industrial Zones in that it provides for the community’s social wellbeing and improves access to the open spaces. The purpose of the Project is supportive of residential living.

Iwi Management Plan Ngāti Whātua Orākei have prepared an Iwi Management Plan in 2018 and the relevant outcomes of the Plan are commented on below with respect to the Project. It is understood that Te Kawerau a Maki are currently in the process of developing an Iwi Management Plan. Relevant outcomes will be considered in terms of the Project once the Plan is received.

7.6.1 Te Pou O Kahu Pokere – Iwi Management Plan for Ngāti Whātua Orākei (2018)

Te Pou O Kahu Pokere – Iwi Management Plan for Ngāti Whātua Orākei (2018) provides a guidance statement of Ngāti Whātua Orākei interests and values as they apply in resource management matters. It has



been created to act as a guideline for resource management practitioners – particularly developers and decision makers operating under the RMA.

Key outcomes of relevance to the Project within the plan are noted as follows:

Key Outcomes Sought Comment

Treaty of Waitangi Principles n Increased acknowledgement of and support for Ngāti

Whātua Orākei values and active exercise of kaitiakitanga

n Ngāti Whātua Orākei should be fully engaged as Treaty Partners and mana whenua in Spatial Planning for Auckland

n Kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship is recognised through the participation of Project Partners including Ngāti Whātua Orākei who have been involved collaboratively in the Project since inception

n The inclusion of Ngāti Whātua Orākei as a Project Partner is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

Sustainable Transport n Shift in investment from car-based transport to mass

transit and low carbon modes including cycling and walking

n The Project supports the shift from car-based transport to cycling and walking

Planting n Development should incorporate native trees and

other vegetation

n New developments should incorporate green design to maximise ecological and indigenous biodiversity values of the site, including food sources for native birds and, where possible, habitats for native animals

n Development should result in an increase, or as a minimum no net loss of native vegetation. Where this is not possible on site, mitigation by way of offset planting may be appropriate

n Appropriate variety in companion planting should be used to enable the establishment of functioning ecosystems. Where possible, planting should include cultural resources such as harakeke, kiekie etc

n New native planting should come from locally sourced indigenous stock of Tāmaki Makaurau provenance that is suited to the habitat

n Landscapes should be enhanced with appropriate cultural planting

n A planting plan is proposed to mitigate the loss of the trees which require removal. This is discussed in section 5.2.5

n In addition, an Ecological Management Plan is proposed to manage the ecological effects during construction, including the provision of coastal edge planting to mitigate the fragmentation of indigenous habitats. This is discussed in section 5.2.6

n Planting is proposed to be indigenous and eco-sourced where possible from the Tāmaki Ecological District

Landscape Design n The cultural landscapes of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

throughout Tāmaki Makaurau are identified, enhanced and celebrated

n Public access to, through and across cultural landscapes is protected, maintained and enhanced

n Cultural landscapes, including, maunga, streams and coastal areas are managed in partnership with Ngāti

n During detailed design input will sought from both iwi Project Partners for the design elements such as interpretative signage and artistic elements to identify, enhance and celebrate the cultural landscapes

n Public access is being enhanced as part of this Project



Key Outcomes Sought Comment

Whātua Ōrākei. This includes providing Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei with greater control over access to sensitive information about our heritage

Archaeological Sites n Accidental discovery protocols are followed for all

earthworks operations. Where earthworks occur within 50m of a known Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei site of significance, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Accidental Discovery Protocol should be applied

n This protocol is acknowledged and will be followed during construction

Statutory Assessment Conclusion The Project is strongly aligned with a number of policy directions of the statutory framework. This includes:

n Enhancing access to the CMA for public use n The pathway links a number of public parks adjacent to the CMA which will enhance access to and use of

these public recreation facilities n The proposed ecological and arboricultural mitigation will enhance indigenous biodiversity and amenity

values of the area n The pathway, as both a commuter and recreational option will encourage the use of alternative and

sustainable modes of transport (walking and cycling) n Mana whenua have been involved in the development of the Project over many years and will continue to

be involved during detailed design and construction. The Project has two iwi Project Partners, being Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Te Kawerau a Maki who have been involved since Project inception

n Natural hazards are acknowledged and have been considered in relation to the Pathway, including determining an appropriate boardwalk height in the CMA (in consideration of sea level rise)

In summary, the Project is consistent with and supports the statutory framework set out in the relevant legislation and plans.



8 Conclusion

This AEE forms an application for resource consents under Section 88 of the RMA for the construction, occupation and use of the Te Whau Pathway between Green Bay and State Highway 16 (Te Atatū).

The Project provides for at grade shared paths on land and a series of boardwalks within the CMA (the Whau River) over a 15km length. Some sections of the pathway have already been consented and constructed. The parts of the pathway subject to this consent are clearly identified in the plans attached in Appendix A. The pathway will enable the linkage of the series of existing (or consented) shared paths, either on road reserve or open space.

The pathway passes through predominantly public open space being road reserve or parklands, the CMA (Whau River) which is noted in places as a SEA (Marine 2) in the AUP, an industrial zoned parcel (owned by DOC) and some privately owned property.

Overall the Project requires resource consent as Discretionary Activity for the construction, operation and maintenance of the pathway. A consent envelope is sought, particularly for the boardwalk areas, to provide for flexibility in the alignment during detailed design and to enable flexibility in construction methodology in acknowledgement that a contractor has not yet been selected.

The actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal have been assessed in section 5 of this report. The effects of the Project are, for the most part, positive or no more than minor with mitigation in place. A short section of the envelope adjacent to Koromiko Street is anticipated to generate moderate adverse effects from a landscape / visual and social impact perspective. As a result of consultation with these landowners the envelope was shifted further seaward and a lowering of the boardwalk height as much as considered appropriate (given the need to provide for future sea level rise and enable small vessels to access the Whau River underneath the boardwalk). Mitigation is to be confirmed during detailed design in consultation with the affected parties with respect to the look and feel of the boardwalk, treatment options to the houses (e.g. window treatment, curtains / blinds) and on-site landscaping (fences, planting, mounds).

The Project has been assessed and is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of statutory documents, particularly in regard to enhancing walking access to and along the CMA, encouraging sustainable transport options, enhancing indigenous biodiversity and partnership with mana whenua.

Overall it is considered that with the proposed measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the environmental effects of the Project, the Project effects are acceptable, and consent can be granted in accordance with 104B of the RMA.

Appendix A

Drawings

Appendix B

Construction Methodology

Appendix C

Arboricultural Assessment – Arborlab

Appendix D

Archaeological Assessment – Clough and Associates

Appendix E

Civil and Coastal Processes Assessment – Beca

Appendix F

Scheme Assessment Report - Stantec

Appendix G

Contaminated Soils Management Plan – Beca

Appendix H

Cultural Values Assessments

Appendix I

Ecological Assessment – Wildlands

Appendix J

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Beca

Appendix K

Landscape and Visual Assessment – Landwriters

Appendix L

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Assessment – Beca

Appendix M

Noise and Vibration Assessment – Marshall Day

Appendix N

Social Impact Assessment – Beca

Appendix O

Transport Impact Assessment – Beca

Appendix P

Consultation Records

Appendix Q

Landscape Plans

Appendix R

Objectives and Policy Analysis

Appendix S

Records of Title, Coastal Marine Area reference points and Road Classifications

NZ1-16115339-FINAL TE WHAU AEE FOR LODGEMENT€¦ · Positive Effects ... Just under 700m of...

Documents

Transcript of NZ1-16115339-FINAL TE WHAU AEE FOR LODGEMENT€¦ · Positive Effects ... Just under 700m of...